See what I mean...you won't get a concrete answer as to why.
The entire thread posted above was some variation on govt. mandates and people not understanding why there were so many exceptions to that mandate.

The whole "govt. forcing manufacturers to not put any money into R&D" is null and void...simply because this "rule" was put into effect in 1988, lasted for 10 years, yet the 91-92 LT250R was obviously changed significantly from the 1988, 1989, and 1990 models.
That covers the argument about grandfathering in the next year model because it was already designed, since it was several years after the "rule" took effect and they designed the 91-92 AFTER the "rule" was put into effect.

The LT230S and LT250S were still sport quads by their very definition, "S' standing for "Sport".
They were made (at least the 230 was) for several years after the 250R was discontinued.
In fact, the LT230S was significantly modified to have electric start and an auto-clutch transmission, dubbed the LT230E.
If these changes made it any less of a "sport" quad, then by that very definition the KX700 is not a sport quad (well, it's not very fast, but it has no other purpose).
The blaster had significant changes after the whole "1988 R&D ban"...do you remember the upgrade to hydraulic disk brakes along with a few changes here and there?
I don't know what else you would call a blaster other than a sport quad.

The whole point is that 1) there were no bans/restrictions placed on sport quads, 2) no legitimate legal issues for building sport quads, 3) the manufacturers were in Japan, not the US, and as such they could have simply sold the quads to non-US countries, 4) this is the biggest point to make, they stopped producing the LT250 and LT500 because they believed the market was going south and got out before they lost any money.
They chickened out because the media was attacking sport quads and didn't want to lose face, the media and mothers of crippled kids were PUSHING for legislation to restrict sport quads which could have hurt their stocks significantly in the future (had it actually happened), talks of EPA restrictions meant that 2-stroke quads might be taken off the market, and Suzuki decided it was simply easier and a safer bet to just stop making them and redirect their efforts into other markets.

Nothing. Actually. Made. Suzuki. Stop. Producing. Sport. Quads.
If anyone tells you otherwise, ask for the proof IN WRITING.
Ask them for the legislation that actually called for whatever they were suggesting.
The link that was provided in the thread to the CPSC...IS good reading.
It says a lot of stuff that people misquote and use to support their theories, but read down a little farther to section C on page 5.
All of the rules that were related to sport quads on the previous pages were thereby NULLIFIED, excluding certain limitations on childrens ATV's, placards, and other safety BS that we still have today.
The govt. mandates and rulings to stop manufacturers from building or designing sport quads...it's not there, it never was.
The stuff about 3-wheelers is a different story but sport quads have a tendency to get lumped into the equation when people are involved in the storytelling.
They just didn't want to admit to themselves that their sacred quad manufacturer left them standing out in the cold rain because they were too chicken to risk continued production...that's what it all boils down to.
Suzuki and the others just left us hanging with no support because they were afraid of the prospect that their profits might dip.
Hindsight tells us otherwise and that whoever stuck around would be the top dog (the banshee is still the one 2-stroke quad to beat, right?).
Suzuki, Honda, and Kawasaki 2-strokes are all suffering from a lack of aftermarket support compared to Yamaha 2-strokes, so their play it safe attitude cost them years of reputation and revenue...nobody's fault but their own, even if they thought it was the right decision.


They did the same thing with the superbikes...there was a race to see who could keep the fastest street legal bike crown, and they eventually made a self-imposed "truce" to stop going any faster.
The govt. surely didn't stop them, there may have been outcries from mothers of crippled loved ones, but 9 out of 10 times it wouldn't have made any difference if the bikes went 200mph or 120mph in those situations.
They decided on their own that these bikes were at the limits of what the consumer could handle and stopped going any faster.
Nobody benefits from these company decisions, you can't average the entire population of the US then divide down the middle to get an accurate account of what people can handle or want to buy.
It winds up being exactly what nobody wants.