T20 in a new Mudd-Ox

[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-a...dd-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.