True all wheel drive?

[blown84gt]

No one stock machine can excell at EVERYTHING but they do come darn close, the key is the INCREDIBLE versatility of all the models out there, and then you can tweak them to do more specialized tasks for whatever your situation is. The guy in Florida couldn't care less about what his machine will do in 24" powder snow, and the guy Minnesota is not interested in what his machine will do in a swamp. I need mine for hunting deer up and down steep hills and in gumbo mud and I have it set up just for that.

[amphibious drew]

I think everyone needs to take a step back for a second. I have been on many rides with a bunch of different machines. Most machines have all performed to the ability of their driver. The choice we have for new machines is great. I would not turn down a ride or turn to drive in any of them. That said, I believe the argo's advantage was the use of spanned axles, but for more than a decade that has been standard equipment on every popular amphib. As for a need for 2 speeds, a cvt system givesunlimited options for gearing between two set gear ratio's. I have pulled hard enough to spin a set of tracks and then drove through 18" of snow at 30mph in maxIV marks stock machine. I was pulling marks dodge with trailer attached and then driving with 2 other grown men in it. Just like a 2 speed argo, it did its job. No machine is perfect for everything, but the popular modern amphibs are all well rounded enough to produce a turn key, no mods required, good time. Even if the engineering and mechanics differ slightly.

[hydromike]

Hydromike? I don't know that project. I was talking about the wrong Mike's project.

Hey John,

The project I'm working on (slowly....) involves putting a hi/low range box from a New Process transfer case (2:1 low, 1:1 high) between a Kubota V1505 diesel and a T-20.



The plan is to put it in a 1969(ish) Newt the Bold, which is a fiberglass-bodied machine that originally only had a center "spine" rather than a perimeter frame. The fiberglass body is so large (it might be the largest 6x6 from that era?) that it lets me line up a bunch of drivetrain components with room to spare.



It's really the only reason I *could* put a low range box in there. I'm a bit disappointed that it's only going to be a 2:1 reduction in low range, but hopefully she'll generate enough juice to really make the most of it at really low rpm. It does add a bit of weight, but I'm unconciously trying to make this unit extremely heavy. Once it's finished, the goal is to pull a nice, small, two-bottom plow.

[blown84gt]

My head hurts....

[JohnF]

John, ... Please understand. It can be done.

Oh, I understand. If you want I can go all engineer on ya... I never said, "it can't be done." I said that the need depends on the machine design and the performance expectation of the user.

Someone (I don't even remember now) said that high/low range is unnecessary. I said that the need depends on the machine design and the performance expectation of the user.

Whatever? I just want to be anti-Argo?

Sorry, I mean that you want to be anti-Argo transmission.

... I like ... the Argo, but I don't like ... the transmissions...

Got it.

And you said, "I thought he said it was a T-20 from an Attex." in reference to Hydromike's build.

Hydromike? I don't know that project. I was talking about the wrong Mike's project.

A T-20 can be from...

I only mention "from an Attex" because that's what I remembered of the transmission part of the project. I know they can come from many places.

So you can see that I was simply stating a fact, about thousands of T-20 transmissions being made and pretty much unchanged since 1969.

A fact that I have not disputed.

And just because there are a handful of T-20 machines out there that have a 2 speed gearbox, doesn't mean that it's needed.

<sigh>

I didn't say it was needed.

[Back in edit]

Okay, this is in response to Bridget's post just above this. She picked that bit of mine on purpose so I pondered that a bit. Was it the challenge that, "simply hasn't expanded their performance expectations far enough." That got everyone all worked up? Okay, let me expand on that challenge: A buggy the weight and shape of jpswift's attex probably needs, oh, 10 or 13 HP to maintain 75mph on the flat. (Although those tubes are gonna suck aerodynamically, so let's take the tubes off for this mind experiment.) I believe he has the 10 or 13 HP in there after mechanical losses. What happens when we move our expectation to here?

Or let's decide that we want to use that same attex to move around a 40ft triple axle triple slide out super camper that clocks in at 5 or 6 ton. There's horsepower to do it. (Really you wonder? The crawler-transporter weighs 3000 tons without the shuttle on it. It has 5364 HP (in 4 engines) for a power loading of 1.79 HP / ton if it were only moving itself.) What happens when we move our expectation here?

[rockrewls]

Buy the machine that fits your application or applications if possible, if not you wont be happy as it wont really work properly for YOU!!

[jpswift1]

I get it. You just want to be anti-Argo. Whatever.

Whatever? I just want to be anti-Argo? Why would I want to be against any AATV? That just doesn't make any sense.......this is such a small niche market and I'm all about promoting AATVs in general, so we all need to stick together and get the word out there about them. I'm anti quad and side by side (unless it's a Scrambler Gotcha, REB, AV4, etc, but you get the point ). Their cocky attitudes always get them stuck when trying to follow us. But then again, once we made our appearances at rides like Busco, they see our machines coming through the trails and give us thumbs up and stand back and watch us conquer the terrain that would swallow their machines. We even offer to take them for rides to show them what our machines can do. I know there are quite a few quad and side by side folks that we converted. But anyway, I like the build quality of the Argo, but I don't like the fact that the engine is in the front and I don't like the transmissions, but Mike took care of that with his project......again, props to you on that build, Mike! I don't care much for other AATVs out there like a Terra Tigers either, but I'm not "Anti-Terra Tiger". I think you get my point.

And you said, "I thought he said it was a T-20 from an Attex." in reference to Hydromike's build. A T-20 can be from an Attex, Hustler, Tom Cat, Kadoo II, Arkat, JB's Avenger, Swamp Fox, Camel Centipede, Max, Chaparral, or any of the many machines that originally came with them and it can be simply interchanged among all the different makes, or a custom project with ease.......just drop it in and go. So you can see that I was simply stating a fact, about thousands of T-20 transmissions being made and pretty much unchanged since 1969. This also makes parts very plentiful and inexpensive. A piece of extremely reliable, tried and true equipment that is relatively inexpensive to service, repair, and locate parts for makes folks very happy.

And just because there are a handful of T-20 machines out there that have a 2 speed gearbox, doesn't mean that it's needed. Companies back in the heyday of AATVs were experimenting with lots of stuff. There are people now that build stuff, just for the fun of it and just to do it to see if it can be done, like Mike. We were at MaxIVMark's shop kicking the ideas around on the setup of it and it's just something cool to think up and see it come alive from a thought in your head to reality. Do I need a collection of AATVs in the double digits? No, but it's fun to have all of them.

John, I think this might be the linguistic that those of us that don't have machines with Lo-Hi ranges felt moved to respond to. In your particular machine, it may be necessary. There are many of us that have expanded the performance expectations of our machines without multiple gear ranges. Please understand. It can be done.

Bridget

Bridget is right on the money with that statement, and I think that summarizes everything that we're trying to say.

[Model Citizen]

[Vortex]

I have so much fun reading all the posts...You guys can start a new religion on transmission...build church, preach the creator...Damn I am wondering if we all go to the same muddy heaven!!!

[JohnF]

No ... it's been pretty much unchanged since it was developed in 1969.

I get it. You just want to be anti-Argo. Whatever.

I dont think its the t20 that changes the gear ratio
Its the cvt.

That's right. The T-20 has only one range except in the specific cases that jpswift outlined. Most, but not all, non-admiral Argo transmissions provide two.

[Bazooo guy]

I dont think its the t20 that changes the gear ratio
Its the cvt.
Heres a quote from Wikipedia
"A continuously variable transmission (CVT) is a transmission that can change steplessly through an infinite number of effective gear ratios between maximum and minimum values."

[JohnF]

I'm guessing this is some sort of hot topic or something. Please go and read what I said; I can't see where I triggered such a defensive debate.

It will cost complexity and weight and wouldn't be practical?

Right. Why would you add complexity, weight, and cost if the simpler system provides a performance band that fits the use of the machine. That wouldn't be practical.

Where is this line of reasoning going wrong?

Take another look at the picture of what Mike is building. Not a lot of extra weight was added with the high/low gearbox.

Mike's project looks like fun. Heck, playing with his machine shop looks like fun. He has a high/low gearbox on that? I guess I missed that. I thought he said it was a T-20 from an Attex. Anyway, adding a high/low gearbox will make the transmission, what 30%,50%,100% heavier?

Anyway, the decision of the practicality of adding weight/cost/complexity is all up to the designer and his/her idea of the vehicle use.

Also, there were some Swamp Fox AATVs that had a high/low gearbox, and there have been members that added a high/low range gearbox to their machines without lots of added weight and complexity.

Apparently then the argument that a CVT provides all of the gear ratio range ones needs with a T-20 has proved false for some users of these machines. And any weight/cost/complexity added to a design unnecessarily is a lot to an engineering type. Maybe this is where our conversation has strayed.

And yes, there are a lot of pictures, and in each of those pictures it's people demonstrating how the T-20 provides you the a nice full range of gearing that most folks would desire over a wide variety of terrain.

Okay.

All they (and Bridget's video) show me is that those machines fit their use. Cool. The designers can be proud.

You said you've only ever owned an Argo.

Both statements are true.

...but you really need to drive some other machines out there to experience them first hand so you can compare and contrast them based on actual driving experience.

I've driven a Max II. It went to the end of my (admittedly very short) trip and back again. And it annoys me that the Argo steals power to turn. Especially in the snow with tracks on at 8000+ ft elevation when I don't really have power to spare.

But that isn't important to the comparison I've given because all I've done is give the text book comparison of the designs except where I gave specific advice for learning to drive the non-admiral Argo transmission.

I'm not pro or anti any of these. I think longevity proves that all of these machines have systems that are working for their intended uses.

I also wonder, given the arguments of the obviously pro T-20 contingent, why the designers of tanks don't just strap on a T-20 and a CVT? (Well, kind if they do have a CVT in the form of an automatic transmission and torque converter - but that's different.)

Seriously, I don't exactly know where what I've said has derailed. I suspect it is linguistic.

[jpswift1]

What I like about the T-20 is that you might have to think quick, but you don't have to think much. About 4 min. into this video we're climbing this really, pretty steep hill ( the kind where you take a deep breath before giving it throttle) & I guess the T-20 was in low gear (Shhh..I know there really isn't one), because I wasn't even at quarter throttle & it just climbed like it was on flat ground. Then when we reached the top & decided to open up...I just gave it more throttle to get in hi-gear (I know there isn't one of those, too). Didn't have to think about anything. It just does it. I like that. As long as you don't break a chain, it's 6 wheel drive all the time.

Bridget

No low range, no high range, no shifting, no thinking about what range you want it to be in when you go from hills, to flat terrain? Wow, Bridget......you and Whipper must have some sort of magical cast aluminum box in your machines! Oh wait, so do thousands of other AATV owners and it's been pretty much unchanged since it was developed in 1969.

[Model Citizen]

[jpswift1]

It was practicality of a gear range choice in the design, not practicality of a machine. If you want a high/low choice in your T-20 I can do that but it will cost complexity and weight and probably wouldn't be practical given the intended purpose of the machine.

You miss my point. All I said was that you haven't been in the situation where you thought to yourself, "self, it would be nice in this circumstance if I had a higher/lower gear ratio than I now have."

That's a lot of pictures.

It will cost complexity and weight and wouldn't be practical? Take another look at the picture of what Mike is building. Not a lot of extra weight was added with the high/low gearbox. Also, there were some Swamp Fox AATVs that had a high/low gearbox, and there have been members that added a high/low range gearbox to their machines without lots of added weight and complexity.

And yes, there are a lot of pictures, and in each of those pictures it's people demonstrating how the T-20 provides you the a nice full range of gearing that most folks would desire over a wide variety of terrain. You said you've only ever owned an Argo. If that suits your need and works for you, great, but you really need to drive some other machines out there to experience them first hand so you can compare and contrast them based on actual driving experience.