End of Landys?

[ahd3sandy]

Apparently the army is getting rid of the Land Rovers and replacing them with the Mercedes variant that looks kind of Landy-ish. Is this rumor true?

[isuzurover]

Apparently the army is getting rid of the Land Rovers and replacing them with the Mercedes variant that looks kind of Landy-ish. Is this rumor true?

Let me guess, you have just come back from 2 years in:

(a) Antarctica
(b) Space
(c) A religious cult
(d) A cave

;)

[THE BOOGER]

If you do a search there are several threads on the subject the first of the mercs are already here the decision was taken several years ago:)
search gwagen

[Pedro_The_Swift]

doesnt look like any landy I've seen--
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2011/01/232.jpg

[Sully]

Hahaha! Nice looking ML though Pedro.

[Ace]

Yep, as mentioned above its old new, but cant say I really blame the Army etc. Its a shame for sure but Land Rover havent stepped up to the plate and made something that is reliable and free from diff and other drive train component problems.

[MickS]

Let me guess, you are have just come back from 2 years in:

(a) Antarctica
(b) Space
(c) A religious cult
(d) A cave

;)

Or you could have said..."Yes mate...has been on the cards for a while. There are some threads on here relating to it..." ;)

[Ace]

Or you could have said..."Yes mate...has been on the cards for a while. There are some threads on here relating to it..." ;)

but the editing of his reply with the a, b, c options looked far more impressive.

[wagoo]

Yep, as mentioned above its old new, but cant say I really blame the Army etc. Its a shame for sure but Land Rover havent stepped up to the plate and made something that is reliable and free from diff and other drive train component problems.

Not that I think they deserve it,Quite the contrary, but did LandRover even tender for the contract? Or did the army dept of supply just choose the G wagon without any Perentie type competitive evaluation trials?
wagoo.

[aj90]

Tom Sheppard (www.desertwinds.co.uk (http://www.desertwinds.co.uk)) got rid of his Land Rover products years ago for G Wagens....

[korg20000bc]

From what I remember the Army wanted a supplier who could provide the whole range of vehicles required- trucks, light trucks, bulldozers, tractors, transports etc. Land Rover couldn't do that so was out of the tender process.

[warren9981]

I understood the decision was made because Mercedes was the only company that tendered that could supply light and heavy transport vehicles. But I could be wrong.:D

[redandy3575]

From what I remember the Army wanted a supplier who could provide the whole range of vehicles required- trucks, light trucks, bulldozers, tractors, transports etc. Land Rover couldn't do that so was out of the tender process.

That's part of it. But the G-wagen which is short for 'Gelandewagen' (meaning 'off-road wagon' in German) are actualy quiet good off-road and reliable. Mind you, a lot of what Mercedes-Benz have learnt in passenger off-road vehicles came from the Land Rovers anyway. Mercedes have been heavily involved in Military vehicles for decades dating back to before WW2 (don't menzion ze war!!), and still are producing war vehicles for many countries around the world, where's Land Rovers have mainly served within the British commonwealth. Merc have also got a much bigger budget & mor engineers to throw towards development.

But considering that Land Rover in the past made do with what it had with a limited budget but still managing to be one of, if not the worlds best capable off-roader with 70% of all vehicles still on the road. Now thats saying something:)

[Hymie]

Or you could have said..."Yes mate...has been on the cards for a while. There are some threads on here relating to it..." ;)

What and forego good old Aussie sarcasm:eek:

[markus_80]

I was talking to a mate who is in the transport corps and the saddest thing about this change over is that the army are apparantly scrapping every single one becuase they can't guarantee that they will be free of asbestos.

Not a single vehicle to be sold off....all turned into little cubes of metal.

funny though isn't that brake pads made with asbestos were being sold up until 2003. Wonder how much asbestos residue there is on everyones cars

mark

[THE BOOGER]

I was talking to a mate who is in the transport corps and the saddest thing about this change over is that the army are apparantly scrapping every single one becuase they can't guarantee that they will be free of asbestos.

Not a single vehicle to be sold off....all turned into little cubes of metal.

funny though isn't that brake pads made with asbestos were being sold up until 2003. Wonder how much asbestos residue there is on everyones cars

mark

That sould keep the prices down keep that story going:D:D:D

for the op have a look here
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/remlr-general/57704-perentie-land-rover-disposal-program.html

[VladTepes]

Apparently the army is getting rid of the Land Rovers and replacing them with the Mercedes variant that looks kind of Landy-ish. Is this rumor true?

No, not at all.

However there has been a rash of thefts of Land Rover badges, given their high desirability.

Combine this with a factory unable to make new badges quickly enough and the army has had to replace the badges with what was available.

In this case they sent 6RAR out to the local supermaket car parks to "acquire" a few Merc emblems from some S-classes.



Its a shame for sure but Land Rover havent stepped up to the plate and made something that is reliable and free from diff and other drive train component problems.

Well, neither has mercedes. See Dave (blknights) posts on the vehicles.

[Ralph1Malph]

That's part of it.
:)

Significantly, the requirement for bolt on or add on armour plate and anti mine fitment armour was also a requirement and LR was not able to offer a variant. Not sure how the GBangas have managed it but they have. This was a wise decision as I could count on two hands the number of LR we have deployed to the Middle East (not counting the SF variants) as they would be death traps.
Interestingly, the Seppos are going the same way with Hummers, a replacement program is in full swing for a beast that offers far better crew protection.

Ralph

[carjunkieanon]

Let me guess, you have just come back from 2 years in:

(a) Antarctica
(b) Space
(c) A religious cult
(d) A cave

;)

Give the guy some credit, he's on an Land Rover forum after all. Probably more like

(a) driving a series 1 deep in the Gibson desert trying to find Gibson's last resting place
(b) deep in the african serengeti tracking elephants
(c) deep in the guts of a major rebuild taking all his time & energy - if so please show pics soon
(d) deep in a cave - in his Defender - pioneering a new form of off-roading.

[wagoo]

Significantly, the requirement for bolt on or add on armour plate and anti mine fitment armour was also a requirement and LR was not able to offer a variant. Not sure how the GBangas have managed it but they have. This was a wise decision as I could count on two hands the number of LR we have deployed to the Middle East (not counting the SF variants) as they would be death traps.
Interestingly, the Seppos are going the same way with Hummers, a replacement program is in full swing for a beast that offers far better crew protection.

Ralph

The G wagon chassis is about the same size box section as a RangeRover Classic but twice as thick, so should be up to carrying the armour if fitted with axles of the appropriate capacity.
I would assume that the current G wagons have been significantly redesigned compared to the model that lost out to the Landy 110 in the Perentie evaluation trials. Of course the LandRover has seen significant changes too,mostly to the detriment of ruggedness and durability.
Wagoo.

[wrinklearthur]

Hi All

If I remember correctly, a article in the local newspaper at the time, stated something like this-

( Land rover not to tender for army contract, as the timing of tender ending dosn't allow sufficient time for the development required.)

Also in the article was a reference to Ford's development of a new engine and transmission.

I'll just flip back through the last ten years of newspaper to verify this!! :D

Cheers Arthur

[Fish78]

According to a few press articles Land Rover said they were not interested in supplying Military vehicles any more, they are moving away from commercial vehicles altogether as they see themselves as a premium brand now.

The next Defer is supposed to be based on the D4/RRS platform, all independent suspension etc.

The G-wagon was probably the only choice, Hummer is gone to the Chinese, the Japs, i think are still not to be trusted (after-all they had nasty plans for Aust:twisted:) India make a 4cyl Humvee knock off, but its rubbish and that leaves the Russians, problem with them is there too Russian.

Zee Germans are the only choice left.

[Blknight.aus]

Not that I think they deserve it,Quite the contrary, but did LandRover even tender for the contract? Or did the army dept of supply just choose the G wagon without any Perentie type competitive evaluation trials?
wagoo.

to summate....

landrover was invited and gave it screw you pal.

the Gwagens are a mistake, with the things that everyones raving about them being so good being the auto and the aircon and the huge power from the engine...

yet for some reason no one wants to answer the question of if its such an improvement on the perentie why does it have leafs and drums in the back and why in the promo video does it lift wheels where the perentie goes through flat footed... (yes theres a whole lot more than that search is your friend (well unless your trying to market the Gwagen))

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Yep, as mentioned above its old new, but cant say I really blame the Army etc. Its a shame for sure but Land Rover havent stepped up to the plate and made something that is reliable and free from diff and other drive train component problems.I don't know that's true. Land Rover didn't submit for the tender - so it has nothing to do with stepping "up to the plate and made something that is reliable and free from diff and other drive train component problems".


I understood the decision was made because Mercedes was the only company that tendered that could supply light and heavy transport vehicles. But I could be wrong.:DYou are correct in the single supplier however that was later relaxed but Ford still decided that Land Rover would not submit a tender.
According to a few press articles Land Rover said they were not interested in supplying Military vehicles any more, they are moving away from commercial vehicles altogether as they see themselves as a premium brand now......Land Rover wanted to submit to tender but "FoMoCo Premier Automotive Group" wanted to be rid of the utilitarian Defender range because it was labour intensive and was not able to meet standards in lots of markets (without a lot of re engineering).


I was talking to a mate who is in the transport corps and the saddest thing about this change over is that the army are apparantly scrapping every single one becuase they can't guarantee that they will be free of asbestos.

Not a single vehicle to be sold off....all turned into little cubes of metal.

funny though isn't that brake pads made with asbestos were being sold up until 2003. Wonder how much asbestos residue there is on everyones cars

markI love furphys!

Asbestos teams have already been through the Army supply chain and have identified and where possible removed items containing asbestos. The worst that is likely to happen is that the brake shoes will be removed, (there are already processes for that), however the asbestos containing shoes are likely to have already been replaced during service.

[wagoo]

to summate....

landrover was invited and gave it screw you pal.


the Gwagens are a mistake, with the things that everyones raving about them being so good being the auto and the aircon and the huge power from the engine...

yet for some reason no one wants to answer the question of if its such an improvement on the perentie why does it have leafs and drums in the back and why in the promo video does it lift wheels where the perentie goes through flat footed... (yes theres a whole lot more than that search is your friend (well unless your trying to market the Gwagen))

If landrover told the military to go screw themselves,what real choice did the dept of supply have? The japs don't keep models in production for long enough to guarantee future supply of vehicles to the same specification.
There must be some technical reason why they have gone over to leaf springs and drum brakes. Should't be cost because the previous coil spring/radius arm tooling has already paid for itself. I suspect it relates to the higher GVM of the Applique Armour vehicles, but not sure how.
With difflocks fitted, lifting wheels shouldn't put them at a disadvantage compared to the open diff Perentie.
Wagoo.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

If landrover told the military to go screw themselves,what real choice did the dept of supply have? The japs don't keep models in production for long enough to guarantee future supply of vehicles to the same specification.
There must be some technical reason why they have gone over to leaf springs and drum brakes. Should't be cost because the previous coil spring/radius arm tooling has already paid for itself. I suspect it relates to the higher GVM of the Applique Armour vehicles, but not sure how.
With difflocks fitted, lifting wheels shouldn't put them at a disadvantage compared to the open diff Perentie.
Wagoo.The Perenties were disk brake front and drum rear, exactly the same specification as the civilian Land Rover 110 of the period. I'm sure that a next generation monitor lizard Land Rover would have disk brake rears just the same as the current Defender. As to the rear leaf springs on the 6X6 coil springs were tried during development and were found wanting, coil springs don't load share, (leaving the entire weight on one axle and spring mount with subsequent failure) and didn't articulate axle 2 to axle 3 well. Their option was to develop the long overlapping load sharing design or go to an air suspension system with it's inherent weaknesses.

[Blknight.aus]

no problems with leafs for the 6x6 its the easiest and most elegent way of achieving the job with high reliability. but the 4x4 perenties are all coil all the way, whats mercedes excuse for leafs in the back of a 4x4? its sure not loadability because the stock Gwagen can only carry the same as a stock 110 (according to the info sheets we've seen)

given the perentie has been in service for 25 odd years now disc drum was the standard of the time and even then some of the perenties are discs all round AND thats how they came, its not a later upgrade mod.

Whats mercedes excuse for vehicles that are going to be plated 2010 or better having drums in the rear?

[ugu80]

I would suspect drums and leaves was to keep cost down. They were bidding for a govt contract.

[markus_80]

I love furphys!

Asbestos teams have already been through the Army supply chain and have identified and where possible removed items containing asbestos. The worst that is likely to happen is that the brake shoes will be removed, (there are already processes for that), however the asbestos containing shoes are likely to have already been replaced during service.[/QUOTE]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as my mate said it wasn't just to do with the brakes but also all the old buildings where they have been stored and every other place asbestos may have been encountered. I'm happy to be wrong but as my mate is a current serving member of the ADF in the transport corps i would have thought his info would be pretty accurate. The reason being according to him is the government are worried about being sued is someone buys a landy then developes an asbestos related illness.

Mark

[THE BOOGER]

Not too many of the 110,s and 6x6 are stored in asbestos buildings most of them were pulled down in the asbestos scares of the 80,s before they even entered service even so a good hose off would solve that problem.:D But if the govt wants to discount 1 or 2 I will wash them myself to save them the cost:angel:

[Hamish71]

Ive actually been involved in the Overlander Program on and off for about 7 yrs. Dont throw rocks at me, I didnt make any decisions. :) Most of the above, in terms of why Gwagen is true. Remember that off-road performance is just one factor in a bid. Other elements include mean time between failure, supportability, life of type, through life support costs, total ownership cost...blah blah...the original tender document was over 3000 pages, need I go on? Originally, it was hoped one manufacturer could do everything from lightweight, through to heavy truck. This is true, but there were limited brands that could, which does not encourage competition....so the tenders were broken up. Significantly, this time around the Commonwealth wanted a turn key solution, for supply, and support, for the life of type. Everything other than 1st and 2nd line spt. Land Rover didnt bid. There is, however, another Phase of the program coming up. Those of you who are following this will remember that what has been bought is the "Operationally Deployable Fleet". ie....these are the vehicles we will deploy. No decision, nor tender has yet occurred to cover the "Training Fleet". ie...those vehicles which have representative capability suitable for "collective training" but will never deploy. These may, or may not be more gwagens. The thinking was that a larger slice of the budget could be spent buying a smaller number of BETTER vehicles which would actually be deployed. A smaller amount would buy the vehicles which would never be deployed. This thinking has recently been challenged, but I know Land Rover are interested in this.

So, green oval fans....there might be many more years of the green oval yet.....or maybe just more gwagens...who knows.

[solmanic]

doesnt look like any landy I've seen--
http://www2.mercedes-benz.com.au/content/media_library/australia/mpc_australia/passenger_cars_ng/new_car/rep_m_class/gallery/Image2_740x295_jpg.object-Single-MEDIA.tmp/M2-740x295.jpg

I'd shoot at that!

[Fish78]

What the Aust Army/Gov should have done:

Engineer an Australian 4x4 ourselves.

we have talented people in the country that are capable of this task, it would create 1000s of jobs and help our struggling manufacturing industry no end.

It would take some time, but the Army still have plenty of LRs, nothing wrong with using them for a year or two.

But instead we are keeping the Germans employed.

[THE BOOGER]

You might be suprised the pruduction line at LRA moorebank had about 30/40 per shift and they only ran 2 shifts for a very short time, and about another 20 or so in the front office. They turned out 5 per day civvy and mil, 7 if they were pushed but most of the parts were imported by the crate load from england same with the isuzu engines:o

[juddy]

What the Aust Army/Gov should have done:

Engineer an Australian 4x4 ourselves.

we have talented people in the country that are capable of this task, it would create 1000s of jobs and help our struggling manufacturing industry no end.

It would take some time, but the Army still have plenty of LRs, nothing wrong with using them for a year or two.

But instead we are keeping the Germans employed.

You have to remember that when Australia try s to make there own stuff they end up being more expensive than off the shelf items.

Land rover do still make military land roves, and like the above post said may well get a slice of the non combat requirement, alot cheaper than the G Wagon and tried and tested. Now where did i see that Military spec Puma being tested recently!!!!!!!!!!

[Lotz-A-Landies]

This is a bit off track, but I thought that the puma powered Defenders don't have a very long future as the Tata/FoMoCo contract to supply the Transit engines is nearing it's end. Also given that Tata have an engine manufacturing joint venture with Fiat, they own Daewoo commercial vehicles and even have a partnership with Cummins Westport (Canada) for CNG diesel bus engines, so we may yet see a new powertrain supplier for Land Rover.

[juddy]

This is a bit off track, but I thought that the puma powered Defenders don't have a very long future as the Tata/FoMoCo contract to supply the Transit engines is nearing it's end. Also given that Tata have an engine manufacturing joint venture with Fiat, they own Daewoo commercial vehicles and even have a partnership with Cummins Westport (Canada) for CNG diesel bus engines, so we may yet see a new powertrain supplier for Land Rover.

Maybe a modern version of the FC would do the job:wasntme:

[Fish78]

You have to remember that when Australia try s to make there own stuff they end up being more expensive than off the shelf items.

Land rover do still make military land roves, and like the above post said may well get a slice of the non combat requirement, alot cheaper than the G Wagon and tried and tested. Now where did i see that Military spec Puma being tested recently!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, i realise the cost of designing/building our own would be substantially more, at first anyway.

We are harming the future of Australia with all these imports, American industry is dead and gone, now they are paying the price, the Chinese have them over a barrel as they own the majority of American Gov debt, debt that probably never be paid off because they have nothing to sell.

I don't want to sound like a Commie, but when Howard sold off everything our country owned, he put us on the same path, we still have our Minning ind but that is largely foreign owned now too.

Before this turns into an off topic rant ill wind it up:).

[twitchy]

But considering that Land Rover in the past made do with what it had with a limited budget but still managing to be one of, if not the worlds best capable off-roader with 70% of all vehicles still on the road. Now thats saying something:)

The other 30% made it home Bahahahahaha [bigrolf]

[Lotz-A-Landies]

<snip>....
I don't want to sound like a Commie, but when Howard sold off everything our country owned, he put us on the same path, we still have our Minning ind but that is largely foreign owned now too. ...<snip>Unfortunately it was the Hawke/Keating Labor Governments who put in place the tariff reductions that have reduced the automotive industries in Australia.

[VladTepes]

Unfortunately it was the Hawke/Keating Labor Governments who put in place the tariff reductions that have reduced the automotive industries in Australia.

of course if they were still in place you;d be driving a Captiva by now :lol:

[Lotz-A-Landies]

of course if they were still in place you;d be driving a Captiva by now :lol:No I bought one of my current RRc's about the time Hawkie got into power.

And

Not under any circumstances would I be driving a captiva.

[Fish78]

Doesn't really matter who it was, Hawke, Keating, Howard, there all a bunch of Bastards.

[Hymie]

I think you will find the whole Privatization and sell off and reduction in Major industry was all due to Paul Keatings National Competition Policy Review.

[Lotz-A-Landies]

It was called the "Button Car Plan" lead by labor pollie John Button Minister for Industry and it started in 1984 when Hawke was PM and Keating treasurer.

[tony66_au]

I own amongst other things a few Mercs of old (Well not that old) and the engineering that goes into them is phenomenal, not only safety but body and engine design is well above average, I had a chance to take an older Benz 4 wheel drive around Kurth Kiln (Gembrook) 5 years ago when i lived nearby.

This thing was stock with not even a bullbar and I just added a snatch kit and hand winch to the kit and off we went.

Even on what I call road tyres in the middle of winter it was a very capable if not slightly uncomfortable trip while I taught a mate (Who owned the thing) some off road basics.

I just googled gwagen and came up with these.

German army LAPV Enok
LAPV Enok - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Light_Armoured_Patrol_Vehicle_ENOK.jpg" class="image"><img alt="Light Armoured Patrol Vehicle ENOK.jpg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Light_Armoured_Patrol_Vehicle_ENOK.jpg/300px-Light_Armoured_Patrol_Vehicle_ENOK.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/b/b4/Light_Armoured_Patrol_Vehicle_ENOK.jpg/300px-Light_Armoured_Patrol_Vehicle_ENOK.jpg
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2011/02/1071.jpg

[isuzubob]

yet for some reason no one wants to answer the question of if its such an improvement on the perentie why does it have leafs and drums in the back and why in the promo video does it lift wheels where the perentie goes through flat footed...

Definitely has coils in the back. Rear drums might not be cutting edge, but more than up to the job. ABS is disabled when low range is selected. And Gwagens will always lift a wheel as long as AR bars are fitted to the suspension.

YouTube - G Wagon.mpg

Bushdriver critisized this in 1983 - so nothing's new. But ANY 4x4 worthy of the name NEEDS diff locks. Which it has.

Rob W

[Blknight.aus]

not according to the data sheets the guys who were doing the intro stuff were flagging from... its supposed to be drum+ leaf rear...

Difflocks in a military vehicle are a bad, very bad idea...

the perentie has one and with the reduction in driver training thats been occurring and the inability of instructors to "correct" bad techniques in driving appropriately on the spot the use of the CDL in a 110 is appalling. Ive personally done recoveries simply by engaging it and driving the vehicle out. They leave them in on hardpack and wind up transmissions and snap axles. and thats just with one switch to get wrong. I've even had a 1750 come in with a "its hard to steer" complaint and the front tyres were chewed to shreds, you guessed it still in 4x4 with all locks in with the yellow warning lights nicely illuminated and the 4x4 switch still in the 4x4 with lockers position

How are they going to go with 3 switches? you can bet they will try to engage them at high power applications and at high speeds or not think about unwinding the driveline to get them to release after they flick the swithces off.

what a difflock generally does is provide people with a new and exciting way of going further and getting stuck in far more interesting and difficult to get to ways.