Argo vs. Max vs. ?

[Noel Woods]

I've got to say, the little Max2s are the most fun, especially with at least 18hp, bigger tires, and some simple mods. The only down side is that its so tight inside to adjust rear chains and do maintenance., and there isn't much carrying capability. Two folks in the machine makes for a tight ride.

[ARGOJIM]

Ontario Drive & Gear manufactures differentials for the automotive industry. So this is why it was decided to manufacture an amphibious Atv and use the same design for the drivetrain. An open-differential like on a rear-drive automobile. Most people in the north country know, you get stuck in the snow with a rear-wheel vehicle, only one side spins! The same is true on an Argo, there can never be 100% applied to both sides, 100% to one side, 80/20, 60/40, etc. to find out how your AATV is driven, simply do the "Floorjack" test. Elevate one side of your vehicle, start engine, put it in gear, on an argo the side off the ground will spin(unless you brake that side, then you can transfer power to the other side). On a Max, both sides will drive and it will walk off of the jack.

And the came the Admiral. But I do like darting around with a small light machine with a skid-steer.

[JohnF]

Ontario Drive & Gear manufactures differentials ... On a Max, both sides will drive and it will walk off of the jack.

This is a really great marketing gimmick. The T-20 (transmission in the Max) splits torque, the open differential transmission of the Argo balances torque. There are pros and cons to both designs; look up "clutch brake steering" and "braked differential steering". Suffice it to say that if you were building a modern tracked tank then both of these designs are lumped together in the "not for my soldiers" group.

Back to marketing: what maxking's demonstration is missing is the fact that in the Argo design the operator is part of the system. Set in the Argo and bump the brake on the side that is in the air and it too will walk off the jack.

I remember watching a video of this demonstration before I bought my Argo and it almost had me. More research showed that both get stuck and both go in some pretty incredible conditions. Both are ineffecient; the Argo more so. The Argo requires a little more driver savvy, which somehow becomes mostly automatic. (You'll know when a passenger asks you how you just did that and you have to reply that you aren't sure.)

So, my opinion? The difference in the above transmissions is not a reason to choose one over the other unless all other aspects are equal to your use; and then it just becomes a personal choice. I can operate both effectively.

The Admiral, on the other hand, is quite a bit more efficient than both of the above. It is very close to what a modern tank would use; lacking only the means to vary the turn radius. (There are two fixed turn radii in an Admiral transmission.)

My opinion including the Admiral in the mix? For my use I cannot justify the cost for me to upgrade. At higher elevations with tracks on I have wished that the dang transmission on my Argo Conquest wasn't so inefficient though.

Oh, and mine is best for me because of its size and cost.

[Old Tucker]

This is a really great marketing gimmick. The T-20 (transmission in the Max) splits torque, the open differential transmission of the Argo balances torque. There are pros and cons to both designs; look up "clutch brake steering" and "braked differential steering". Suffice it to say that if you were building a modern tracked tank then both of these designs are lumped together in the "not for my soldiers" group.

Back to marketing: what maxking's demonstration is missing is the fact that in the Argo design the operator is part of the system. Set in the Argo and bump the brake on the side that is in the air and it too will walk off the jack.

I remember watching a video of this demonstration before I bought my Argo and it almost had me. More research showed that both get stuck and both go in some pretty incredible conditions. Both are ineffecient; the Argo more so. The Argo requires a little more driver savvy, which somehow becomes mostly automatic. (You'll know when a passenger asks you how you just did that and you have to reply that you aren't sure.)

So, my opinion? The difference in the above transmissions is not a reason to choose one over the other unless all other aspects are equal to your use; and then it just becomes a personal choice. I can operate both effectively.

The Admiral, on the other hand, is quite a bit more efficient than both of the above. It is very close to what a modern tank would use; lacking only the means to vary the turn radius. (There are two fixed turn radii in an Admiral transmission.)

My opinion including the Admiral in the mix? For my use I cannot justify the cost for me to upgrade. At higher elevations with tracks on I have wished that the dang transmission on my Argo Conquest wasn't so inefficient though.

Oh, and mine is best for me because of its size and cost.

That was very well said.
A lot has to do with marketing and. To pick one over the other is hard because they all have there pros and cons.
Its like ford and chevy. Ford say they are the best and chevy say the same. It all depends on the costumer. And what they want.
You can say in the argo the driver has a little more control. Or another way to say it. The driver has to do a little more work to keep the left and right tires turning the same speed.

[mudslinger]

A modern tank transmission is nothing like that found in an Argo or any other AATV for that matter, in that the Army's main battle tank, the M1A2 SEPV2 Abrams, uses a complex hydro-kinetic cross drive transmission that uses hydraulic pressure to help transfer the 1500 horsepower that the turbine engine produces to the final drives at the sprockets to turn the tracks on each side. The only thing that transmission has in common with an Argo transmission is that they are both called transmissions.

[JohnF]

A modern tank transmission is nothing like that found in an Argo or any other AATV for that matter, ...

This is just a semantic difference of opinion but I would argue that they are all similar - they all solve the same problem albeit with different cost/benefit choices.

To see how the Admiral transmission is similar to the transmission of the M1 replace the third differential/brakes of the Admiral triple differential steering transmission with the hydrodynamic torque converter of the M1's Cross-drive steering transmission. Those are the cross-coupling features of the respective designs. Of course the Admiral has fixed radius steering and the M1 is variable radius and can pivot steer (and yeah, handle 1500 horsepower).

Caterpillar uses a hydraulic motor vs brakes [of the Admiral] to affect the third differential [the cross drive] to give it variable turn radii. Kind of a cool middle between the Admiral and the M1.

[wommy]

I studied the Argo very closely, it was 2006 and no dealer in Australia for Max but one up the road for Argo. He demoed the six and eight wheelers, went right out of his way to help me with my decision, I really did appreciate it. I even waited for the new model Avenger that was supposed to have a new transmission, not true. So for looks, the Argo wins hands down for me. Ends there though. Brake too hard downhill and straight up on the nose. Six wheelers don't run straight and need constant corrections, the Max you can just feather the transmission to neutral one side and straighten. The Argo has to be jerked on the brake, you cannot hold the brake on it overheats. Braking one side means more speed on the other, a power eater. Climbing out of water up a bank and the nose down attitude of the Argo makes it very difficult. Forward, neutral and reverse in a Max can be quite a task for the first couple of hundred hours, gets better after that. I imported my Max IV and never regretted doing so. 3 trips all over Queensland and quite a bit of NSW and Vic. Getting too old for it now so she is on the market on Ebay, going to be a very bad day when she goes.

[wayne80]

Max for Me right now. I have never rode in one. From what I read here I bought coops max 2 basket case. I would rather have a locked diff. than opened also I like rear engine because balance better and exhaust is going out back not from front, less chance of breathing it. I know argos and others are good machines hope to own some one day.

[Tennesseemudbug]

Went to winterfest yesterday at brimstone. my max and an Argo where the only AATV'S we had a lot of fun and I was able to see first hand that my max was able to conquer the different types of terrain easily compared to the argo who had difficulty when traversing up steep inclines , maneuverability through trails and even in rutted out mud holes. The argo did do ok but in my opinion the max is clearly a more versatile vehicle and I will never own anything else. Thanks for reading.

[thunderingedge]

lots room

The 8x8 argo right one for me, I can take all kids for a ride all at once and have some family fun. plus nobody get left behind.

[Insomniac]

I live in Ontario and Argo is 1.5 hrs away from me. They make a great product, and have a great facility to do it in. I know a few guys that work there.
I have never had the chance to drive other aatv's, but would stick with Argo to support my local economy.