2013 MAX IV for sale

[wfo]

Exactly, and being in KBB they have a value based on their model year. Try to claim theft of a 2013 model with a 2000 model serial number. That would be entertaining. I would assume paying paying property tax on a 2013 would also be more than on a 2000.

that is right, that damn TAX. I work for a auto dealer in TUCSON and when a vehicle comes in for work they get a print out of all warrantee information , I.E type of vehicle, color, trim, engine , trans , vin #, ect. and then it shows an IN SERVICE DATE which could be 2 years difference. so if the paper work says it was built in jan 2000 and the IN SERVICE DATE says 2013 IT IS NOT A 2013. and you pay tax on a 2000
just my HONEST 2 cents..

[Mudd-Ox Inc.]

During the purchase of Max, Mudd-Ox was under the belief the demo units were 2013 models. Attached is the Max schedule of assets from 2013 during this purchase. This includes the demo machines as highlighted. We have contacted the owner Joe who is very understanding of the situation. It is unfortunate all parties were misinformed on this unit. Mudd-Ox would never intentionally sell a unit with the incorrect model year.

Our business has grown on genuine sales and products. It is our joy to work with customers to provide them with a machine that fits their needs - and budget. This demo unit was sold for less than retail cost with many accessories. With the transfer of Max ownership, we hope to not see an issue such as this rise again. Thank you for bringing this to our attention and preventing further misunderstandings in the future.

[egoperf]

I bought my machine in 2006 with only a bill of sale. Got it home rebuilt it and checked the serial number and found out it was a 99. I registered it as a 99. Almost everyone knows that the serial number dictates the year. I'm very surprised that the manufacturer didn't have knowledge of this especially being a 6x6 enthusiast and having a museum of all types of aatv s

[Model Citizen]

Really? REALLY? So now Buffalo is to blame? There's the s/n on the list #17126 Max IV green demo. You couldn't tell by looking at it that it wasn't a 2013 after 13 years of use as a test machine? We heard so many smooze explanations as a vendor almost 10 years ago & never asked or chose to post anything to validate what we went through BUT WE COULD. Deny all you want. I'm not buying it.

Sorry Jcarr343, seems like you became collateral damage.

Bridget

[62saab]

".....Quit making excuses for him...."

LOL,no one here's making excuses,Slick. You misunderstood. Here's a helpful link for you - ASVAB Paragraph Comprehension Practice Tests

[wedge]

My Head Hurts !

[Hey_Dan]

Immediately below is a link to the definitive serial number summary sheet the Recreatives Industries General Manger created and Mudd-Ox had access to. Clearly serial number 17126 falls in the range of a 2000 model - no question about this.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bwo...ew?usp=sharing

Muddox also had all the binders of historical MAX sales records, ordered by serial number and build year, that the data for this summary sheet was derived from. Even if they didn't look at the summary sheet, all someone had to do was open the binder that had the range of serial numbers containing 17126 to clearly see what year it was. We did this all the time at Recreatives - even while a customer was waiting on the phone! Not difficult to do at all...

In addition, Mudd-Ox inherited ALL computer records from Recreatives - and Recreatives even had a simple little serial number lookup program that Mudd-Ox inherited, and were told about, and apparently decided not to use.

So it would have been a simple matter for Muddox to look-up a serial number to see what the build year was - if they wanted too.....

The inventory sheet from Recreatives that Muddox presented proves nothing - that showed just a simple summary value of all vehicles - clearly stated as new or demo - that was transferred to Muddox. The demo vehicles were a mix of varying model years, and Muddox was made aware of this, as Jay Wallach and senior management at RI in no way wanted legal trouble related to misrepresenting model years of vehicles. The reason the columns say "2013 Qty" and "2013 cost" is simply because this is a physical tally of inventory completed in 2013. Anybody with any level of business acumen would know this.


In fact - there is a smoking gun in the inventory sheet presented by Muddox that undermines their story and their credibility - if you look you'll see, seven rows above the "MAXDEMOS" part number IV-950T17126" indicated all by itself - SEPERATE AND DISTINCT FROM THE "MAXNEW" ROW, WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS "ALL NEW VEHICLES, COMPLETE, NEW".

So the MAX IV with serial number 17126 WAS NOT REPRESENTED TO MUDDOX AS MANUFACTURED IN 2013 - the Recreatives guys were honest to Muddox in the company sale.

So anybody who can read, and wanted to know the truth, only had to look at the inventory sheet provided to Muddox, which Muddox then presented in this thread as evidence of their "honesty"

Or the serial number summary sheet Muddox was given by Recreatives.

Or the binders of MAX sales by year and serial number Muddox was given by Recreatives.

Or the computer records and convenient serial number lookup program Muddox was given by Recreatives.

And Mudd-Ox still screwed this up.

Deception, incompetence, or both?

Never had this trouble when MAX was made in Buffalo by Recreatives Industries - a pattern of behavior is emerging here...

Be careful folks and call the historic MAX phone number 1-800-255-2511 if you need info on a used MAX or you need OEM parts - the new MAX owners are re-building the parts supply chain and they are good people who know the real story of MAX...

[Canadian_Zuk]

After reading all 6 pages of comments, it was the official Mudd-Ox reply that convinced me they tried to pull a fast one and got exposed. Give me a break lol. If a company this large is willing to stoop this low to scam a few extra bucks from a 17 year old machine what else are they capable of? I do not think this was a simple oversight or miscommunication between them and Recreatives, this was simply fraud.

[Buzz]

in a quick read, it's easy to see all that really matters: Machine owner was contacted regarding the mix up. Machine had already been discounted as a demo. I see zero ill intentions whatsoever. I've begun to lose faith in this forum and much of its one-sided bashing.

[egoperf]

The serial number speaks for itself. How can you sell a machine with a serial number from 2000 to a customer as a 2013. Serial numbers dictate the year. So many people try to pawn off machines way newer than they are. There is only one reason why, to get more money than what it's worth. That's fraud in my book.