Mahindra Roxer - Uhoh

[Will_C]

Well Bird count me in on being wrong! If I read correctly, that has a capacity of 300 lbs. in the bed. My RTV is rated for, I think, 1000lbs. I know I had a 1/3 cord of green oak in it once-probably closer to 1600lbs-and I pulled a lever to dump it!
Just can't see the use of the Mahindra. If it was street legal, then it would change the conversation.

 

[Slowpoke Slim]

I bought a five year old TJ with 8K miles on it, rag top, full doors, AC, pwr str, pwr disc brakes for $14K. It's just an old beater but I consider it nice.


View attachment 542745



If I'm paying $15K for a "Jeep" that I can't drive on the road I'll take this one. Casey has wayyyyy less than $15K in it and it eats Billie Goats for breakfast.


View attachment 542746



At one time I owned 13 Jeeps. I've had many, many different models. Yes, Jeeps have domesticated over the years. Sometimes not for the good. Currently the Jeep JK Rubicon is without exception the most capable off road vehicle you can buy out of a showroom. Even has pwr windows.

Not sure which Jeep you were referring to with this comment: powered by a glorified rice rocket motorcycle engine. Although the current V6 Jeep engine isn't as durable and reliable as the good old straight six 4.0L it's certainly more than a motorcycle engine. My wife's Jeep gets around real nice with it's 5.4L Hemi also.

I'm simply saying this thing (not going to call it a Jeep) is a knockoff. In it's current form it will be a marketing failure. True UTV enthusiasts will have little use for it. Most purchases will be by buyers that have never owned anything offroad and they will be drawn to the "Jeep" look like a moth to a flame. We know how that ends up.

Actually was referring to the side by side UTV craze/crowd, and not jeeps at all. But I should have been more clear there.

 

[chim]

They are cute and interesting. $15,000 is too much for me to spend on one of them. In reality, $1,500 is more than I'd spend. I don''t have any place to use it or any need (or desire). Since it isn't street legal, you could walk up to either side with a fuel can. No need to face the wrong way at a pump.

 

[ovrszd]

They are cute and interesting. $15,000 is too much for me to spend on one of them. In reality, $1,500 is more than I'd spend. I don''t have any place to use it or any need (or desire). Since it isn't street legal, you could walk up to either side with a fuel can. No need to face the wrong way at a pump.

My reference to the fuel fill was an example of the engineering consideration in this machine. No reason for it to be on the passenger side. Just randomly ended up over there for some reason? What other "random" oddities are there?

For example, top speed of 45mph? What is the mechanical factor that restricts it's speed? It's on normal sized tires running 3.73 gears.

I'm just observant of things like these. If they weren't capable of putting the fuel fill on the drivers side and couldn't build it to safely go faster than 45mph what else weren't they capable of?

 

[Rock Crawler]

My opinion, being a UTV (Yamaha Rhino) owner is that in the current Jeep configuration it will not sell nearly as well as it would if they back halved it and put a hydraulic or electric dump bed on the rear.

I say that because the primary use of my UTV is centered on the dump bed. Mine is 11 years old and predates the common powered dump beds of todays market, but to come and do battle with UTV/SxS vehicles that are in the same price arena, you can not do it while stripping the most prominent utility feature from the vehicle.

The dump bed is what makes a UTV/SxS such a necessity for property owners. We can toss tools in, haul materials in it and do things that would otherwise be a painful task.

Put a dump bed on the back of that Jeep thing and you'll likely sell them faster than you can manufacture them. Make the dump bed a little larger than the largest available on a UTV/SxS on the market today. I really feel that this would make the machine worth considering. But as a fixed body SUV-like Jeep, it's not really something that I see many people wanting to invest in.

 

[TerryR]

My reference to the fuel fill was an example of the engineering consideration in this machine. No reason for it to be on the passenger side. Just randomly ended up over there for some reason?

Richard,

I don't understand why you see this as an issue. Half the street vehicles out there have the fuel filler on the passenger side, including my wife's Subaru Forester. That's why many vehicles have an arrow on the dashboard telling you which side to fuel - there is no "standard" placement of the filler.

My Kawasaki Mule also has the filler on the passenger side, which is a pain because the gauge is on the tank and you can't see it unless you go around to that side.

 

[ovrszd]

Richard,

I don't understand why you see this as an issue. Half the street vehicles out there have the fuel filler on the passenger side, including my wife's Subaru Forester. That's why many vehicles have an arrow on the dashboard telling you which side to fuel - there is no "standard" placement of the filler.

My Kawasaki Mule also has the filler on the passenger side, which is a pain because the gauge is on the tank and you can't see it unless you go around to that side.

Yep, I see vehicles set up like that all the time.

My point is that this vehicle is offered as a utilitarian vehicle. Every little thing that can be done to better fit that should be considered. Again, no reason for it to be over there. They actually had to redesign their acquired Jeep rights to move it. I'm just using that as an example of what I expect to be poor engineering design in this vehicle. We'll see.

My RTV fuels on the right because the tank is under the right seat. Same with my Rhino. I totally get that and accept it.

I absolutely agree with Rock Crawler's post above. Mahindra had a chance to do something extraordinary with this vehicle. Instead they chose the easy route.

 

[Coyote machine]

These available vehicles are more proof of concept vehicles than they are purpose ready alternatives to the UTV/SxS vehicles already on the market. If you look closely at their FAQ section it explains why 45 MPH top speed and fixed box vs. dump box option. Seems they might, if popular, expand the model(s) to include things that would already be on them if they had truly thought through the likely most desired features in design stage, rather than we'll come back later with what people really want.

My first vehicle was a '55 Willys Jeep. Canvas top, L head engine, H shift, 3 speed. Top speed about 50+ MPH on flat highway. Gas fill on driver's side, heat, (in theory), pneumatic wipers - total joke, chains for tailgate, old style army tires, shocks, (who knows?!). Bought in '69, $600 cash deal! Great vehicle for what it was, and cost and age.
The Mahindra doesn't look all that much different, and for $15K sure ought to have more and way better features! YMMV.

 

[Muhammad]

I think if this were branded as a Jeep UTV, it would sell out faster than even Chrysler could build them, albeit at a $9,995 price point. Ah, one can dream, right?

 

[Coyote machine]

I think if this were branded as a Jeep UTV, it would sell out faster than even Chrysler could build them, albeit at a $9,995 price point. Ah, one can dream, right?

Ah, dreams- what America lives for!:thumbsup:
Say you were dreaming of a tractor for yourself- what might it be?
Isn't it time for you to get one, and join your TBN members in owning one too?!