And while we are helping Matt design his next vehicle, let's get an engine that is fuel injected so we don't have to deal with a choke, carburetor icing, vapor lock, higher fuel consumption, higher emissions, and altitude fussiness. A diesel option would probably be too ambitious, but something to look at down the road if it weren't too noisy or didn't produce too much vibration.
if you woun't 9 i/n rims call matt he has them. and would love to sell you a set . me i love my 26 they are wounderful swim the fastest goes most places i woun't to . . as for 1 mechine being the best . that is not true . we see it all the time on our rides . the 6x6 are better in the woods than the 8x8 and they are better in the opean ranges . and usualy go in the mud better . road with lewis and his new argo tires and it;s bad ARGO ADVENGER not been stuck in the last 2 outings. . some times mike and his 22 rawIII goes better than our IV. some time i do (max II ). mcCoy pulls out of some holes that i don't some times i do better( argo bigfoot ) . so we know that no one mechine is perfect . ROBBIEOriginally Posted by Dirty Harry
Not to offend some folks, but I personally don't care for Argo. Besides, for what they charge I'd rather pay that amount and get something I know is more heavy-duty. Matt has proven he is committed to constantly (and surprisingly rapidly) improving his product; much of it thru interaction via customer feedback. ODG, and especially RI, seem to drag their collective feet about getting improvements put into their machines, and those two have a larger, far better established corporate base than a young upstart like Matt, so there's truly no excuse - except being cheap and just churning out the same old thing because there's really no competition except each other. That's simply not the case anymore fellas. Wake up and smell the coffee!
I mean look at the existing Max II. How hard would it really be to do a small bit of tinkering to spread the axle set-up slightly and raising the line of the front lower body tub section a couple of inches in order to allow for fitting of larger tires like ODG's Bigfoot? (Which is about the only Argo I care for - at least in the looks department.) They also need to get off their collective butts and work out a way to bring back the 9" rims for the IV and Buff so the fatter 25" tires can be used, which give a much, much softer ride. (Hey now... those would really be welcome on the Max II, as well!!)
Personally I'm not concerned so much with speed as I am with comfort and more importantly, ruggedness - which is where the Ox really shines. Where I ride the trees & undergrowth are too thick to be zipping around. Anything over 10 - 15mph would get you wrapped around a tree. (Actually, by porting over the existing Ox internal components for a 6x6 version, I think the compact Ox would be a little quicker than the same beast in an 8x8 configuration since there'd be less frame & body = less weight.)
While I'm dreaming, I'd rather that the back of a shorter 6x Mudd-Ox be designed more along the lines of the classic Attex angled rear end, with the higher sides. Maybe multiple vents, but cut farther back from the front section to keep heat further away from the driver & passenger. It would allow for better cooling, but screen it in to keep junk out of the engine bay. Another plus of using higher sides in the cargo section would be allowing for more gear to be stacked & stored behind the motor hump. Something sorta like this..
I changed the lines and raised the sides in the passenger section a bit to help keep folks from sliding during the rough stuff.
Last edited by rdr; 07-26-2009 at 10:05 PM.
1999 max 2 18 b&s 22 tires custom . new max iv 23 k 26 i/n tires brown . ht cable promark winch . new toy 1972 attex st400 400ccjlo and she will be bad . ( the frog )if it don't float with out you getting wet . don't bring it !
R.I.P sage rogers 4 11 09 .
Hi Everyone,
I just came back from the 2009 Ledges ride and what a great time!!! The weekend was filled with good people and good riding.
As most of you know I have love for the older six wheelers and have some very nice machines in my fleet. I do plan on making a six wheeler someday. I have been busy with the eight wheelers. As the 2010 Mudd-Ox 8x8 start to be shipped out I hope to have some time to build a 6x6 version.
Matt
Agree 100% on the fuel injection. One of the things I hate most about carbuerated engines is having to mess around with a choke. Oddly though, the 18HP Vanguard in my John Deere only requires a couple of seconds on a spring-return choke to fire up, whereas the 18HP Vanguard in my Max II needs to run for a minute or two via a more traditional push/pull choke cable before it smoothes out. (And yes, it is properly tuned and otherwise runs great.) Could there really be that much difference in Briggs motors??? What I mean is are the JD units somehow more heavy-duty or differently set-up than those put into the Max AATVs??
And Matt... I hope you don't mind that I tinkered with your 8x8 design via Photoshop. Just a little visual eyecandy for Mudd-Ox's 6x6-hungry fans. Actually I think it looks pretty bad-ass, if I do say so myself. In fact if you had the Ox in 6x and it looked like my quicky rendering I'd be at your factory with a cashier's check in-hand tomorrow morning!!
Dirty Harry,
The more I look at the Mudd-Ox that you designed ( photoshop ) with the Attex looking tub , the more I like it.
I'm sure Matt would agree there is not much weight savings going from 8 to 6 wheels in his current design as the weight is in the transmission and drive. I'm sure Matt would probably look at redesign with lighter components.
But, if the majority of Mudd-Ox sales that Matt receives are for 8x8,s , its not really worth the cost to him to have a 6x6 mold made.
I think the key is in how you market the machine(s). The 8x8 seems mainly geared towards heavy-duty applications and hunters, etc. Outfitters seem a probable high-profile customer for these larger, go anywhere multi-people movers. Rightly so, since they can expect a reasonably quick turn around on the investment through large party bookings that require the Ox to get the hunters where they need to be for the game on their "shopping" list.
The 6x6 should be shown as a more weekend-friendly fun runner machine. As direct competition for the obvious targets (Max & Argo), other UTV machines (Rhino, Gator) and of course the 4x4 quads. Push options like a set of those snazzy aluminum wheels (perhaps in couple of styles) and two or three tire options to appeal to the younger bling-minded buyers. In actuality you could sell these two basically similar vehicles to vastly different (i.e. wider) consumer markets and buying mindsets.
A snag here though is the sizable capital needed to swamp the major ATV trade publications with attention-getting full and/or half page color ads (not cheap!) and getting the new 6x6 machine tested & reviewed in these same mags so that the machine is in people's faces and in their heads - and not just for an issue or two, but a sustained ad campaign to let people know they DO have a choice and that it is no longer business as usual for the AATV crowd. It can be done certainly. Do Matt and his crew want to take on the risks? That's the $64,000 question...
Last edited by Dirty Harry; 08-04-2009 at 10:34 AM.
My guess is Matt is up to his ears in 8x8 production, and spending $ and taking up warehouse space with 6x6 stock would not be profitable.
I think that by diversifying and adding a couple variations in the product line (based on a similar platform for cost's sake) would be a great asset to the Mudd-Ox brand. I completely agree with Harry's line of reasoning. The 8x8 is an absolutely fantastic machine, and has seen so much R&D time that it's becoming perfected in a very timely fashion. While it is oriented toward the high-end crowd (which it seems to be reaching, with great success), there still is a group of potential buyers out there that sees it as excessive for their needs. I love my eight wheeler, but it is a purpose-built machine (what that purpose is, I'm yet to discover...
~m
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
