2013 MAX IV for sale

[Buzz]

I'm not involved, but I do try to be realistic and understanding anytime I cast judgement on someone or attempt to see their intentions. I just simply don't agree with many of you (and that's okay!). Was the customer not given machine demo history? Was machine not discounted as a demo? Yes and Yes, so it seems like the customer received a very fair price for a machine as equipped irregardless of model year mix-up. And, it sure sounds like everyone communicated appropriately. I'm sorry, but I'm having a hard time seeing where anyone received any additional financial gain or purposeful deception took place. Anyone can argue semantics as to why it's okay to bash someone, but I don't believe for a second that anyone was taken advantage of. Not even close.

[egoperf]

OK would you be willing to pay 2013 price for a 2000 machine. If so I have a 1999 machine I want 2012 price for.

[thejunkman]

I agree the machine should have been sold as a 2000 the vin tells it all no matter what it has for upgrades . I think all of our old machines have new upgraded parts that doesnt justify to say its a newer machine.

[Buzz]

ask the owner what he paid for the machine and compare that to what a new or like-new machine similarly equipped would cost. I'm not going to assume he paid new-machine price for a much older demo machine. I get the impression that involved parties have now discussed the reason for the model year discrepancy (and are very understanding). It's definitely not accurate to say that somebody was intentionally deceived so that more money could be made. It seems that's what's trying to be pushed. Hasn't there been a clarification as to why the machine was listed like it was? I know some aren't happy enough with that and appear to want to degrade those involved instead. My impression is that those involved have admitted there was a mistake and moved on. My dealings with Mudd-Ox have always been stellar, and that is the reason for me questioning the motives of where this thread ended up.

[jpswift1]

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.

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.

I agree with you guys 100%. We see ebay sellers try to sell a machine that's a 1980 something model year and represent it as a 2000, or something along the lines of that every now and then and people on the site call it out so potential buyers don't get taken. So why would a manufacturer (who has a responsibility to represent a vehicle as the actual year that it is) do something like this? If a company such as Polaris, Yamaha, Ford, or Chevy took a used demo vehicle and put some new parts on it and tried to represent it and sell it as a model that is 13 years newer I think there would most certainly be problems.

[egoperf]

ask the owner what he paid for the machine and compare that to what a new or like-new machine similarly equipped would cost. I'm not going to assume he paid new-machine price for a much older demo machine. I get the impression that involved parties have now discussed the reason for the model year discrepancy (and are very understanding). It's definitely not accurate to say that somebody was intentionally deceived so that more money could be made. It seems that's what's trying to be pushed. Hasn't there been a clarification as to why the machine was listed like it was? I know some aren't happy enough with that and appear to want to degrade those involved instead. My impression is that those involved have admitted there was a mistake and moved on. My dealings with Mudd-Ox have always been stellar, and that is the reason for me questioning the motives of where this thread ended up.

So you think it's OK to falsely represent a vehicle that is older than it really is. How would you feel if you bought a machine from eBay thinking and paying 2013 price and find out it's a 2000 and worth far less. The serial number is very easy to determine the year of the machine. The year of this machine was changed for only one reason in my eyes. Buyers beware, if you are looking at a max check the serial number with the year. I don't want to see you get scammed!!!

[jpswift1]

So you think it's OK to falsely represent a vehicle that is newer than it really is. How would you feel if you bought a machine from eBay thinking and paying 2013 price and find out it's a 2000 and worth far less. The serial number is very easy to determine the year of the machine. The year of this machine was changed for only one reason in my eyes. Buyers beware, if you are looking at a max check the serial number with the year. I don't want to see you get scammed!!!

You're absolutely right, Tom. There are folks on this site that can tell you off the top of their head approximately what year a machine is based on its serial number. So how could the manufacturer of the AATV not know this? I highly doubt that ignorance cannot be used as a defense in this case. And why would they misrepresent the year of the machine (and sell it as one that is 13 years newer) and not just sell it as the correct year? Something certainly does not add up here. The facts are the facts, and they speak for themselves.

[egoperf]

Serial numbers dictate the year of any brand of machine. Always before you make any purchase check to see if it's correct. You never know who's books it's been through.

[Buzz]

Good point egoperf.
I agree that the model year of the machine was not accurate, but why are some folks jumping right into berating people. From a practical standpoint, I personally would only care about the value of the machine as equipped (ultimately for the actual year). What kind of deal did the customer get? Do you guys consider the purchase price of the machine (including actual model year) as equipped a fair price? I guess I just don't understand the claim of "fraudulent" or "scam" other than it seems like it's important to you guys to point out a model year mistake and run with it. Was anyone financiallly taken advantage of? Also, let's face it, some of us are super cheap and our idea of good deal varies a bit, but I'm just curious. You guys are the used Max ATV experts. Buzz

[Dozerlarry]

I wasn't going to weigh in on this because as that guy on Top Gun said-"tensions are running high". But after reading Buzz's reply I have to go along with him. If every bodies happy with the original deal, who am I to question it. When I got mine it was represented as a '96 model. I don't know and don't care. I gave what I thought was an acceptable price for what I got. I have had fun with it and when I go to sell it I won't get much for it down South anyway. Only 2 others close to me and all the others are over a 100 miles away. People here prefer the 4-wheelers and side by sides. I would too if it weren't for the fact that I have an attachment to the 6's because of seeing them when I was young although I also have a 4-wheeler. Doesn't really seem to me to be intentional fraud so much as a comedy of errors that has blown out of proportion. Hopefully it'll resolve itself satisfactorily. I do think the thread has reinforced the "buyer beware" concept we should all have.