Comments on: Mercedes-Benz enlists with the ADF

By: 1951L-R

1951L-R — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:56:48 +0000

Intersting reading. I am still using my X-British Army
1951 Land-Rover.It has only ever had maintenance.It was the only vehicle not to break down in a group of old 4wds
crossing the Simpsom Desert and beyond on 1989.This LandRover has proved to me that the Engineering basis for
the vehicle is sound.Low centre of gravity,and basic concepts often prove better when the going gets tough.
I am concerned that the replacement vehicles are too early
in the life of the fleet.I shunt a 5-1/4 ton WW2 radar set
with a SWB 1961 model LandRover – around the house.I have a friend with a rebuilt X-Army 110 that was rolled over in the Army.It is like new now.6×6 Army version was around $110 000 each back then [yesterday].Farewell Rovers.

By: MBSIII

MBSIII — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:35:53 +0000

Land Rover was invited to tender for the contract and denied it. I would rather drive a G wagon than a Toyota, around 1985 the Australian army tried the Landcruiser wagons and they failed misserably and couldnt get ride of them fast enough, this was when they purchased the Defenders with the isuzu power plants.

By: FRUGAL_ONE

FRUGAL_ONE — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:47:52 +0000

Your taxes at work?

This is a total piss-off and total waste of MY/OUR money.

The 110 L/Rover’s that they currently use would have hardly had any use and still be like new.

Could have built many hospitals and financed schools and more things that need assistance.

For mine they should just lease them.

All tjhe same soon as they come up for auction might buy one, mised out on a L/R S3 last time, wont happen again

Cheers

F-0

By: Bret

Bret — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 23:41:14 +0000

Frontman,
Racist decision?
Landrover did NOT tender, nor did AM general (Hummvee)

By: Frontman

Frontman — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:25:12 +0000

So I guess this means good by to roll up side curtains 80km/h top speeds and rear view mirrors that shook that much we were just better taking them off :-(

Wonder how the Indians felt? They probably claim it was a racist decission.

Just for the info Spider, Both Landrover and G-Wagon were specifically designed for military rolls and modified / bastardised for Civilian work. Hence the reason the average person who goes 4×4 once every now and then but drives his truck on the roads 70% of the time, regards the Cruiser as a better vehicle. The military forces around the world prefer Landrover. G-wagon (IIRC) is the sceond most widely used in Europe after Land Rover.

By: Bret

Bret — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 01:54:33 +0000

Spider, I think that you are letting your Toyota bias cloud you judgement.

These two vehicle are quite dissimilar in a number of ways with regard to their design and construction.

I’m sorry but your comments show a real lack understanding of their origins and of hands-on experience of these vehicles.

And just to answer your first question, yes I have had engineering experience with both vehicles, and one has lots of “strong points” for equipment mounting and the other is a crude oversized car – no prizes which way round that is.

(LOL anti-spam word “Jeep”)

By: Spider

Spider — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 01:38:41 +0000

Bret, so how many engineering tests have you conducted on the robustness of g-wagons and land cruiser to claim that??
They both come from the same basic spec brief, and they both have military versions and civil versions!! The land cruiser can be just as well modularized for a customer with the budget of the ADF….

By: Bret

Bret — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:04:52 +0000

Sam & Thomas, correct, LandCruisers are used extensively as light TRANSPORT vehicles. The G-wagons are much more robust and are intended for active service, with multiple platform configurations.

The design philosophy behind each is quite different.
The G-wagon is designed as military equipment and is quite easily modularised, whereas the LandCruiser is really just a tough commercial vehicle, with quite a diffetrent background.

Possibly the easiest comparison might be the difference between the original Humvee and the Hummer H3.

BTW haven’t seen many 6×6 Landcruisers lately.

By: BIG JIM

BIG JIM — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 23:51:30 +0000

Does this mean there will soon be a large number of ex-service LANDROVERS for sale to the public. And will the 6wheeled Perentie LRPV be available.

By: realcars

realcars — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:34:28 +0000

Hey Richo given your previous association with Austpost do u know how I could go about getting a contract delivery run?

MB built like no other car!

By: Tomas79

Tomas79 — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:24:25 +0000

Sam that is true…
The Toyotas are used by armies around the world, propably as much if not more as the g-wagons… The g-wagons aren’t any stronger then the landcruiser… Look up “hilux war”….

Anyway, too bad they don’t sell the g-wagon in australia anymore…. a True classic 4×4, my fav of all time…

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:05:37 +0000

Bret,

Just a quick question. If the LC’s are considered “domestic” vehicles how come the UN uses them as their primary transport vehicle? Granted, lots of these are for transporting fat diplomats, but id presume some would be used in combat situations?

By: Bret

Bret — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 02:49:43 +0000

Tom,
I have said nothing out of place. This isn’t a “leaked” story, it’s been widely reported in a lot of print media, that is also available online, to ANYONE who cares to look.

I aggree with consortium contracts there is usually someone getting “done over”.
I did make the point that commonality of equipment meant logistic and other long term advantages.

By: VW Freak

VW Freak — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 02:31:26 +0000

Yeah true Bret. Mind you, the Army seem to be still using a hell of a lot of poverty pack barn door LandCruiser standard 100s.

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 02:30:27 +0000

Bret, just because ADM might of leaked it, doesn’t mean you should be talking about it like that. ADM gets lots of stuff they shouldn’t. Given the issues consortium contracts cause with inter-company fighting which always leave the customer worse off, these single company contracts, though more expensive initially, tend to not suffer the same contract blowouts with through-life support.

By: Bret

Bret — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 02:22:02 +0000

VW freak,
Landcruisers don’t even come into it. They are “domestic” vehicles not army equipment. The ADF treats them just the same as a Commodore or Falcon sedan or wagon etc.

By: Bret

Bret — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 02:19:09 +0000

Devil666,
Everything I wrote is common knowledge within the defence industry, and has been quite widely reported in defence industry publications, such as Aust Defence Magazine.

BTW neither Landrover or the makers of the Hummvee tendered as the tender was considered too complex for the quantity of vehicles that would be required within thier “range”

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 02:00:59 +0000

Spider what have Ford and Holden got to do with it? They were never in it before and don’t have vehicles to suit? It’s only sad for LR who lost their current deal.

By: Spider

Spider — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:53:59 +0000

VW Freak, even sadder for ford and holden!!

By: VW Freak

VW Freak — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 01:05:37 +0000

What, no LandCruisers? Awwwwwwww… how sad for the big T.