| Author |
Message |
    
John Prince
New member
Username: Jp400
Post Number: 1
Registered: 08-2006
Posted From: 70.231.156.21
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 11:20 am: | 
|
Anybody have any thoughts as to whether a 8x8 Argo might be more stable, able to better navigate logs, boulders than a 6x6 Max or Argo. I have been running up and down steep hills for years now in a 6x6 but am thinking the 8x8 might get me over some hurdles I now avoid because it is longer, might make for a better ride because of 8 wheels, more stable in water??? |
Jamie Edwards
New member
Username: Jamie642
Post Number: 3
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 63.149.153.132
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 12:06 pm: |
|
I had an Argo bigfoot for several years. I recently sold it and now have an Argo response. There are pluses and minuses here. The bigfoot is more manuverable in tight places because it is shorter. I also believe that it is better in mud because of the aggressive tire design. It also seems to be a bit faster. The response is much better navigating certain obstacles like downed trees, ditches, etc... It walks over things that the bigfoot would have struggled with. Obviously the response can haul a lot more people and gear. Speed is not important to me. I operate it in an area with lots of blow downs, creeks and ditches. I also haul lots of stands and feeders around. For this type of use, the response is the winner. |
John Prince
New member
Username: Jp400
Post Number: 2
Registered: 08-2006
Posted From: 70.231.156.21
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 02:33 pm: |
|
I kind of guessed that going in. Generally, when I come to a log bigger than 12", I go around it and it that respect the 6x6 seems very maneuverable. When I come to creeks and ditches, I am often thinking two more wheels might be useful. Now they have this new "Avenger" with 25" wheels and a blunt nose in front and it looks like it would go over thru and around anything.
Do you have the new single stick control on the response and if so how do you like that as opposed to the dual sticks? |
Fred Sowerwine, Montana's Max dealer
Advanced Member
Username: Fred4dot
Post Number: 184
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 216.166.168.53
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 03:36 pm: |
|
Hi John, Good to see you on the discussion board again. You know I am a Max guy so I won't really get in the conversation. I will say that I think the Avenger appears to me to be competition (performance wise) for the Max - so if you are thinking eight wheels and can tolerate the extra two feet or so and the bucks and want to upgrade from your vanguard (I believe), the Avenger is probably the next step.
I don't think eight wheels will do anything performance wise except help to reduce the PSI on the ground. Balance of the machine is what matters in everything you brought up. The bigger tire of the Avenger will make all obstacles easier as well as the ride. |
Chuck McGhee
Intermediate Member
Username: Chuck_050382
Post Number: 54
Registered: 01-2006
Posted From: 12.170.193.98
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 03:41 pm: |
|
I have a new bigfoot with the single Handle bar. I really like it. I never drove one with 2 sticks. but when just crusing thru the woods at home or down a big open trail you can drive one handed easily. |
Chuck McGhee
Intermediate Member
Username: Chuck_050382
Post Number: 55
Registered: 01-2006
Posted From: 12.170.193.98
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 03:51 pm: |
|
Also the bigfoot has the same 25" tires as the avenger. I have been happy with the tires. I would have liked to have gotten an avenger for the extra power and room. My wife and I seem to like to carry extra gear with us on rides so our Bigfoot is usually just a 2 seater. |
John Prince
New member
Username: Jp400
Post Number: 4
Registered: 08-2006
Posted From: 70.231.156.21
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 03:55 pm: |
|
Thanks for being in touch Fred. I almost thought about jumping in my car and going to Montana before I decide what next.
As for the single bar vs 2 sticks, what I like about the two sticks is in the downhill where you are steeply braking but can let up pressure on one side or the other to make a slight turn. I think that's going to take a bit more practice with the single handle bar as it seems one would need to maintain some pressure on the brake grip all the while turning the handle bar to the turning side.
I live and ride in very steep terrain, 20% is almost flat around here, 30% downhill for 1/4 to 1/2 mile not unusual, the reason I ask about "sticks". |
Jerry R. Nuss, Max Dealer in Illinois
Senior Member
Username: Jerrynuss
Post Number: 338
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 70.106.216.21
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 06:25 pm: |
|
I would like to throw my opinion in here. Having owned an Argo with the control levers and a Max with the control levers, the Max is much more controllable going up and down hills for me. From what I have observed of the new Argo steering system with the handle bar I think it is a huge improvement over the two control levers. I have watched Chuck run his bigfoot up and down hills that I would not have attempted in the old steering design. After switching to a Max IV I like it considerably better for control especially going up and down hills. Being able to slip the transmission while going up a hill is such a good benefit to me. I did endos in an Argo twice while going downhill. Basically I was on a hill that was way too steep or had a drop off and the hydraulic brakes worked too good and locked up and I flipped. In the max IV I run up and down the same hills without a problem. |
Missouri's Max and Argo Dealer
Advanced Member
Username: Brandon_price
Post Number: 135
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 69.27.205.40
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 08:14 pm: |
|
The handle bar steering is the best improvement to an Argo vehicle in a long time. I think ODG did it for safety reasons to keep people like Jerry from rolling down hills. The handle bar makes it fun and easy to drive. I never did like the old two lever design, they seemed to move almost to easy and didn't go well with the twist throttle. It is easy to correct your course down a hill with the handle bar. First, I like to use low gear and then you won't even need the hand brake under most conditions. In fact, most of the time you are giving it throttle to go down a hill, the Argo trans holds back so well. You can apply the hand brake to slow down while turning the bars to apply more brake to that side and change course.
The Response is a nice 8x8 for the price. You'll have to drop a good chunk of change more for the Avenger but it is worth every penny. Honestly it's the first Argo to ever impress me with performance. The body design and 25" tires along with good power will really take it places, way better than the old 22" Runamuks. There are a few special ordered EFI Avengers out there, I believe it is the 31hp. They should be available to order in September. A few other models are gone to make room for a new addition.
Argo is giving a good promotion on 2006 models. You can get $500 in free accessories plus a free winch. That's the best deal I've seen them offer if anyone is thinking about an Argo now. |
John Prince
New member
Username: Jp400
Post Number: 5
Registered: 08-2006
Posted From: 70.231.156.21
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 08:33 pm: |
|
Jerry...you have to keep the throttle reved about 1000rpm in low going downhill in an ARGO for there to be enough engine to augment braking. You can't do it successfully with levers alone, especially in high gear(impossible). Once, with my older model, I accidently knocked the transmission lever into neutral going downhill(all the newer models have a slot for each gear now). Well, that was the end of that. Any using of the brakes would have sent me headfirst. I had no choice but to plow into the side of a cliff which was much preferable to the opposite side of the trail which would have made me a living frisbie without about 200' of headwind to sail into.
Anyway, that's another story. Missouri Max looks like he has it right, giving it throttle etc downhill.
I always like the downhill braking on the Max(had one also) with the control of the sticks. BUT...in the long steep downhills I have in this County, often 30% grades for more than a 1/2 mile, there's no way you can use your arms that long without tiring and creating other issues. |
Jerry R. Nuss, Max Dealer in Illinois
Senior Member
Username: Jerrynuss
Post Number: 339
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 70.106.216.21
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 10:26 pm: |
|
I understand keeping the engine engaged for going downhill. Like I said it was just too steep. And a persons natural reaction is it pull back or just the slightest bounce of pullback release and pull back was enough to tip it over. I've got photos going down the same steep hill with the rear wheels of the max IV off th ground.
Anyway my point is I think the new steering system is superior.
Sounds like you have it figured out that you need an Avenger. |
John Prince
New member
Username: Jp400
Post Number: 7
Registered: 08-2006
Posted From: 70.231.156.21
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 10:35 am: |
|
Downhill is always a difficult bit of manuevering for sure, the braking etc. The one thing I have never satisfactorily figured out is sidehill. Whenever I feel like the center of gravity has made me "tippy", I try and back out of the situation. A friend tells me that is much more psychological than real, that tipping over sidehill with a vehicle as low to the ground as a Max or Argo would be very difficult. I'd be interested in hearing other driver experiences "sidehill" |
Chuck McGhee
Intermediate Member
Username: Chuck_050382
Post Number: 56
Registered: 01-2006
Posted From: 12.170.193.98
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 04:53 pm: |
|
When I bought my Bgfoot the Dealer said and tried to show me that it would usually slide down the hill before it would roll side ways.
I have had it very sideways before by driving one side up and along a tree. I think a lot of it is psychological. |
John Prince
New member
Username: Jp400
Post Number: 8
Registered: 08-2006
Posted From: 70.231.156.21
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 18, 2006 - 10:12 pm: |
|
I think you are right about that "psychological" stuff. I feel like the ARGO is fine side hill, its me, sticking straight up like a domino waiting to topple over. |
John Prince
Junior Member
Username: Jp400
Post Number: 12
Registered: 08-2006
Posted From: 70.231.156.21
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 08:12 pm: |
|
One more thing, or should I say one more reason to upgrade: yesterday I had two customers in my Van II w/16 hp engine. Neither was a "small person", so putting her in the jump seat slightly overloaded the passenger side + total weight of the three of us was pushing 600 lbs-too much as the hill got steeper, especially having to compensate for the passenger side with a little braking on driver side.
I wonder if the new Avenger compensates for power loss when you are braking on one side going up hill? Or maybe the more powerful engine just makes the whole business more feasible regardless??? |
Jerry R. Nuss, Max Dealer in Illinois
Senior Member
Username: Jerrynuss
Post Number: 340
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 71.244.184.172
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 08:18 pm: |
|
The Avenger has a different transmission and gear ratios and can handle the weight much better than the Vanguard II. Even the bigfoot is much better suited for heavy load and hills than the Vanguard II. Both will easily handle hills in high range that the Vanguard II will need to be in low range. |
Rogersmith
Advanced Member
Username: Rogersmith
Post Number: 123
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 70.234.158.199
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, August 21, 2006 - 10:30 pm: |
|
An 8 wheeler is right at home taking 4 people over fallen timber, the more passengers, the better. Get a bench seat in the rear. If you want to spend the $, go for an avenger. If the new taller argo tire will fit on a response, you could buy a used response and a set of tires for <1/2 the $ of an avenger. As far as the controls, i could care less on the 8.. the longer wheelbase and better balance makes it easy to control regardless.
 |
John Prince
Junior Member
Username: Jp400
Post Number: 13
Registered: 08-2006
Posted From: 70.231.156.21
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 10:22 am: |
|
That "8" looks great going over the obstacles! So, is the bench seat an option for the avenger? I'm only hesitating because the new Frontier almost here and maybe a stretched 6 wheeler is going to do as good a job, though it sounds like from what everybody says, 8 wheels is going to be better no matter what??? Has anybody seen or ridden this "frontier" yet? |
Chuck McGhee
Intermediate Member
Username: Chuck_050382
Post Number: 57
Registered: 01-2006
Posted From: 12.170.193.98
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 11:23 am: |
|
The Bench is an option in all 8x8's. |
Jerry R. Nuss, Max Dealer in Illinois
Senior Member
Username: Jerrynuss
Post Number: 342
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 71.244.184.172
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 01:01 pm: |
|
The 6x6 will go over that log in the picture also. The down side of the 6x6 Argo for me is just related to the seating position. The operator is back so as to be almost over the rear wheels. So going over a log like that the operator gets sort of tossed up in the air when the front end goes down, then gets slammed when the rear end comes down. The longer 8x8 lessens these effects. There was a huge comfort benefit for me when I switched from the Argo to a Max IV. I could control the tip over a log better and once I was down on the far side of the log I didn't get dropped down when the rear end came down. For some people it doesn't matter. I also liked the point of view in the Max IV when cresting a hill. I could see a little better where I was headed and what was on the other side and by slipping the transmission I could just hold the position and creep over the crest. I am not trying to get into a which is better discussion just making some observations why the Max IV has become my favorite. I have watched Chuck and Roger pilot their Argos around very well and they work well for them.
Since you are going to be going long distances with long relatively steep hills and since you didn't mention trailering or hauling in a truck or space limitations being an issue it still seems to me the 8x8 is what you would be happier with.
You really should go drive some different models and see waht you prefer. |
Rogersmith
Advanced Member
Username: Rogersmith
Post Number: 124
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 70.234.103.30
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, August 23, 2006 - 02:22 pm: |
|
that's a 24"+ log, Jerry  I could have fun watching anything else try it. A frontier will be a nice machine with 23hp and the newer/quiet trans, a decent height tire/room for 25"s. Like Jerry suggests, I'd go drive some vehicles. I like my 8 but would enjoy a maxII for a 2nd vehicle to play with my friends. No one vehicle will do it all. |
John Prince
Junior Member
Username: Jp400
Post Number: 14
Registered: 08-2006
Posted From: 70.231.156.21
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 11:07 am: |
|
I wish I had the newer model today, have to take customers on 1400 steep acres w/1000 ft ascent to top. Naturally I will be worse case underpowered in Van II(though I have tweaked the 16 hp with diff carb & racing muffler(louder too). I think I can visualize how 8 wheels goes up and over better than 6 wheels. Does the longer length create any issues, turning around in narrow area or narrow deadend steep roads what I am thinking about.
What have your heard about Frontier's newer quieter trans???
I do have to trailer and the 8x8 probably means a slightly bigger trailer, a bit more set up space. |
Rogersmith
Advanced Member
Username: Rogersmith
Post Number: 125
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 70.234.128.176
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 02:45 pm: |
|
the 8 wheeler empty will swing the rear out when steering. a passenger or two in the back it's neutral. with 1500 lbs of stone in the back of mine, it steered from the front. You'd have to adjust to it.
argo designed a new trans for the avenger with helical cut gears, they don't whine like the straight cut gearboxes. |
John Prince
Junior Member
Username: Jp400
Post Number: 15
Registered: 08-2006
Posted From: 70.231.156.21
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 09:40 pm: |
|
I managed my day to the top and back down again, way too steep for Van II, luckily passenger only weighed about 125 lbs. I also thought about the ride today, very bouncy and I'm thinking some of that is six wheels instead of eight. If you have a quad or some such with springs and suspension, you go over the up and down slowly but not bouncing. With the Argo you only have the wheels and likely eight wheels is a bit more of a platform.
So, thinking about this turning business, it sounds like what you are saying is the with minimum weight up front, the driver, there isn't enough weight for the Avenger to pivot and so the rear follows in a slight "U" turn. Put a couple passengers in it and the middle wheels have enough weight for more of a pivot on center?? As for the 1500 lbs in the rear I don't see that happening so won't bother with figuring that out.
I have so much noise coming out of my 16 hp engine with motorcycle racing muffler couldn't hear a gearbox in any event.
How many hours on your Avenger so far? Any mechanical issues? I am a bit concerned that this is more complicated with more things to go wrong??? |
Rogersmith
Advanced Member
Username: Rogersmith
Post Number: 126
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 70.234.127.152
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, August 24, 2006 - 11:11 pm: |
|
I've got a '98 response, John. The avengers have had some design updates over the few years they've been out, would imagine it's a solid machine. If you get one, I'd consider the different trans ratios available, esp if you got a 26 hp instead of the new 31... what altitude you driving at? I have no first hand experience other than a few test drives in them. I wouldn't worry about the size, turning around, yeah it's longer, you'd get used to it.
More complicated? well, water cooled.. |
John Prince
Junior Member
Username: Jp400
Post Number: 16
Registered: 08-2006
Posted From: 70.231.156.21
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 11:01 am: |
|
Altitude not really an issue, not driving in the Rockies or Sierras, but in Mendocino County in Calif. The issue here is that 90% of the County is steep rugged terrain. I'm typically running up and down 30 to 45% slopes. Put any obstacle in your path on steeper slopes, or loose dirt or whatever, you've got to have plenty of power & steeringcontrol/braking. I guarantee my little Van II 16hp was out of breath yesterday-though I make it work.
I thought thru 6 vs 8 wheels yesterday as I was taking a beating through every obstacle. 8 wheels has to be a more comfortable platform. I often find myself "bucking" along, bouncing from one road obstacle to the next.
Lack of power uphill though was the biggest issue, I was constantly in low range at full rpm with only one light weight passenger in tow. The Argo never was as good as the Max going uphill(I had a Max before). With minimum power, even a little turning(braking) on one side or the other dumps your rpm to just about 1/2, less than you need for sure. I wonder if the newer models still operate the same: loss of power when turning? maybe with bigger engines doesn't make a difference.
Downhill a different story. The Max did not take advantage of a lower gear ratio for engine backpressure making a long 1/2 descent very hard work in a Max. |
Jerry R. Nuss, Max Dealer in Illinois
Senior Member
Username: Jerrynuss
Post Number: 344
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 71.244.185.192
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 01:23 pm: |
|
From your description it sounds to me that the ride and lack of power are the issues. So a longer machine may be better. For power, it is not just a matter of engine size. You should probably look at the lowest geared transmissions Argo has. The Van II is geared high. Even in the Avenger there are different transmissions available. The best advice is still to go drive some or have a dealer bring one out and use it where you need it.
A low geared Conquest may save you some money. By the nature of the design you are going to get the transfer of power when turning. |
Fred Sowerwine, Montana's Max dealer
Advanced Member
Username: Fred4dot
Post Number: 189
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 216.166.168.53
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 02:10 pm: |
|
John,
Don't mean to be argumentative, but you are selling the steepness of your terrain short. You should be using degrees not percent. A 45 degree slope is a 100% slope; a 33 1/3 percent slope is 18 degrees. The stuff I went on with you is certainly in the 30 to 45 DEGREE range. That one wash we had to back out of with you in the back seat was 50 degrees, maybe more. And you are right about a max going downhill can be a lot of work on the arms.
Maybe you need to check your tire pressure to adjust the ride. I know with low pressure tires, changes in altitude and temperature makes a big difference. You are climbing lots of feet in a short distance and as the elevation goes up, so does the pressure - temperature does the same thing - I guess that every twenty degree change in temperature alters tire PSI by one. Not sure how feet changes it, but I know 3 PSI here is zero at about 1000 feet. I'm guessing, but I would say about 500 feet change in elevation equals 1 PSI change in tire pressure. So the pressure in your tires could be doubling from when you start to when you get to the top.
I'm going to answer the question in your email about the avenger tires here. The front and rear axles are mounted about 1 inch higher in the frame than the middle four so that on hard terrain, the middle four tires are carrying the bulk of the weight (the theory is, I believe, that in soft stuff when you need flotation, the front and rear tires go to work - when on hard stuff, only two tires have to skid making it easier to turn). My guess is that an empty Avenger has its weight on the first two tires with very little on the back two meaning that one could swing it around by hand on hard stuff. Maybe someone with an Avenger could verify if this is true. I'm assuming that the Frontier will not have this feature. |
John Prince
Junior Member
Username: Jp400
Post Number: 17
Registered: 08-2006
Posted From: 70.231.156.21
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, August 25, 2006 - 03:58 pm: |
|
thanks Fred. I usually just say "Percent" because that's the way most people talk about it. But you are exactly correct about Degrees being 1/2 percent and that ascent was every bit as steep as you remember it. Worse really because some of the trails sluffed off to soft stuff and the sliding factor sideways around some turns was quite unnerving.
And thanks for answering my query about how those wheels are raised in the center on the Avenger. Sometimes I think you know more about Argo's than Max's even though you have the Max business.
As to the PSI change in elevation, well teh other side of that is that it was cool at the bottom down in the creek and the trees and hot as hell on the treeless ridge. Don't know if that adds or subtracts to what you were saying about tire pressure, but makes some sense. If those runamucks were soft at the bottom and stiffer at higher elevation might add to reason why I was sliding around up on top.
Now, if you can just figure out how to wire me $15K over this discussion board, it's be an easy decision to buy the Avenger. |
Rogersmith
Advanced Member
Username: Rogersmith
Post Number: 128
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 70.234.157.216
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 02:31 pm: |
|
John wrote
"With minimum power, even a little turning(braking) on one side or the other dumps your rpm to just about 1/2, less than you need for sure. I wonder if the newer models still operate the same: loss of power when turning? maybe with bigger engines doesn't make a difference."
Argo still uses the same design tranny, so there is power loss esp uphill turning, that's what I had in mind when I mentioned transmission ratios. I'm guessing if you bought a 26hp and a high gear you might not like it.
Having the center axles higher than the corners does help, though. |
david berger
Senior Member
Username: Davidrrrd
Post Number: 434
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 70.22.129.238
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 07:33 pm: |
|
lower lower the center two axels are lower!
the frount and rear axels on some 8x8 models are higher to help them turn, ect as well as othersenarios where it is adventages. |
John Prince
Junior Member
Username: Jp400
Post Number: 18
Registered: 08-2006
Posted From: 70.231.156.21
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 09:52 pm: |
|
I don't know, 26hp sounds pretty good after using 16hp with high gear ratio for the last four or so years. I always manage to make it to the top all but sometimes its not very pretty and once in awhile I have to ask somebody to get and walk.
Would the lower gear ratio be a lot noisier?
And for David berger..."...as well as othter scenarios where it is advantageous". that has me very curious as to what other advantages the middle for wheels being "higher" adds. I am looking for the advantage of going to 8x8 vs waiting around for the Frontier 6x6 which I'm guessing does not have the same middle wheel setup(not enough of 'em). |
Rogersmith
Advanced Member
Username: Rogersmith
Post Number: 129
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 70.128.97.241
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 09:58 pm: |
|
Always helps to proof read doesn't it David.
On a different note.. look what I found on the 'net
  |
Rogersmith
Advanced Member
Username: Rogersmith
Post Number: 130
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 70.128.97.241
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 10:24 pm: |
|
John, you need some avenger owners or dealers for advice on gearing. The avenger's center 4 axles are an inch lower than the corners. The balance is centered around the 2nd axle. When it sits flat and and no weight in the back, it rocks forward slightly onto the 6 front tires and the backs are just off the ground, so it turns on six wheels. Then if it's loaded and balanced it sits on the 2 center axles, etc. I modded my response the same way and it rides better and steers a little easier. Argo did it for ease of turning. |
david berger
Senior Member
Username: Davidrrrd
Post Number: 436
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 72.85.130.195
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 27, 2006 - 07:52 am: |
|
John Prince
And for David berger..."...as well as othter scenarios where it is advantageous". that has me very curious as to what other advantages.....
*****
the long winded discription escapes me this morning,
serfice it to say the lenth of an 8x8 can be a disadvantage when the axels are all on the same plane... therefore this araingement can give a better angle of atack in thouse situations, itl also help climbing onto and escapeing from with the somewhat radiased "angle of atack"
i think elswhere in this thred this has bin mentioned, if not then theres another thred where it has bin mentioned recently. |
Eddie L. Beddingfield
New member
Username: Argo2003
Post Number: 2
Registered: 08-2006
Posted From: 152.163.100.65
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 27, 2006 - 09:26 am: |
|
I hope they offer better gearing than my Avenger had.The low range was to fast,didnt crawl very well. And the high range didnt move machine fast enough.It was a nice machine ,but I went back to a Bigfoot.No issues with floorpans or chain tensioners,or steering out of adjustment or leaks in steering,or bad fuel shutoff solenoid connection.(it died all the time).I should of waited until all the buggs were worked out before I got one. Never had a problem with a Bigfoot. That is just my experience with the Avenger, Eddie |
John Prince
Junior Member
Username: Jp400
Post Number: 19
Registered: 08-2006
Posted From: 70.231.156.21
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 27, 2006 - 10:12 am: |
|
Eddie...buying Avenger then back to a Bigfoot sounds like a pretty good $$$$ wrong turn. Do you know if the Avenger has satisfactorily modified these issues you had? My other alternative is to stay with a 6x6, either new Frontier or maybe the 6x6 conquest. |
Richard Clark
Senior Member
Username: Route6x6
Post Number: 159
Registered: 02-1997
Posted From: 74.129.212.121
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 27, 2006 - 10:37 am: |
|
test 2 |
Eddie L. Beddingfield
New member
Username: Argo2003
Post Number: 3
Registered: 08-2006
Posted From: 152.163.100.65
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 27, 2006 - 11:58 am: |
|
John, Not really,It was a plain Avenger and I went to a Bigfoot that has almost every option Argo offers.As for the problems ,they were probably isolated,but for the money the floorboards fit like crap and it could of had more than 25 HP. Eddie |
John Prince
Member
Username: Jp400
Post Number: 20
Registered: 08-2006
Posted From: 70.231.156.21
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, August 27, 2006 - 06:36 pm: |
|
I appreciate all these opinions, will make me look carefully when I go back to shop second time.
Anybody have any thoughts about what my Van II might be worth? Four years, 100 hours, two sets of tires, good condition(I wonder even I would sell it). |
My Favorite Machine: Talk about you favorite ATV and Why.