True all wheel drive?

[thebuggyman1]

i dont agree if i push both sticks forward on the t20 all 6 wheels go forward no matter what...

I think what John was getting at is, the Admiral trans still turns the inside tires (at 1/3 rate in high gear) when in a turn. The t-20 in a turn first disconnects power to the inside wheels, then applies brakes to them depending on how far the stick is pulled back. The drawback to the Admiral is that it cannot do tight turns (spin in place) without shifting to low gear. In low gear it turns the inside tires backwards (counter-rotation) at 1/3 the rate of the outside tires. I really wouldn't call this an advantage or disadvantage....just different.

I've heard the high/low gear vs single speed argument before, and don't agree. We all have variable gear ratio through our CVT clutches. If that isn't enough, you need MORE HORSEPOWER. ....does anyone ever complain that their motor has too much?

[Rusty-Gunn]

So, can I assume one must zig zag through the rough stuff to keep all wheels spinning for all-wheel power?

[JoeMeg]

So, can I assume one must zig zag through the rough stuff to keep all wheels spinning for all-wheel power?

That's a good analogy. Basicly their short little "zig zags" but once you get adjusted and learn how to apply slight braking to the "loose" side in order to put the power to the side that has some traction,it becomes a "straighter" path.

Joe.

[Rusty-Gunn]

Thank you, Joe.

[brebett]

Hi, I'm not sure of that. I had a max1V once with the t-20. The problem is that it doesn't have any low gear. For my needs I dindn't like it because of no low gear. I burned a lot of belts on that max 1V. A sort of T-20 with low gear would be great. I guess it's the admiral.

[jpswift1]

Hi, I'm not sure of that. I had a max1V once with the t-20. The problem is that it doesn't have any low gear. For my needs I dindn't like it because of no low gear. I burned a lot of belts on that max 1V. A sort of T-20 with low gear would be great. I guess it's the admiral.

Something was set up incorrectly or something must have been out of adjustment on your machine if you were burning up belts on your Max. I've run the T-20 in a 50MPH Attex racer, a Hustler 980 with six 26" Vampire ASX tires crawling hills with 4 people in it, and in a Max II that pulled Hydromike's Attex 8x8 tank trainer up a long steep hill when he broke a main drive sprocket and of all those times I never smoked a belt. MaxIVMark, Amphibiousdrew, and I were in Mark's 29HP tracked Max IV going up steep hills covered in over 18" of fresh powder and it never burned a belt either. If you want to utilize the lower gear more in the T-20 you can get a red driven clutch spring, or get the new CV Tech Power block drive and driven clutches from Recreatives for even more efficient power transfer.

[swamp donkey]

I agree with swift ive had my max loaded to the gills pulling a brokedown 4 wheeler back to the paved road and have never burned a belt.

[JohnF]

I think what John was getting at is...

Exactly.

And, you are right; the T-20 doesn't count because:

The t-20 in a turn first disconnects power to the inside wheels

The drawback to the Admiral ...

Not a drawback, just part of the design. (fixed turning radius)

We could discuss the pros and cons of each design but on these small vehicles all three systems work really well. I wouldn't turn down an offer to drive any of them and I wouldn't nix the idea of buying one of these machines based on the transmission.

I could give the Admiral infinite turning ration (including neutral turn) by removing the turn control differential/axle and replacing with a couple of hydraulic motors. No doubt the Admiral designers know this too. It's basically what the Abrams has...

I've heard the high/low gear vs single speed argument before, and don't agree..

I've only had an Argo but I know I've used both gears and have been pretty happy that I had them.

So, can I assume one must zig zag through the rough stuff to keep all wheels spinning for all-wheel power?

Let's make a little course, a straight road that has alternating patches of perfect traction on both side then no traction on the left and then no traction on the right. With a T-20 or Admiral you would point it straight and it will just drive straight through. With the non-admiral Argo transmission when you hit the first patch that has no traction on a side the non-admiral transmission the non-traction side will spin and the side with traction will just sit there. What happens as an operator learns to drive one of these type machines is you start to anticipate and feather the brake on the side with lesser traction to transfer torque to the side with traction. As mentioned before, this consumes power from making it to the ground so you learn to add a little throttle too. Eventually all without conscious effort. And granted, it is a real pain sometimes - especially the power losses.

[JohnF]

Having a broader choice of gear ratio increases the performance band of any machine no matter what its horsepower is. It seems strange to see arguments that this isn't true just because the machine sports a CVT.

Of course we could argue the practicality given the intended use of a machine. Take jpswift's 50MPH Attex and put giant tires on it, 4 people in it, and crawl the hills, or run 50MPH in the mentioned Hustler.

Everyone who says that they see no use for multiple gear ranges simply hasn't expanded their performance expectations far enough.

I have climbed really steep snow covered slopes sporting my tracks here in the Colorado mountains in low, because high wouldn't do it, to top reach a level road that I could "run" in high. I would have been annoyed if I didn't have both.

And of course I need more horsepower. I'm working on that.

[jpswift1]

As far as the practicality of each machine argument goes, you can see that the drive train of an Attex Superchief, which runs close to 50MPH (a G50B Chaparral and T-20) is the same setup that's in a RIM (an early Max IV). Put 26's on it and load it up with people or gear and climb hills all day and speed along without a problem. The same thing goes for a Max II with the TA-440A Kawasaki 2 stroke and a T-20......Recreatives used this same engine and transmission in the Max IV and it would do high speeds, it would turn big tires, and it would climb hills. Of course it's a 2 stroke so it turns more RPMs than a 4 stroke, so it'll have more speed. I've seen it done at the Humphrey, NY ride with Hydromike's RIM years ago. I couldn't believe what he was doing with that machine.....it was amazing. Those were some steep muddy hills and that machine didn't miss a beat. On the long straightaways back to the parking lot, the G50B in the RIM would wind up and pull right away at my Max II 4 stroke at full throttle.


Or you could just save yourself the money instead of buying a common, brand new machine and use it to build something more capable than an "off the shelf, brand new AATV" and have something that's totally unique. Here are a few examples that come to mind:



http://www.6x6world.com/forums/argo-...enger-t20.html

Mike and Mike, like myself have driven and worked on a broad range of AATVs and have learned most of the strengths and weaknesses of each. I have to give props to those guys, because they've incorporated all those strengths into the custom builds of their machines and they're going to have something that is better than any brand new one out there.

And you say, "Everyone who says that they see no use for multiple gear ranges simply hasn't expanded their performance expectations far enough." I think that I, as well as quite a few other crazies out there have more than pushed the envelope of the performance expectations for our machines, but I don't know, maybe that's just my opinion.




























More horsepower is always good, but more machines would be even better. Get behind the sticks of some different machines and see what they can do and you'll see why many of us on here get one, then another, and another, and another.........