Land Rovers during the Snowy Scheme

This is taken from Wikipedia's entry on the Toyota Land Cruiser:

Quote:

---

J20, J30 (1955?1960)[edit]


J20/J30

FJ25 Land Cruiser.jpg

Overview


Also called
Toyota Bandeirante (Brazil)

Production
1955?1960

Assembly

Toyota City, Japan (ARACO)
S?o Bernardo, Brazil (Toyota do Brasil)


Body and chassis


Body style

2-door softtop
2-door hardtop
2-door pickup truck
5-door station wagon


Layout
FR layout

Powertrain


Engine

3.4 L B I6
3.9 L F I6


Dimensions


Wheelbase

2,285 mm (90.0 in)
2,430 mm (95.7 in)
2,650 mm (104.3 in)

1955 ? The Second generation, 20 Series was introduced. It was designed to have more civilian appeal than the BJ for export reasons. It also had more stylish bodywork and a better ride thanks to longer four-plate leaf springs which had been adapted from the Toyota Light Truck. It had a more powerful 135 PS (99 kW) 3.9 L six-cylinder Type F gasoline engine, but still only had a three speed gearbox. The interior of the vehicles were made more comfortable by moving the engine 120 mm (4.7 in) forward. The 20 Series still had no low range, but it had synchromesh on the third and fourth gears.[citation needed]
1957 ? A 4-door Station Wagon was added as the FJ35V on a 2,650 mm (104.3 in) wheelbase. Land Cruisers were first imported into Australia by B&D Motors as FJ25/28 cab chassis with Australian made bodies.[9] They were the first Japanese cars to be regularly exported to the country[10] and a few were initially used in the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Scheme, by sub contractor Theiss Constructions.[11]

This is also interesting on LR's role in the SNowy Mountains, if you read ot the bottom:

https://books.google.com.au/books?id...ntains&f=false

---

Wikipedia, hmmmm

Synchromesh on 3rd and 4th gear???? Were they thinking about Land Rover, or should it have said synchro on 2nd and 3rd gear? Land Cruiser were still 3 speed through most of the 1960s

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Wikipedia, hmmmm

Synchromesh on 3rd and 4th gear???? Were they thinking about Land Rover, or should it have said synchro on 2nd and 3rd gear? Land Cruiser were still 3 speed through most of the 1960s

---

The Landcruiser without a two speed transfer case had a four speed gearbox with first so low that it was not used in normal driving. These were exceedingly rare in Australia, but the first Landcruiser I ever saw was one, in 1962, on a station south of Prairie. Its clutch failed while attempting to reach the main road after heavy rain.

John

My understanding vis a vis Toyota, was that Thiess bought some and found them reliable. My memory of stories is that the Land Rover lacked power on steep grades. A decent six was a benefit. I wonder if Land Rover had put the Wolseley's Lightning Six (an excellent motor IMO) into a LandRover, what might have happened to their Australian sales? Didn't many Land Rovers ended up with owners putting Holden sixes in them?

Since Toyotas were not sold in Australia, Thiess managed to become the importer for Toyota. They (Theiss) sold their first in the late 1950s. The Land Cruiser is supposed to be the first Toyota vehicle that was profitable. Eventually I think Toyots funded inventory for Theiss. Toyota got involved in assembly at the AMI plant in Port Melbourne. Toyota would buy the AMI plant (where various assembly was made including Mercedes, I think Morris and Wolseley maybe ... Rambler etc. ) Toyota then bought out Thiess car wholesale operation. Toyota left Thiess with the trade type vehicles including the Landcruisers - called then Thiess Toyota. Eventually Toyota took over that Thiess commercial operation as well.

Toyota people say that much of the development for the Landcruiser has been in Australia because of the first exports of Toyotas were due to the LandCruiser via Thiess. Also the first profitable Toyota vehicle was the Landcruiser. Other innovations for Toyota world wide also followed various innovations in Australia's marketing of Toyotas.

Meanwhile the British auto growth was in comparison poorly managed, and restricted in various problematic ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melbourne Park

My understanding vis a vis Toyota, was that Thiess bought some and found them reliable. My memory of stories is that the Land Rover lacked power on steep grades. A decent six was a benefit. Didn't many Land Rovers ended up with owners putting Holden sixes in them?

....

---

While the Toyota six was a benefit the lack of 4 speeds was a disadvantage as they had to go down to low range. Its a bit of swings and roundabouts.

The reason that many Land Rovers originally got Holden motors, in spite of their disadvantages, was that you could get a fully reconditioned Holden engine for a couple of hundred dollars (much less in the pounds days) where the cheapest you could get a Rover motor reconditioned was over a thousand dollars.

Remember the grey Holden engine was only 2.17 litres or 2.26 litres against the Land Rover 1.6 litre, 2 litre or 2.28 litre.

Yes, I've read those four-speed with no low versions were the first Landcruisers sent to the Snowy, so they wouldn't have been much use. I think they were only used to transport workers around the better roads. So, don't be fooled by the Toyota propaganda - Landcruisers didn't do much that was important on the Snowy - it was the Landies that did the heavy lifting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

While the Toyota six was a benefit the lack of 4 speeds was a disadvantage as they had to go down to low range. Its a bit of swings and roundabouts.

The reason that many Land Rovers originally got Holden motors, in spite of their disadvantages, was that you could get a fully reconditioned Holden engine for a couple of hundred dollars (much less in the pounds days) where the cheapest you could get a Rover motor reconditioned was over a thousand dollars.

Remember the grey Holden engine was only 2.17 litres or 2.26 litres against the Land Rover 1.6 litre, 2 litre or 2.28 litre.

---

The Toyota six was 3.9 litres! And the motor and crude gearbox was reliable.

I visited the Snowy Mountains scheme on a tour, in 1964. The project was still not finished. I did a tour. I was in 6th grade. I saw quite a few four wheel drives. Including a white Land Cruiser - it was pristine. I queried about it after the lunch and the Bus driver told me what it was. He also said that it had a great engine, and that the Land Rovers were gutless. I remember it well. I still feel the shock now!

And the large mess hall type place where we had a big hot workers lunch. It was a cheap temporay building, there was snow here and their outside on the large car park area, and the inside of the building had many tables and you got a tray and went around the edges and chose your food which was served onto your plate by very efficient staff. It was very advanced!!! I felt almost grown up.

I recall what was said back then - that the Landcruiser had a great engine for getting up the steep grades. The impression I recall, was a level of limitation concerning the Land Rover. Strange really - at the same time, another Uncle who had Jaguars - criticised Mercedes Benz, because as he said back then - "They having nothing under the bonnet". Back then, engines were a big deal.

At the same time, my Uncle had a BMC dealership ( and his father ie my grandfather had the first Ford dealership in Melbourne), and he thought the Japanese stupid, and he loved the British. A few years later though, he would not love the Marina motor car ... I was taught to drive in a Morris 1100 (or to change the gears actually) and I got my license in a Mini. I asked him a few times about the Japanese - he never wanted to sell Japanese vehicles. He said back then: " Mr Honda has thrown away his chopsticks ". He laughed at his joke - he then explained that the Japanese motors did not have pushrods. But really - it wasn't very funny if you sold English motors.

It wasn't the work the Landcruiser did though in the Snowy Scheme - it was the image they created of reliability and power, backed up evidently by a different image that the work horse Land Rovers seemed to gather. Perhaps unfairly?

I recall too, a part of the Tour, we visited a very large Damn, I think at Tumut, and the company that built it, got a 1 million dollar bonus (a huge amount back then) for completing the dam one year earlier than promised. I don't recall if Theiss was involved in building that dam - but time was definitely money back then, and Theiss valued the Landcruiser very much. The boss of Theiss then went to Japan and got the agency. And Thiess backed their agency up with parts availability, because most sales were intended for mining and agricultural ie commercial use. With very high costs to repair a Land Rover engine, and their smaller capacity, its no wonder that Thiess who backed up the product with good parts support, grew the product.

I think Land Rover and BMC etc., did not think the same industrial way as Thiess did. And Thiess's thinking flowed on into Toyota's philosophy. Then again, Toyota had capital to play with thanks to the USA, unlike with British firms.

A shame really ...

For some time, English cars were subsidised by our Aussie government. For instance, the Bristol car - which cost the same as a Rolls Royce in the UK - was heavily subsidised when sold to Australians, from our own Government! It was some kind of ex war benefit to the Mother Country. I don't know if Land Rover got any such benefits ... I think things changed a fair bit though when Holden and Ford setup here. And then Chrysler. The British suffered more and more IMO ...

Many of us toured the Snowy Scheme during the construction phase when we were children, some like myself multiple times, those of us who were alive that is. Some of us, when we got our licences toured again on our own as young adults in our Land Rovers. I remember well driving on the restricted SMA Roads to Happy Jacks and the Eucumbeine Portal through to Khancoban and to Talbingo. I even remember sitting around the campfire in the early 1970's with LROCS members who worked on the scheme, reciting their experiences with the Land Rovers and Land Cruisers.

So if we must recite memories, my recollections are different to yours.

BTW: Rover Co Ltd was never part of BMC. Rover Co Ltd was merged with Leyland Motor Corporation in 1967 a year before British Motor Corporation was merged into Leyland, although you are correct, when Rover Co Ltd merged with Leyland they stopped listening to Land Rover customers in Australia. Something that Toyota never did.

Land Rover were not invented/designed when Holden's were building bodies for GM. In fact Holdens were a saddlery in Melbourne in the 1890s, started building motor bodies before WWI and became a GM subsidiary in 1931. Ford Geelong a subsidiary of Ford of Canada from 1925, has a different history but similarly were building cars in Australia before WWII.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

Land Rover were not invented/designed when Holden's were building bodies for GM. In fact Holdens were a saddlery in Melbourne in the 1890s, started building motor bodies before WWI and became a GM subsidiary in 1931. Ford Geelong a subsidiary of Ford of Canada from 1925, has a different history but similarly were building cars in Australia before WWII.

---

I reckon you used that poor Wiki for your research!!!! Holden were an Adelaide start-up. And Holdens are still (barely) being assembled in Adelaide, due IMO to the Holden connection. Fisherman's bend (in Port Melbourne) had the brains though ...

IMO its a reality, that Landcruiser won a reputation from its limited Snow Mountain endeavours. Its very likely due to Thiess, who would have spun a thread into a weaving mill from their limited use of only a few vehicles. But even back then, the rumours were there, because I experienced them. And it was easy to build upon, because people liked bigger motors back then. And even now, Discovery drivers are amused by the lack of performance of Prados etc. etc. And back then, probably Thiess focussed on support it seems and I would not be surprised and IMO likely spread some false rumours.

As far as bodies go, lots of bodies for Model T's had my Grandfather's name on them. In those days, you went to for instance James Flood, and they'd build the body for you. Hence the body would end up with the following: body by "Smith", and the actual builder i.e. James Flood was the body builder. I guess that at some time, Ford took over the commissioning of bodies for their Model T.

I am guessing, but I presume that Holden became an exclusive builder for GM vehicles or perhaps one family of them. Its easy to buy out such a business, by offering to buy them out, and also advising that if they don't sell, then they'll (GM in Holden's case) would withdraw all their body building work. A simple choice: no more work from the company you do all your work for, or sell out.

I think the monocoque has made things cheaper, and is much praised in our disposable society. IMO in a lot of ways, not better.

Apologies for wandering way off topic.

I think you are falling into the myth created by Toyota's advertising gurus in the 1990s.

Toyota won its reputation from the 1970s onwards when they built reliable 4WD that the market wanted, it had very little to do with the Land Cruiser's use by one contractor on the Snowy Scheme, even though that contractor was Theiss. Prior to the 1970's there was still a significant reluctance to buy Toyota and Nissan because of "what the Japs did in the War" remember the old WWII solders were still in their 40s and 50s at the time.

Yes I did check Wiki, for dates, because I knew Holdens were a saddlery before being a car body builder and then changed the city.