Mxracer45

OK Out of the trucks tested-GS SUT, HPI savage 25, Traxxas Tmaxx 2.5, XTM mammoth, AE MGT, Ofna twin titan, Tamiya TNX, and Kyosho Mad Force.

Let me first say that the tmaxx won it. The tmaxx total had 56 points. Each person that tested had a comment about all of them as well. They liked all, but im just guessing that the tmaxx has been around soo long and has so many hop ups was indeed the reason it won. Another thing, there was no durability test. Just a quick test between all of them im assuming.

Well how about we get to the good stuff eh?

Total points-
1st place- Tmaxx 2.5/56 points
2nd- HPI savage and AE mgt tied with 55 points.
3rd Tamiya TNX/54
4th GS SUT/ 53
5th XTM mammoth/51
6th Kyosho Mad Force/49
7th Ofna Titan twin/ 37 points

<conrad>

If they tested durability we all know the savage would have won

Mxracer45

Yup

monst@r

Only reason the T-Maxx won was due to the EZ-Start and Reverse.

Element

We all know traxxas pays rcca to right good reviews for them.
Its sad but true that why I dont read them anymore[&:]

xtm

tnx 3rd I think I will be leaving this mag alone and maxx 1st must be getting royalties or something

Haldir

How sad.....atleast the MGT should have won over the T-Maxx.

Vanquish24

Well the MGT is more durable than the tmaxx but i guess with all the aftermarket options and upgrades possible for the tmaxx it made 1st.

Haldir

That's even more sad is you have to spend $500 in hop ups to make the T-Maxx as good as a MGT!

sn0wrider

My Feedback: (1)

savage wouldnt have won durability wise..the mammoth would have

Mxracer45

Trust me, the savage would have won. Mammoth is durable but not as durable as savage.

ALso these ppl's replies are gonna get this thing locked

fourwheeler

Too bad the article came out a little too soon, it would have been interesting had the Revo, LST and Genesis been out already.

Savage_Dias

I bought the new RCCA yesterday & I don't think I've ever seen such a load of junk in one of their magazines. Their review of the Savage25 was nothing but stupid & biased. How often do they usually mention a different R/C in a review? They mentioned the Maxx 3 times! Their big complaint, the reason that just made the Savage such a horrible waste of time..... The freakin' RADIO BOX!! Apparently the soft handed reviewer didn't like the unfinished edges on the roll bar either. Give me a break. [sm=rolleyes.gif]

zimzalahbim

My Feedback: (8)

i have seen the savage vs t-maxx first hand, and there is no question who is the boss.

Haldir

Yeah!

speed lives

My Feedback: (1)

Yea the T-max duh!




JK

sn0wrider

My Feedback: (1)

neither..quit your bickering..

zimzalahbim

My Feedback: (8)

after reading all the hype in the magazines, i couldn't believe how weak the t-maxx is. i ordered the savage.

jefx

I own a Tmaxx, but that comparison article was BS. It's well known that RCCA has a vested interest in the Tmaxx.
Take a look at the scoring, it was based on a scale of 1-10, but the lowest mark given was a 7. So why even use a 10 point scale? Since there were 8 trucks in the showdown, then it should have been based on an 8 point scale, with the trucks being ranked 1st place to 8th place in order on how well they performed in each test. It would have been a lot more work, but they'd have to give a more realistic score, which would've changed the outcome.
Also, there was no long term durability tests, or even an extreme jump-off contest. Most of us like to get some serious hang time with our trucks, and push them to the edge of what they can handle. That's called real world driving. There was no test for that. It was strictly limited to their controled testing grounds.
Also, that test was performed with the trucks being box-stock. No adjustments were made besides engine tuning. Who runs their truck box stock? With a couple small tweaks here and there, any of those trucks could have scored differently. They mentioned the Mammoth's shock oil being to light, and it's score went down because of it. If you were to change the oil to something heavier, it would've scored much higher. Same with the other trucks reguarding shock oil, ride height, camber angles, spring rates, clutch bell gears, etc. The small tweaks we all perform on our rides.

Bottom line: that test was performed with box stock trucks, in a controlled environment, by a group of people who are already partial to certain trucks. It does not reflect real world applications of these trucks, or the long term investment. Take it for what it is.............not much.

Savage_Dias

The lack of a durability test shows that RCCA knows the weakpoints of the Maxx & the strongpoints of the Savage. That test would've put the Savage on top easily. I'm not saying this because I'm biased. I've tried to put my Savage against a coworker's Maxx but it it always broke on the 1st tank which was usually ran before I made it to the track. When I did get to put my Savage against Maxxes & Savages on a *road course* ALL of the Maxxes (4 I think) broke before the 1st heat was over leaving all but one (flameout) of the Savages on the track.

jefx

Here's some ideas for a more acurate showdown:

Besides the 4 magazine editors (who are paid in advertisement dollars) add 2 seasoned r/c vets and 2 r/c newbs. They can be picked by a contest ran in the magazine. The number of testers should equal the number of trucks.

Besides the tests that were given (off-road handling, high-speed handling, cornering ability, speed/acceleration, engine operation/reliability, and jumping) add in some more tests, like: race track, construction site, street, hill climb, fun factor, and durability.

Apply the scoring I gave above, and hold the tests for a solid month.

Give each truck a $50 dollar allowance for maintainance and hop-ups, and allow tweaks to be made. If the shock fluid is too light, then change it! Deduct spenderatures from allowance.

Make one full round of testing in box stock form, then make another round of testing after tweaks have been made.

Keep track (and price list) of all broken parts and mods that were made. Give a score accordingly.

At the end of testing, have the testers rank the trucks in order of favorites, and give reasons why.

Add the total scores for each round. One score for box-stock. One score after mods. One score for tester favorite. Then combine all the scores and give one more total score.


I know this would take a lot of time and effort, but it would make for a more accurate and less biased showdown.

fourwheeler

Your da man Jefx. That would be a really unbiased way to check out the trucks in a real world enviornment.

Spudnik

[sm=crying.gif]

i have never heard something so beatiful

there is one more thing, for duribility, the mad focre would of moved way up, that thing is on par with the savage. Ask Thermal, or i8tweedy, or mello...... they all love their trucks. I have one question though, what does it take to break a savage, i drove it into a curb at 1/2 speed and it just bounced back like it was nothing.

man i love that truck

also can someone tell me of a good magizen that is mostly truck related

thanks

mrjon53

My Feedback: (3)

ive only driven a mammoth and a maxx and can say hands down i love to drive the mammoth over the maxx. i do believe that there is room in your evaluation for future debate over personal prefrances. some want to have top speed, and some want aftermarket choices. i think rcca should just stick to rate ings and stop trying to award 1st place to certain advertisers.

madmaniac

You forgot me [X(][]