|
Num Posts
Sort Order
|
rover1
New User
| Posts: 2
| Joined: 07/06
Posted: 07/07/06 01:53 PM
|
|
You guys must never heard of Land Rover. If you had you would know that for over half of the worlds population it was the first & only vehicle thay had ever seen. This is for a reason, they are truely a go anywhere truck. I say truck because that is what they are, they are not unibody like the jeep cherokies & grand cherokies. My 2000 Discovery weighed 6,063 lbs. The frame & axles are rock solid. I can climb the same hills roll over the same rocks go thru as much mud as my best frieds 1990 CJ that he had to modify to do all these things with ease, Then I can drive 75-80 mph on the interstate for 3hrs back home in comfort not matched by any american suv. My buddy has to trailer his home because he is not sure if it would make it home, he also said he would never drive that far in his jeep any how, why I asked, because it rides like crap. The stereotypes are out there & thats fine this is America & we should by American, well Land Rover is owned by Ford & has been for some time. Bill Ford make money if you buy a upcoming Bronco II that is enginiered by Land Rover by the way or a new Jaguar because Ford owned them too. I am not bragging about the name of my truck just what it can do these things are a dime a dozen & can do amazig things with out anything but some good off road tires.
|
|
Posted: 07/08/06 08:03 AM
|
|
Did you know that when the land rover came out the U.S. Army put them to test with the jeeps. The land rovers didnt compare to the jeeps, thats why they didnt use them. When Hummer came out they did the same thing and the hummer out did the jeep, thats why they use them.
|
rover1
New User
| Posts: 2
| Joined: 07/06
Posted: 07/10/06 05:24 AM
|
|
You are correct! However they were using the Land Rover 110 that had a longer wheel base & was much heavier than the Willey's Jeep. The Land Rover 90 would have been a closer match but it was not out yet. So we are compairing apple to oranges here, but I was simply saying over all the Land Rover is the ultimate 4WD. This does not mean there is not something else out there that would go thru certain stuff better with acception to a stock Rubicon or an H-3 there is not much out there with the stock off road abilities af a Land Rover.
|
|
|
redbeast
Enthusiast
| Posts: 516
| Joined: 02/06
Posted: 07/23/06 01:34 PM
|
|
Ya! Them old Power Wagons Rule!
They don't build them that good anymore.
The new Dodge trucks will set you back more than $1500 dollars in a less than 5 mph fender bender! I wouldn't take one off-road without a BIG wallet, myself!
Did you catch that bright red Banks modified Diesel truck on that "trucks" show ? They had to ' cut to commercial' when they took it in the mud, until it got winched out!
|
redbeast
Enthusiast
| Posts: 516
| Joined: 02/06
Posted: 07/23/06 01:45 PM
|
|
The Chevy K5 M-1009 '4X4 military vehicle' came before the Hummer. dude! Standard with 6.2 diesel V8, TH-400, NP-208 T-case, etc... and that's why they used them!
A lot of nice trucks ( diamonds in the rough ) can still be got through military surplus auctions - 4WOR had a few articles on these.
|
|
Posted: 07/23/06 06:08 PM
|
|
your wright they did. But they only used them for transporting things thats it. They never used them in combat. Isnt that bad, a jeep goes in the battle field and a full size chevy dont.
The military uses what ever is available. they will use a damn ranger if it gets them were they need to go. so dont think that that truck is something special because it isnt. hummers suck too.
|
redbeast
Enthusiast
| Posts: 516
| Joined: 02/06
Posted: 07/24/06 03:21 PM
|
|
Combat is a funny thing if you ever seen any. Just because something isn't rated to mount a '50 cal. doesn't mean it aint seen combat. And the "battlefield" is not a defined area 99% of the time -as some Mechanized support units found out in Iraq not long ago. There's a whole lot of old K5 M-1009's out there with shell & grenade fragments, and bullet holes from fire fights. Some mangled wrecks too.
I agree that this arrangement isn't the best. A 6.2 Diesel and an NP-208 would not be my first or second choices, personally. The sorry @ss 3.08 factory ratio on the axles is crap too! I know hummers suck too in their military configuration. They have to be all around vehicles for long distance highway and off-road use. CUCV was the rating the K5's were given.
Just don't be mad cause they didn't pick a Ford dude! Not every truck out there has the grace to be born a Chevy truck!
Edited 7/24/2006 4:24 pm ET by redbeast (redbeast2)
|
burns
New User
| Posts: 1
| Joined: 08/06
Posted: 08/12/06 09:57 PM
|
|
A Solid Ford Explorer
Click here and read up
Edited 8/12/2006 10:59 pm by burns (burns156)
|
|
Posted: 08/13/06 08:42 AM
|
|
im not mad because they didnt pick a ford, the military uses what ever is cheaper, i have photos of the military with rangers there, and explorers, they get whatever they can afford. And the hummers are deffinetly over rated.
|
fireman01
New User
| Posts: 1
| Joined: 08/06
Posted: 08/17/06 12:38 PM
|
|
OK, you ask for objective opion on off road capability when it comes to the Big three. Here's my pick the Dodge 3500 Diesel comes from the factory with true diesel design meaning sticking to the inline 6 not some V8 want abe this inline design has been around a long time and puts out some stout number over the V8 's plus they are still refering back to the trucking industry for more improvments where there diesels are put to the test hauling 80,000 plus pounds around on a daily basis and dodge still has the most factory groung clearance.
|
redbeast
Enthusiast
| Posts: 516
| Joined: 02/06
Posted: 08/22/06 02:57 PM
|
|
Then we are in agreement!
I know there are a few military fords out there too, I was just bustin on ya a bit. If It's American made it all good to me!
I'm not sure about that thing with the military going with the cheapest they can afford. You obviously haven't heard about the $7000.00 hammer, or the Coffee making systems on the B-52 Stratofortress that can make coffee inverted and during a nuclear blast! The only B-52 I saw inverted never made it back to the barn - well, it did, just in jig-saw puzzle form. I personally saw a $50.00 resistor that you could pick up at any Radio Shack for less than 3-cents. The tolerances were identical too.
|
redbeast
Enthusiast
| Posts: 516
| Joined: 02/06
Posted: 08/22/06 03:02 PM
|
|
Diesels may be good for highway and endurance work, but ya can't beat the raw torque of a gasoline engine over a diesel. Diesel's got no business in da mud. - just my opinion. I'm not saying they're not great engines as far as towing capacity and reliability though.
|
89ramman
New User
| Posts: 11
| Joined: 06/06
Posted: 08/28/06 08:57 AM
|
|
explain to me how you think that a gasoline engine has more raw torque than a diesel? i dont understand. if you had a gasoline motor vs a diesel motor, the diesel would overpower the gas one with ease. The diesel trannies are built a hell of a lot stronger also. "I.E the duramax." dont get me wrong id take a gas anyday over a diesel because they are too much *** for me.
|
|
Posted: 08/29/06 08:22 AM
|
|
gas engines can have more torque than diesel. If you build the engine, you can make it a torquer motor and have more torque than a diesel. My truck has just as much torque than diesels from the factory.
One thing you have to remember is that the older trucks were built for raw power, the new trucks just look pretty.
|
redbeast
Enthusiast
| Posts: 516
| Joined: 02/06
Posted: 08/31/06 03:40 PM
|
|
I don't recall seeing any diesel engines on any of the nhra shows I've seen or any of the drags I've been to....except for the typical home guy trying to turn his diesel truck into a race car. Pickup trucks with wings are another thing I just don't get - It's like trying to make a brick more aerodynamic by bolting a wing on to it.
I don't see too many diesel trucks at the mud bogs either. Way too much weight up front for one thing. Aren't the "duramax" engines made by Isuzu ?
|