Land Rovers Army 2nd Choice

[mrapocalypse]

Ok for those who love a conspiracy theory...

My Nis**n driving mate reckons that when he was in the Army transport unit? in about 1978-80 (or something!!!) they did the trials and land Rover came a distant second to toyota and that the only reason the Army didn't go with Toyota was that "The RSL stepped in and Said no to a japanese vehicle in the Austrlian Army"

I said RUBBISH!

Was i right??????

[dobbo]

No this story is correct













Just kidding

I don't know but it is a plausable response

[Slunnie]

I would call BS also. Its not the RSL's role to influence decisions like that, and I wouldn't expect that they would try to put our soldiers into also ran vehicles. The Army use a lot of Japanese products.

[numpty]

Ok for those who love a conspiracy theory...

My Nis**n driving mate reckons that when he was in the Army transport unit? in about 1978-80 (or something!!!) they did the trials and land Rover came a distant second to toyota and that the only reason the Army didn't go with Toyota was that "The RSL stepped in and Said no to a japanese vehicle in the Austrlian Army"

I said RUBBISH!

Was i right??????

I believe you were right.
When the Army called for tenders for Project Perentie, only Jeep, Mercedes and Landrover offered vehicles for testing. Mercedes almost won that contract as they came in with a very good price and were also supplying Unimogs at the time. I also understand that Toyota failed the drop test from out of Hercules.

[harro]

I would call BS also. Its not the RSL's role to influence decisions like that, and I wouldn't expect that they would try to put our soldiers into also ran vehicles. The Army use a lot of Japanese products.
I would be very concerned if possible combat situations (life or death) were influenced by decisions based on these type of motivations.

That's not to say it isn't true.

These blokes deserve the best on offer and if it aint L/R so be it!

Yes we can only hope it's absolute BS.

[PeterM]

I know one factor in getting the 110 was that LRA was in deep poo and the army contract kept them afloat for several years. Even though, the 110 is a much better vehicle, there were a few 40 series troopies being used but good God! Can you imagine the condition they'd be in today?!

[rick130]

yep, you can call BS on this one, Toyota never submitted a vehicle and the Jeep was never seriously considered as they didn't comply with the basic spec by supplying a petrol engined auto trans vehicle !
It was only ever really between the G Wagon and the 110. I think the clincher was probably the 6x6.

[VladTepes]

I also understand that Toyota failed the drop test from out of Hercules.

They should still test ALL Toyotas that way.

From 30,000 feet.:twisted:

[Michael2]

I was in the Kimberley in the early 90's. I think it was during the Kangaroo 95 exercises that a RAEME unit pulled in to buy some industrial supplies where I worked. They were in Land Cruisers. They explained that that was all that was left after the fighting boys got the Land Rovers, besides they were the ones expected to keep these jalopies (word substitute applying to the Toyota) going.

As numpty said - Toyota didn't even put their hat in last time, but I do remember reading a 4WD magazine article at the time stating the RSL reason and also saying that the army put their best drivers in the Land Rovers.

Mercedes had a lot of trouble offloading their G-Wagens to any military. I noticed the Greek military had a heap in the late 90's and was told they were probably bought through a cash lubricated transaction ;). But that conspiracy theory came from my aunt, not a military source.

The army expect to keep their vehicles in service for 20 years, Toyotas don't last that long. There was some African country that bought 1/2 Land Rovers and 1/2 Land Cruisers for their military. The Land Rovers needed a set of spanners from day one, but after 2 years there were no Land Cruisers left in service.


People wax lyrical about Land Cruisers, but having driven both off road, I'd say the Land Rover can be pushed harder and will respond more predictably. I know I'm talking a little old school here, but a mate in a troopy (leaf sprung) could never keep up with my SIII off road. If he went as fast as he could he'd only manage to see the last of my dust settle on the ground. On road, I couldn't keep up with him.

Tell your mate he has an inferior vehicle that shrouds itself in self made urban myths because it has no real heritage.:D:D:D:D:D:D

[Bushie]

................................... the Jeep was never seriously considered as they didn't comply with the basic spec by supplying a petrol engined auto trans vehicle !

Why would that be a problem :o

From memory when the Army called the contact that Mack won, Leyland put up the Mastiff 6X6. It didn't get the contact but the Mack was considerably heavier than the spec called for, part of the reason that the Mastiff failed was due to lighter castings to keep the weight down which introduced their own problems.


Martyn

[Turtle61]

Guys - I read in a recent LRE mag that LRA refused to put in a bid for a new contract with the RAA. Their reason was that LR did not expect the production of the Defender to continue past 2010, the RAA needs the vehicles from 2011 and so LR thought it would be too costly to develop a vehicle to the RAA specs and maybe not get the contract... something of that sort :eek:
Bit weird thinking - you can't win if you don't play....

[Blknight.aus]

It breaks my heart but turtle your on the right track there..

when the series rover was replaced the 3 main contenders were

jeep, toyota and landrover..... one of the more terminal tests was a drive it till it stops over railway sleepers on a runway... drive up turn around drive back hitting the sleepers with the left side then the right side of the vehicle.. (you get a brief glimps of something like this in the top gears landrover review on the series one)

The jeeps engine fell out gearbox and all... the toyota disconnected the transfercase from the gearbox..

and the landrover...

well the front flaps fell off, the doors came off, the dash fell apart, the headlight lenses and the parklights fell away... the heater fan shook apart.. you get the idea... and after x laps more than either the cruiser or the jeep did the drivers gave it. "can we stop now, we're hurtin." Ive seen the footage of the trial it was some crusty old truckie WO's home video up in darwin about 8 years ago now..

The rover was ready for more, ok the unimportant bits had fallen off but everything actuall needed to make it drive was working.

class by class landrovers only ever come second to toyotas in 2 fields... max power output from the engine and.. Cost per unit, the toyotas are a lot cheaper and proove, you get what you pay for.

[rick130]

No Turtle, Ford have no interest in Military contracts via Land Rover. Maybe via the F Series, but not Landy. Military was the first department scrapped after the Ford takeover.
Under BMW's stewardship, Australia was going to be responsible for Military design and South Africa building, hell, they were working on the TD5 to re-power the Isuzu's to extend the 110's life and it was all scrapped.

Remember what Ford's plans are for Land Rover, it's a luxury marque, to compete with Lexus. :rolleyes:

[incisor]

you got it in one rick130

[JDNSW]

As far as I can remember, the perentie contract required maximum commonality between the 3/4 tonne and 2 tonne vehicles. When Toyota realised this would mean developing a special vehicle for the contract, they lost interest and did not submit a proposal.

John

[Turtle61]

Amen.

[barney]

this was lifted from remlr, which in turn, was lifted from the May '85 edition of Bushdriver magazine. remlr has removed the photo, i was able to take one from file though. be patient when loading, it's halfway down the page.
only eight of these came in, so there's a 1 in 8 chance the one in the photo is mine.



R.A.N. 110" UTILITIES
The Royal Australian Navy were the first with 110" models.
"The R.A.N. has taken delivery of a number of new Land Rover One Ten four-wheel-drive utilities. The Navy Land Rovers are the first One Tens to go into service with an Australian Defence Force.
"Land Rover has enjoyed a long association with the Australian Navy and, whilst the Navy does not buy in numbers as large as those of the Army, it nonetheless has been a staunch supporter of the famous British all-terrain vehicle.
"The new Land Rover One Tens, painted in pristine Navy-white will go into service at major port facilities and will be used by Naval Police and will also be taken on board during naval exercises.
"Navy personnel are reportedly very satisfied with the new coil-sprung Land Rover, highlighting the improvements to ride, general comfort, and performance.
"With the sailors now sampling One Tens, JRA Limited awaits the outcome of more than one year of intensive testing of the new Land Rover in a bid to win the prestigious contract to supply both four-wheel-drive and six-wheel-drive Land Rover to the Australian Army as replacements for its current Land Rover fleet. Land Rover has supplied the Australian Army for more than 25 years." The accompanying photo was of a standard civilian issue One Ten truck cab utility without the County stripes. The only naval aspect is that the unit is parked at a wharf with a warship behind (Bush Driver magazine, May-June 1985)

954

[Bigbjorn]

In the 1980's I was working atTutts Machinery Group in Salisbury, Brisbane, and the Jeep plant was about 100 metres away. I knew a couple of the Jeepo guys from WhiteTrucks andwe often had a drink together. One day they were most unhappy as the Army had s--tcanned Jeep about the vehicle/vehicles provided for evaluation. Apparently Army people would 'phone dealers around Australia at random and request availability of various parts. Jeep parts availability was almost nil outside metro. areas. Their country dealers were all multi-franchise dealers who barely stocked a part for their low volume sellers. Wonder what they would think of Land Rover parts availability today, what with hardly a dealer left outside the capital cities.

[noddy]

Why would that be a problem :o

From memory when the Army called the contact that Mack won, Leyland put up the Mastiff 6X6. It didn't get the contact but the Mack was considerably heavier than the spec called for, part of the reason that the Mastiff failed was due to lighter castings to keep the weight down which introduced their own problems.


Martyn

Bushie -- I think it had something to do with the ADF's 'one fuel policy' (diesel).

I remember reading somewhere the Poms were in the same boat when they ditched the 101s because of the petrol V8s. I think they would have preferred keeping them after their success in Gulf I.

[Bigbjorn]

Why would that be a problem :o

From memory when the Army called the contact that Mack won, Leyland put up the Mastiff 6X6. It didn't get the contact but the Mack was considerably heavier than the spec called for, part of the reason that the Mastiff failed was due to lighter castings to keep the weight down which introduced their own problems.


Martyn

Mastiff was a much lighter class of truck.

[mrapocalypse]

So maybe it was between the SIII and FJ40. About the same vintage and SIII had their own problems, or were they part of the IIA order?

our Army should really build their vehicles here. Long way on a boat for stuff if things turn nasty don't you think.

Like the US Jeep. wasn't it lucky to last a few days.

That would just about empty out ADF Landy supplies in a few months wouldn't it?

[DirtyDawg]

I know that was bullship...It was called "exercise perentie" and it occurred in 1983-84 there was a 110, 110x6wheel turbo (our favourite) which spent most its time towing the jeep wrangler as the jeep kept busting axles, a toyota LC personnel wgn , a mercedes 4x4 pile of crap, didn't even have Nissan patrol on the selection, we drove our leg from Woodside S.A to leigh creek S.A for 3 weeks gave them all crap and drove back for our reporting on which we reckoned was best..I loved and still do the Defenders and have the pics somewhere to prove it...

[Bushie]

Mastiff was a much lighter class of truck.
But from memory it met the spec whereas the Mack didn't.
They also did tests on the Mastiff making them airportable, don't think that ever happened to the Mack, still we ended up with 1 1/2 Mastiff trucks that we kept going for 20years? when it was replaced with a MAN

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


Martyn

[barney]

dirtydawg,
i just did some digging thru my vast pile of old 4wd mags, in the winter 1983 edition of 4x4 Australia there's a big story on the development of the 110 4x4 and 6x6 vehicles at JRA.
they said the army trials would take approximately 12 months from september with eight personnel with no mechanical knowledge (that's why you were chosen).
after south oz they were heading to tully in FNQ for hot-wet testing.
my vehicle was released to the Navy in december 1984 from rolfe classic in canberra. it was used primarily as a military police vehicle but was used on various excercises to test its versatility and longevity.
"project perentie" is described in detail in the Jan/Feb edition of Bushdriver magazine. 1 onne payload class had the jeep AM10, the land rover 110 and the merc 300GD. 2 tonne class was the landy 6x6 and the unimog U1300. the first reference they made was the sept/oct edition of 1984.
i still remember seeing the 6wd suspension system being tested up at oxford falls on a work day i had off.
i can scan these stories and send them if you want, just p.m me.

[Vandermorph]

Ok for those who love a conspiracy theory...

My Nis**n driving mate reckons that when he was in the Army transport unit? in about 1978-80 (or something!!!) they did the trials and land Rover came a distant second to toyota and that the only reason the Army didn't go with Toyota was that "The RSL stepped in and Said no to a japanese vehicle in the Austrlian Army"

I said RUBBISH!

Was i right??????
If you believe it, it isnt lying because you believed it and even if it was not right How would he know if you knew?

[Bigbjorn]

But from memory it met the spec whereas the Mack didn't.
They also did tests on the Mastiff making them airportable, don't think that ever happened to the Mack, still we ended up with 1 1/2 Mastiff trucks that we kept going for 20years? when it was replaced with a MAN

http://members.ozemail.com.au/%7Eg1412r/trucks/h72a.jpg
Leyland Mastiff


Martyn
Mastiff was basically an eight ton body truck in which form they were a bloody good truck, Perkins 540 V8 diesel, 5 speed Eaton trans, two speed Eaton diff. People also used them as a light prime mover (three or four axle rig) and as a body truck with a dog trailer. Anything bigger was kidding themselves. They had smaller brakes than an eight ton Bedford KMR. Underpowered even by the standards of the time.The Mastiff tandem had a Perkins 640, Roadranger and lightweight Crusader hub reduction diffs on singlepoint taper leaf suspension, as pictured in Fire Tender format. Not in the same class of truck as the Mack eventually purchased. Short haul and slow was the Mastiff place.