Mudd-ox questions

[tracmaster]

High gear would be my choice..May only get 10-12 mph with low gears and the higher rpm may cause her to run hot all the time.

Question.. Is it the horsepower rating of the engine or is it the rpms of the engine that inturn runs the pump that produces power to the hydro motors? Can the same speed and torque be gotten from a smaller motor?

Tracmaster

[akexpress]

The hydraulic pump is run by a belt driven CVT so it is a combo of hp and rpms. I don't think a smaller motor would offer any advantages. We have been playing with clutching on my tracked machine with some significant improvements in power and lower hydraulic temps without sacrificing top end.
It is possible your secondary clutch is not opening all the way which would lower the top end in theory. Our tracks do affect this in a huge way so it may not correlate directly as our tracks have so much traction that more power is better and we don't try and go flat out that often but instead have tried to climb crazy places and very deep snow etc. As spring has arrived here slowly we have removed the tracks and can't wait for some Alaska mud to play in.

[hancock]

We have been playing with clutching on my tracked machine with some significant improvements in power and lower hydraulic temps without sacrificing top end.

whadaya mean? Have you actually done mechanical modifications, or do you mean you have been playing with clutching as in "throttle and stick technique"?

Also.....re. tracmaster's question. I'm pretty sure a smaller engine would equate to less volume produced through the hydraulics and in turn less response and top end. Not my forte', but that seems to me how it would play out.

[akexpress]

as in spring tension in the secondary driven clutch.. After some more testing on tires then we can be more definitive as to what works best but I will keep you informed. And yes I agree a smaller motor would not be desirable.

[B.M.]

post deleted

I made a post about some of the limited experience I have seen with the mudd-ox. Iwasn't bashing it but was wanting to know if they worked out the problems with the body cracking. The demo unit I saw ran great and was a strong customer until going into the swamp and hitting either a beaver staub or a cypress knee. The body material flexed beyond tolerance and busted out a good sized hole and could have eventually flooded the whole engine compartment if someone hadn't had an avenger there to pull it out.

This to me looked like a small design flaw that could be fixed easily. If it hasn't been addressed though I wouldn't even consider one because thats the kind of stuff I ride in and the argos that i have been around have never had a problem like that.

I'm not bashing the mudd-ox because I think it was a truly sweet machine but I'm really wanting to know how they addressed this before I make such a large purchase. Any help with answers advice would be greatly appreciated. BM

[hancock]

I am not aware of any body "flaws" with the Mudd-Ox in either the design or the material that is used. If I remember correctly, it is essentially the same material as the Argo, but slightly thicker, and ultimately more superior. (just going off memory here, and am by no means a spokesman, so I may stand corrected). The Argo's have an available skid plate and to my knowledge Matt hasn't made this available yet, although I think it is planned. That would probably have helped in the situation you addressed.

There are quite a few owners on the forum these days and nobody has so much as hinted at any body issues.

As far as I am concerned, feel free to bring up any issues, positive or negative, and don't worry that it might be construed as "bashing"......that is what the forum is for. There are several dealers that participate on the forum and sometimes they take issue with the negative stuff, but we'll overlook that since they tend to be very helpful more often than not.

Hancock

[akexpress]

I know Matt sunk a early prototype but I don't know the cause but I did recently ask about the bottom thickness. The sheet starts out at 350/1000 thick and ends up at about 280/1000 after forming and argo starts out with 300/1000 and ends up slightly less then 250/1000 after forming these are all in inches. They are both HDPE material. the tunnel design on the Mudd-Ox very closely follows the internal steel frame so the bottom is actually very well supported and backed up by the frame. As we ponder this the full length skid plate is being tested and should be available very shortly ( maybe within a few days). I don't think any of these HDPE machines are bullet proof as far as impact with a very sharp object at speed is concerned and I think the Mudd-Ox is thicker to start with therefore a little less susceptable. Maybe Matt will write about any sinking or holes.

[travisch]

I've never punched a hole in an Argo with or without a skid plate and I haven't any issues with the Muddox tub/body being weak in any areas even when operating close to 0 deg. F

[Roger S]

I think it got speared by a submerged piece of steel, junk that was dumped in a stream.

And I think it didn't sink, it floated level, just a little lower than a passenger would prefer. That's second hand info..

[akexpress]

that is probably correct as I only recall matt saying he had one of the Kohler motors underwater so I just assumed it might have sunk.

[Matt O.]

I made a post about some of the limited experience I have seen with the mudd-ox. Iwasn't bashing it but was wanting to know if they worked out the problems with the body cracking. The demo unit I saw ran great and was a strong customer until going into the swamp and hitting either a beaver staub or a cypress knee. The body material flexed beyond tolerance and busted out a good sized hole and could have eventually flooded the whole engine compartment if someone hadn't had an avenger there to pull it out.

This to me looked like a small design flaw that could be fixed easily. If it hasn't been addressed though I wouldn't even consider one because thats the kind of stuff I ride in and the argos that i have been around have never had a problem like that.

I'm not bashing the mudd-ox because I think it was a truly sweet machine but I'm really wanting to know how they addressed this before I make such a large purchase. Any help with answers advice would be greatly appreciated. BM

Hi everyone,

The Mudd-Ox demo unit B.M. is talking about was a prototype that I loaned to Ron last year in July. It was the Red Mudd-Ox I took to ledges last year. The lower body that was on that machine was formed off of my first lower body pattern and was a test material that proved to be to hard thus causing it to crack on sharp items and where the body had a tight radius. A large plastic manufacture asked me to test the material. All of the production machines are made with the proven material as Mark stated in his post. I also changed some radiuses on the production tooling to help protect the body on impacts.

Now, for the submarine story. 3 years ago Wendy and I went to a October ride in Humphery New York to test the Mudd-Ox. It was just after the first lower bodies were made and the upper bodies were not done yet. It was like riding in an open convertable. We rode all day Saturday at Humphery then stayed over at John Schwab's house Saturday night and then went on a creek ride Sunday. There was a few of us there. The creek has a slate botton with very sharp edges. Along with this are old pieces of metal car parts, fence post, ect. Most of the water in the creek that day was 6" to a foot deep. There are some areas that are sink holes 5 to 10 feet deep. We drove into one of the sink holes not knowing we had hit a large shape object earlier and had a big cut in the body. It did not take long to fill up the lower tub. With no upper body on it was interesting to see. With Wendy and I in the machine it floated at surface leval. With the help of some friends we pulled the machine onto shore and the Kohler started right up and away we went. I did not have to pull the drain plugs and the water came out??? Good times in Mudd-Ox testing.

I do have a skid plate that will be offered very soon. I also have a rear bed liner option now. The first ones are on there way to Alaska.

Matt

[B.M.]

Thanks Matt. that clears it up for me. I never heard back what the deal was. Over rigid material would definately do that. It makes perfect sense. I was very surprised to hear that there was any problem at all on that demo because that machine was one beast. very impressive. I hope to save up enough change in the near future to be yet another mudd-ox groupie. thanks for the straight up response. That kind of openess will go along way in promoting your business.

[liflod]

I figured you would be bragging about a great AATV experience like that. Any pictures?

[hydromike]

Ahhh... I remember the open top Mudd Ox at the 2007 Humphrey ride. It was very cool to see the innerworkings as you tackled different obstacles. The R&D that you've done on the machine is impressive. Much like talking to the guys down at RI. Try something out, beat the living h#ll out of it, see if it breaks, improve it, try to break it again.

~m