Tell em Model Citizen.
Whipper
Tell em Model Citizen.
Whipper
It was always a very successful company , but when the founder died, the son AND a daughter that lived on the other side of the country inherited the co. At some point the daughter wanted her shares & took legal action to get them so the son was forced to sell.
Under the circumstances, the son went to someone that had stated a desire to purchase the co & that's when Mudd Ox with help from Mudd Ox, Int'l became Max.
It was never offered publicly it seems.
That's pretty much it.
Guess things like this don't happen when you're an only child.
Bridget
Bridget, again I thank you. While I understand nothing except death or taxes is guaranteed, if one company is mismanaged by an owner, and if patterns of behavior are apparent, one can at least have important facts to consider when making a major purchase. I think I'll just be happy with my old Max for now until the new company can show me what they will be offering.
Thank you, Bridget.
Stand for the Flag. Kneel for the Cross.
from talking to one of the guy's at busco a few weeks ago ( sorry can't remember his name, many know him. very nice fellow, shawnas dad i believe) who worked at r.i. and was there at the end, he gave some of us standing there the final story. one thing i remember was that the son never was that interested in the co. and aatv's, but just mostly enjoyed spending the money he got. j.b.
So where is the evidence that MuddOx did anything detrimental to the Max line? Seems to me and others I have talked to that MuddOx was just keeping the status quo for the last three years with the added benefit of being able to buy the Vengence tire offered on the MuddOx line. No one I have talked with says the quality dropped off or Matt was cutting corners, in fact most people I talked to thought that Matt was doing a good job of continuing the Max legacy and probably would have made major improvements if he was able to keep the Max line going. Does anybody have any proof that Matt buying the Max line was a bad thing for the vehicles themselves while he was in charge of them? If so, now is the time to present it, if not then stop slandering an individual who has devoted his life to the AATV hobby.
I ran into a guy at the Mud Nationals in Jacksonville, Tx. who had recently purchased a camouflage Max2 from Mudd Ox. I had the opportunity to look the machine over and it looked like the most heavily evolved Max2 I had ever seen. It had a large Kohler motor, solid splined axles, 2500lb winch, big tires, etc. It was thoroughly set up from the factory. As such he went the entire distance in the Mud Pit (where the Endurance race is held). That machine didn't have tracks. I was very impressed with the build quality and features of the machine, and the owner had gone to the factory and picked it up, and mentioned that Matt had walked him through the factory, showed him the production line, and all the top quality parts that went into every machine coming down the line. I saw absolutely nothing to criticize on the product.
I think that the current owners of MXI need to further elaborate on the production tooling issue if they want to be viewed as credible. There are only a handful of items that I can think of as absolutely necessary to build the new production plant. First off would be the production molds necessary to make the body assemblies, and second would be the jig to set the frames up. The other items such as fuel tanks, bearings, chains, axle, etc can be sourced elsewhere. The t20 would need to be produced in house, but since the patent on the old t20 has expired I'm not really sure on what tooling would be required to be provided by Mudd Ox to MXI. I didn't specifically see that item in the limited documents out on the web.
I try to keep an open mind when there are matters on conflict between parties that have been in litigation. I would prefer to see the new company start producing again, when they are ready to. I want to see new products, and I really want to be impressed by the features and build quality.
it's not appropriate to speculate on the details of how things actually went down. There's always more to every story, and not everything works out perfectly. I do know for a fact that though that Matt is a stand up guy and that Mudd-ox has always tried a heck of a lot harder than anyone else to constantly innovate and put their customers 1st. The Max line in it's current form (even improved versions from Mudd-Ox) were never going to sell very well when they have to compete against the current 8x8 offerings from Mudd-Ox and Argo. The current Max line just isn't near as practical for what we need our machines to do.
I have recognized that certain members have a chip on their shoulders and have taken several opportunities over the last number of years to try to make Mudd-Ox look bad. Why is that?
Yep, the whining get's old