PDA

View Full Version : G wagon hopeless



lardy
28th October 2012, 01:38 AM
My mate a major in acquisitions confirmed something told to me by a mate in the pilbara recce mob, the g wagon has a fording button for river crossings that HAS to be pressed prior to a paddle coming to a complete stop to activate it, should be great when doing a tactical withdrawal under fire then, oh they were great in the snowy mountains under test but went into limp mode because of the heat up north.
Another great investment for the tax payers dollars then!

2stroke
28th October 2012, 05:32 AM
Well THAT'S progress! Do you know what the button does?

Blknight.aus
28th October 2012, 05:44 AM
essentially shuts down the power to the alternators.

2stroke
28th October 2012, 07:28 AM
Would you really need to stop to press that? Are the G's an actual improvement on the Rovers?

Ralph1Malph
28th October 2012, 07:35 AM
essentially shuts down the power to the alternators.

Yep, has two alternators, one mid mounted, one low mounted. The switch removes energisation from them. That's all!
In the interest of balance, and believe me, I am yet to be sold on the Gbanger, but my unit has had them for 4 mths now and I have done over 2000km alone in mine. Not one reliability or design problem. To be fair, we have had damage by drivers, but that surely can't count.
In contrast, I can't keep the fenders on the road! In the shop, out the shop, in the shop, out the shop, jeez, just take a Gbanger!

We also need to bear in mind that we have changed mission profile in the ADF these days. We generally do far less 'leyland brothers' stuff. No need for the passenger to sit on the brush guard with a machete. I would estimate that 96% of all our km will be done on blacktop and 99% will be at least formed tracks and roads.
Like any new bit of kit, we have yet to adjust our procedures, load patterns, tactics etc.

Cheers
Ralph

F4Phantom
28th October 2012, 09:18 AM
The huge advantage is better power and fuel economy which for onroad is very nice, aircon, automatic, double diff locks. Of course some people want to be able to have great skill in off road situations and the Gwagon will not do that so much, but it will make the average uninterested driver an excellent driver and that does matter.

I am sure once they are not new anymore the army will start to see all the components which need regular attendance so for the moment its hard to compare an old landy with a brand new car, I am sure when the landies were new they were also reliable for the first 2 years.

Lotz-A-Landies
28th October 2012, 10:13 AM
The whole argument is moot.

Mercedes won the contract that Land Rover Australia didn't tender for and given that the Land Rovers currently in the sand pit don't go outside the base we maybe should have bought Toyota HiLux off the showroom floor.

After all the HiLux is used by more military forces than any other vehicle in the World.

JamesH
28th October 2012, 10:41 AM
The whole argument is moot.

After all the HiLux is used by more military forces than any other vehicle in the World.

They may be technically true, but it doesn't count. When I see Hiluxes on the news they always loaded up with the baddies.

Has a baddie army or militia ever used Landies? Even in Africa where there would be heaps of them to commandeer/steal they don't seem to. It's like there is some deep primal thing inside us that says "goodies drive Landies, baddies drive the other rubbish". No self respecting baddie would be seen dead commiting crimes against humanity in a Defender.

It's a bit like black hats and white hats...:angel:

juddy
28th October 2012, 10:50 AM
After all the HiLux is used by more military forces than any other vehicle in the World.

More so than Land Rover????:angel:

Disco Muppet
28th October 2012, 12:07 PM
They may be technically true, but it doesn't count. When I see Hiluxes on the news they always loaded up with the baddies.

Has a baddie army or militia ever used Landies? Even in Africa where there would be heaps of them to commandeer/steal they don't seem to. It's like there is some deep primal thing inside us that says "goodies drive Landies, baddies drive the other rubbish". No self respecting baddie would be seen dead commiting crimes against humanity in a Defender.

It's a bit like black hats and white hats...:angel:

The Taliban chase Delta boys in "The Unit" in LandRovers.
The bad bloke has a Tdi defender in "The Expendables"
The Cuban drug dealer chases Will Smith and Martin Lawrence down the hill in a Landie, and I'm pretty sure there's a 101FC in Bad Boys II as well.
Sorry :angel: :wasntme:

lardy
28th October 2012, 01:29 PM
I guess time will tell if its been a reasonable investment of tax payers money if not I will sue lol.
If you are spending all your time on the black top Ralph are the pilbara regt not going to protect our borders anymore or are they doing it from the highways when the g wagon comes on line ???lol
No one has mentioned anything regarding the fact that they poohed themselves when they got warm and went into limp mode....anyone noticed that Australia and current theatres are a bit warm ....gulp!

lambrover
28th October 2012, 02:43 PM
They are for in country I think any way. The second alternator is an add on the Army added, not a standard Merc thing. Once again the defence buy something and get there sexy fingers on it.

Blknight.aus
28th October 2012, 02:58 PM
fuel economy

umm., no, nearly double the fuel of the 110 for not much more planning range.

Barefoot Dave
28th October 2012, 05:15 PM
Right! That settles it.
Now I'm not re-enlisting in 51. If the not-LRPVs are going to let me create lovely big sprays as I charge into the Mitchell at patrol speed!!
;-);-)

Lotz-A-Landies
28th October 2012, 05:56 PM
More so than Land Rover????:angel:Yes more that Land Rover, after all the main customers for Land Rover were former British commonwealth countries and even Australia is replacing them. The Yanks and Canada don't use them so if you were to count the number of Land Rovers being used by militaries anywhere, you'll likely find that the number of HMMWV used by the US alone outnumbers them.

Disco Muppet
28th October 2012, 06:18 PM
Yes more that Land Rover, after all the main customers for Land Rover were former British commonwealth countries and even Australia is replacing them. The Yanks and Canada don't use them so if you were to count the number of Land Rovers being used by militaries anywhere, you'll likely find that the number of HMMWV used by the US alone outnumbers them.

I was under the impression the HMMWV was being phased out?
Technically the yanks have one or two Land Rovers, custom built for the 75th Rangers, do they not ;)
Of course I'm just splitting hairs here :D
Hi-Lux packed to the gunwales with rent-a-goon squads and outdated weaponry is a pretty common sight in quite a few parts of the world :(

F4Phantom
28th October 2012, 06:30 PM
umm., no, nearly double the fuel of the 110 for not much more planning range.

so the 2 door army landy non turbo uses 12L/100, I expect the sixby uses more being turbo and heavier so at a guess 14L, the mercedes uses more than 12L? sounds very high for a modern fancy diesel.

Lotz-A-Landies
28th October 2012, 06:34 PM
Hi Muppet

The real issue is that given the nature of assymetrical warfare in war zones in the future, soft skinned vehicles do not provide sufficient protection for troops. Therefore the major western militaries are purchasing purpose built armoured personnel carriers.

With that in mind our Army would be better off buying 4X4 Cl vehicles from local dealers the same as other government departments and saving the money for armoured vehicles where it is needed in war zones.

Disco Muppet
28th October 2012, 06:51 PM
Hi Muppet

The real issue is that given the nature of assymetrical warfare in war zones in the future, soft skinned vehicles do not provide sufficient protection for troops. Therefore the major western militaries are purchasing purpose built armoured personnel carriers.

With that in mind our Army would be better off buying 4X4 Cl vehicles from local dealers the same as other government departments and saving the money for armoured vehicles where it is needed in war zones.

An excellent point.
It's one of the points raised in the sand pit that we can't be expected to win an unconventional war, using conventional methods such as light skinned vehicles in IED prone areas.
Now the Bushmaster....THERE'S a nice vehicle :D

Blknight.aus
28th October 2012, 06:53 PM
so the 2 door army landy non turbo uses 12L/100, I expect the sixby uses more being turbo and heavier so at a guess 14L, the mercedes uses more than 12L? sounds very high for a modern fancy diesel.

the 4x4 gaywagon empty weighs the same as the 110 fully loaded. (near enough)

it runs fatter rubber, is taller and has a slop box, has AC, has power steering, runs 2 alternators, a bunch of computers, and maintains the same areodynamic properties as your average shed.

if I ever ran him on diesel or tuned him up properly with just the driver on board I could probably get better fuel economy distance for distance out of fozzy.

Bearman
28th October 2012, 06:56 PM
Right! That settles it.
Now I'm not re-enlisting in 51. If the not-LRPVs are going to let me create lovely big sprays as I charge into the Mitchell at patrol speed!!
;-);-)

Enjoy it while you can Dave, Last I heard a lot of 51's vehicles are getting near the end of their serviceable lives. Probably won't be able to do that in a g wagon anyhow.

lambrover
28th October 2012, 07:52 PM
the 4x4 gaywagon empty weighs the same as the 110 fully loaded. (near enough)

it runs fatter rubber, is taller and has a slop box, has AC, has power steering, runs 2 alternators, a bunch of computers, and maintains the same areodynamic properties as your average shed.

if I ever ran him on diesel or tuned him up properly with just the driver on board I could probably get better fuel economy distance for distance out of fozzy.

I think your answers are a bit weak, have you got testing to prove your answers or is it a guess.

I to would think it would have to get better economy then a Landy. The tyres aren't exactly huge and A/C adds stuff all, the car has been designed for it.

A 3lt common rail diesel is far superior to a 4bd1 in reguards to economy and power.

Blknight.aus
28th October 2012, 08:10 PM
yes, yes I do...

in fact you can prove it yourself

look up the boast sheet for the gaywagen then the sheet for the 110....

you'd appear to be missing the basic obvious.

a 3.9l diesel pushing 2.7T (fully loaded) with no parasitic load and no additional drive line loss

or a 3l turbo diesel pushing 2.7ish T( empty) with an assload of parasitic load and pumping loss in the transmisison.

http://www.army.gov.au/Our-work/Equipment-and-clothing/Vehicles/~/media/Files/Our%20work/Equipment%20and%20clothing/Vehicles/Fact%20Sheet%20-%20G-Wagon.ashx

lambrover
28th October 2012, 08:50 PM
yes, yes I do...

in fact you can prove it yourself

look up the boast sheet for the gaywagen then the sheet for the 110....

you'd appear to be missing the basic obvious.

a 3.9l diesel pushing 2.7T (fully loaded) with no parasitic load and no additional drive line loss

or a 3l turbo diesel pushing 2.7ish T( empty) with an assload of parasitic load and pumping loss in the transmisison.

http://www.army.gov.au/Our-work/Equipment-and-clothing/Vehicles/~/media/Files/Our%20work/Equipment%20and%20clothing/Vehicles/Fact%20Sheet%20-%20G-Wagon.ashx

That is not proof.

To make a claim you need fuel consumption figures of both vehicles covering the same ground tested loaded and unloaded.

I under what you are saying with parasitic loss and the smaller engine but mechanical injection Vs common rail is a no brainer when it comes to efficiency and being a modern turbo diesel it is also more powerful.

The vehicle is also more likely to be able to carry more equipment then the rover as well.

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

lardy
28th October 2012, 10:47 PM
What you guys are saying about using white goods for gs purposes, the British army are using fridges from Japan on a lease basis for driver training and support purposes, officers are getting driven around in leased disco's
The green fleet are being only used in anger as they have extended the contracted life and overhauled all the old contracted vehicles, nothing has been put in place for when they pull em .... Vw beetles maybe ! Lol

Blknight.aus
29th October 2012, 05:19 AM
That is not proof.

To make a claim you need fuel consumption figures of both vehicles covering the same ground tested loaded and unloaded.



damn it, you have a point I hadnt considered, If only I was qualified on both vehicles for both operate and maintain...

oh wait......

Its like saying I cant comment on the qualities of the ford versus the td5 because I dont own the ford... There are reasons I wont own the ford....

http://www.army.gov.au/Our-future/Projects/~/media/Files/Our%20work/Equipment%20and%20clothing/Vehicles/GWagon_booklet-web.ashx

that one gets you the fuel tanks.....

see if you cant find the range of the gaywagon yourself.

and I dont need to work it out the ADF already has thats why they have a planning range.

newhue
29th October 2012, 05:41 AM
I think Lots of Landies is wright, Land Rover didn't even show for the fight. If this is correct then it's just another nail in Defenders coffin. Our beloved Defenders are becoming extinct as the needs and wants of modern consumers, be it civilian or armies is changing. A Defender doesn't cut it anymore no matter what we think, know, or want.
Still LR have chosen to sit in the design room and board room and arrogantly believe what they feel is perfectly fine is fine for many years. This may suit many of us, but LR have been slow in developing the Defenders replacement for a changing market and world safety and emission rules.

As a tax payer if I have to accept the collins submarine comedy, and who knows what other wasted money then the new gwagon will do it's job just fine I'd imagine. It will cost a lot just like the Defenders did up front, and it will drain the budget with maintenance just like defender did.
But vote or don't vote it makes little difference.

101 Ron
29th October 2012, 06:54 AM
The Gwagon should be a fine vehicle for the aust army.
It has a good history with other armies around the world and computors and Auto boxes is the way the world is going.
I am old fashion and like manual gearboxes and simple equiptment ect, but I realise the world is changing too.......for better or worse.
The Prentie Landrovers are one of the best landrovers ever bolted together and the design was largely Australian.
If landrover entered a contract for new vehicles for the Australian army for new vehicles it would lose out big time to other offerings.
Landrovers 2.2 litre motor with Auto, air con with all the problems like axle drive flanges that still wear out and rover diffs verses the salisbury on the older models..........dont think so...........safety protection verses other vehicles...dont think so.
Ron

F4Phantom
29th October 2012, 07:35 AM
I think Lots of Landies is wright, Land Rover didn't even show for the fight. If this is correct then it's just another nail in Defenders coffin. Our beloved Defenders are becoming extinct as the needs and wants of modern consumers, be it civilian or armies is changing. A Defender doesn't cut it anymore no matter what we think, know, or want.
Still LR have chosen to sit in the design room and board room and arrogantly believe what they feel is perfectly fine is fine for many years. This may suit many of us, but LR have been slow in developing the Defenders replacement for a changing market and world safety and emission rules.

As a tax payer if I have to accept the collins submarine comedy, and who knows what other wasted money then the new gwagon will do it's job just fine I'd imagine. It will cost a lot just like the Defenders did up front, and it will drain the budget with maintenance just like defender did.
But vote or don't vote it makes little difference.

If we had have gone down the collins class sub route with 4x4's we would have decided that mercedes could not build a better car than an Australian made car designed and built from the ground up by a committee. Imagine then what we would be driving, a 70 series land cruiser front end with a chinese great wall petrol engine converted to run on diesel, with cardboard commonrail injectors sticky taped on with a suzuki mighty boy tub in the rear ready to be fully loaded with 35kg of weight.:)

jerryd
29th October 2012, 07:59 AM
Here's how to wreck one :angel:

LiveLeak.com - 360 degree flip

lardy
29th October 2012, 09:14 AM
I concour with Ron, simplicity of vehicles that have past were a wonderful thing allowing rudimentary mechanical skills to keep vehicles on the road.
And the realisation that we are in a different world of ecu and driver unfriendly packaging is just the way it is.
Land rover has not learnt much from the days when Leyland got broken up and lr had the opportunity to go it alone.
Then they had an arrogance of knowing that the products available were loved by the consumer for their 'character' and at the time military contracts kept land rover afloat but hardly evolved, lr really did no innovation for years just sat back on their laurels watching pennies trickle in when it could have been pounds
Maybe Tata will be good for LR, the realisation that Defender has cooked its goose, it sadly makes sense to bin it.
And maybe although Defender was a good enough seller at the time maybe they should have transitioned away from it sooner !
Lr are building around chassis platforms that give a million and one body styles off one or two chassis, which should see some version of lr moving forward into the future in different markets other than military or an expedition one?!
We are all driving modern antiques !

Ausfree
29th October 2012, 09:16 AM
Wow, an expensive accident!!!:o

Turtle61
29th October 2012, 10:10 AM
I think Lots of Landies is wright, Land Rover didn't even show for the fight. If this is correct then it's just another nail in Defenders coffin. Our beloved Defenders are becoming extinct as the needs and wants of modern consumers, be it civilian or armies is changing. A Defender doesn't cut it anymore no matter what we think, know, or want.

Years ago (can't remember the year 2009-ish?) when ADF asked for tenders for the green fleet Land Rover did not put a bid in at all. The reason is, AFAICR, is that at that time the owners of Land Rover - Ford - wanted to kill the Defender platform by end of 2011 and therefore did not want to spend the money on a bid and a vehicle which would be discontinued. Fast forward a couple of years and Ford sells off Land Rover to Tata - another British icon sold off to the colonies - and Tata, in their practical wisdom, decided to keep the Defender as it suited their market and customer profile. Meantime Merc got the contract...

ugu80
29th October 2012, 10:49 AM
Land Rover were interested in the tender but one of the tender requirements was a guarantee for long production of the model (ten or more years). That alone disqualified Land Rover from the bid.

Lotz-A-Landies
29th October 2012, 11:01 AM
<snip>We are all driving modern antiques !You can still buy brand new Morgan +4 with the same body as they had in 1950.

wagoo
29th October 2012, 11:54 AM
<snip>We are all driving modern antiques !You can still buy brand new Morgan +4 with the same body as they had in 1950.

There's no such thing as 'the same' body on any Morgans.;) The body panels are hand formed with tolerances that make a Defender seem as precise as a Swiss watch, and all panels end up just a little bit different to all the others.
Bill.

Lotz-A-Landies
29th October 2012, 12:16 PM
There's no such thing as 'the same' body on any Morgans.;) The body panels are hand formed with tolerances that make a Defender seem as precise as a Swiss watch, and all panels end up just a little bit different to all the others.
Bill.Thanks Bill

We are splitting hairs here aren't we?

"You can still buy brand new Morgan +4 with the same body shape as they had in 1950. However the hand formed body panels may be slightly different between cars.

You can even buy a brand new galvanised Morgan chassis for your 1950 +4 direct from Morgan".

Does that make you happier?

Diana :D

460cixy
29th October 2012, 12:24 PM
That's some pretty special driveing

rick130
29th October 2012, 12:42 PM
Land Rover were interested in the tender but one of the tender requirements was a guarantee for long production of the model (ten or more years). That alone disqualified Land Rover from the bid.

Ford must have had a late change of heart as when they first took over Land Rover they canned the Military Vehicles engineering section here.

At that stage LRA were developing the TD5 to repower the Perentie, and under BMW stewardship Australia was going to be the engineering centre for military vehicles, South Africa military production and Solihull civvy vehicles.

Ford stopped the whole lot, instantly.

Ford (PAG) were only interested in luxury car sales, and Ford wanted to use the F series for military vehicles worldwide. they had no interest in the Defender at all.

That was straight from the blokes involved at the time, and I'll be seeing a couple of them in about three weeks.

JohnF
29th October 2012, 12:47 PM
The whole argument is moot.

Mercedes won the contract that Land Rover Australia didn't tender for and given that the Land Rovers currently in the sand pit don't go outside the base we maybe should have bought Toyota HiLux off the showroom floor.

After all the HiLux is used by more military forces than any other vehicle in the World.

he RFS in NSW ordered some new Toyota cab/chasis [do not know which Toyota, I think landcruiser] to be converted to Cat 9 mop up fire trucks. the first thing they are doinfg is sending these to melbourne to get their Chassis re-inforced [on a round Australia Trip my brother snaped the Chassis on his brand-new 4wd dual cab, but that may have been his Nissan which he replaced with a Toyota. He has had about 4 New 4WDs, and is getting another one now after blowing up his Toyota Deisel, just out of warranty.]

So the RFS sees the need to reinforce the Toyota Chassis' before putting these into service.

goingbush
29th October 2012, 12:53 PM
<snip>
We are all driving modern antiques !

I think India is going to be good for our beloved Defender,
after all you can still buy a brand new 1954 Morris Oxford in the guise of the Hindustan Ambassador Ambassador (http://www.hmambassador.com)
and dont forget the Royal Enfield which is still made pretty much the same as it was in 1955. Royal Enfield Classic 500 (http://royalenfield.com/motorcycles/classic-500/)

So hopefully in Indian hands the Defender will be good beyond 2050 ;)

wagoo
29th October 2012, 12:59 PM
Thanks Bill

We are splitting hairs here aren't we?

"You can still buy brand new Morgan +4 with the same body shape as they had in 1950. However the hand formed body panels may be slightly different between cars.

You can even buy a brand new galvanised Morgan chassis for your 1950 +4 direct from Morgan".

Does that make you happier?

Diana :D

When one has as little hair as I do Diana, Splitting hairs gives the appearance of having twice as much.:)
Bill.

isuzurover
29th October 2012, 01:11 PM
My mate a major in acquisitions confirmed something told to me by a mate in the pilbara recce mob, the g wagon has a fording button for river crossings that HAS to be pressed prior to a paddle coming to a complete stop to activate it, should be great when doing a tactical withdrawal under fire then, oh they were great in the snowy mountains under test but went into limp mode because of the heat up north.
Another great investment for the tax payers dollars then!

So a mate of a mate heard from his mate there is a button, which if not pressed before fording probably won't cause any problems...

When will a g-wagen need to do a tactical withdrawl under fire??? That is the bushmaster's job...

As I posted previously (which an ex-servicement confirmed), there were complaints when the perenties replaced the POS S3s...

Disco Muppet
29th October 2012, 01:23 PM
So a mate of a mate heard from his mate there is a button, which if not pressed before fording probably won't cause any problems...

When will a g-wagen need to do a tactical withdrawl under fire??? That is the bushmaster's job...

As I posted previously (which an ex-servicement confirmed), there were complaints when the perenties replaced the POS S3s...

Given the state of current conflicts it's entirely possible the G Wagen will be involved in tactical operations.
What if they give the 6X6 variant to the SAS? Sure they're using Bushmasters now, but it's entirely possible.
It's a bit different though, an electrical component that has the (alleged) capability to add considerable time to water crossings, and the difference between a slow, leaf sprung vehicle, then getting behind the wheel of a turbo, coil sprung vehicle, rolling it and saying "hey! the thing broke! we don't like it!" :D
Moot point really, what sort of tactical approach would factor in a river crossing in 4X4s, a not very good one methinks. :)

Lotz-A-Landies
29th October 2012, 01:27 PM
I think India is going to be good for our beloved Defender,
after all you can still buy a brand new 1954 Morris Oxford in the guise of the Hindustan Ambassador Ambassador (http://www.hmambassador.com)
and dont forget the Royal Enfield which is still made pretty much the same as it was in 1955. Royal Enfield Classic 500 (http://royalenfield.com/motorcycles/classic-500/)

So hopefully in Indian hands the Defender will be good beyond 2050 ;)Thet us hole that like the Ambassador, Tata dump the Defenders puma engine and return to a modern, reliable Isuzu diesel! :)

PAT303
29th October 2012, 04:03 PM
Hi Muppet

The real issue is that given the nature of assymetrical warfare in war zones in the future, soft skinned vehicles do not provide sufficient protection for troops. Therefore the major western militaries are purchasing purpose built armoured personnel carriers.

With that in mind our Army would be better off buying 4X4 Cl vehicles from local dealers the same as other government departments and saving the money for armoured vehicles where it is needed in war zones.

Buy what?,we have corefleet over the road and they cannot keep standard 4wd's operating driving around local roads,my defender has had one wheel alignment in 40k driving around here,our hilux's cannot keep their alignment for more than a month and the 76 series have had nothing but constant problems,one stopped outside Tom Price today.Out here you must have a live axle vehicle,the torsion bar/Independant whatever type don't last. Pat

PAT303
29th October 2012, 04:10 PM
I think Lots of Landies is wright, Land Rover didn't even show for the fight. If this is correct then it's just another nail in Defenders coffin. Our beloved Defenders are becoming extinct as the needs and wants of modern consumers, be it civilian or armies is changing. A Defender doesn't cut it anymore no matter what we think, know, or want.
Still LR have chosen to sit in the design room and board room and arrogantly believe what they feel is perfectly fine is fine for many years. This may suit many of us, but LR have been slow in developing the Defenders replacement for a changing market and world safety and emission rules.

As a tax payer if I have to accept the collins submarine comedy, and who knows what other wasted money then the new gwagon will do it's job just fine I'd imagine. It will cost a lot just like the Defenders did up front, and it will drain the budget with maintenance just like defender did.
But vote or don't vote it makes little difference.

Rubbish.I spent the weekend doing my Ambulance driving accreditation and my TDCi beat everything except the Merc ambulances,doing emergency braking from 110,braking with two wheels in the dirt from 80 and doing braking from 110 on dirt it was brilliant,the other vehicles,76 series,hilux's etc were hopeless,the troopys were dangerous,trust me the defender is an old design but a very well designed,very well engineered old design. Pat

PAT303
29th October 2012, 04:37 PM
Land Rover were interested in the tender but one of the tender requirements was a guarantee for long production of the model (ten or more years). That alone disqualified Land Rover from the bid.

Land Rover are at max capacity as far as production goes,they were busy with the D4,new RR,the Evoque,the seven seat Freelander to name a few things,they would not give a second glance to suppling 1500 or so vehciles to the ADF considering the crap they had to deal with when they supplied the Perenties.LR are making good money selling to the public,why bother with the ADF?. Pat

PAT303
29th October 2012, 04:43 PM
he RFS in NSW ordered some new Toyota cab/chasis [do not know which Toyota, I think landcruiser] to be converted to Cat 9 mop up fire trucks. the first thing they are doinfg is sending these to melbourne to get their Chassis re-inforced [on a round Australia Trip my brother snaped the Chassis on his brand-new 4wd dual cab, but that may have been his Nissan which he replaced with a Toyota. He has had about 4 New 4WDs, and is getting another one now after blowing up his Toyota Deisel, just out of warranty.]

So the RFS sees the need to reinforce the Toyota Chassis' before putting these into service.

Yep,the troopys can't pass the moose test when standard but BHP buys them and fits a 1100kg rear body and then wonders why they fall over:eek:,worse is they buy mazda Bravo's and do the same thing,without doubt the scariest vehicles I've ever driven. Pat

Lotz-A-Landies
29th October 2012, 04:44 PM
Buy what?,we have corefleet over the road and they cannot keep standard 4wd's operating driving around local roads,my defender has had one wheel alignment in 40k driving around here,our hilux's cannot keep their alignment for more than a month and the 76 series have had nothing but constant problems,one stopped outside Tom Price today.Out here you must have a live axle vehicle,the torsion bar/Independant whatever type don't last. PatYes that may be all very well and good, but a huge proportion of the Army fleet spend their time parked up in loan pools. A lot of them only moving to the RAEME or local civvy mechanics for their regular maintenance then back to be parked up. Going by regular government policies they will be replaced at 2-4 years old or 40,000KM whichever comes first.

The remediation TD5 Defenders sold by Defence last year had between 30K and 100K on the clock for 8 and 11 year old vehicles.

You can't convince me that a HiLux or Colorado parked in a lot at Moorebank or Townsville will need a wheel alignment every month.

PAT303
29th October 2012, 05:03 PM
So what does the Army do exactly,patrols around Sydney???. Pat

Lotz-A-Landies
29th October 2012, 05:06 PM
So what does the Army do exactly,patrols around Sydney???. PatDNSDC, Moorebank
(Defence National Storage and Distribution Centre!)

Currently dozens of Perenties, Unimogs, No.5 Trailers, 20 Ton plant trailers, 8 Ton Haulmark trailers, R Series Mack trucks in various configurations, all parked up gathering dust.

Then there is the School of Military Engineering, who train sappers and EOD specialists, EOD dogs, and also around the corner in the main Holsworthy Barracks there are the Military Police. You may remember an EOD Sapper was killed in the sand pit last week, he was based at SME Moorebank (Holsworthy).

manic
29th October 2012, 05:10 PM
If land rover had won the bid the supplied landrovers would not have been Pumas. Whats all this talk of the defender being old tech having not progressed compared to the G-Wagon? The G-wagon itself is built on a design just as old as the defender. Most progress in car tech has been on comfort, emissions, crash safety, gimmicks like parking assist...
all of which are useless bulk in extreme military like conditions. Surely for a military run about a mechanically driven land rover cant be beaten?

How hard would it have been for LR to continue to supply military spec land rovers with the 300tdi? Seeing as the perenties had an Isuzu put in, the engine and driveline seems to be pick and choose anyway.

Didnt the UK mil use 300tdi over TD5 because of 'electronic warfare' where it might be possible for electro-magnetic pulses to disable an ECU controlled engine. Out of interest is the g-wagon protected from this?


Mercedes see value in holding onto the old G-wagen and continuing to push it for mil apps around the world.. for land rover producing mil spec vehicles has been their backbone, apparently they dont need it anymore!


Over the coming years we will start seeing more and more civilian G-wagons on the road as a result of Aussie Military endorsment - so a big win for Mercedes. If land rover go DC100 with the defender my next car may be a G-Wagon! :wasntme:

Disco Muppet
29th October 2012, 05:13 PM
Didnt the UK mil use 300tdi over TD5 because of 'electronic warfare' where it might be possible for electronic pulses to disable an ECU controlled engine. Out of interest is the g-wagon protected from this?


Yes, the "Wolf" variant runs the 300tdi.
I thought the Td5 was rejected for ADF vehicle due to the inability for the electrical issues to be solved with bush fixes, i.e soldiers don't carry a nanocom :angel:

djam1
29th October 2012, 05:26 PM
You can't convince me that a HiLux or Colorado parked in a lot at Moorebank or Townsville will need a wheel alignment every month.

I have a mate who does most of the wheel alignments in Karratha and I can assure you the Hiluxes are pretty hopeless.
One trip up the local jump up sees everything out of whack some even beyond what can be fixed by adjustment.
I agree with Pat there are many more problems than what the Toyota advertising would have you believe.
Not all 4x4s in Australia spend their lives on the sealed road.

rick130
29th October 2012, 05:44 PM
Yes, the "Wolf" variant runs the 300tdi.
I thought the Td5 was rejected for ADF vehicle due to the inability for the electrical issues to be solved with bush fixes, i.e soldiers don't carry a nanocom :angel:

Read post # 39 ;)

The TD5 was going to be used, or at least trialled to repower the Perentie and it had it's RFI problems overcome as a mate of mine led the team that did it.
As I've mentioned before, the Poms wouldn't have it as they'd spent untold £'s and still couldn't do it so ther ewas no way they'd accept that the colonials could've achieved it, so he had to fly to the UK with the bits in a briefcase :lol:

Disco Muppet
29th October 2012, 05:51 PM
Read post # 39 ;)

The TD5 was going to be used, or at least trialled to repower the Perentie and it had it's RFI problems overcome as a mate of mine led the team that did it.
As I've mentioned before, the Poms wouldn't have it as they'd spent untold £'s and still couldn't do it so ther ewas no way they'd accept that the colonials could've achieved it, so he had to fly to the UK with the bits in a briefcase :lol:

Hmm....
Where have I heard that before?
*cough* Leyland *cough* :D
Did the Td5 defenders that were recently sold off by the ADF still have all their elecktrickery?

Lotz-A-Landies
29th October 2012, 06:00 PM
Hmm....
Where have I heard that before?
*cough* Leyland *cough* :D
Did the Td5 defenders that were recently sold off by the ADF still have all their elecktrickery?Can't tell you about the electrical protection, but the fact that the TD5s being sold off first before the Perenties which were at least 12 years older, pretty much tells you everything about the Army's opinion of the TD5.

Remember if Ford PAG (inc. Land Rover Australia) did tender for the Army contract, it would have been the post 2003 TD5 Defender (or Puma Defender) with the p38 diffs and the G-Wagon would likely have still won the contract.

newhue
29th October 2012, 06:15 PM
Rubbish.I spent the weekend doing my Ambulance driving accreditation and my TDCi beat everything except the Merc ambulances,doing emergency braking from 110,braking with two wheels in the dirt from 80 and doing braking from 110 on dirt it was brilliant,the other vehicles,76 series,hilux's etc were hopeless,the troopys were dangerous,trust me the defender is an old design but a very well designed,very well engineered old design. Pat

I'm glad you are so blinded by your well engineered Defender. My sway bar fell off on the weekend, just another quality bit added to the list.

As for well designed maybe so, but you could hardly say LR have actively tried to keep it current. Why do they only sell 20 or 30 a month, I don't think it's all supply issues.

lambrover
29th October 2012, 06:30 PM
damn it, you have a point I hadnt considered, If only I was qualified on both vehicles for both operate and maintain...

oh wait......
Spare me the bull ****, I have been on drivers and maintainers courses as well, the latest for Bushmaster and it means ****, if you needed the course to actualy work on it you should be shot for being a numpty.
Its like saying I cant comment on the qualities of the ford versus the td5 because I dont own the ford... There are reasons I wont own the ford....

http://www.army.gov.au/Our-future/Projects/~/media/Files/Our%20work/Equipment%20and%20clothing/Vehicles/GWagon_booklet-web.ashx

that one gets you the fuel tanks.....

see if you cant find the range of the gaywagon yourself.

and I dont need to work it out the ADF already has thats why they have a planning range.

Seeing as the vehicle has a 95lt tank and as the video shows it has a fuel consumption of 11.7lt per 100km that equats to 812.25km for that tank then it has an other 55lt tank so theres an other 470.25km, thats 1282.5km.


G Wagon - Australian Army (http://www.army.gov.au/Our-work/Equipment-and-clothing/Vehicles/G_Wagon)

This is not a ****ing compertition, I was just very surprised by your claim that its double fuel consumption and think that needs evidance to back it up.

I feel you dislike the vehicle and its lead you to say these things that arent factual.(just a thought)

slug_burner
29th October 2012, 07:16 PM
The vehicles still need to be ADR compliant. The ADF as all other parts of government have to be good corporate citizens and comply with the laws of the land where ever possible. The wolf 300 tdi was never going to meet the ADRs for exhaust emissions. If LR was to have bid they would have had to delivered a D3/D4 or puma engine package.

I think that you have hit the nail on the head when someone above said that LR did not really want to get the contract as it did not fit in with their corporate strategy to produce luxo vehicles. Neither BMW or Ford bought LR and Jag for the Defender. I think it was RR that was the motivation for buying LR at least.

I can still remember a talk put on at LROCV a few years ago, the LR head in Aus certainly made it known as to what segment of the market they wanted to service, It was not the bloke how buys a second hand car and wants to do his own maintenance and fix the vehicle with a piece of fencing wire. The Defender was not the market they wanted to be in, even for the guys who buy new.

LR are a small production company and they have put all their effort to automate the lines that produce their high return on investment lines. The fact that Defender is still largely hand built speaks volumes about what LR thinks of the Defender in terms of a worthwhile investment.:(

Blknight.aus
29th October 2012, 07:33 PM
Seeing as the vehicle has a 95lt tank and as the video shows it has a fuel consumption of 11.7lt per 100km that equats to 812.25km for that tank then it has an other 55lt tank so theres an other 470.25km, thats 1282.5km.


G Wagon - Australian Army (http://www.army.gov.au/Our-work/Equipment-and-clothing/Vehicles/G_Wagon)

This is not a ****ing compertition, I was just very surprised by your claim that its double fuel consumption and think that needs evidance to back it up.

I feel you dislike the vehicle and its lead you to say these things that arent factual.(just a thought)

I suspect that you're being excessively defensive about a topic you may not actually be qualified to pass judgement on, For starters I Never said double fuel consumption, that would be your interpretation of what I said which was


umm., no, nearly double the fuel of the 110 for not much more planning range.
Which is actually a typo because its missing a word.

It should read

"nearly double the fuel of the 110 for not thatmuch more planning range" meaning its got double the fuel on board but doesnt have double the planning range, even given the typo its still a long way of the statement your claiming I made.

the on highway rated fuel consumption is 11.7l/100k Im not going to dispute that (in actual fact driven correctly you can get it down to the 9's) the problem with that is well, no wait try this...

whats the posted fuel consumption for your vehicle, do you hit that and it never varies? when you go on a drive if you calculate out that your full fuel tank gives you a range of 610KM and point to point you have a 605km trip between 2 fuel points do you take that route with just the fuel on board or do you do something different? if you dont how far are you willing to try to go on a tank? What would happen if I bolted about 2T of armour onto it? then hooked up a trailer? then stuck a quartet of full size gruntapedes into it with full patrol order?

mate if you're going to put your faith in the video at the bottom of that page you know that thats a promo video, right?, which has about as much grounding in reality as an ipswichian stoneomuppet. (you know like the one with the 3 gaywagons tailgaiting over obstacles, or "flashing" through water crossings, or going sideways off road at high speed, Im quietly VERY confident that that's not how they teach the course)

You've just encountered one of my favorite pet hates they're (and this is the automotive industry in general) quite willing to show you what the peak of each value is just not what happens when you try to operate outside of the controlled conditions it was all tested in.


Now as for the qualifications thing... I have to be qualified to work on them because the ADF loves its buerocratical red tape that way. To me its just another computer on another engine thats been shoe horned in with too much unrequired crap that we could easily do away with if only we could convince people to stop being so freaking lazy and to actually do some proper learning and take responsibility.

Please consider yourself invited to come and peruse the documentation I have for both of the vehicles in question in person.

and yes, I agree, the busmaster operators and maintainers courses have gone downhill since I did them.

peter5111
29th October 2012, 07:54 PM
Regarding LR not bidding for the Defender replacement, from my understanding of Project LAND 121 , the goal was not just a bunch of Defender replacements.

(I Thought) The overall goal was to have a single manufacturer supply the entire fleet (except specific, specialized vehicles), from small 4x4 vehicles right up to road trains, with everything in between. It wasn't just to supply the vehicles, but also to provide the logistics chain, deeper level maintenance and engineering support for the whole lot of 'em for 25 (?) years.

With that in mind, there are VERY few manufacturers with a product line that could meet the requirement. I don't know if an alliance / consortium of manufacturers was an allowable option.

There are certainly some very good engineering and economics reasons to go down that path, but the cynic in me does wonder why it was written up as a pseudo sole supplier contract..

PAT303
29th October 2012, 08:20 PM
I'm glad you are so blinded by your well engineered Defender. My sway bar fell off on the weekend, just another quality bit added to the list.

As for well designed maybe so, but you could hardly say LR have actively tried to keep it current. Why do they only sell 20 or 30 a month, I don't think it's all supply issues.

Blindered by my 14 year old Tdi and my new TDCi that keep on keeping on when EVERYTHING around them fall down,thems are the facts.Why did the sway bar fall off?,do you get it serviced?,do you actually check over the vehicle after a trip?,it would have been loose for a long time before it ''fell off''. Pat

Blknight.aus
29th October 2012, 08:49 PM
Regarding LR not bidding for the Defender replacement, from my understanding of Project LAND 121 , the goal was not just a bunch of Defender replacements.

(I Thought) The overall goal was to have a single manufacturer supply the entire fleet (except specific, specialized vehicles), from small 4x4 vehicles right up to road trains, with everything in between. It wasn't just to supply the vehicles, but also to provide the logistics chain, deeper level maintenance and engineering support for the whole lot of 'em for 25 (?) years.

With that in mind, there are VERY few manufacturers with a product line that could meet the requirement. I don't know if an alliance / consortium of manufacturers was an allowable option.

There are certainly some very good engineering and economics reasons to go down that path, but the cynic in me does wonder why it was written up as a pseudo sole supplier contract..

all primary vehicle classes in a single manufacturer

mercedes can
toyota can (though their larger parent trucks are complete crap)
ford can
man can
isuzu can
tata can
volvo can

thats 7 and Im not even getting obscure by listing parent/sibling companies yet., sorry yes i am,, the larger toyota stuff is not branded toyota.

juddy
29th October 2012, 09:00 PM
Yes more that Land Rover, after all the main customers for Land Rover were former British commonwealth countries and even Australia is replacing them. The Yanks and Canada don't use them so if you were to count the number of Land Rovers being used by militaries anywhere, you'll likely find that the number of HMMWV used by the US alone outnumbers them.

Hold on, the comment was more Hilux's are used world wide than Land Rovers.

Dont think this is the case, and yes certain groups ( not genuine army units ) use the Hilux as weapons platform, but these are civilian vehicles, not militarised versions of a Hilux. I was questioning that.

The US Military as got just about more everything than anybody else any way, so its a unfair comparison...

I did read the G wagon will not fit into the new light transport aircraft we have just purchased.

The militarised Defender Puma, is used by a number of army s world wide, I have no idea if its good or bad,but someones using it..

http://www.armedforces-int.com/article/new-land-rover-defender-ffr-fitted-for-radio.html

goingbush
29th October 2012, 09:13 PM
all primary vehicle classes in a single manufacturer

mercedes can
toyota can (though their larger parent trucks are complete crap)
ford can
man can
isuzu can
tata can
volvo can

thats 7 and Im not even getting obscure by listing parent/sibling companies yet., sorry yes i am,, the larger toyota stuff is not branded toyota.

So Toyota trucks would be Hino
but I didnt know MAN made small 4x4's ?? Steyr Puch perhaps :confused:

robbotd5
29th October 2012, 09:17 PM
Wouldn't it be funny if we were somehow at war with Germany again? Them buggers would know exactly how to take em out, come to think of it, they probably have got and undetectable explosive device fitted from the factory where they were made for that very reason. Times have changed so have a bit of fun. Sure it irks me the most because our army is buying vehicles from a former mortal enemy, but so do all the people who decide to own Jap cars. Just me..fire away!!!!
Regards
Robbo

Disco Muppet
29th October 2012, 09:22 PM
Wouldn't it be funny if we were somehow at war with Germany again? Them buggers would know exactly how to take em out, come to think of it, they probably have got and undetectable explosive device fitted from the factory where they were made for that very reason. Times have changed so have a bit of fun. Sure it irks me the most because our army is buying vehicles from a former mortal enemy, but so do all the people who decide to own Jap cars. Just me..fire away!!!!
Regards
Robbo

Somehow I doubt it :D
I don't get why we're getting snippy with each other over things like fuel economy.
Jeez, we just had the soapbox shut down because it was getting "a tad vitriolic", lets not do that here. :no2:
Like it or not, The G Wagen is a new chapter in the ADFs vehicular history.
Better, worse or the same is the Landies is yet to be seen, for now they're just different.
Can't we all play nicely? :D
No need to start slinging accusations and thinly veiled insults, if you've got an issue with someone, shoot them a PM or something.
:D :D :D
Smile people, Monday is nearly over :p
Cheers
Muppet

goingbush
29th October 2012, 09:28 PM
<snip>
The militarised Defender Puma, is used by a number of army s world wide, I have no idea if its good or bad,but someones using it..



looks like 2 Pumas in this convoy

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/10/93.jpg

at least they are out and about & not "Parked Up"

robbotd5
29th October 2012, 09:28 PM
Somehow I doubt it :D
I don't get why we're getting snippy with each other over things like fuel economy.
Jeez, we just had the soapbox shut down because it was getting "a tad vitriolic", lets not do that here. :no2:
Like it or not, The G Wagen is a new chapter in the ADFs vehicular history.
Better, worse or the same is the Landies is yet to be seen, for now they're just different.
Can't we all play nicely? :D
No need to start slinging accusations and thinly veiled insults, if you've got an issue with someone, shoot them a PM or something.
:D :D :D
Smile people, Monday is nearly over :p
Cheers
Muppet
What the??? My exact point. Who cares what the government buys. We won't make any difference. Muppet, I'm not cranky at all.;)
Regards
Robbo.

Disco Muppet
29th October 2012, 09:34 PM
What the??? My exact point. Who cares what the government buys. We won't make any difference. Muppet, I'm not cranky at all.;)
Regards
Robbo.

Didn't mean you mate, things just seemed to be getting a bit tense in the thread :D
Sorry for any confusion :)

goingbush
29th October 2012, 09:35 PM
Wouldn't it be funny if we were somehow at war with Germany again? Them buggers would know exactly how to take em out, come to think of it, they probably have got and undetectable explosive device fitted from the factory where they were made for that very reason. Times have changed so have a bit of fun. Sure it irks me the most because our army is buying vehicles from a former mortal enemy, but so do all the people who decide to own Jap cars. Just me..fire away!!!!
Regards
Robbo

They probably already have it written into software, sometime after outbreak of WW3 all Australian G-wagens & Unimogs mysteriously become Kaput .

Lotz-A-Landies
29th October 2012, 09:50 PM
Regarding LR not bidding for the Defender replacement, from my understanding of Project LAND 121 , the goal was not just a bunch of Defender replacements.

(I Thought) The overall goal was to have a single manufacturer supply the entire fleet (except specific, specialized vehicles), from small 4x4 vehicles right up to road trains, with everything in between. It wasn't just to supply the vehicles, but also to provide the logistics chain, deeper level maintenance and engineering support for the whole lot of 'em for 25 (?) years. <snip>That was a stated intent of the original tender, however it was relaxed when they realised that there was no acceptable manufacturer other than Mercedes who could meet those terms.

Even when it was relaxed Ford Premier Automotive Group who were in the process of selling (/looking for buyers for) Volvo, Jaguar and Land Rover still declined to tender.

juddy
29th October 2012, 10:01 PM
I cant help thinking about the Hilux, so heres some pictures of a fine war vehicle.:p


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/10/81.jpg
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/10/82.jpg
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/10/83.jpg
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/10/84.jpg
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/10/85.jpg
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/10/38.jpg
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/10/86.jpg
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/10/87.jpg
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/10/88.jpg
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/10/89.jpg
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/10/37.jpg
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/10/90.jpg
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/10/91.jpg
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/10/92.jpg

goingbush
29th October 2012, 10:16 PM
another one
From Somali Technicals and AFV Photos (http://membres.multimania.fr/france40/techphot.html)


Admittedly not a very good photo of the Land Rover technical, but you can just see the 106 mm recoilless rifle mounted in the bed. You can certainly see the dilapidated condition of the vehicle itself. There were only half a dozen rounds in the back of the truck, and several of those were rolling around outside of their protective canisters.
http://membres.multimania.fr/france40/photos/rover.jpg

jakeslouw
29th October 2012, 10:41 PM
The South African Defence Force used to use Series 3 R6 109-inch LRs with the 106mm RR for AT duties........until we captured several hundred thousand RPG-7s and the AT role became a walkabout job......

isuzurover
29th October 2012, 10:53 PM
...heres some pictures of a fine war vehicle...

You left out this one:
http://www.megacruiser.com/img/military/army0037.jpg
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/10/44.jpg

And which idiot was it who said the bad guys don't drive land rovers???


British taxpayers paid £8m to buy Land Rovers for Mugabe thugs
British taxpayers paid £8m to buy Land Rovers for Mugabe thugs | World News (http://ghanapolitics.net/World-News/british-taxpayers-paid-l8m-to-buy-land-rovers-for-mugabe-thugs.html)
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/10/45.jpg

Lotz-A-Landies
29th October 2012, 11:04 PM
I cant help thinking about the Hilux, so heres some pictures of a fine war vehicle.:p
... <snip> this is still my favourite
LiveLeak.com - Fail ! Don't try to design a Recoiless Rifle Vehicle without an Engineering Degree ! (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4c6_1314878894&p=1)

newhue
30th October 2012, 05:30 AM
Blindered by my 14 year old Tdi and my new TDCi that keep on keeping on when EVERYTHING around them fall down,thems are the facts.Why did the sway bar fall off?,do you get it serviced?,do you actually check over the vehicle after a trip?,it would have been loose for a long time before it ''fell off''. Pat

My sway bar actually inverted and all the rubbers fell out so my fault there, LR can breath a sigh of relief. I have since worked this out after posting it fell off.

The comment I made about LR sitting on their hands with development was made with things like brakes in mind. Yes your Defender may beat a land cruiser or whoever you went up against in training. But if LR can get a RR or a Disco, both heavy cars, to stop much more effectively than why not go the small yards for a a Defender. I'm no brake expert but I think there is pistons in callipers, and brake boosters generally to a system.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if a Gwagon stopped better than a Defender so little things like that go into a decision as to why we now have Gwagons.

Just perhaps you could think a bit broader before you so easily state someones statements are rubbish. Its a forum without visual expression and detail, slow replies sometimes, and only words. This thread is another example of people having a go at each other all over the place.

my apologies to all for now being way off topic, but keen to get back to those weird looking Defender alternatives.

newhue
30th October 2012, 05:41 AM
Juddy where did you get this pic from, :eek:
Looks like the driver can only shoot over the bonnet and hopes the car really is unbreakable. Better still, how does the door open.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/600/hilux.png/)

bob10
30th October 2012, 07:20 AM
Saw two of these high back hi-luxes [ I assume that's what they are] in Brisbane yesterday.


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/10/37.jpg


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/10/38.jpg

Surely they can't be serious :) Bob

goingbush
30th October 2012, 07:47 AM
Surely they can't be serious :) Bob

Deadly Serious

DIY Weapons of the Libyan Rebels - In Focus - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/06/diy-weapons-of-the-libyan-rebels/100086/)


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/10/24.jpg

DiscoMick
30th October 2012, 08:57 AM
Does the earlier comment fit with what I think I read somewhere that the reason LR didn't bid for the Aussie Army contract was the Army also wanted trucks which LR doesn't make, so it couldn't supply all the required vehicles. Is that right?

Disco Muppet
30th October 2012, 09:09 AM
Surely they can't be serious :) Bob

As Goingbush said, deadly serious.
And don't call him shirly ;) :D

juddy
30th October 2012, 10:27 AM
Juddy where did you get this pic from, :eek:
Looks like the driver can only shoot over the bonnet and hopes the car really is unbreakable. Better still, how does the door open.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/ (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/600/hilux.png/)

This unit is made by a UK Company with a set up in the Philippines, they do other stuff like armoured up grades etc.

bob10
30th October 2012, 12:45 PM
Deadly Serious

DIY Weapons of the Libyan Rebels - In Focus - The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011/06/diy-weapons-of-the-libyan-rebels/100086/)


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/10/24.jpg
Well, it shows a level of expertise you wouldn't expect from rag tag rebels. Deserters from Gadaffis army [ armourers? ] perhaps? Curious that the Russian UB32 rocket launcher has instructions in English. Amazing stuff, Bob

Brad110
30th October 2012, 09:06 PM
Wouldn't it be funny if we were somehow at war with Germany again? Them buggers would know exactly how to take em out, come to think of it, they probably have got and undetectable explosive device fitted from the factory where they were made for that very reason. Times have changed so have a bit of fun. Sure it irks me the most because our army is buying vehicles from a former mortal enemy, but so do all the people who decide to own Jap cars. Just me..fire away!!!!
Regards
Robbo

There will never be a rerun as the Germans are too worried they would be teamed up with the Italians again. Thems lovers not fighters.:D:D

juddy
30th October 2012, 09:24 PM
Looks ok here
12131010 G Wagon web clip - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=b81F7dCA98E)

Units have been replacing their Land Rover fleets with eight variants of the Mercedes Benz G-Wagon since July 2 2012, but this was the first opportunity for staff from the Project Land 121 Operator Training Facility to demonstrate the vehicles’ capabilities for guests.

Variants on display included the 4WD single-cab carryall and panel van, and dual-cab station wagons, as well as the 6x6 variants including the mobile command post and the surveillance and reconnaissance vehicle.

Project Land 121 will deliver 2146 unprotected G-Wagons, including specialist modules and 1799 Haulmark trailers, replacing about two thirds of the current Land Rover fleet over the next four years.

The G-Wagon rollout marks a significant milestone for the $7.5 billion venture known as Project Overlander, which will provide the next generation of the Australian Defence Force’s (ADF) field vehicles and trailers.

Forty-one vehicles and 16 trailers have been delivered to Air Force units including 1 and 2AFDS and 144MCRU. For Army, 7th Brigade has already been issued with its initial allocation of 116 vehicles and 93 trailers.

Defence Material Organisation’s (DMO) Land 121 Phase 3A Project Director, Ken Butler, said the team had to meet all the different ADF capability requirements for a vehicle fleet and meld them into one solution that satisfied all users.

“The Mercedes-Benz G-Wagon provides the ADF with a more modern, safe and capable vehicle,” he said.

“It’s all about providing soldiers and airmen and women with a better capability and these vehicles are a technological advancement on the older Land Rovers.

“One of the best features of the G-Wagon is the crew’s comfort and the operator’s positions.

“It’s better for the drivers because the vehicle is automatic, so they can now concentrate on the route selection and their situational awareness rather than worrying about changing gears.”

The G-Wagon provides current-generation technology and improved safety for drivers and passengers as a result of modern design features including enhanced roll-over protection and handling.

Other features in the off-the-shelf military vehicle, which is used by more than 60 armies worldwide, include electronic data-control units, which help the vehicle operate to its optimum potential, and onboard data collectors, which store the fleet management data.

All G-Wagons are hard-wired with communication cabling for antenna mounts and power supplies, and when delivered are fitted with radio mounting brackets that allow the operators to install their radios and connect their cables.

Officer Commanding Project Land 121 Training Team Major Tim Keeffe said the G-Wagon was a fantastic capability upgrade for the ADF.

“We can increase our payloads and the vehicle allows us to travel over harsher terrain than we could in the Land Rover with safety, comfort and reliability,” he said.

“It’s a modern vehicle which will sit on 100km/h on the highway easily for hour after hour and it has air conditioning and a selectable automatic transmission which makes driving very simple.

“If you had to drive from Darwin to Mt Bundey, would you rather do it in a Land Rover with canvas flapping around your ears, or in an automatic with air conditioning?”

“The end result of Land 121 is that Australia will have one of the best B-vehicle fleets in the world.”

As the Officer Commanding of the training team at Defence’s newest training facility at RAAF Base Amberley, Major Keeffe is responsible for managing conversion training for Army and Air Force drivers transitioning from Land Rover to G-Wagon.

The Land 121 training team is a collaboration between DMO and Army and Air Force HQs. The Land 121 Training Facility was purpose-built and includes two 24 person classrooms, a training compound with vehicle inspection ramps, an undercover training area and a large compound suitable for the medium and heavy trucks and trailers that will be a part of Land 121 Phase 3B.

More than 10,000 students will be trained over the next 10 years to help drivers have a greater understanding of the vehicle’s capabilities and limits and ensure they achieve the best levels of performance.

Major Keeffe said the plan was to develop a facility which would produce quality training immediately and be an enduring asset for Defence.

“The introduction to G-Wagon training started in April last year and will finish in December 2014, with close to 4200 students,” he said.

“The five-day conversion course teaches people how to operate the mission systems and understand the disparate parts of the vehicle, including the drive train, differential locks, trailer and module to orchestrate them into whatever effect they need.

“Students get a lot out of the comprehensive course package because driving the G-Wagon is very different to driving a Land Rover – it takes a different approach, mental attitude and skill set.”

Units receiving G-Wagons can conduct their own conversion training as soon as they have driver testing officers qualified to deliver the training management package.

A maintenance facility is being constructed at Bandiana, which will provide training for the life of the Land 121 project and be handed over to Army Logistic Training Center on the project’s completion.

Land Rovers will be phased out of the ADF by 2020, with most units being converted within the next five years, although 3rd Brigade will retain its Land Rover fleet until the light protected mobility vehicles – part of Land 121 Phase 4 – are delivered.

Originally published in Army News Ed 1290.

goingbush
30th October 2012, 09:27 PM
But the lack of wheel travel is disturbing

Mercedes Military G-Wagon Off-Road - YouTube

hang on, he didn't stop before the water crossing to turn off the alternator exciter.

Celtoid
30th October 2012, 10:17 PM
Hi All,

I was wondering about a few things as I read through these posts. I'm no expert on either vehicle but have had a lot to do with military aquisitions.......as in trying to sell them stuff....LOL. Admittedly mainly Aviation and Battlefield Simulation products.

It's been quite a while (a decade or so) since the ADF started getting gun-shy (pardon the pun) due to developmental products....Collins Class, Vigilare, HFMP, ARH....ETC, ETC. A couple of RFT terms that seem to be hitting the street of late are COTS and MOTS...that's Commercial Off The Shelf and Military Off The Shelf. In other words the ADF is trying very hard to buy stuff that is available right now and proven, either in a commercial or military capacity. It's basically low risk to cost, performance and schedule.

I wasn't sure if it would apply to vehicles and I wasn't 100% sure if MB already had a fleet of modular variants that could be supplied with no or minimal tweeking. I'm gonna guess that LR may have actually struggled to meet this COTS/MOTS requirement for all the different variants.

JUDDY just posted a blurb....line 12 I think, that may have answered my question on this requirement...."Other features in the off-the-shelf military vehicle, which is used by more than 60 armies worldwide".

Apart from Deefers being low tech and old in design (not saying it's a bad thing), that one line may have instantly put LR out of the race. Did LR have a more modern, modular product line that was ready to start production for a new customer?

Cheers,

Kev.

Blknight.aus
30th October 2012, 10:19 PM
I like the way that the word better has become synonymous with easier.....

sounds like the precursor to "down to a cost, not up to a standard"

THE BOOGER
30th October 2012, 10:27 PM
Juddy where did you get this pic from, :eek:
Looks like the driver can only shoot over the bonnet and hopes the car really is unbreakable. Better still, how does the door open.

http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/2517/hilux.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/600/hilux.png/)

Would it be left hand drive ?:D

George130
30th October 2012, 10:50 PM
I like the way that the word better has become synonymous with easier.....

sounds like the precursor to "down to a cost, not up to a standard"

Isn't down to a cost the new Government way. There is no money to spend anymore.

Celtoid
30th October 2012, 11:05 PM
Isn't down to a cost the new Government way. There is no money to spend anymore.

I'm not sure it's ever been any other way. Just cause most of the stuff the military gets is expensive doesn't always mean it was the best stuff or the best option.

Should add, the D-makers often ask for more than they can afford and often screw up when the carving knife has to come out.

There is often a disconnect from what the end user (read - Warfighter) needs/wants and what his government/senior officers buy. :wasntme:
Generally speaking of course....oops...pun!!!

lardy
30th October 2012, 11:51 PM
ate of a mate heard from his mate there is a button, which if not pressed before fording probably won't cause any problems...

No a major who is part of the acquisitions trials team and also an officer at work who is also in the pilbara regt confirmed the above not a mate of a mate actually.

ugu80
31st October 2012, 10:07 AM
Driven: Mercedes-Benz G-Wagen | Practical Motoring (http://practicalmotoring.com.au/feature/driven-mercedes-benz-g-wagen/2012/09/20/)

manic
31st October 2012, 10:51 AM
Driven: Mercedes-Benz G-Wagen | Practical Motoring (http://practicalmotoring.com.au/feature/driven-mercedes-benz-g-wagen/2012/09/20/)

Electric windows! Have they gone nuts?

OffTrack
31st October 2012, 11:08 AM
Electric windows! Have they gone nuts?

No, it's just further evidence that the Defenderati have NFI what the market really wants from a 4x4.

manic
31st October 2012, 11:17 AM
No, it's just further evidence that the Defenderati have NFI what the market really wants from a 4x4.

perhaps you are right - I didnt realise the military really wanted electric windows :p

rick130
31st October 2012, 11:20 AM
No, it's just further evidence that the Defenderati have NFI what the market really wants from a 4x4.


Who gives a flying fig what the market think they want.

Defender drivers know what they need. :p

OffTrack
31st October 2012, 11:21 AM
hang on, he didn't stop before the water crossing to turn off the alternator exciter.

One of the linked articles says this is only necessary for SALT water wading, so no need if it's fresh water.

OffTrack
31st October 2012, 11:23 AM
Who gives a flying fig what the market think they want.

Defender drivers know what they need. :p

Defender owners tend not to buy new Defenders particularly often do they. :p

That is a pretty good business model. Building vehicles to suit the demands of those who aren't buying. :D

manic
31st October 2012, 11:32 AM
Defender owners tend not to buy new Defenders particularly often do they. :p

That is a pretty good business model. Building vehicles to suit the demands of those who aren't buying. :D

LandRover was never built for the mass city dwelling populace... someone has to serve the 'niche'? Evoque sales will bring in the money, but the defender gives the brand substance - priceless.

Anyway G-wagon looks like it could do well for the Army but to match the defender it still has alot of years ahead in which to prove itself.

rick130
31st October 2012, 11:50 AM
Defender owners tend not to buy new Defenders particularly often do they. :p

That is a pretty good business model. Building vehicles to suit the demands of those who aren't buying. :D

It's because we care about the environment and we are very comfortable with who we are.

No need to keep consuming when you can maintain and repair, and lets face it, Deefer drivers aren't slaves to the whims and vagaries of fashion, we don't need reassurance from a purchase to validate an image, we are confident in our identity and ability, we have no need to massage a fragile ego with a bright and shiny phallic symbol. :angel:

OffTrack
31st October 2012, 12:25 PM
It's because we care about the environment and we are very comfortable with who we are.

No need to keep consuming when you can maintain and repair, and lets face it, Deefer drivers aren't slaves to the whims and vagaries of fashion, we don't need reassurance from a purchase to validate an image, we are confident in our identity and ability, we have no need to massage a fragile ego with a bright and shiny phallic symbol. :angel:

So you are saying the Australian Military are slaves to the whims and vagaries of fashion, and need bright and shiny phallic symbols to feel complete? That IS brave :p

Look don't feel bad. Cars can be kept running for inordinate periods by enthusiasts, so when the last Defender is finally shuffled off to glory in the surrounds of the British Heritage Museum in a couple of years there is no need for those brave Defender owners of which you write to feel sorrowful. Take inspiration from the series owners, and embrace the joys of maintaining a classic. My old man is currently doing up a 1923 Packard, so realistically you've got another 80-90 years use in your current Defender.

Celtoid
31st October 2012, 02:30 PM
Driven: Mercedes-Benz G-Wagen | Practical Motoring (http://practicalmotoring.com.au/feature/driven-mercedes-benz-g-wagen/2012/09/20/)

I'm hoping $200K was retail.....geez.....

I thought it would have had a more powereful donk....it's no light weight I'm sure.

Thanks for the link.

Kev.

Ranga
31st October 2012, 03:05 PM
Driven: Mercedes-Benz G-Wagen | Practical Motoring (http://practicalmotoring.com.au/feature/driven-mercedes-benz-g-wagen/2012/09/20/)

So, I wonder how well the Defender would perform on the same track with front and rear lockers?

isuzurover
31st October 2012, 03:30 PM
...

Anyway G-wagon looks like it could do well for the Army but to match the defender it still has alot of years ahead in which to prove itself.

The G-wagen has been proven many times by armies around the world. Wikipedia lists 35 countries which use or used the MB/Puch G-Wagen.


I'm hoping $200K was retail.....geez.....

I thought it would have had a more powereful donk....it's no light weight I'm sure.

Thanks for the link.

Kev.

AFAIK $200k is the civvie version which is IFS.
The military version is not available in AU, but is sold in the EU as the G-Wagen "Professional", starting at E80k.

Still expensive though.

However the AU army were paying $100k each for landrovers when the general public were paying $20-40k for an almost identical vehicle.

rick130
31st October 2012, 04:01 PM
So you are saying the Australian Military are slaves to the whims and vagaries of fashion, and need bright and shiny phallic symbols to feel complete? That IS brave :p

[snip]


Looking at the recent purchase history of the ADF a case could be made for those in procurement and the higher echelons :p

Of course the G-Wagen has been around as long as the 110, so I doubt you could realistically claim it's a fashion statement either, unless of course you're really into the ruggedly practical (or maybe the blue oyster bar?) look :angel:

manic
31st October 2012, 04:06 PM
The G-wagen has been proven many times by armies around the world. Wikipedia lists 35 countries which use or used the MB/Puch G-Wagen.



Sorry should have put that down as Australian Army. This land is pretty unique, as are its drivers!

steane
31st October 2012, 04:35 PM
So, I wonder how well the Defender would perform on the same track with front and rear lockers?

Was a bit of a tiresome article.

I've got no doubt that the G-Wagon is a good thing (I wouldn't mind one myself to be honest) but you can't really compare the ability of one to the other when one has two locked axles and the other has none...doh:confused:

I suspect Defender and G-Wagon will both be around a lot longer than that website...

Blknight.aus
31st October 2012, 05:01 PM
ate of a mate heard from his mate there is a button, which if not pressed before fording probably won't cause any problems...

No a major who is part of the acquisitions trials team and also an officer at work who is also in the pilbara regt confirmed the above not a mate of a mate actually.

Isnt that what started all of this?


The G-wagen has been proven many times by armies around the world. Wikipedia lists 35 countries which use or used the MB/Puch G-Wagen.



AFAIK $200k is the civvie version which is IFS.
The military version is not available in AU, but is sold in the EU as the G-Wagen "Professional", starting at E80k.

Still expensive though.

However the AU army were paying $100k each for landrovers when the general public were paying $20-40k for an almost identical vehicle.

the 100K for the 110 also included parts for the contracted life of type of the vehicle and

yeah no, $200Kish for the base model merc.


Was a bit of a tiresome article.

I've got no doubt that the G-Wagon is a good thing (I wouldn't mind one myself to be honest) but you can't really compare the ability of one to the other when one has two locked axles and the other has none...doh:confused:

I suspect Defender and G-Wagon will both be around a lot longer than that website...

sure you can you're just not allowed to publish the result. :twisted:

Ralph1Malph
31st October 2012, 07:00 PM
the fact that the TD5s being sold off first before the Perenties which were at least 12 years older, pretty much tells you everything about the Army's opinion of the TD5.

Gotta burst ya bubble mate.:twisted::twisted:
The TD5 fenders were purchased primarily to replace and augment white fleet cars. We simply didn't have enough white fleet to get us places. In fact the TD5 fenders were only olive drab on the bits you could see. All the other bits were still that british racing green colour. They were in no way militarised or soldier proofed. They were sold first as they were offloaded as part of a white fleet reduction program.

We never even maintained them, they were part of lend leases agreement.

We would have gladly kept them though.:D:D

slug_burner
31st October 2012, 07:46 PM
So, I wonder how well the Defender would perform on the same track with front and rear lockers?

I expect in a similar way.

But that is not the comparison the ADF driver will be making. It is a bit like saying which vehicle would you prefer to take into difficult conditions, a defender with open diffs or one with front and rear diff locks? That in effect is the comparison the Army driver will be making, plus the G-Wagen has air con and an auto. For better or worse, that is what the ADF have. Just as well as most young drivers probably will not know what a manual is little less how to use it:angel:

Celtoid
31st October 2012, 08:48 PM
[QUOTE=Blknight.aus;1789286]Isnt that what started all of this?



the 100K for the 110 also included parts for the contracted life of type of the vehicle and

yeah no, $200Kish for the base model merc.


Yup, that makes sense Dave (for the LR 110), all ...well, I assume all Acquisition plus ISS contracts prices would be hard to drag apart...as in "if I only wanted to buy one with no support".

Don't understand your next comment though "Yeah no, $200Kish"! What point are you making my friend? :-) Cost of ISS is too high/low/right on or is this the base unit price?

Cheers,

Kev.

Blknight.aus
31st October 2012, 09:14 PM
base unit price is $200kish...

sustainment contract is not a complete parcel per vehicle price that I'm aware of
(could be wrong but given the spec value of the base model) guestimating the cost of parts and repair (for some of the higher cost jobs) that I've been made aware of so far if if the base unit included its sustainment value $200k might get you to 2 years and thats not counting some of the issues I'm expecting will begin to crop up within the next 5 years.

I suspect that the $200k would include the establishment parts but not the ongoing sustainment for life of type.

slug_burner
31st October 2012, 09:49 PM
Acquisition and support are two different and separate contracts.

Acquisition may deliver the initial batch of spares.

lardy
31st October 2012, 10:06 PM
Maybe that you'll just have to rinse out your oil filters Dave ;-)

MBZ460
31st October 2012, 10:27 PM
Some more info in the attached booklet.

Note that the G-wagen started life as a military vehicle and then became a basic utilitarian civilian vehicle with much the same customer base as the Unimog (which as you know has a long association with the ADF) So very much a working vehicle like the van market Its initial customers were utilities/security/emergency vehicles in continental Europe. Fully half of the production line in Graz, Austria, is still for military-spec G-wagens and there are over 60 armies using them. Its likely the production would have stopped a long time ago without the military contracts, although there are still plenty of people will to pay whatever figure MB dreams up for one - which they can get away with due to the very low production numbers (still mostly hand-made)
Later models beginning with W463 model became progressively up-market, right up to the latest V12 TT G65 (an stupendously ridiculous vehicle IMHO)
They are all solid-axle, no IFS.

The basic W461 "Professional" is not available in Australia.

MBZ460
31st October 2012, 10:38 PM
...and I am absolutely certain the ADF G-wagens (like all W461's around the world) dont have electric windows.
Certainly the armour-spec ones have fixed windows.

Celtoid
31st October 2012, 11:05 PM
base unit price is $200kish...

sustainment contract is not a complete parcel per vehicle price that I'm aware of
(could be wrong but given the spec value of the base model) guestimating the cost of parts and repair (for some of the higher cost jobs) that I've been made aware of so far if if the base unit included its sustainment value $200k might get you to 2 years and thats not counting some of the issues I'm expecting will begin to crop up within the next 5 years.

I suspect that the $200k would include the establishment parts but not the ongoing sustainment for life of type.

Right, got you. It's not uncommon for "establishment parts" contracts to be an option. Bit the Army hard on S70A parts (of course they blamed the RAAF :-))and I'd guess ARH and MRH will be no different.

Kev.

Celtoid
31st October 2012, 11:18 PM
Acquisition and support are two different and separate contracts.

Acquisition may deliver the initial batch of spares.

Not always...well yes correct they can be, but ASDEFCON templates have the option to adjust as required. I've seen them inextricably integrated and also written in such a way that they can be taken as one offer or broken into two parts.

The practical reality is....do you want to execute somebody else's plans, costing etc?

So they are, well for the first term, often one in the same, in my experience. I'm sure that isn't always the case...but you know what I mean!?

slug_burner
1st November 2012, 12:20 AM
Not always...well yes correct they can be, but ASDEFCON templates have the option to adjust as required. I've seen them inextricably integrated and also written in such a way that they can be taken as one offer or broken into two parts.

The practical reality is....do you want to execute somebody else's plans, costing etc?

So they are, well for the first term, often one in the same, in my experience. I'm sure that isn't always the case...but you know what I mean!?

Just because they are different contracts doesn't mean they are with different entities. I'd say very few would be with a different organization.

Celtoid
1st November 2012, 01:32 AM
Just because they are different contracts doesn't mean they are with different entities. I'd say very few would be with a different organization.

Hang on, didn't you infer the opposite before?....anyway...:confused: I think we are on the same page?!

Agree, they are written in a way that can be dealt with seperately or integrated...that's what I said in my last line.

But recently at least, they are written with the option for completely seperate organisations to be able to execute or for co-operatives....not sure if it's a spear being pointed at contractors.

It may be rare for that to happen and as I said before, certainly wouldn't want to be executing a contract that wasn't planned as one outcome.

lardy
1st November 2012, 09:36 AM
Funny I looked at the rear seats on that ADF ad and thought I bet there isn't much room for the squaddie in the back (knees in the back of seat in front ) then I thought ahh they mimicked the defender.
I looked at the boxyness with a certain familiarity at certain angles and thought defender, I thought of the modern unserviceable in the field engine and thought defender
And then you get the variants same as the ADF had with defender, I guess apart from the fact it won't perform off road as a well as the previous contract as the axles don't articulate that well (putting us on even pegging with the yanks huff'n'puff) it'll do most of what it's been asked although it will be in the workshop a hell of a lot as young excited men try and drive it flat tack through the nearest swamp and its electrickery gets all sensitive and emotional just like a modern land rover up to the gunnels in mud.

isuzurover
1st November 2012, 10:22 AM
Compared to the Abrams tank and the Collins class sub, this is really a highlight of defence procurement excellence.

At the end of the day, Merc was the best option of those put forward.

Even IF LR had bothered to tender, if I was spending other people's money I would definitely go for a 3L TD G-wagon with twin lockers over a 2.2L Puma.

The only valid criticism I have read so far is a lack of wheel travel - which is more than made up for by having lockers...

If you factor in inflation and the civvie vehicle cost, then the Merc is much better value than the perenties were (even accounting for the spares issues).

wagoo
1st November 2012, 10:46 AM
I suspect the ADF specifying auto trans was for similar reasons to the US Humvees being auto. an attempt to soldier proof the G Wagons. Yet they are fitted with manual difflocks that if used incorrectly can do far more damage to the drivetrain than poor gear changing techniques.

Is it definately confirmed that ADF 4x4 G Wagons have rear leaf spring suspension and drum brakes ? I've googled a bit, but can't find any mention of same in the several tech appraisals I've read.
Bill.

MBZ460
1st November 2012, 10:54 AM
If anyone is interested in seeing some G's in-the-flesh and are in the area around Mansfield, Vic, in the last weekend in November, we are having our nationals there. Hopefully there will be some ADF ones as well as the mostly older models and a few new ones.

Nice time to visit the High Country too...

isuzurover
1st November 2012, 10:55 AM
Is it definately confirmed that ADF 4x4 G Wagons have rear leaf spring suspension and drum brakes ?....

You have been reading Dave's tirade of lies about the G-wagons???

Both 4x4 and 6x6 variants have coils all round.
You can just make out the coils here:
http://www.g-club-ruhrgebiet.de/cms/media/archive1/6x6/2.jpg

I believe they do have rear drums though.

wagoo
1st November 2012, 11:29 AM
You have been reading Dave's tirade of lies about the G-wagons???


Yes Ben I have. and I suspected the accuracy of those claims when Dave made them a year or so ago.

I don't really understand the fitment of drum brakes though, unless it is to insure at least some degree of braking performance when reversing back down steep gradients in the event of engine failure causing loss of vacuum assist?
Does the 4x4 rear suspension feature multiple links, or travel limiting, antisquat inducing radius arms like the older G wagons?
You don't happen to have a photo depicting the 6x6 thru drive for the rearmost axle?
Bill.

Blknight.aus
1st November 2012, 04:16 PM
Tirade of lies? You mean the ones that are turning out to be surprisingly accurate?.

The drum brakes are on the back to enable a full size park brake that can hold the vehicle on a maximum rated slope at rated gvm.

waz
1st November 2012, 04:17 PM
Just FYI the leaf spings was not a rumour started here.


As with all international W461 G-Wagons, the front suspension is made up of MacPherson struts and coil springs, the rear end has leaf springs, while the steering is a recirculating ball design.

from Mercedes-Benz G-Class G300 Military - Mercedes G Force marches in | GoAuto (http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mellor.nsf/story2/65C50BA4DCD3BC5DCA257A720019FA4E)

edit - this aticle is dated 07/09/2012

Waz

MBZ460
1st November 2012, 05:37 PM
The article is wrong.

goingbush
1st November 2012, 05:53 PM
a few more pics

http://www.g-club-ruhrgebiet.de/cms/media/archive1/6x6/1.jpg

http://www.g-club-ruhrgebiet.de/cms/media/archive1/6x6/3.jpg

http://www.g-club-ruhrgebiet.de/cms/media/archive1/6x6/4.jpg

http://www.g-club-ruhrgebiet.de/cms/media/archive1/6x6/7.jpg

wagoo
1st November 2012, 06:11 PM
Thanks for the pics Don. Thru drive appears to be via Morse chain to pinion on leading diff.
Blanking plate on left side axle tube looks like where the axle difflock actuator would fit. Have they deleted the difflock for the leading axle?
No rear suspension load sharing arrangement that I can detect. Radius arms and heavy swaybars would severely restrict unladen interaxle articulation too I would suspect. Better than a Perentie 6x6, but don't think cross country performance was high up on list of priorities.
Bill.

slug_burner
1st November 2012, 08:51 PM
Drum brakes for the park brake on slope at gvm.
Coils not leaf, Perentie 6x6 had rear leafs.
No load sharing on the rear axle group.

Dave might know given he has been trained. Are the diff locks subject to computer wizardry to overcome Bill's concern of poor selection practice?

wagoo
1st November 2012, 09:39 PM
Sorry to be a technical pain tonight, but does anyone have pics showing the links for the rearmost axle of the 6x6? With radius arms on the leading axle, i'm imagining universal joint angles for the rearmost propshaft would get fairly ugly with little articulation unless something quite tricky was done with the rear links.
Bill.

Disco Muppet
1st November 2012, 09:52 PM
Hey Wagoo, I found this, not sure if it shows you what you need.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/11/1353.jpg
Cheers
Muppet

Blknight.aus
1st November 2012, 09:59 PM
Dave might know given he has been trained. Are the diff locks subject to computer wizardry to overcome Bill's concern of poor selection practice?

nope. but the selection/deselection is sequence locked, IE you cant turn on the front lock untill the center and rear is selected and deselecting center turns off all.

6x6 CDl selection locks the center diff and the power divider (all crown wheels rotate at the same speed) locking the rear engages both rear diff locks (rear 4 turn at the same speed

goingbush
1st November 2012, 10:03 PM
Hi Bill, a few more clues here but whoever took the pics really did a bad job at chosing the interesting parts

cheers Don

http://www.g-club-ruhrgebiet.de/cms/media/archive1/6x6/6.jpg

http://www.g-club-ruhrgebiet.de/cms/media/archive1/6x6/5.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/11/1352.jpg

wagoo
1st November 2012, 10:26 PM
Thanks Disco and Don for the pics again. It is as I suspected, the radius arms on both rear axles scribe opposite arcs during axle articulation, which would place the universal joints of the short rear propshaft in a bind if articulation wasn't as severely restricted as it indeed is. Not really accepted engineering practice for tandem drive cross country bogie suspension, so that's it I'm not buying one;)
Bill.

JohnF
2nd November 2012, 09:25 AM
Todays "Gold Coast Bulletin" Newspaper has an artile titled "ADF's German Invasion" on page 67, an article on the G-waggon.

This article says in part:--

"With Automatic transmission and airconditioning in a more modern, ciurrent generation design, the Germans have proved more capable and more comfortable than the ADF's Landrovers, which will have been phased out of service by 2020......"

isuzurover
2nd November 2012, 10:26 AM
Thanks Disco and Don for the pics again. It is as I suspected, the radius arms on both rear axles scribe opposite arcs during axle articulation, which would place the universal joints of the short rear propshaft in a bind if articulation wasn't as severely restricted as it indeed is. Not really accepted engineering practice for tandem drive cross country bogie suspension, so that's it I'm not buying one;)
Bill.

High angle UJs should solve that (if not already fitted)...

As for load sharing - swap the coils for air springs and link them between 2&3 on the same side...

AFAIK the 6x6 was designed specifically for the australian contract??? But is now part of the standard W461 lineup - available almost everywhere except Australia. Will be interesting to see how it works long term...

Blknight.aus
2nd November 2012, 03:48 PM
correct..

all told across the fleet theres something like 30 "firsts" for the gaywagon not all of them are being offered as fleet options.

uninformed
2nd November 2012, 08:20 PM
I would like to know the length of the front and rear/s radius arms....

wagoo
2nd November 2012, 08:46 PM
I would like to know the length of the front and rear/s radius arms....
If the drawings on Dons post #141 are anything like to scale the rear bogie RAs are about the same length as the diameter of the tyres 31-32'' from pivot to centre of axle tube ?
Bill

goingbush
2nd November 2012, 10:39 PM
this might help
W461 4x4 rear trailing arm (dimension C) , 733mm if I read the diagram correctly

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/11/1320.jpg

the text that goes with the drawing is



Reference dimension Controlarm front 760mm (+/-0,5)
Reference dimension Trailing arm front 706 mm
Reference dimension Controlarm rear 965 mm(+/-0,5)
Reference dimension Trailing arm rear 733 mm



©2006 Gwagen.de! (http://www.gwagen.de)

might be some loss in translation but what they call "trailing Arm Front' I would call a Radius Arm

goingbush
2nd November 2012, 10:48 PM
may be some useful info here too,
Cant read greman but I gather the older w460 and newer w461 and 463 TA's are the same thing,
I assume 6x6 uses same part.

Längslenker Hinterachse Mercedes G-Modell G-Klasse 460 461 463 trailing arm rear | eBay (http://www.ebay.de/itm/Langslenker-Hinterachse-Mercedes-G-Modell-G-Klasse-460-461-463-trailing-arm-rear-/121004995261?_trksid=p4340.m185&_trkparms=algo%3DSIC.NPJS%26its%3DI%26itu%3DUA%26o tn%3D5%26pmod%3D120697856449%26ps%3D63%26clkid%3D3 175748888203989735#ht_3870wt_835)

and the price of the ebay item makes this one a bargain

http://gwagenpreserve.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&product_id=660&flypage=flypage.tpl&pop=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=8

Found another pic
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/11/1319.jpg


.

Mr Rover
1st February 2013, 09:23 PM
Would you really need to stop to press that? Are the G's an actual improvement on the Rovers?
Well the G-Wagon is a hell of a lot more comfortable than a Perentie 110.
As for 4WDing ability, I won't be able to tell you until I get on the G-Wagon course, hopefully some time in the next few months . . .

Ranga
1st February 2013, 10:00 PM
i might me able to provide an opinion after a few days :rolleyes:

Lotz-A-Landies
2nd February 2013, 12:18 AM
Hadn't followed this thread.

The Mercedes system is not too dissimilar to the Defender/Reynolds-Boughton 6x6 system outside the anti roll bars and the presence of 3 axle diff locks.