| Author |
Message |
    
Ron W (Rgw)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:54 pm: | 
|
I'm having trouble deciding on A MaxII or an Argo. I'm 6' tall,so the leg room in a MaxIV is just a little too small. I've driven a MaxII but have never even seen an Argo close-up.The Max seems to be easy to work on. Does the Argo's top raise up like the Max? I will use the machine for hunting as well as playing in the snow. Maneuverability is big on my list. What is this 3 wheel peel thing? I also hear that the engine in the Argo strains when you try to turn. I can't wait to get my 6x6!!! |
Douglas MacCullagh (Dougmac)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
Ron, you ask good questions. The Argo's have an engine hood, rather like a car, for access to the engine & foward chains. The floor pans come out for access to the rear chains. Maintenance is pretty straight-forward. The cargo area behind the Argo's seat is handy. How convenient it is for carrying game depends on what you will be hunting. I've never handled a 6-wheeler in the snow, so I cannot answer that. As for the 3-wheel drive nonsence - the Argo uses a steering differential. The Max uses a planentary gear train that works a lot like a clutch & brake system (but as Fred will tell you, there is no clutch in the system). In soft going, the Argo tends to wander towards the firmer ground. However, I find the Argo easier to steer. I also like the Argo gearbox better - it is easier to limit my top speed without limiting engine power. |
MaxRules (Brandon_price)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
Those are some good questions Ron, and some tough ones as I have thought about almost the same thing. Both have very good features that you just have to balance out and see which you like best.
Max can be used more for the recreation side of six wheeling. It is lighter, faster, smaller, and has true six wheel drive. I do not think you are too tall for the Max IV. The 900-T with 26" tires is easily the best all around 6x6, but it will cost you. If you want to stay with the II you should get at least the 16hp model. If you got more money to spend go all out on the new 20hp Max II which is due out this month. The II comes standard with the cargo rail which gives you more room to haul things than before. It has lots of leg room and is very comforable.
Maintenance will be minimal with at least the 16hp model because the o-ring chains last longer with less adjustment.
Argo is geared more toward utility but is still good for fun. Bigfoot has front axle extensions, full skid plate, and automatic chain adjusters. Those are the three things I really like about it. Most of you know my Max's chains don't see much adjustment and I could really use some auto adjusters. With Bigfoot, just spray on some lube and chain maintenance is done. The skid plate is real nice for when you have that 'awesome' accident and put that big scar on the lower body. I do not see any of these vehicles getting a hole in the bottom unless you jump it 10 feet in the air and land on a sharp rock.
Argo has a lot of storage space, big stuff in the back and small things under the seat (like a glove box). You can't spell Cargo without Argo.
Low gear might come in handy when there are two 4x4 quads stuck in line with each other and you want to impress the women by pulling them both out at the same time.
It is really easy to steer as almost no effort is required to pull the sticks back. Steering is easy on both vehicles but there are some differences. Max's sticks are spring loaded forward so all you do is press the gas to go. When you put it in reverse, you must pull the sticks back since the forward position is now the brake. This gets a little bit hard to do when you are trying to get out of the mud and need to rock the machine. Argo's sticks are also forward, but are not reversed when in reverse gear. Just twist the throttle to go and the brakes are in the pulled back stick position, no matter what gear you are in.
The Argo is three wheel drive some of the time. With some practice and skill you can be mudding with all six spinning. The differential is not very sensitive. Best of all, you can control the differential with the sticks unlike any other vehicle with a differential. Max has true six wheel drive when both sticks are forward no matter what so you get MAXimum traction all the time.
You will be happy with either one you choose. They are both built like a tank and sealed up tighter than a Russian submarine. |
jerry
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
Ron, I have both an Argo Conquest and a Max II. I like them both. I'm 6'4" and have plenty of leg room in the argo but not nearly as much as in the max. I live in Alaska and like you, use mine mostly for hunting and God knows we definitely get snow. I have tracks for my argo and don't have any problem. Like Doug said, the three wheel peel is hogwash. That said, I do like the tranny in the max better. As for which machine is better, I personnaly think the Argo is built stronger and easier to operate. Everything on it is overkill. The max construction seems a bit light duty. As far as capabilities go, the argo is like a truck and the max II like a roadster. You really need to assess your desires. Will the machine be used primarily for hunting and some play on the side or is it mainly for play with the occasional hunting trip thrown in. If the former, then the argo. If the latter, then the max. Either way you can't go wrong. Just make sure you get the largest engine you can afford. Oh, by the way, the bigfoot comes with 25" rawhide tires. 22" is the largest tire you can get on a Max II. When talking AATV's, tire size does matter. |
Chuck Ardizzone
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
I just recently put money down on a 2001 Argo Conquest. I will be picking it up in March. I was wondering what modifications other Conquest owners have and would recommend. I am especially interested in what tires people have on their rigs and how the tires perform. I live in Alaska and it seems like I should get tracks for going in the snow. Any info and suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Chuck Ardizzone |
Troy Moore (Hustler)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
Ron,
Both are good atv's. What ever you do, at least go test ride both and see for yourself which one is right for you. |
JT Barleman
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
Ron,
Let me put my two cents worth into this. As indicated by several others, the three wheel drive issue is hogwash. There is one feature about my Argo that is worth it's weight in gold. Unlike the Max, the selectable two speed transmission in my Argo is a life saver when I'm going down one of those 45 degree hillsides that are covered with loose rocks and looks like it is a 90 degree cliff. While my buddy in his Max is accelerating to warp drive down that same hill and he is sitting there white knuckled, with his heart is in his throat and praying that his Max doesn't decide to make a left or right turn when he uses his brakes ... I JUST SHIFT INTO LOW AND MY ARGO'S TRANSMISSION ALLOWS ME TO USE MY BRAKES TO SLOWLY DESCEND THE SAME HILL AT IDLE SPEED IN TOTAL CONTROL. The transmission in my Argo remains in gear and it helps slow the vehicle down ... The Max doesn't. |
Troy Moore (Hustler)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
Jt,
I agree with you about the 2 speed transmission is a nice thing on the Argo, but if you use the foot brake on the Max, or just use the hand brakes, you can take a Max down the same hill nice and slow. If you don't have the brakes adjusted correctly, then you may be in trouble going down a hill. I don't agree with you on the 3 wheel drive issue being hogwash. The Argo is 3 wheel drive, period. Yes you can pull a handle back to get both wheels going at the same time, but that also is putting the brakes on that one side. I know there are some good Argo drivers out there, but I always see Argo guys getting stuck in places where a Max can make it. 6 wheel drive is better, but the Argo is a great atv and there is not much stuff that will get an Argo stuck. The bottom line is, they are both great atv's and serve different purposes. |
Ron W (Rgw)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
Chuck,congrats on making up your mind on what to buy. What made you pick the Argo over the Max? It's Jan. and you won't get it 'til March. Is that the normal delivery time for an Argo? Also, do you why Argo offers front and rear axle bearing extensions and not center axle extensions? |
jerry
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
Ron the extenders are only on the front and rear because they are the most likely to strike a rock or tree really hard. Bacically they beef up the support to the axle keeping it from bending. Since the inner axle(s) aren't likely to encounter such a blow (unless the machine was dropped onto a pinnacle) there is no need for extenders on those axles. Also, JT is correct. the low gear is really nice for going down hill. My maxII is an older one and doesn't have the foot brake that Troy speaks of. But I know with just the hand brakes, the max is scarry as hell going down the steep stuff. You'll hear from some about the front engine vs. rear engine thing. Max loyalist say the front engine of argo design puts too much weight forward making down hill travel awkward. My repy is that I weight much more than the engine and would rather have it's paltry 100 or so pounds up front than my Boone and Crockett status 300 plus. Hope this helps. |
garnet lucier
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
chuck you will need tracks for the snow any over one foot that is. but for the tires first you need the factory runamuck to put the tracks on. next i changed mine to goodyear rawhide 3 but to my disapointment they only worked better in the mud. they were slower in the water and dig to deep in most snow conditions. for the price of putting the rawhides on i was very disapointed but if you have money to burn buy and extra set of wheels as well and have to complete sets so you can do a quick change to meet the conditions you plan to ride in. also the steering will be a real horsepower hog with the rawhide 3. |
Chuck Ardizzone
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
Ron,
I went for the Argo for several reasons. First of all I talked to a number of people who have them here in Alaska and they all gave them glowing reviews. I even went for a two hour trail ride out in Wasilla with Randy Milsaps. It was great fun and won my wife over. BIG PLUS!! I also liked the ability to carry lots of gear and people in the conquest. I wasn't to thrilled with the layout and looks of the Max and the dealer here didn't win me over. I want to use my conquest for family outings and hunting, I am not a speed deamon so I thought the argo was what I needed especially after reading all the postings on this website.
I think the axle extensions are a real bonus on the conquest. After the ride I took I would think that all the models would have them just to help prevent wear and tear on the machine.
Well I have to run.
Chuck |
Ron W (Rgw)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
Does anyone know if tracks take more hp to turn an Argo or Max than if they had a set of rawhides on? I also notice that lots of Argos com with runamuck tires. These look whimpy, are they any good. Are they get more prone to flats than a rawhide III? |
MaxRules (Brandon_price)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
Tracks do take more power to turn than just tires. You shouldn't need tracks unless you have a lot of snow over a foot deep.
Every Argo except the Bigfoot has Runamuk tires. Bigfoot has 25" Rawhide IIIs. The Runamuk tires are required if you want to use tracks. Both types of tires are good in water. The Rawhides are the best for mud because of their more aggressive tread and increased ground clearance. Runamuks are not as wimpy as they look and will really surprise you.
On the Max II, the 22" Rawhide IIIs are the best in most conditions. They give a soft ride, great in mud, and give good ground clearance. The 21" Rawhides are required for the Max track and are the best in water for the Max II.
For the Max IV, the 26" tires are easily the best. They may ride a little rougher but their performance makes up for it. Superior in mud and in water it is like you have an outboard motor on the back. I would not be suprised if they were clocked at 7mph or more in water. Last year at Deepwater the IV was easily twice as fast as any other machine there.
I drove a new 2000 Max IV last year and I wish I wouldn't have. Now I just have to buy one...
MaxRules |
Tim Mueller
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
Ron, I bought the 22" Rawhides with my TruTrax. I don't know if it takes more horses to turn them with the tracks, but the slushy stuff really makes the 18 hp Briggs snort (when in high gear). My buddy's Argo Response uses his tracks with Runamuks and it seems to work as hard as my Bigfoot. In powder or packed snow, they both do great. Yes, the Runamuks are wimpy, he was having so much trouble with flats he had to put tubes in them. He's looking for a set of Rawhides to replace them with. |
Ron W (Rgw)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
Max Rules, when you drove the 2000 Max IV, did your knees bang on the dash? This is the machine I originally intended to buy, but the lack of leg room up front scared me away. The dealer said you can't adjust the front seat, even though the rear seat had 3" more leg room than previous models. I really wish RI would have put the MaxII front end on it. I'd be out playing in the snow right now with my 6x6. |
Troy Moore (Hustler)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
Ron,
I am 6'1" and I can ride a Max IV all day without putting my knees against the dash. There is not that much room up front, but I can live with it. I don't put my legs straight down, I stretch them out and put them on the front part of the floor. That even helps brace myself in the sit due to I don't have seatbelts on my IV. Take a IV for a ride and see if it has enough room for you. |
MaxRules (Brandon_price)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
The Max IV is very comfortable to ride in. My knees did not hit the dash at all. I like sitting right on the tip of the machine. You have a lot better view of obsticles and it is much easier to offset the weight of the engine by hanging over the front end when coming out of a mud hole. The 25hp IV with 26" tires is the best mud machine I have ever seen. It goes places that not even the II will.
In water there is simply nothing better. It safely carries four adults in water (no other 6x6 does) and is comfortable thanks to its improved back seat leg room. It is really easy to swim around because the 26" tires paddle so well.
MaxRules |
Douglas MacCullagh (Dougmac)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
Brandon,
The Argo 8 wheelers can carry more weight in the water than your Max IV. According to RI's own published data, all Maxs can safely carry 500 lbs in the water. (Your four adults must be pretty light to add up to less than 500 lbs.) The Argo Response & Conquest can carry 700 lbs, and have plenty of room for four. The LandTamer is also pretty impressive in the water. There are other machines that can carry more than two people in the water. |
MaxRules (Brandon_price)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
I knew someone would have to comment on that. I did say 6x6 so the Conquest and Response are out. Argo says not to have four people in their 6x6s. RI says the Max IV carries four people in water and also shows it on their video. They are all average weight adults. I really don't know how they judge how much weight an AATV can carry in water. I would think about 100 pounds less than what is required to push it under water. The weight it actually takes to push it under would have to be much greater than 700 pounds. I have had at least that much with four people on my Max II and had no trouble at all. All the specs on these 6x6s are far out dated anyway. Do you think RI or ODG has actually piled weight on them and sank it?
MaxRules |
pete6x6
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
Brandon,
It would depend on the 6x6's bouancy. If you don't exceed how much water the 6x6 can displace then it will float. If you exceed that number it will sink. If RI and ODG have not performed that test to see if they can sink it they should. Some nut will pile stuff in it and sink in 40 feet of water! |
Douglas MacCullagh (Dougmac)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
Guys, how much weight it takes to sink an AATV isn't the point. There are two big concerns here. First is how much weight can be safely carried. You need some freeboard to keep from swamping, and a bouyancy reserve to handle water slopping into the machine, leaky bearings, etc. The other problem is that if you submerge the tires too far, you go nowhere. Kitty & I overloaded the Vanguard2 by carrying both of us, trolling motor, extra battery, , winch, etc., into the pond. We were well over the 350 lb limit on the data plate. The machine handled well on the trolling motor. Trying to use the tires was a study in frustration. We wallowed. Very little propulsion and no steering. Too much of the tire was underwater & the tread on the top of the tire was pushing backwards almost as hard as the tread on the bottom was pushing forwards. You switch to waterjet propulsion in the water and all of the AATVs can carry more in the water |
Harry Dusseau (Dirtyharry)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
According to the video RI sent me in '96, before I bought my Max II, the Max IV will carry 1,000lbs., and the Buffalo Truck will carry 1,200lbs. "EVEN WHILE FLOATING," to quote the vid's narrator. It shows a Buffalo Truck swimming across a river with an assload of firewood stacked in its cargobox.
WHILE I'M THINKING ABOUT IT... HAS ANYONE OUT THERE ORDERED A VIDEO RECENTLY FROM RECREATIVES??? I'M JUST CURIOUS IF THEY'VE UPDATED THEIR VIDEO TO SHOWCASE THE NEW MODELS AND UPDATED DESIGNS. I"D BE INTERESTED IN BUYING ONE JUST TO SEE WHAT'S NEW, EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NO PLANS TO BUY ONE IN THE NEAR FUTURE (ALTHOUGH I'D LIKE TO). |
Bob Bascomb
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
I spoke to RI about that very issue before I bought my IV 900. I was told that the 500lb limit was set by the lawyers. It's call a built in safety factor. If you tell some one 500lbs, damn sure they will try to double it. With law suits being the way of life these days I don't blame RI one bit. ODG does not have to worry as much about liability. Have you ever tried to sue a foreign country? I have on many occasions have well over 500lbs. in my IV, it works great. |
pete6x6
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 23, 2005 - 10:54 pm: |
|
I would tend to agree. I guess an once of common sense would go a long way here. If your unsure and the rig is acting weird then get out. Who know's how much my attex could carry guess we will have to find out. :) |
Other Related ATV Topics