T20 in a new Mudd-Ox

[hydromike]

Hydromike was the one that deserves all the credit for the first Max 8X8 since he built one, and MaxIVMark got it and is working on finishing it now, with a 4 cylinder Honda powerplant.

I think RobinHood02 did it before I attempted it, and I don't think I deserve any credit since I passed on the entire project before I really got to the fun part. I would have loved to finish it, but I developed some serious negatively-based Kharma toward the machine after the tubs got botched by the guy contracted to weld the poly together. In hindsight, and if I had known about Buggyman's success with the HDPE-epoxy I would have done it myself. It has a new home 5.8 miles away, so I can go visit it whenever Mark's around.

I still love the idea of and 8x8 based on the Max IV design. I'm excited to see what direction Mark takes with what I started, but I know it'll be very cool however things pan out.

eh there guys, my Max II 8x8 had a problem with the single # 50 chains so i had to upgrade the whole thing to #60 by getting the axles and sprokets from Argo (argo ran single #50 in the early 70s and they too had a prob thus they went to double #50) ,the XHD axles from Argo retail for $70 a piece and the single #60 sprokets run about $15 each up here, the Argo axles use a different positioning system ,it uses little divots and a set screw to keep your sprokets in the correct location not snap rings and therefore very easy to adapt to a diferent location on the shaft that is required by Max, the Argo axle is 1/2 inch shorter than the Max axle but is not an issue. the new larger brgs and holders are all the same from Max and Argo so you wont have to change anything there, i went with a 27hp kohler and it has plenty of power, the T20 is holding up fine (i also have a Max II with a 700 MXZ and it too is holding up so the T20 is bullet-proof) as far as the tubs and tops go, it is very dificult to get that right with used tubs so i bought 2 new ones cut them and had them welded profesionally (about $600) ive had to repair the welds in some spots since, so i wish they made the 8x8 tub. the Max II shifter is now in the back seat and is a pain in the butt, but the Max IV you will simply have to extend the linkage. one thing i wish i had done was lift the front axle brgs in the frame an inch or so, so that they not on the ground with the same preasure as all the rest to accomodate easier turning ,the T20 is posi-track so ive never been stuck in that unit, the Max II has a narrow chain galley and was a pain when trying to get the axles and sprokets lined up ,Max IV has wide galleys and shouldnt be a problem, if i can think of anything else ill post it for you,,,,,,

[liflod]

The current Max IV lower body is a terrible place to start with a new machine. The tub needs to be wider to accommodate the clutch on the engine so you can mount the engine lower. The front of the tub is also a terrible design. Why would you want a 4" vertical plow on the front?
Matt spent a lot of time and effort designing the lower tub on the Mudd-Ox. I can only assume that would be the best place to start updating the Max IV platform.

[greg pinson]

The current Max IV lower body is a terrible place to start with a new machine. The tub needs to be wider to accommodate the clutch on the engine so you can mount the engine lower. The front of the tub is also a terrible design. Why would you want a 4" vertical plow on the front?
Matt spent a lot of time and effort designing the lower tub on the Mudd-Ox. I can only assume that would be the best place to start updating the Max IV platform.

100% agree with you. The Mudd-Ox tub is perfect. Wide, deep, big chains, plenty of ground clearance in the middle, slap a T20, engine of your choice, and some sort of 2 or 3 speed reduction transmission between them and you have a perfect Max 8x8 that is much lighter, simpler, and cheaper than the top of the line industrial strength Mudd-Ox. No question the Mudd-Ox with hydraulics would out perform it, this would be the lighter, cheaper version for those that can't afford the big fancy machine.

[Rusty-Gunn]

So you're saying it would look like a MuddOx but be called a Max just because it will have
a T-20? The body ought to be changed to look like an 8x8 Max not merely a
relabeled MuddOx. Just my view on it.

[BadBradII]

This is fun!!!

Matt

Was wondering when Matt would say something...

[kghills]

Was wondering when Matt would say something...

Yeah, Matt is watching, and chuckling a little. I think Matt is sort of amazed that it seems people do not realize the lower tub for a Max IV and a Buffalo are the same thing. RI has been making Max IVs with the engine dropped down in the body for years. They just put a Buffalo upper on it. Now how soon that lower will be stretched out for another axle and the front and rear axles raised an inch is another matter. But I can pretty much assure you if that happens it will not have a Mudd-Ox badge on it.

Keith, a guy that knows a guy that talked to a guy once who overheard a conversation on this issue around a campsite at a trail ride one time.

[liflod]

RI has been making Max IVs with the engine dropped down in the body for years. They just put a Buffalo upper on it

But they need to use a Max II jack-shaft set up to do it.

[spookum]

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?

SHUT THE DOOR! does MUDD ox now own RECREATIVE industries!!!!! What the he k!!!!! Spill the beans matt!!!!!! What in the name of Sam Hill is going on here!!!

[thebuggyman1]

SHUT THE DOOR! does MUDD ox now own RECREATIVE industries!!!!! What the he k!!!!! Spill the beans matt!!!!!! What in the name of Sam Hill is going on here!!!

Apparently you have not seen this thread:

http://www.6x6world.com/forums/max-atvs/27784-recreatives-industries-inc-purchased-mudd-ox-inc.html

[greg pinson]

So you're saying it would look like a MuddOx but be called a Max just because it will have
a T-20? The body ought to be changed to look like an 8x8 Max not merely a
relabeled MuddOx. Just my view on it.

The reason I suggested using a Mudd-Ox body and just installing a different drivetrain is to save money. It would be much cheaper for Matt to put a T20 in a Mudd-Ox and call it a Max 8x8 than it would to have all new dies built to make a separate 8x8 body for a Max, which would, I understand, cost tens of thousands if not a hundred thousand dollars. The Mudd-Ox looks great, is designed great, is very tough, it would just be a matter of installing cheaper running gear, slapping on a Max 8x8 badge (after proper testing of course) and then selling it. I would NOT call it a Mudd-Ox, I would leave that badge on the top of the line hydraulic machine.

[Rusty-Gunn]

I fully agree the cost would be cheaper to use the MuddOx body and not have to
design a new one. But it would still be a MuddOx.
We know Mike is inserting a T20 into an Avenger. Will his be a Max simply because
he put a T20 in it? I'd say it would still be an Avenger. And the other would still be a MuddOx.
Not trying to argue. Just saying Matt ought create a new body or just offer the MuddOx with a T20
as an option. I don't see how the T20 degrades a MuddOx. It might be lower in price, allowing others to own a MuddOx they would not otherwise.

[liflod]

The Mudd-Ox is an industrial brand. The Max is a recreational brand.
Sharing lower bodies is acceptable and smart.
Redesigning the upper body of a Max IV while you make it fit a Mudd-Ox tub is even smarter!

[North Country Tough]

Again we see survival of the fittest,all recreational industries have went thru this time and time again,the AATV market is small and commercial interests have helped but fact is fact with the explosion of the 4 wheel market it put the AATV market in a fractional industry,I myself like to see the continuing interest and Mudd Ox putting themselves out there to further their and our interests,I have not yet had the pleasure of a close encounter with a Mudd Ox,here in northern Ontario we are far from the nearest dealer and the four wheeler crowd runs wild,it is my belief that the lads at Mudd Ox can further enhance the breed that recreatives started,I will be awaiting the new model intro with great anticipation lets see what Mudd Ox,s vision is perhaps a dealer in the north of Ontario might be a real possibilty. Cheers NCT

[Noel Woods]

I tried a t20 in a large custom machine, you loose much of the agileness of the smaller machines when you put the t20 in larger machines. If you look into the internals of the t20, its a well built little unit. The reservation I have is how much horse power and torque the t20 can handle long term. I'm no engineer, but I've fiddled with things all my life, and just based upon that, I think the upper level of the tranny is 60hp, but it really compliments 16-25 horse power the best. having said that I think it wouldn't work for the more powerful Mudd Oxes. Maybe it would for the base 40hp gas engine, but then then again you get to the loss of agility issue I opened with.

[akcrawler]

If I can find one drawback to the Max IV, it is that I don't have room to carry 4 passengers and their camping gear. That means multiple trips or a trailer. It would be nice to have some extra space for the gear when I take the family out. I agree with other posts that the Mudd-Ox lower and the t20 would be a good combination. I do not think using the lower tub makes it a MuddOx. If the operating system is the same as the Max, it is more like a Max than an Ox...in my opinion. I like the idea of using a 40hp diesel as an option for this (theoretical) machine. I would think the base model would have a 40hp gas engine, though.

I don't know about adding a 3spd gearbox to the setup. I think that adds more complexity and more failure points to what has proven to be a pretty robust drive system. I do like the idea of lowering the engine if that does not mess with the cargo space. I guess if you could put in 4 seats and a Buffalo cargo area it would work pretty well.

I like the idea of a lighter 8x8 that is a little cheaper than the Ox. I really like the hydraulic drive and the ability to reverse at the drop of a hat, but it drives up the weight and the cost to the point that it is way out in the margin for the recreational user.

I know this is a pretty old post. I apologize for bringing it back up, but I know we don't yet have an 8x8 max, so there might still be time to register my thoughts. It would be nice to hear Matt's thoughts on this thread. I know he enjoyed the discussion when it first came out. I am curious to know his thoughts now that he has had some time to digest the input and his acquisition of the Max brand.