Printable View
Since the Max lineup has been purchased by Mudd-Ox, I wonder if Matt has thought about offering a cheaper, simpler Mudd-Ox 8x8 by installing a T20 instead of all of the heavy expensive hydraulic stuff?
Imagine a 40 hp Kohler, into a 2 or 3 speed auxiliary transmission, then into a T20. I think it would be much cheaper and be a serious threat to the Argos.
Thoughts?
I saw a set up like that in a swamp fox 8x8 I looked at 2 years ago. It had a 20hp kohler with the T-20 into a 2 speed aux transmission.
No doubt in my mind Matt wanted the T-20 and RI had it. So he bought the company.
I'm sure he will put the T-20 to good use in his MuddOx line up. Personally I would like his 6x6 MuddOx.
Of course I'm merely speculating. But it sounds about right.
I hope Matt keeps that archaic relic 1000 miles away from the MuddOx, the beauty of an Ox is its hydraulic drive enabling it to reverse in an eye blink without having to change gears and the ability to counter-rotate at the drop of a hat. It would be like putting mechanical brakes on a car that has hydraulic brakes, it would be simpler of course but the performance hit wouldn't make any sense. The Ox is already a threat to the Argo just as it is, in fact if you drove both of them before purchasing an AATV I seriously wonder why you would ever pick the Argo, as far as I can tell it has no advantage over the Ox (except maybe more dealers) and plenty of disadvantages. I've driven the Max, the Argo, and the Ox and to me the Ox is the best AATV out there at the present time mainly due to the maneuverability that its hydraulic drive enables it with.
An original 8-wheel mudd-ox tub with that set up would be awesome
If Matt did decide to try the t-20 in an OX, and I doubt he will, he would be better off marketing it as a new Max VI (6 passenger) model...Or even calling it a MaxVIII (8 wheel) model. Keeping the Mudd-ox as a commercial/industrial machine and not tainting it with lighter duty components. The t-20 works great for lighter weight machines but I would question the longevity if used in a machine w/twice the weight and horsepower that it is typically used in. Add in some aggressive tread 26"+ tires and it may become a liability to the product line.
Hey Matt, I'd suggest some extensive testing where you beat the snot out of the machine.....and if you are looking for volunteer test drivers. :D
Oh I understand the advantages of a Mudd-Ox hydraulic drive, I used to run heavy machinery for a living. But it does have a few disadvantages: weight, expense, and complexity. A gas powered, T20 Mudd-Ox with an auxiliary transmission would lose some weight, complexity and some cost and still outperform an Argo(at least I think). I would compare it to a new gas powered 3/4 ton truck vs a diesel. No comparison on performance, any of the 3 diesel powered pickups will outperform any gas motor ever built, but a gas motor will do a decent job at much less initial cost.Quote:
Originally Posted by mudslinger
I agree 100% that the T20 would not perform off road NEARLY as well as the hydraulic machine would. But, just like modern gas powered 3/4 ton trucks, a T20 might find a niche market. It might float better, if in fact it is lighter(I would think it would be a lot lighter), it would probably do better at high speed(hydraulics do soooo much better at low speed), and should be cheaper to maintain and easier to work on. Think about the driveline being built to live behind a 45 hp Kubota diesel driving hydraulics, it should live forever behind a gas motor running through a T20.
I agree 100% with everything you just said. Will he do it? Probably not. If he does, it is a GREAT idea to call it a Max 6 or Max 8x8, I had not thought of that, but it is a great marketing plan to leave the biggest, baddest AATV as a Mudd-Ox and the cheaper, lower priced, less capable machine to be called a Max. I also don't know if the T20 would live inside that big of a machine with that big of a motor, your right, it would need to be tested extensively first.Quote:
Originally Posted by thebuggyman1
I doubt a Mudd-Ox will ever get a t-20 from the factory. It makes more sense to keep the t-20 exclusive to the max brand and the Ox with hydro set up for industrial use. An 8 wheeler with a t-20 would be awesome, and it is. Just ask Racerone3 or hydromike. Maybe an 8 wheeled Max will show up in the line up someday. If the market can justify it, I'm sure Matt would at least think about it. One of the best parts of Matt taking over RI is the fact that it's now run by an owner with a passion for the industry and a desire to further the hobby. The fact that he as an active forum member just like all of us is icing on the cake. He does read the threads and I am sure he will take what we want as hobbyist into account when making decisions. I'm not saying he is going to take all our suggestions, but this is a huge step up from Jay's approach to the business.
I think Matt is keeping the T-20 in the Max line up and will continue with his Mudd Ox 8x8 line. He couldn't compete in the 6x6 AATV market because a 6x6 Mudd Ox cost almost as much as the 8x8 Mudd Ox to produce. Now he owns the Max line up and will be able to compete in the 6x6 market efficiently.
There is no need to try to do a 6x6 Mudd-Ox. I had a Buffalo truck myself at one time. I would like to have a Mudd-Ox with a T20, 3 range transmission(figure 8 mph in 1st, 16 in 2nd and 24 mph in 3rd), put the T20 under the seat, put the engine low in the tub right behind it, cut off the top of the current engine compartment(a smaller gas engine wouldn't need the tall engine compartment), put a flat bed from the back of the seat to the end of the body and have an 8x8 Buffalo with a large storage compartment under the bed. The flat bed would be 6 feet long give or take a few inches? I know it won't happen, but I can still dream!Quote:
Originally Posted by akranger72
I think akranger72 is right on the money. Hopefully Matt will evolve these into what they should have been made into years ago.
As far as "can the t-20 handle the weight and hp?" The horsepower many of you guys here have proved. I cant find the specs for sure but I thought the heaviest mudd-ox was right around 2100lb. The buffalo trucks max gvwr is 2135lbs. So it would do it. Might not be able to load it much. But how much weight will you loose with the hydraulics and smaller motor. But my thought on this is just like stated. Mudd-Ox should stay same. Max should gain a 8 wheeled model if having a t-20 8x8 is needed.
This is fun!!!
Matt
Hydromike was the one that deserves all the credit for the first Max 8X8 since he built one, and MaxIVMark got it and is working on finishing it now, with a 4 cylinder Honda powerplant. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by LarryW
I think RobinHood02 did it before I attempted it, and I don't think I deserve any credit since I passed on the entire project before I really got to the fun part. I would have loved to finish it, but I developed some serious negatively-based Kharma toward the machine after the tubs got botched by the guy contracted to weld the poly together. In hindsight, and if I had known about Buggyman's success with the HDPE-epoxy I would have done it myself. It has a new home 5.8 miles away, so I can go visit it whenever Mark's around. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by jpswift1
I still love the idea of and 8x8 based on the Max IV design. I'm excited to see what direction Mark takes with what I started, but I know it'll be very cool however things pan out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robinhood02
The current Max IV lower body is a terrible place to start with a new machine. The tub needs to be wider to accommodate the clutch on the engine so you can mount the engine lower. The front of the tub is also a terrible design. Why would you want a 4" vertical plow on the front?
Matt spent a lot of time and effort designing the lower tub on the Mudd-Ox. I can only assume that would be the best place to start updating the Max IV platform.
100% agree with you. The Mudd-Ox tub is perfect. Wide, deep, big chains, plenty of ground clearance in the middle, slap a T20, engine of your choice, and some sort of 2 or 3 speed reduction transmission between them and you have a perfect Max 8x8 that is much lighter, simpler, and cheaper than the top of the line industrial strength Mudd-Ox. No question the Mudd-Ox with hydraulics would out perform it, this would be the lighter, cheaper version for those that can't afford the big fancy machine.Quote:
Originally Posted by liflod
So you're saying it would look like a MuddOx but be called a Max just because it will have
a T-20? The body ought to be changed to look like an 8x8 Max not merely a
relabeled MuddOx. Just my view on it.
Was wondering when Matt would say something...Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt O.
Yeah, Matt is watching, and chuckling a little. I think Matt is sort of amazed that it seems people do not realize the lower tub for a Max IV and a Buffalo are the same thing. RI has been making Max IVs with the engine dropped down in the body for years. They just put a Buffalo upper on it. Now how soon that lower will be stretched out for another axle and the front and rear axles raised an inch is another matter. But I can pretty much assure you if that happens it will not have a Mudd-Ox badge on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BadBradII
Keith, a guy that knows a guy that talked to a guy once who overheard a conversation on this issue around a campsite at a trail ride one time.
http://www.6x6world.com/gallery/data...s/IMGP1983.jpg
But they need to use a Max II jack-shaft set up to do it.Quote:
RI has been making Max IVs with the engine dropped down in the body for years. They just put a Buffalo upper on it
SHUT THE DOOR! does MUDD ox now own RECREATIVE industries!!!!! What the he k!!!!! Spill the beans matt!!!!!! What in the name of Sam Hill is going on here!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by greg pinson
Apparently you have not seen this thread:Quote:
Originally Posted by spookum
http://www.6x6world.com/forums/max-a...dd-ox-inc.html
The reason I suggested using a Mudd-Ox body and just installing a different drivetrain is to save money. It would be much cheaper for Matt to put a T20 in a Mudd-Ox and call it a Max 8x8 than it would to have all new dies built to make a separate 8x8 body for a Max, which would, I understand, cost tens of thousands if not a hundred thousand dollars. The Mudd-Ox looks great, is designed great, is very tough, it would just be a matter of installing cheaper running gear, slapping on a Max 8x8 badge (after proper testing of course) and then selling it. I would NOT call it a Mudd-Ox, I would leave that badge on the top of the line hydraulic machine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty-Gunn
I fully agree the cost would be cheaper to use the MuddOx body and not have to
design a new one. But it would still be a MuddOx.
We know Mike is inserting a T20 into an Avenger. Will his be a Max simply because
he put a T20 in it? I'd say it would still be an Avenger. And the other would still be a MuddOx.
Not trying to argue. Just saying Matt ought create a new body or just offer the MuddOx with a T20
as an option. I don't see how the T20 degrades a MuddOx. It might be lower in price, allowing others to own a MuddOx they would not otherwise.
The Mudd-Ox is an industrial brand. The Max is a recreational brand.
Sharing lower bodies is acceptable and smart.
Redesigning the upper body of a Max IV while you make it fit a Mudd-Ox tub is even smarter!
Again we see survival of the fittest,all recreational industries have went thru this time and time again,the AATV market is small and commercial interests have helped but fact is fact with the explosion of the 4 wheel market it put the AATV market in a fractional industry,I myself like to see the continuing interest and Mudd Ox putting themselves out there to further their and our interests,I have not yet had the pleasure of a close encounter with a Mudd Ox,here in northern Ontario we are far from the nearest dealer and the four wheeler crowd runs wild,it is my belief that the lads at Mudd Ox can further enhance the breed that recreatives started,I will be awaiting the new model intro with great anticipation lets see what Mudd Ox,s vision is perhaps a dealer in the north of Ontario might be a real possibilty. Cheers NCT
I tried a t20 in a large custom machine, you loose much of the agileness of the smaller machines when you put the t20 in larger machines. If you look into the internals of the t20, its a well built little unit. The reservation I have is how much horse power and torque the t20 can handle long term. I'm no engineer, but I've fiddled with things all my life, and just based upon that, I think the upper level of the tranny is 60hp, but it really compliments 16-25 horse power the best. having said that I think it wouldn't work for the more powerful Mudd Oxes. Maybe it would for the base 40hp gas engine, but then then again you get to the loss of agility issue I opened with.
If I can find one drawback to the Max IV, it is that I don't have room to carry 4 passengers and their camping gear. That means multiple trips or a trailer. It would be nice to have some extra space for the gear when I take the family out. I agree with other posts that the Mudd-Ox lower and the t20 would be a good combination. I do not think using the lower tub makes it a MuddOx. If the operating system is the same as the Max, it is more like a Max than an Ox...in my opinion. I like the idea of using a 40hp diesel as an option for this (theoretical) machine. I would think the base model would have a 40hp gas engine, though.
I don't know about adding a 3spd gearbox to the setup. I think that adds more complexity and more failure points to what has proven to be a pretty robust drive system. I do like the idea of lowering the engine if that does not mess with the cargo space. I guess if you could put in 4 seats and a Buffalo cargo area it would work pretty well.
I like the idea of a lighter 8x8 that is a little cheaper than the Ox. I really like the hydraulic drive and the ability to reverse at the drop of a hat, but it drives up the weight and the cost to the point that it is way out in the margin for the recreational user.
I know this is a pretty old post. I apologize for bringing it back up, but I know we don't yet have an 8x8 max, so there might still be time to register my thoughts. It would be nice to hear Matt's thoughts on this thread. I know he enjoyed the discussion when it first came out. I am curious to know his thoughts now that he has had some time to digest the input and his acquisition of the Max brand.
One more thought and I will leave it alone.
I have noticed that it can be very difficult to shift the t20 when my Max IV is in tough terrain. It is almost impossible to rock the machine enough to get the gears to mesh up when you are in very spongy material that resists rolling. It can be done, but I have sometimes felt like getting out and pushing it back and forth to get it done. I think an 8x8 version would add to this problem. Based on what I have seen about split shifting the t20, I think a heavier machine would need to come stock with split shifting. This would help bring back some of the nimbleness of the smaller machines and make the thing easier to get into gear.
Wow, interesting thread for sure. I do like the way the Ox has full counter rotation and hydraulic drive. That is a huge plus for mobility and smoothness of applying power.
Not being familiar with a T20 except I saw one once, I cannot say much about them. My understanding is that you must STOP to shift from forward to reverse, also you cannot counter rotate it from what I've read.
I know Matt has a Hagen/Rooter in his possession and wonder if a Max 8 for lack of better term could be built with a Hagen instead.
This would allow full counter rotation and still maintain an all mechanical drive. It would be simple enough to add on a HI/LOW gear box to the input side as well, seeing as the Hagen only has a 2:1 built in reduction.
I'm all for advancing this hobby/sport and however that can be accomplished with existing materials and such that is both mechanically and cost effective is a bonus in my mind...
JM2CW
The T-20 is actually 2 transmissions in one case. Counter rotation is possible, but not with the factory shift mechanism...you have to split the shifter by yourself.
Here is a video that member LarryW made: http://www.6x6world.com/forums/conte...t-shifter.html
Here is my MaxII Bigfoot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Uro9kbDpLg
And my latest project I made the shifters foot operated. [IMG]http://www.6x6world.com/gallery/data...s/IMG_0279.JPG[/IMG]
[IMG]http://www.6x6world.com/gallery/data.../IMG_02801.JPG[/IMG]
You still must stop before shifting, but with splitting the shifter, it is a much easier operation. With the factory set up, you are trying to get both sides to "pop" into gear at once. Changing this to one at a time eliminates the need to rock the machine or do the "T-20 dance".
Good post Buggyman,
I agree with all you said except the notion that a split shift must be an after-market enhancement. It currently is, but I think the factory could install split shifters if enough people wanted them. My point was that a heavier machine (8x8 instead of 6x6) might warrant a factory split shift to make it more operable.
I like the videos. Nothing works more efficiently to refute a claim.
Wow, then a T20 is a lot more versatile than I had thought. Interesting, as there is a machine locally with one and they guy is older than the dirt it sits on...his grandson's wife says I can get it one day LOL.
Then I can see a need for an entry level 8x8 and ya with a T20 and maybe a second gear box for Uber low range.
Counter rotation turning is really very handy, you can work your machine sideways doing it if need be. Albeit with the T20 it would be quite cumbersome due to the constant shifting.
Hope to see something like a tank trainer maybe ?????
Thanks for the vids and links those where helpful and now I'm intrigued by the T20.
More to the point, I would like to see a hydraulic drive Max 4 or Buffalo truck. Now that would be something to maneuver with.