| Author |
Message |
    
preston blake
New member
Username: Prestony889
Post Number: 7
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 70.105.45.95
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 10:45 pm: | 
|
I am typing this comparison because I have yet to see a comparison between the Max and the Argo that I fully agree with.
I own both a MAX IV with a 20h.p. Kohler and an Argo Conquest with 20h.p. Kawasaki and I must say that there is a world of a difference between the two, with the Argo coming out on top. That’s the reason I purchased the Argo after owning a Max, and it was just commonsense to buy an Argo rather than another Max. There are a few reasons why I say. #1 is just look around the web site your on now, the majority of the Route6x6 enthusiast praise the Argo rather then the Max because of it’s high durability and low maintenance. Another reason is that there are just more of the Argo machines out there. Get on Ebay, Google, or an Atv Trader a couple times a month, You will notice that there will always be a ton more information, pictures, and Argos for sale. If there are a lot more Argos out there and information about them wouldn’t make sense that there a better machine? And my last reason for purchasing an Argo with out even seeing it in person rather then an another Max is because of the Argo’s resale value. Argo’s resale is value is extremely high compared to the Max and there’s only three reasons that would be. 1 being that it’s a collectors item, 2 being that it’s a status symbol, and 3 being that its just a well built machine. I don’t know about you guys but I don’t think there collectors items or a status symbol so that only leaves one reason….. There built like a damn TANK!!
And its craftsmen ship compared to the Max is outstanding
I must admit when I was searching for my first aatv I originally thought the Max was going to be a better machine, Having the engine in the back, having easy axes to the engine compartment, good looking roll bar, two bench seats facing forward, skid steer transmission, being able to sit way up front, lighter, and that most of the machine have bad ass looking 26’’ tires. But being brand new to these machines I didn’t realize that any of these items that Max came with were even worth having, and I'll explain why.
( post was to big so Im breaking it into two) this is p.1 |
preston blake
New member
Username: Prestony889
Post Number: 8
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 70.105.45.95
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 10:47 pm: |
|
( post was to big so Im breaking into two) this is p.2 out of 2
Having the engine in the back didn’t make me feel has comfortable going up hills
Having easy axes to the engine was good, but that’s was only good because I had to work on the thing all the time.
The roll bar just got in the way of taller passengers in the back that kept hitting there heads on it every time I hit a bump.
The two bench seats facing forward worked out pretty well besides the fact that the back seat makes it difficult to get to the engine and lube the chains and there is not enough room for a adults unless you but a new max with extended leg room.
I like the skid steer trans, being able to send power to every wheel of the machine. But it takes a lot more effort to drive, it is less consistent, it pops out of gear when unexpected. Which is dangerous on because your trans is your main braking on the Max, its hard to shit in and out of gears, and the greatest flaw of all to me is that it doesn’t have a low range gear for pulling or climbing.
People say Argos are front heavy but I feel much more comfortable descending hills in my argo then my Max. You tell me which is more front heavy, a 300 pound man sitting up front(MAX) or a hundred pound engine up front(ARGO).
The Max is lighter because it lacks to be heavy duty, giving it a flimsy frame and plastic body. The Argo plastic is thicker and the frame does not flex when you drive it.
And the 26’’ tires are still bad ass and I wish the Argo had enough room to clear them because I would love to be able to fit 8 of those on the Argo.
These are the Reasons the Conquest like having A Audi rather then having a Pinto.
A list of things my Argo has and the Max dosent.
1. My fav. Is that there is hardly any maintenance besides lubing the chains and greasing
2. Double #50 roller chain
3. automatic chain adjusters
4. Better built
5. Frame doesn’t twist
6. engine is extremely quit
7. has external alternator
8. Argo offers a bolt on upgraded alternator
9. Has easy access to had accessories (ex) light switches, radio, gauges.
10. 2’’ receiver
11. comes with solid axels
12. comes with front and rear axel supports
13. come with full body skid plate
14. much much more cargo room
15. reliable
16. low range gear
17. easy shifting
18. great parking break setup
19. liquid cooled engine
20. more stable in water
21. more stable on hills (going up and down and slant)
22. comes with mount for out board motor
23. water tight
That’s all I can think off the top of my head but there is more.
The only thing I don’t like about it is the crappy runamuck tires it come with it. |
Fred Sowerwine, Montana's Max dealer
Advanced Member
Username: Fred4dot
Post Number: 199
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 216.166.168.53
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 11:39 pm: |
|
Preston,
Just a few questions?
1. What year Max and how many hours on the machine?
2. What year Argo and how many hours on the machine?
3. How many hours of driving experience in the Max do you have?
4. How many hours of driving experience in the Argo do you have?
5. Do you still own the Max? |
Missouri's Max and Argo Dealer
Advanced Member
Username: Brandon_price
Post Number: 158
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 69.27.205.83
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 11:46 pm: |
|
I could try all day to disagree with that post. The truth is, that's the most accurate comparison I've read in a long time. The #1 reason I've always rode Max is because they simply go more places than Argos... the older Argos at least. I do believe the Frontier and Avenger have a chance at changing that. The new Argos are much faster and the new trans works much better than their old one. There is no way the Conquest will go where a Max IV will go. That might be based mostly on the smaller tires even if you upgrade from Runamuks. The Avenger plays a new game with the 25" Rawhides and great lower body design for more ground clearance. The Conquest performs most of it's jobs very well but it is painfully slow when you need to get moving. Again, both the Frontier and Avenger wipe that off my complaint list.
I also have a '97 Conquest a guy just traded for an Avenger EFI. I just took the Conquest for a creek ride with three friends. It really was the perfect vehicle for hauling four people and a cooler (about 800 pounds). It swam slow with that much of a load but overall floated well. Again, it was slow on land but sight seeing was most of the fun. The ride was smooth even over rough rocks or logs. Best of all, this ten year old machine took on only a few drops of water in over two hours of creekin'.
The Max is a completely different machine both in features and in performance. You will need a newer Max to get all the goods, as their machine has only been brought up to standard in the past few years. Maxs are fast and fun and even with big power, break downs are rare. Nothing muds like a Max and I have taken them through some unbelievable places. Best of all, someone can get into the sport for much less money than Argo can offer. Low cost is quickly escaping the 6x6 world and I'm glad Max is holding on to that.
I think the two vehicles make a great pair. We really only have two brands to choose from and that is rare in any market. I think our biggest competetion is the new side by side utility vehicles like the Polaris Ranger and Yamaha Rhino. Those are both great vehicles and this past deer season showed me just how many Rhinos are out there. Their numbers nearly matched the quads and that is sales directly taken from Max and Argo. The Rhino retails at $9,999... we better not get far from that with our amphibs. |
Jerry R. Nuss, Max Dealer in Illinois
Senior Member
Username: Jerrynuss
Post Number: 390
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 71.244.220.37
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 02:03 am: |
|
Interesting comparison I bought a new Max after owning an older Argo. The new Max out performed the Argo in every way. The Argo needed constant repair.
The reality is this is not a fair comparison just as the Conquest and the Max IV. I think they are two totally different machine with different uses. I'd compare a Max IV with an Argo Bigfoot. I would not compare any Max to a 8x8.
To be fair I believe a long term side by side test would need to be done with new equally equipped machines. It is good that Preston is happy with his Conquest. |
Rogersmith
Advanced Member
Username: Rogersmith
Post Number: 175
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 70.234.107.61
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 07:29 am: |
|
Maybe some day I'll be like a fortunate few, and have a handfull of different machines.. have to add a hot rod Attex after seeing the 503 video! Going on group rides shows you what each machine excels at. Beyond that, making good friends out of their drivers and sharing the aatv sport with them is the biggest reward for me. When's the next ride?
Alright, go ahead and compare models, I'll read opinions.. interesting how they vary. Good to hear from Fred, he's been quiet lately, was it this topic or the winter blast coming his way that woke him up? |
Mike Cummings
Member
Username: Hydromike
Post Number: 40
Registered: 03-2005
Posted From: 141.149.254.227
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 09:16 am: |
|
I have never owned a Max or an Argo, so I can't speak directly to a comparison between the two. Neither am I going to skew the focus of this age-old debate between the utility vehicles by launching a pro 2-stroke diatribe. I can only agree with Roger, in that he needs an Attex in his stables. The machines in the Attex crowd (you know who you are...) are typically:
1. utilizing technology greater than 30 years old
2. running machines with frames of questionable integrity, including cracks, rust, 12-gauge metal, etc.
3. leaking oil out of the transmission, exhaust ports, crank seals, etc.
4. unreliable- breaking down on the trail at the most inopportune moment, fouling a spark plug for absolutely no reason.
5. breaking an axle, axle tube, wheel hub, axle bolt, sprocket, chain, frame rails
6. cracked, gouged, cut-out, fiberglassed, patched, redrilled, painted (usually camo)
7. have room for (comfortably) one small adult or two seven year olds and no storage (unless you count your spark plug wrench is bouncing in the footwell)
8. out of adjustment, including the chains, transmission, drive belt,
9. generally falling apart, even if we spend the obligatory 7 days preparing for a ride. By the end of the ride, something is broken, loose, falling off, or simply not operating correctly.
10. The Ferraris of the 6-wheeler world. To go along with the metaphor above, you can drive an Audi and a Pinto for 60000 miles without even changing the oil, but the Ferrari makes a stop in the pits every few laps.
--- but you CAN NOT IMAGINE how much fun those few laps are....
~m
 |
preston blake
New member
Username: Prestony889
Post Number: 9
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 164.106.90.194
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 09:53 am: |
|
Fred,
1. The max was a 1993, some one had added a hour meter which read 130 hours(but there is no way to really tell considering the older Maxes didn’t come with hour meters.
2. The Argo is a 1995 with 150 hours
3. I put about 150 hours on the Max since I got it last Christmas
4. I put about 100 hours on my Argo since I got it about 4 months ago
5. Yes I still have the Max but it caught on fire and now I need a new tub and Wiring kit for it. If you know were I could find a used tub for cheap please tell me because I would love to get the Max going again.
Im not putting the Max down any one, I still think there great machines but I was just stating my opinion that I like the Argo better. |
Fred Sowerwine, Montana's Max dealer
Advanced Member
Username: Fred4dot
Post Number: 200
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 216.166.168.53
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 12:12 pm: |
|
Who would have thought - now I have to disagree with Jerry, kind of. The reason I say you have to compare the Max IVs to the 8X8s is based on specs (carrying capacity, weight, etc.); Argo has not made a 6x6 that equally competes with the Max IV (I don't think the new Frontier does, but I have not done any research on that model yet). And I still have no first hand knowledge on the Argo because there still are not any in use in Montana that I am aware of. I will have to judge the Argo's performance by what others who have used current models say. Engine size, tire size, efficiency of the tranny, total weight, PSI on the ground and balance are all important aspects of vehicle performance. The factory specs say Max IV and Argo 8s are in the same game; Max IIs are matched against the Argo 6s. I really have no problem putting any current (since mid 1995) Max II with 22" tires or Max IV with 26 tires or up against any Argo. Ground speed, machine weight and tire contact area (PSI on the ground) mean Max will out perform most often.
Roger, pretty much the subject. I always read new comments, but I have been busy making and marketing the ISS (It's So Simple) mouse trap. Only so many hours! Yes it is cold here right now - got a little down time.
Preston, Your answers pretty much reinforce the point I always try to make. Mid 1995 is when RI started making impressive improvements in their machines on a regular basis. While the basic machine concept stayed the same, the different parts got/get better and better (too many improvements for me to list here). There is a learning curve on operating a Max and the more hours behind the sticks, the better the machine becomes. Some, like John Prince in the coastal mountains of California, do not have the time to develop Max downhill skills so the Argo is the better choice. When John and I went in my Max IV (I think it is the same property for sale again now that he and I rode on in 1997 or 1998), we went places he had not even considered going in his Argo. If one does not have tough terrain (or the desire to learn how to get the most out of a Max), the Argo is a better choice because it is easier to operate right from day one and if you never test the machine, you will never know what you are missing.
I'm sure the Argo is a good machine (looks to me like Avenger and Frontier are getting closer to being competition) and any current skid steer is more bang for the buck than the other "supposedly ATV" and utility machines on the market. If you want to really be able to go most anyplace, you best have a Max. |
Rogersmith
Advanced Member
Username: Rogersmith
Post Number: 176
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 70.234.129.171
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 02:45 pm: |
|
Ahh, Fred's back in top form..
let's put argo's and max's on John Prince's steep stuff and see which one rolls over or end over end first. Argo 8 that is. PSI on the ground doesn't mean much if the vehicle rolled to the bottom of the hill. Can you see Fred trying to follow me around Haspin's steep stuff? I could have him rolled over in 5 minutes. By the same token, I'd be stuck in his maxIV ruts when he led. Fred's reasoning that a max is always better, even though he admits he has no personal experience with argos.. just have to assume he knows better but the truth doesn't help sell his product  |
preston blake
Junior Member
Username: Prestony889
Post Number: 10
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 70.105.45.95
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 02:54 pm: |
|
Missouri's Max and Argo Dealer,
I agree with you that the Max will go more places then the Argo. I don’t know this for sure but I thinks that’s the mostly do to the tires. What if both machines were equipped with tracks, would that allow the machines to go the same places??? I found that in wet and muddy conditions are where the Max would out do the Argo. nBut in dry conditions the Argo climbed, steered, and drove much better.
The problem I had is the Max wont go as many places as the Argo when I have to
1. get out of the pond or creek to pull the plugs before the tub got so much water in it that the belt would slip
2. put belt dressing on the belt every other time I went riding just so I could make it up hill ( and yes I’v tried new belts and they all ended up doing the same thing)
3. putting new bearing in it every week
4. putting new chain tensioners in it
5. replacing standard axels with solid ones after bending them ( And there a pain in the ass to get out)
6. tightening the chains every two weeks
7. having to weld the main chain adjuster back to the frame( it broke from the pressure of driving four adults in it, I thought it was suppose to handle four adults??)
8. jump start it after riding at night with the lights on because of the week alternator (and yes I tried new batteries)
I could have been riding an Argo rather then spending all this time working on my Max.
Basically what I’m saying is my Max spent more time in the garage then on the trails |
preston blake
Junior Member
Username: Prestony889
Post Number: 11
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 70.105.45.95
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 03:24 pm: |
|
Fred,
I have plenty of steep terrain, some of which I ride down on the front tires there so steep. I have taken both vehicals threw the same obsticals and hands down the Argo in my opinion is much more stable on the hills. I have been riding dirtbikes,4 wheelers,tracktors,and new bobcats as well as older ones with skid steer transmissions all my life, so it was not the least bit difficult for me to master the T-20. It's not that I didnt like the T-20 or couldnt do the same obstacals with it, its that it just doesnt feel as safe doing them with the T-20. And if you dont feel safe you dont have as much confidence to go over steep terrain. You cant use engine braking with the T-20 ethier.
If you ever do get some free time I would be curious to see a list of all the upgrades since 95. |
Jerry R. Nuss, Max Dealer in Illinois
Senior Member
Username: Jerrynuss
Post Number: 391
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 12.214.97.254
Rating:
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 04:46 pm: |
|
I rolled an Argo vanguard II twice on hills that I can confidently take a max II or IV. One time was limited visibility and one was due to bounce braking. The reality is it could be blamed on the machine or the operator. I doubt a 8x8 would have rolled like the Vanguard II and I would bet the new Frontier wouldn't either. I lost confidence in the ability of the vanguard II to go up and over hills and coming down them. I also had trouble exiting the water because the lower tub would make contact with the bank before the tires could get traction. I've ran Max IIs and IV out at the same location without difficulty. From what I have seen Argo has addressed both of these issues by changing the steering and braking design and by changing the angle on the front of the machine.
All the machines need maintenance and that is a fact. Everything else is just subjective opinion and personal preference. A person should own what suits them and meets their needs for utility, safety, budget. |
Eddie L. Beddingfield
Member
Username: Argo2003
Post Number: 29
Registered: 08-2006
Posted From: 207.117.33.134
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 05:55 pm: |
|
Funny how time changes peoples outlook,I have made most of the comparisons that Preston made .Now they seem to be an accurate comparison.A few years ago I was a Max basher and didnt know what i was talking about.Roger ,Fred gets mad when you mention (psi on the ground stuff)it makes a difference to him. |
Rogersmith
Advanced Member
Username: Rogersmith
Post Number: 177
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 71.153.170.246
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 07:46 pm: |
|
I'd like to see recreatives make a little larger version of the maxII, frontier size wheelbase. That would be fun, stable, still weight balanced. |
Jerry R. Nuss, Max Dealer in Illinois
Senior Member
Username: Jerrynuss
Post Number: 392
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 131.230.44.209
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 08:33 pm: |
|
The Max II leg room is great. I always thought they looked too small until I got into one then I really liked it and the leg room. If it was about 6 inches wider and a little longer so 25 or 26 inch tires would fit that would be great. As Roger said it would be a welcome addition to the line up. Still a two seater with the ability to load the rear. I really like the T-20 and operating the transmission. Yes it does take getting used to but it is not that bad. |
philip w.cox
Advanced Member
Username: Philipatmaxfour
Post Number: 237
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 216.209.98.143
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 08:39 pm: |
|
Preston- I am happy to hear that you are happy with your Argo Conquest. I intend to buy a new Argo Avenger sooner or later. At least up until last summer there were NO Max dealers within a few hundred miles of where I live. I bought my machine new from a "dealer" who was a used furniture store. Having no reliable dealer nearby is a pain. I am sorry to hear that you are so unhappy with your Max.Mine continues to be a joy . It does not leak and I live on an island. When it started to leak after a couple of years I phoned the factory and they told me how to fix it. Cost me nothing. I have ridden my machine at lots of rides and met dozens of great people who own Argos or Maxes. Your comments about the alternator do not apply to my Kohler 25 hp. 2003 model. 4 of my axles are running the original chains and I check them often but they seldom need adjusting. I hate to hear of people who are so dissatisfied with their amphibs. I hope to be riding one on my way to the old age home and I'd like to be riding with a dozen or more other machines. When my friends buy a quad or a Ranger or a Rhino or any other lesser machine I don't have a new riding buddy because they simply can't go where we go. When they buy a Bigfoot, an Avenger or a Max ,BINGO I gain a new riding partner. Good luck with your Conquest. If you're happy with it, tell lots of people! W. Philip Cox |
Derek Hubbard
Member
Username: Justmax
Post Number: 41
Registered: 02-2005
Posted From: 71.64.127.199
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 08:55 pm: |
|
Gentlemen:
You can compare these two machines till the cows come home. Both machines have good points and bad one. Having test drove a 2004 Avenger, I have to say the Argos are well built. The cost of ownership will keep a lot of folks in the 4 wheeler market. The cost of one Avenger loaded will be about the same as buying three nice 4 wheelers. What I am saying is , if you can afford to buy new ,get whatever works for you.
The beauty of Maxes is (you can take a thirty year old Max and upgraded it to what the new Maxes have) I mean brakes, motor and axles. Some of you might disagree, but I have seen one upgraded with new axles and disc brakes.
Derek |
preston blake
Junior Member
Username: Prestony889
Post Number: 12
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 70.105.45.95
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 09:14 pm: |
|
philip w.cox,
just wondering if you could tell me how you fixed the leaks in Max? so I can give it a try on mine.
I have the old kohler magnum 20hp in the Max, I guess my alternater is just weak.
Glad to hear you havent had any troubles with your Max. And same goes for you, If you're happy with it, tell lots of people! |
Mike Maroni
Intermediate Member
Username: Micmac
Post Number: 76
Registered: 07-2005
Posted From: 162.84.111.49
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 29, 2006 - 10:46 pm: |
|
Preston,
I feel your pain on your Max. I have had tons of problems with my 92 max IV that I bought off of ebay for 2500. I must stress that most if not all of the problems stem from abuse and lack of maintenance. I have since restored the entire machine and modified some of the weak points of the older max. Now it is very relieable and I've really enjoyed using it. I've recently started looking at newer vehicles just to shop around to see what's out there, Argo vs Max etc..and something occured to me that I would be spending alot of money for something to get beat up. That makes me enjoy my Max even more instead of wiching as that first bolder scraped the belly of a new 15,000 vehicle!!
I think that some people have very specific tasks for their vehicle and some want to just have some fun. In my case I fall into the fun catagory. I have spent a fair amont of $ and time restoring my Max and it has not been without frusration but now it's become a labor of love and I know all the ins and outs of the machine. Someone may be in a different position to pay more for a machine that requres less work. My point being as much as I'd like a fully loaded Avenger with tracks the reality is that it wouldn't benifit me enogh to justify the cost. Now if I suddenly find myself with a bunch of money I probably will change my tune quickly.
So I guess my point is there is more to the equation than just which machine is better. It should be which machine is a better fit. |
preston blake
Junior Member
Username: Prestony889
Post Number: 13
Registered: 11-2006
Posted From: 70.105.45.95
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 12:29 am: |
|
Mike Maroni,
I couldn't have said it better myself. I bought my Max from the owner of route 6x6 for $4500 so I figured it would hold up, I was wrong. It didnt bother me at first because I also injoy working on the Max but after while I just got frustuated with it. And then it burned down in september so I got an Argo. I just started working on it to get it going again. I redid the engine wiring to night, got it runing and put it back on the frame. I also plan on doing what you did and redo the machine from the bottom up. But I'm going to need a new tub to finish the machine. So if you no where I can get a fairly cheap tub or just a beat up old Max let me know. |
steve young
Member
Username: Gearhead
Post Number: 27
Registered: 01-2006
Posted From: 216.209.122.79
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 08:02 am: |
|
I'M with philip w . cox on this one I love my amphibion and if anybody is up my way brockville ontario i would go on trail ride with them and I don't care if it is a max ,attex,argo or any other amphibion because it sure would be funner than all the 4 wheeled rut makers around this area.As for the price of amphibions yes its high but if its low they flood the market and you will never stand out from the crowd. BE A LEADER NOT A FOLLOWER!www.flickr.com/photos/71063188@N00/ |
Mike Maroni
Intermediate Member
Username: Micmac
Post Number: 77
Registered: 07-2005
Posted From: 162.84.111.49
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 08:15 am: |
|
Preston,
I don't have a line on a tube but I'll keep my ears open. How did yours catch on fire? |
Rogersmith
Advanced Member
Username: Rogersmith
Post Number: 179
Registered: 01-2005
Posted From: 70.234.132.107
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 08:30 am: |
|
Steve, what are those wild looking tracks you had on that conquest? Looks like they might swim well. |
Sam Robertson
Intermediate Member
Username: Sam
Post Number: 91
Registered: 02-2005
Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 09:11 am: |
|
Interesting messages, I too have have had many machines including Max, Argo and a few Attex over the years, I have a Max 4 now, last machine was a Argo Bigfoot. Any Max rider that bends axles and breaks bearings all the time, means that rider in a Argo will also start to bend axles and break bearing in time, but the soft tires on the Argo will slow the damage down, most Max 4's have the large hard tires, that everyone seems to want, but they are very hard on the driveline. The 26" tires are even more hard on system,
What this means is if rider breaks one machine all the time, that rider will start to break other machine too.
My advice is to switch to the soft tires and slow down |
preston blake
Junior Member
Username: Prestony889
Post Number: 14
Registered: 11-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 10:35 am: |
|
Mike,
I had taken the engine out of the Max to replace a back bearing, chain adjuster,and new drive chains . While puting then engine back in the gas line fell into the tub and the engine mount leg arked on the battery igniting the gas. The fire burned a full tank of gas and was almost impossible for me to get out. |
steve young
Member
Username: Gearhead
Post Number: 28
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 10:59 am: |
|
ROGER them tracks started out as escargo tracks from timmions then I made a jig up to shorten the cross pieces up so I didn't need wheel spacers they swam very well and I never needed the winch with them on but there is always drawbacks to running tracks.I an very surprised where the AVENGER can take me through without them the CONQUEST would never follow on tires alone. |
Fred Sowerwine, Montana's Max dealer
Advanced Member
Username: Fred4dot
Post Number: 201
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 01:21 pm: |
|
Steve, that is what PSI on the ground is all about. Each 25" Rawhide III tire puts about 60% more rubber on the ground than does the 22" runamuk. An Avenger weighs more, but with tires has just a little more PSI on the ground than a conquest with tracks does. |
Mike Maroni
Intermediate Member
Username: Micmac
Post Number: 78
Registered: 07-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 02:13 pm: |
|
Preston,
Wow I hope everything else is O.K. I knew someone who burned their house down when they dropped a work light the light shattered and caught some gas ,that was on the floor, on fire. My wife just tolerates my silly garage projects. She wouldn't be too understanding if the house caught fire. Lets all be carefull out there! |
steve young
Member
Username: Gearhead
Post Number: 29
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 05:13 pm: |
|
Fred as for psi on the ground my Avenger has more than the Conquest because it weighs more and the front and back axles are 3/4" higher so they don't dispearse as much weight as do the middle axles the reason for the ableness of the Avenger is ground clearence and more aggressive tires that will paddle through mud a little better when the argo is floating on mud in deep holes you could have 20 tires on a machine but if you bottom the bellypan high enough its like you just jacked it up in the garage. |
Fred Sowerwine, Montana's Max dealer
Advanced Member
Username: Fred4dot
Post Number: 202
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 07:03 pm: |
|
Well Steve, you need to do the math. Yes, the avenger does weigh more and yes, it does have a little more clearance and yes, the middle tires do carry more of the weight on hard stuff than do the outer tires, but when the middle tires sink in an inch, all eight tires support the machine equally (at least they would if the machine's weight were balanced, which isn't the case with the Argo, but that is for another discussion). The difference in the axle position does make a difference when the tracks are installed, but that is also for a different discussion. The more aggressive tire does aid in going through stuff. BUT it is the 12" width of the 25" tire verses the 10" width of the 22" tire that makes the difference. Each 25" x 12" rawhide III tire gives you about 185 square inches of contact area times 8 = about 1480 square inches. Each 22" x 10" runamuk gives about 110 square inches of contact area x 8 = about 880 square inches. If the conquest weighs 1200#, it has a PSI on the ground of 1.36. If the avenger weighs 1500 pounds, it has a PSI on the ground of 1.01. It's pounds divided by contact area.
Some of you might not think PSI matters, but that .35 PSI difference is more than a third of the Avenger's total.
Your 25" rawhide IIIs could have the tread just about worn off (like a runamuk) and not make much difference except in the stuff that is almost too thick to swim though. |
philip w.cox
Advanced Member
Username: Philipatmaxfour
Post Number: 238
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 09:08 pm: |
|
Preston, Re: fixing the leaks. First step is to find out where the leaks are. Fred Sowerwine wrote a detailed description of slowly filling your Max with a garden hose with the wheels off and the machine blocked up. You would need to read Fred's directions and then follow them. None of my rivets leak but that can be the problem as reported by Mudbuster on this site. He replaced the leaking rivets. If the leaks are between the flangets and the body you must use a good inch pounds torque wrench and if need be replace the rope type gasket material and paper gasket. If it leaks around the bearing next to the bearing retainer, you are not using Marine Grease, I thought mine was just as good but it wasn"t. Here,s a picture of My Max all blocked up. W. Philip Cox |
philip w.cox
Advanced Member
Username: Philipatmaxfour
Post Number: 239
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 09:19 pm: |
|
try that again!  |
philip w.cox
Advanced Member
Username: Philipatmaxfour
Post Number: 240
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, November 30, 2006 - 09:29 pm: |
|
see the leak |
steve young
Member
Username: Gearhead
Post Number: 30
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 07:56 am: |
|
FRED psi would matter in the snow or any other surface that would compress and support weight but in a deep mud hole it does not matter your stuck when you high center the machine enough and you start to plow earth front and back this is why the more clearence the more deeper and farther you will be able to go.Psi is dispearsed over a greater contact patch when my AVENGER is on a surface that will still support the weight of the machine over the entire wheelbase.Look back at my first post and go see my pics of my CONQUEST them tracks do nothing for psi other than make it more than 2.1 pounds per square inch but in deep mud the tracks actually triangulate under the center tires to find hard surface thus given the impression of more ground clearence and the aggresiveness of the steel paddle to grab on to anything in its path and drag the machine bellypan and all over!But when i jacked up the bellypan in the garage i would jack it up farther to get the tracks off the ground thus bringing us back to ground clearence. |
Fred Sowerwine, Montana's Max dealer
Advanced Member
Username: Fred4dot
Post Number: 203
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 12:15 pm: |
|
Steve, Enjoy the abilities of your avenger - if it does what you want it to do it really doesn't matter if you understand why!
I will agree that when you are stuck that you are stuck because the bottom of the machine is carrying the weight of the machine rather than the tires (or tracks). There is no hard stuff in a deep mud hole. There is probably no point in me discussing this with you as you don't understand what I am talking about and have your mind made up, but I will try. Tracks make PSI on the ground less, not more and there is no way any skid steer is going to power through a deep mud hole because its tires (or tracks) reach the bottom or make contact with hard stuff. If you can't stay up because of low PSI on the ground, or the liquid is thin enough to swim through (deep tread on tires or tracks helps here) you will get stuck. If the tires of any skid steer reach the bottom and propel through by traction, it isn't much of a mud hole. I don't know what the limits are for the Argo machines, but I tell my customers that a Max IV with 26" tires will make it through 11 inches of anything; anything deeper will depend entirely on the consistency of the terrain and how much stuff you have in your machine. If a skid steer doesn't have much flotation (from low PSI on the ground due to a large contact area of track or tires), it best stay out of the soft stuff or have a winch. |
Jack Ouellette
Member
Username: Beungood
Post Number: 33
Registered: 02-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 02:26 pm: |
|
What is the ground clearances of the Frontier,Avenger and Max 4? |
steve young
Member
Username: Gearhead
Post Number: 31
Registered: 01-2006
Rating: 
Votes: 1 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 02:32 pm: |
|
FRED enjoy your MAX and one day when they make a new tub you can fit bigger tires on to;thus increasing ground clearence so you will go through more than 11" of anything. Maybe you will finally understand. AMEN! |
Fred Sowerwine, Montana's Max dealer
Advanced Member
Username: Fred4dot
Post Number: 204
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 03:03 pm: |
|
Steve, how about a riddle? Which is bigger - the 26" Goodyear Super Terra Grip that Max uses or the 25" Rawhide III which the Argo Avenger uses? So Steve, how big of a tire will the Avenger accept?
Jack, can't say for Frontier or Avenger and the web site doesn't say either. For the Max IV, lowest point on the tub (about 4" wide trough full length) is 5 3/4 " with 21" tires, 6 3/4" with 22" tires and 8 3/4" with 26" tires. |
Fred Sowerwine, Montana's Max dealer
Advanced Member
Username: Fred4dot
Post Number: 205
Registered: 01-2005
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 03:19 pm: |
|
Oh yeah Steve, How much of anything will your Avenger go through? |
Jack Ouellette
Member
Username: Beungood
Post Number: 34
Registered: 02-2005
Rating:
Votes: 2 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, December 01, 2006 - 03:44 pm: |
|
why dont you guys settle this Argo/Max issue at recess by fighting or after school with a rockfight?....
Fred you know your machine inside and out! |
Bryan Jaedike
Junior Member
Username: Tigerguy
Post Number: 15
Registered: 02-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 03:09 pm: |
|
Lets compare the Max 4 to the newer Argo,the
Argo has a much higher price, almost double?
I am sure the Argo is better but is it worth the price? |
Brad Dunn
New member
Username: Lazerman
Post Number: 4
Registered: 08-2007
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2007 - 05:24 pm: |
|
Bryan
I do not think the new ARGO cost double of
what a new MAX IV cost, I love MAX's with the great driveablity of the T20, but the new ARGOs look great, it is a shame they do not build something like a T20,as that would be THE machine
Brad Dunn |
My Favorite Machine: Talk about you favorite ATV and Why.