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.
Last edited by akranger72; 10-13-2013 at 03:12 AM.
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.
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.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.
Last edited by greg pinson; 10-13-2013 at 01:18 PM.
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.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.
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.
l like to buy stuff and no I don't do payments!
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
