The perfect 4WD?

[DiscoMick]

Land Rover Owner International magazine in its June issue listed what it considered should be the specifications for the next Defender due in 2014 and now being designed at LR. The mag also published some nice concept drawings but I can't find a link to show them from the mag's site.
Here are the specs:

T5(Discovery 4) chassis
100, 114 and 130 inch wheelbase derivatives
Four cylinder diesel, TDV6 and hybrid power units
Six speed manual or auto gearbox; two -speed transfer case
16 inch wheels
Lockable centre, front and rear differentials
Coil-sprung independent suspension
Five-seat versions in all three wheelbases with a seven seat station wagon in the 114. Double cabs on the 114 and 130.
Side hinged rear door with spare wheel mount.
ECU housings rated to IP67 (water and diust ingres)
Built-in diagnostic software
Modular accessory system
Tyre pressure monitoring system with built-in, on the fly inflation facility
700mm wading depth
45 degree approach angle and 40 degree departure angle

Sounds excellent. If they build that, with current Disco reliability, and keep the price down to near current Defender levels, it should be a massive sales hit.
Whattayourekon?

[midal]

Yep, got the mag, looks really good. The price will be interesting if they actually stick to the specs.

[3 Sisters]

When did they go to independant suspension?:eek:

[JDNSW]

I see some significant problems with their proposed vehicle, some of which may relate to the drawing rather than the idea.

1. insufficient clearance between wheel arches and tyres - indicating either limited suspension travel or inadequate clearance for buildup of blacksoil.

2. All glass should be flat, and the windscreen looks to be sloped too much.

3. It is essential to have flat floors with no sill, as on all Series/Defender Landrovers.

The increase in wheelbase is probably inevitable with making the seat spaces fit 21st century body sizes instead of mid twentieth century sizes. One would also hope that the concentration on making use of space would minimise protruding wheel arches rather than increase them as the pictures show. The ideal would be no such wasteful protrusions, as with the Series 1/2/3.

But what should be emphasised is that this is not a design - it is a concept sketch! Any real life vehicle involves vastly more work, and the final design will be a compromise between what marketing thinks the customer wants, what the engineers want, and what the bean counters say can be economically built.

John
John

[DiscoMick]

Yeah, flat floors and windows would be essential.
I assume the wheels in the drawing are just exaggerated to look good and not what would really happen.

[PAT303]

I'd like live axles,hypoid centres,manual or auto,2.7TDV6 and to be no heavier than the current model.It has to look like a defender,not like a rebodied disco such as the RRS. Pat

[Fish78]

I found this picture doing an image search, i cant say how authentic it is but it looks the part.

The picture on the LR mag site with ICON written in the corner is a fake, its a Ford Bronco concept, they photo-shopped a LR badge on it lol.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2010/11/1498.jpg

[Fish78]

As for what id like to see;

Solid axles, RR 3.6l TD V8, 6dp man, F & R Diff locks, Coil suspension, galv chassis, improved interior, waterproofed electrics, 5yr/300 000KM warranty.

Comprehensive LR official options, Snorkel, Barwork, Winch, suspension upgrades etc.

Get the bloody thing engineered and tested to death before release.

[ugu80]

R.I.P. (the traditional, rugged, no frills, simple to service and maintain 4WD. Killed by electrocution.):(

[series2110]

As much as I love the defender look - I would like to incorporate a larger rear door size - just to make fit out of the rear with draws and frig much more usable
at least say 50 mm on each side and the inclusion of an auto box will make it more salable to other half - looking forward to it

Defenderly Peter

[DiscoMick]

In some ways its a return to a kind of Disco 1 formula, with improvements.
The electronics don't worry me as long as they make them good quality and insulate them well from dust and water.

[PAT303]

As for what id like to see;

Solid axles, RR 3.6l TD V8, 6dp man, F & R Diff locks, Coil suspension, galv chassis, improved interior, waterproofed electrics, 5yr/300 000KM warranty.

Comprehensive LR official options, Snorkel, Barwork, Winch, suspension upgrades etc.

Get the bloody thing engineered and tested to death before release.

Yep,they could build 20 vehicles with the drivetrain they want to use and pass it around the members from a site like this.I could do the summer hot weather testing,someone in the snowfields can do the cold and there is no sortage of people who could try and break it on trails and tracks.There would be no shortage of helpers. Pat

[frantic]

If we are going Ideal ideas how about portal axles that can turn 180 deg!!!
You could have a live axle low slung wagon for the weekday run around with no clearance issue's(1.6-1.8 high) and at the flick of a hydraulic switch the portals would swing 180 deg. south and raise the defender by 10-12 in. unlike the independant disco rr etc you dont lose the supple suspension or any wheel travel when lifted AND retain identical drive widths as well as wheelbase all the while retaining propshaft angles correct or the castor angles on independant diffs.

[Tote]

If they went with independant suspension they would be foolish not to add airbags.A manual height control would be nice though.
They would be unlikely to convert the D4 chassis to solid axle, more engineering for little gain.

Regards,
Tote

[DiscoSaffa]

If they went with independant suspension they would be foolish not to add airbags.A manual height control would be nice though.
They would be unlikely to convert the D4 chassis to solid axle, more engineering for little gain.

Regards,
Tote

Agree, the independant set up wouldn't work as well without the air..... crosslinked axles and all that..... once you have tried air, you won't go back! :cool:

And ditto to the manual control! :)

[VladTepes]

Cool.

[scrambler]

This is a Defender concept I like. Doesn't look anything like the current Defender, but has the same design concepts with off-road capability, utility and simplicity.

Qr3 Design | Transport & Product Designers | News (http://www.qr3design.co.uk/home.html)

[Fish78]

Yep,they could build 20 vehicles with the drivetrain they want to use and pass it around the members from a site like this.I could do the summer hot weather testing,someone in the snowfields can do the cold and there is no sortage of people who could try and break it on trails and tracks.There would be no shortage of helpers. Pat

Spot on, having 'Real' blokes testing the vehicle would give LR more information than a bunch of lab rats and bean counters ever could.

Properly funded, a group could take several concept Defenders and put them through all Australia has to offer, see what breaks, see what needs adjusting etc, if the engineers listened to what they were told im sure the new Defer would be one hell of a truck.

[wagoo]

If we are going Ideal ideas how about portal axles that can turn 180 deg!!!
You could have a live axle low slung wagon for the weekday run around with no clearance issue's(1.6-1.8 high) and at the flick of a hydraulic switch the portals would swing 180 deg. south and raise the defender by 10-12 in. unlike the independant disco rr etc you dont lose the supple suspension or any wheel travel when lifted AND retain identical drive widths as well as wheelbase all the while retaining propshaft angles correct or the castor angles on independant diffs.

Landrover built an experimental 4wd tractor in the very early years with portals that rotated 180 degrees. Wouldn't matter too much on a tractor I guess, but god knows what it would do to the steering geometry.
Wagoo.

[justinc]

THAT, is NOT a Defender, in my opinion.


Should still be Simple, rugged, have live axles, coils and hose out interior.

If you want a 'comfortable' version, buy a Disco or RRC.


The County/ Defenders are an iconic landmark and ARE the design Datum for their intended purpose, which is hard work and no nonsense reliability.

Steer away from this criteria at your own peril, LR.


JC

[bobslandies]

Based on D4 it could end up weighing 3 Tonnes or more by the time it is beefed up to carry any load.

I agree with JC - keep building a basic vehicle. In fact steal some of the ideas in the Santana/ Iveco Massif! Like the wider rear door, flatter floor, etc.

Bob

[wagoo]

THAT, is NOT a Defender, in my opinion.


Should still be Simple, rugged, have live axles, coils and hose out interior.

If you want a 'comfortable' version, buy a Disco or RRC.


The County/ Defenders are an iconic landmark and ARE the design Datum for their intended purpose, which is hard work and no nonsense reliability.

Steer away from this criteria at your own peril, LR.


JC

The no nonsense hardworking qualities may apply to the 110 series of the 1980s, but until LandRover start fitting proper differentials, halfshafts and CV joints to Fenders IMO it doesn't apply to them I'm afraid.
Wagoo.

[UncleHo]

G'day Folks :)

Well whatever it looks like it will have to conform to Euro 5-6-7 or what ever and to meet US standards, And after it is OK for the rest of the world, then it has to meet AUSTRALIAN ADR's which differ (to protect the Aust Motor Vehicle Industry) just look at the farce with the 90's, a year plus to get the exhaust pipe the way ADR's wanted, and then only plated as a 2 seater, when the rest of the world has/had a Wagon (estate) :(

We may see it in 2019


cheers

[justinc]

The no nonsense hardworking qualities may apply to the 110 series of the 1980s, but until LandRover start fitting proper differentials, halfshafts and CV joints to Fenders IMO it doesn't apply to them I'm afraid.
Wagoo.

100% agree. I have been doing some Salisbury rear conversions to later 'Fenders for a while now. They started down the soft path after 2002 IMHO.

JC

[Newbs-IIA]

I found this picture doing an image search, i cant say how authentic it is but it looks the part.

The picture on the LR mag site with ICON written in the corner is a fake, its a Ford Bronco concept, they photo-shopped a LR badge on it lol.
http://tmitchell.smugmug.com/photos/954198893_wfaKe-L.jpg
http://flic.kr/p/8ooQ6g
Sorry but that is NOT what I would call a Defender! It's a Disco with a fender grille on the front :mad:

whats wrong with the current body shape that needs upgrading? Maybe just put some new engines & gearboxes on offer and be done with it ;)

The 76 series Landcruiser has got it nailed, live axels, V8 turbo diesel, auto or manual, factory upgrades, modern but minimalistic interior - It's all you need... why can't LR see what they are missing

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

[PAT303]

The 76 doesn't have it,they aren't selling because people don't want to pay 70K for a basic workhorse,they are a 80's design with a 90's engine sold in 2010 and don't do anything well.The ''new'' Defender doesn't want to be anything like it,price wise especially. Pat

[justinc]

Sorry but that is NOT what I would call a Defender! It's a Disco with a fender grille on the front :mad:

whats wrong with the current body shape that needs upgrading? Maybe just put some new engines & gearboxes on offer and be done with it ;)

The 76 series Landcruiser has got it nailed, live axels, V8 turbo diesel, auto or manual, factory upgrades, modern but minimalistic interior - It's all you need... why can't LR see what they are missing

http://images-2.drive.com.au/2010/08/18/1792049/toyo-landcruiser_m-600x400.jpg

Sorry, TOTALLY disagree with that. Overpriced and questionable reliability. Future corrosion issues are still to be experienced, and they are a shadow of the 75 series for strength and simplicity. Infact a 62 series Sahara Turbo diesel was IMHO one of the last 'great' Landcruisers.

Manufacturers continue to 'move forward', but in all reality MOST are moving away from the past reliable and simple workhorses. A true workhorse can not by definition be a comfortable luxurious family vehicle aswell, too many compromises start to creep in, eroding its original purpose.

JC

[Newbs-IIA]

Sorry, TOTALLY disagree with that. Overpriced and questionable reliability. Future corrosion issues are still to be experienced, and they are a shadow of the 75 series for strength and simplicity. Infact a 62 series Sahara Turbo diesel was IMHO one of the last 'great' Landcruisers.

Manufacturers continue to 'move forward', but in all reality MOST are moving away from the past reliable and simple workhorses. A true workhorse can not by definition be a comfortable luxurious family vehicle aswell, too many compromises start to creep in, eroding its original purpose.

JC

All are valid points which I was aware of but negelected to mention for that very reason :p I was trying to make a point that IMO, the Defenders are moving in the wrong direction i.e. towards the yuppy soccer-mum market whereas Toyota have at least ATTEMPTED to make something more basic...

Totally agree they are way overpriced and there have definatly been teething issues with the V8 but any moreso than the Td5 had??? or whatever the current Defender engine is?

This is why I buy Kingswoods and Series Landrovers... basic proven relyability :cool:

[F150driver]

live axles (coil sprung)
rear LSD with manual E-lockers front and rear
4.4L TDV8 (from 2011 Range Rover)
short wb, 5 seater (maybe similar dimensions to old Discovery)
hydraulic body mounts
fully-boxed, E-coated frame with as many cross members as they can possibly fit.
Dana axles
Fox shocks (mounted outboard of frame for stability)
6 speed manual or 8 speed auto option (with dual range TFC) - paddle shifters for the auto
exhaust brake / jake brake
trailer sway control
trac/stability control
5 star crash rating (including rollover)
retro but modern body styling

[series3]

I was trying to make a point that IMO, the Defenders are moving in the wrong direction i.e. towards the yuppy soccer-mum market

How so?

[superquag]

As someone only recently infected with Rover-itis, (bought a 94 Vogue SE) and has owned an old 89 diesel Pajero for more than a few years....

I have never experienced such crappy unreliability in what are the 'basics'... like wiring thats inadequate in gauge and LENGTH, switchgear that is far from robust, door-handles that are a consumable item....

My left-field fantasy... (reality if I win Lotto)

Take the chassis of an older Rangie, or Defender, put it under a Gen1 (mine) or Gen 2 PAJERO body... engine of your choice... then you'd have a body that gives you heaps of 'human' room. rear seat leg space better than Patrols, certainly more than ANY Def or Disco, and most importantly, electrics that work, and keep on working, that don't fall apart, and even rear side windows that wind ALL the way down !!!

Maybe not literally, but the Paj is way more efficient in its interior space, the seats are pretty decent, and the proportions virtually perfect. - As much as I love it, the Rangie's steering wheel is too small and tooo close to the driver...and pedals a tad too far. Sideways legroom is much less than the Paj even though the vehicle is wider.

And don't start me about the lack of headroom for a 5'10" person !!!

Quite bluntly, Rover missed the boat 30+ years ago as far as sensible and practical body design goes.

As much as I love the Classic, there is NO way my Paj is leaving the family fleet. - Nothing (japanese) ever breaks on it!

James in Perth

[topnham]

just tell me what do most of the worlds armys drive think you will fined it to be land rovers if it good enough for the queen its good enough for me

[Tikirocker]

Dunno ... for me the perfect 4WD is one that has a traditionally mechanical engine system ... not one that relies heavily on electronics and computer chips etc. Call me a Luddite though. :angel:

I voted with my feet and bought a County, feels pretty damned perfect to me at this point.

S.

[DiscoMick]

I assume they'll have to build a simple, rugged, reliable basic vehicle for military and similar uses. Then they'll have to produce tarted up versions for people who want something between the basic and the Disco.
That's where I'd come in.

[justinc]

Dunno ... for me the perfect 4WD is one that has a traditionally mechanical engine system ... not one that relies heavily on electronics and computer chips etc. Call me a Luddite though. :angel:

I voted with my feet and bought a County, feels pretty damned perfect to me at this point.

S.

X2 :D:D

JC

[F4Phantom]

As someone only recently infected with Rover-itis, (bought a 94 Vogue SE) and has owned an old 89 diesel Pajero for more than a few years....

I have never experienced such crappy unreliability in what are the 'basics'... like wiring thats inadequate in gauge and LENGTH, switchgear that is far from robust, door-handles that are a consumable item....

My left-field fantasy... (reality if I win Lotto)

Take the chassis of an older Rangie, or Defender, put it under a Gen1 (mine) or Gen 2 PAJERO body... engine of your choice... then you'd have a body that gives you heaps of 'human' room. rear seat leg space better than Patrols, certainly more than ANY Def or Disco, and most importantly, electrics that work, and keep on working, that don't fall apart, and even rear side windows that wind ALL the way down !!!

Maybe not literally, but the Paj is way more efficient in its interior space, the seats are pretty decent, and the proportions virtually perfect. - As much as I love it, the Rangie's steering wheel is too small and tooo close to the driver...and pedals a tad too far. Sideways legroom is much less than the Paj even though the vehicle is wider.

And don't start me about the lack of headroom for a 5'10" person !!!

Quite bluntly, Rover missed the boat 30+ years ago as far as sensible and practical body design goes.

As much as I love the Classic, there is NO way my Paj is leaving the family fleet. - Nothing (japanese) ever breaks on it!

James in Perth

I used to have a 1988 pajero, intercooled turbo diesel 2.5L 4 cyl. I had 7 seats, leather, heated front seats, suspension front seats (very good) and everything else with a 4 speed auto. Anyway I did like the car, but it was nothing on my RRC. The RRC has far more room as I am 6,3 and its the first car I have owned where I cannot put the seat all the way back!! Long distance driving is better in the RRC I dont get a back ache. And the suspension in the pajero was crap (it had rear coils) it felt so tinny. The RRC has huge space in the rear compared with a patrol, but the pajero was also very good in this regard. The most annoying thing in the pajero was having my right knee rest on the power window switches. Also I give the RR hell off road and it does not break (other than an axle!) whereas the pajero got a vibration in the driveline the first 4x4 day I took it on I could never get rid of. Anyway the pajero is everything it says on the box but the RRC is far superior.

[F150driver]

I think that Toyota 70 series is great on a spec sheet. Ticks the right boxes. That's about where the goodness ends.

[Wilbur]

As someone only recently infected with Rover-itis, (bought a 94 Vogue SE) and has owned an old 89 diesel Pajero for more than a few years....

I have never experienced such crappy unreliability in what are the 'basics'... like wiring thats inadequate in gauge and LENGTH, switchgear that is far from robust, door-handles that are a consumable item....

My left-field fantasy... (reality if I win Lotto)

Take the chassis of an older Rangie, or Defender, put it under a Gen1 (mine) or Gen 2 PAJERO body... engine of your choice... then you'd have a body that gives you heaps of 'human' room. rear seat leg space better than Patrols, certainly more than ANY Def or Disco, and most importantly, electrics that work, and keep on working, that don't fall apart, and even rear side windows that wind ALL the way down !!!

Maybe not literally, but the Paj is way more efficient in its interior space, the seats are pretty decent, and the proportions virtually perfect. - As much as I love it, the Rangie's steering wheel is too small and tooo close to the driver...and pedals a tad too far. Sideways legroom is much less than the Paj even though the vehicle is wider.

And don't start me about the lack of headroom for a 5'10" person !!!

Quite bluntly, Rover missed the boat 30+ years ago as far as sensible and practical body design goes.

As much as I love the Classic, there is NO way my Paj is leaving the family fleet. - Nothing (japanese) ever breaks on it!

James in Perth



Yawwnnnn.......

[ramblingboy42]

Well guys....and gals....after reading all the things youd love to have in your new Defender, youll never need to build a new Defender in that specification. You already have it.....its called a D4......it has everything that everyone here has requested. The good thing I can see is that if it its going to take until 2019 to get this new fender on the market, the old one hopefully will be still manufactured until that time, by then a lot more of us will own one, will be extremely happy with them and wont want new fangled ones.

[superquag]

Phantom,
of course you don't need to put the seat all the way back to feel comfortable...at least regarding leg-room... the steering wheel is way too close and the pedals too far away, relatively.

It would suit anyone with extra-long legs and short arms/prefers the British, 90+ degree bent arm position.

Of course HM likes hers... One is rather short in the arms...and One needs not more than 30% of accelerator travel to get about the Royal Estate :D

Can only agree re Paj suspension, leaves a lot to be desired and basically not worth fixing, with its limited-travel torsion bar front end.

- Which is why I suggested a chassis transplant.

Grumpy James in Perth

[inside]

Dunno ... for me the perfect 4WD is one that has a traditionally mechanical engine system ... not one that relies heavily on electronics and computer chips etc. Call me a Luddite though. :angel:

I'm a tech head but this too is the realisation I came to. It just makes sense this way. It's unfortunate though that these days are limited. Our kids will be talking going about the 1HZG657X not being as robust as the 1HZG657W but Bob down the road can change the computer to run the old firmware.

I think that Toyota 70 series is great on a spec sheet. Ticks the right boxes. That's about where the goodness ends.
Agree here. I looked at them closely. 70K, why do they cost so much?

[Wilbur]

Phantom,
of course you don't need to put the seat all the way back to feel comfortable...at least regarding leg-room... the steering wheel is way too close and the pedals too far away, relatively.

It would suit anyone with extra-long legs and short arms/prefers the British, 90+ degree bent arm position.

Grumpy James in Perth

Yes but..... this complaint fits most British cars. However, I did a bit of race track driver training and the first thing they taught us was the obvious - with 'straight arm' driving, Sir has less control over the steering wheel. I was told immediately to move the seat forward and he was quite right, much more control. I use all my vehicles that way now, bent arms definitely makes for more sensitive control.

Cheers all,

Paul

[dobbo]

Dunno ... for me the perfect 4WD is one that has a traditionally mechanical engine system ... not one that relies heavily on electronics and computer chips etc. Call me a Luddite though. :angel:

I voted with my feet and bought a County, feels pretty damned perfect to me at this point.

S.


Totally agree,



With reference to the Cruiser, I priced up both a few weeks ago,

1: The LR dealer doesn't want a bar of you until you start walking away, the Toyo dealers were more than helpful

2: The LC is 10k more than the Defer, but the service costs are 1/3 the price of Landrover's service costs, added up the Cruiser works out around 5k more than the Defer

3: The LC has the ability to get serviced nationwide, the Defer still hasn't got the dealer network

4: LR assist, all good and well, I can get my broken car home, what about the horses, float, family, luggage etc...

Both cars have had reliability issues, that need addressing, both are vastly overpriced for what they are.

All this plus, the members on here who approached me about buying my County and either lost interest or in one case asked so many stupid irrelevant questions and that they nearly got told where to stick their Nimbin cash (sorry near queensland border cash).



After much thought, I have decided to rebuild mine. Doing it this way might (I doubt it though) cost me more than 50k but eventually it will be a much better vehicle.

[dobbo]

As someone only recently infected with Rover-itis, (bought a 94 Vogue SE) and has owned an old 89 diesel Pajero for more than a few years....

I have never experienced such crappy unreliability in what are the 'basics'... like wiring thats inadequate in gauge and LENGTH, switchgear that is far from robust, door-handles that are a consumable item....

My left-field fantasy... (reality if I win Lotto)

Take the chassis of an older Rangie, or Defender, put it under a Gen1 (mine) or Gen 2 PAJERO body... engine of your choice... then you'd have a body that gives you heaps of 'human' room. rear seat leg space better than Patrols, certainly more than ANY Def or Disco, and most importantly, electrics that work, and keep on working, that don't fall apart, and even rear side windows that wind ALL the way down !!!

Maybe not literally, but the Paj is way more efficient in its interior space, the seats are pretty decent, and the proportions virtually perfect. - As much as I love it, the Rangie's steering wheel is too small and tooo close to the driver...and pedals a tad too far. Sideways legroom is much less than the Paj even though the vehicle is wider.

And don't start me about the lack of headroom for a 5'10" person !!!

Quite bluntly, Rover missed the boat 30+ years ago as far as sensible and practical body design goes.

As much as I love the Classic, there is NO way my Paj is leaving the family fleet. - Nothing (japanese) ever breaks on it!

James in Perth



Looks like you got the right car there sunshine.;) Ever wonder why they didn't call your perfect car a Pajero in Spanish speaking countries?

[DeanoH]

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/02/100.jpg


1996 OKA LT Multi-cab

Well we've owned many 4WD's over the years, Series II, Series III, RRC, P38A, D2, Troopy, Jeep and now this. OKA call it the 'The Ultimate 4WD" and they're not far off the mark.
No fancy electronics and computers here. The only electronics are the radio and the speedo, neither of which is essential. If you removed the fuel stop solenoid you could even do away with the complete alternator/electrical system and still be 100% mobile.

4 litre Turbo Perkins
Spicer 5 speed all synchro gearbox
Massive Vickers Armoured car transfer case (usually Rockwell)
Dana 70 rear / Dana 60 front with LSD's both ends.
Factory dual batterys, SS water tank and 12000lb Warn winch on front
8500lb Thomas winch on rear
305/70R19.5 tyres and wheels with solid centres (1/2 inch plate)
Inbuilt snorkel in 'b' pillar behind drivers head.
Twin 105 litre fuel tanks
Loooooooooooooong semi elliptical leaves with dual shockers and aeliron rubbers at each corner for a beautifully smooth ride.

A delight to own and drive, and best of all..............


MADE IN AUSTRALIA


Deano :):)

[DiscoMick]

Does look good. Mind me asking how much does it weigh, what's its fuel range and how much does it cost?

[DeanoH]

Does look good. Mind me asking how much does it weigh, what's its fuel range and how much does it cost?

G'day Mick,

Tare is 3920, Gross is 5500 and GCM (with a trailer) 7500. It is possible to get under 4500Kg GVM depending on body type, fit out and wheel/tyre combo if cheaper rego and driving with a car license is reqd.
On our recent trip to WA and up the CSR averaged 16.5 l/100Km, fully loaded, to Kalgoorlie sitting on 100 Km/h. Doesn't change much when in 4WD on the dirt but the sand knocks it about a bit. On the CSR used 230 litres from Wiluna to Kunawaritji (near Well 33), haven't worked it out properly but is probably around 20 l/100Km. Tanks hold 210 litres, had 60 litres in jerrys for a total of 270 litres.
The OKA cost us under $30K 18 months ago as a basic unit, multi-cab and tray with 8.25R16 wheels and tyres and < 160K's on the clock. They come in single cab, dual cab, multi-cab and bus derivatives being the most common. Have spent extra on Dynamat (magic stuff) soundproofing in cabin, carpet and seat retrim, 19.5" rims and tyres (6 off), upgraded axles, yokes and LSD's, additional rear winch and 50 metres Dynamica rope. Plus building in the back. All up probably spent another $15K. Worth every penny as is now a very comfortable and capable 4WD tourer.
Spare parts are readily available as the vehicle is made in Australia and many of the parts are locally manafactured or sourced.

Deano:)

[ntguy]

Agree, I have had three now.

I have had Landrovers, Landcruisers, Patrols etc etc.

With a family you end up towing a trailer etc.

Not so for the OKA.


Plenty are getting engine swaps now with a Cummins 6bt. A engine that is simple, but ultra reliable.

Also with the OKA, you can swap bodies etc to suit.


See pictures

[ntguy]

BTW
Pictures are all same vehicle

[4x4 MORE]

R.I.P. (the traditional, rugged, no frills, simple to service and maintain 4WD. Killed by electrocution.):(

Bingo..sadly that's the way of the future:cry::cry: