Thread: G wagon hopeless

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

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

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

Originally Posted by lardy

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...

Originally Posted by isuzurover

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!"
Moot point really, what sort of tactical approach would factor in a river crossing in 4X4s, a not very good one methinks.

Originally Posted by goingbush

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
and dont forget the Royal Enfield which is still made pretty much the same as it was in 1955. Royal Enfield 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!

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

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

Originally Posted by newhue

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

Originally Posted by ugu80

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

Originally Posted by JohnF

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,worse is they buy mazda Bravo's and do the same thing,without doubt the scariest vehicles I've ever driven. Pat