# LSVW Replacement



## Darth_Hamel

Does anyone know when the army will grace us with a replacement for the LSVW? If so what's the best option available. not that we're likely to get it, though I can't think of anything being worse than the LS :threat:. Would it be possible to do the job with an extended order of G-wagens and Milcots? I know the The Milcot can also hold as much as an LS, though there's the off road limitations. As far As I can make it the best replacement would be more G-wagens for the reg force, I must confess I have no experience with these vehicles, though the Brits ans Ausies use Range Rovers for their CP and Line roles effectively, which are about the same size as the G-wagen.  Personally I'd far prefer an un-f**d Milcot for the reserves as an LS replacement; with higher clearance, unexposed brakelines, no restrictive warranty and better tires.

Can anyone farmiliar with the G-Wagen tell me if say an extended a cargo version could do the LS's job? Or is there a better option out there?


----------



## geo

Would venture to say that there would be any number of options for new LSVWs
including the original Italian vehicle upon which the current LSVW was designed and built..... the Cdn version built by a contractor who was going out of business is a shadow of the original design upon which it was selected.

A commercial pattern Pick up?..... we did pretty well with the CUCVs and the old 5/4s... but I imagine that we'll be expected to make do with what we got - for quite some time to come.


----------



## aesop081

geo said:
			
		

> Would venture to say that there would be any number of options for new LSVWs
> including the original Italian vehicle upon which the current LSVW was designed and built..... the Cdn version built by a contractor who was going out of business is a shadow of the original design upon which it was selected.
> 
> A commercial pattern Pick up?..... we did pretty well with the CUCVs and the old 5/4s... but I imagine that we'll be expected to make do with what we got - for quite some time to come.



I've seen the original italian truck back in 99 and again last march in Sicily.......we dont want them.




			
				Darth_Hamel said:
			
		

> Does anyone know when the army will grace us with a replacement for the LSVW? If so what's the best option available. not that we're likely to get it,


I may have missed it but when was it anounced that the LSVW was being replaced ? I thought for sure we were stuck with it for a long time...look at how long we used the old 5/4.....


----------



## geo

aesop081 said:
			
		

> I may have missed it but when was it anounced that the LSVW was being replaced ? I thought for sure we were stuck with it for a long time...look at how long we used the old 5/4.....


They haven't


----------



## Patrolman

I had heard through the grapevine a couple of years back that they were to phased out, No new parts to purchased,cannibalize some to make others last, no replacements to be purchased, etc.

At least the brakes on the Italian version don't squeal!


----------



## aesop081

Patrolman said:
			
		

> At least the brakes on the Italian version don't squeal!



Every single Italian "LSVW" that was in NAS Sigonella had the same  squealing brakes ours do.  I even dicussed that fact with a few Italian Air Force personel at the International Party at the end of the EX


----------



## Wookilar

We've only had the LS for a decade. There might be something in the planning stage to replace them, but nothing past that. We still have buckets and buckets of spare parts for those things.

The problem with the "civy" pattern trucks (a la 5/4 ton and CUCV) would be the same as when they bid for the LS program. All three of the domestic automakers submitted dual wheel vehicles. At the time, the powers that be did not want a dual wheel design (for a couple of reasons, not all of them political), so they were SOL. The dual wheel was submitted because: a) they did not have to change their assembly lines, b) to handle the weight load required in the bid, and c) they would have made more money on such a sale instead of designing a brand new vehicle.

The original Italian version that we bought was based on a version of their line that was used for runway maintenance. It never leaves the tarmac. The Italian Army version is a completely different beast (got a chance to pop the hood on one in Kosovo). Don't know about performance, but it was an army vehicle, not some pansy ass green k-car.

We should not have fixed the grounding cable fault coming off of the starters. They would have all burned to the ground by now.


----------



## geo

hehe.... they certainly were well on their way to rusting out - even before they were distributed to the units.


----------



## Wookilar

Seeing as how the CEV boxes came off of the 5/4's, I am amazed that the boxes have lasted this long with only two life extension projects. Pieces of crap. Stupid politicians. Close LETE!!!!!! because the stupid thing failed....... :rage:

Sorry, sorry, I'm alright now.                                           short-sighted, vote-buying, noncaring, ........... ninerdomestic tells me I have to stop now, my eye is starting to twitch.


----------



## a_majoor

Lets see, large capacity, good cross country performance, readily avaiable, good supply of spare parts and readily adaptable for many logistics and utility roles:

 The AM General *High Mobility Multipurpose Vehicle Wheeled*!


----------



## Fdtrucker

Just got back from a US Army base in down south, with alot of impressionable Cdn's who just got qualified on the Humvee and they thought it was a piece of ****. Both US Army active duty(Regf) and their Reserves think the same. Possibily of too many pers getting injured/killed where the Cdn government will not send us


----------



## Patrolman

The brakes did not seem to squeal on the ones I saw in Sarejavo in 1999. But I never talked to the Italians personaly, so Aesop maybe you are right.


----------



## Gunnerlove

FMTV


----------



## Gunnerlove

Replace the LS and ML with the appropriate size of FMTV. 

Or we can try to stock parts for and maintain a large variety of trucks.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Pinzaugers or Unimogs is my first choice

GAZ made a knockoff armoured Hummer using a Cat diesel that looked promising, be a lot cheaper than some of the other options.

Just ask the British Army about their experience with civy pattern in military use, the RBR I think it was called, basically a 4x4 commercial van.

How about we replace all CP and radio vans with a newer version of Bison? that way we have some spares lying around.


----------



## geo

Spares??????


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So the army can grab them from the reserves like they did with everything else because the government forget to allow for attrition or unexpected overseas commitments. 

We are going to be using our LAV’s at a rate that was unlikely planned for, plus increasing the size of the army, which will have even a greater demand. The fleet is going to need a rebuild in near future, where are the replacements coming from? 

By equipping more units with the vehicles we need, you build “surge’ capacity into the system, rather than trickle and crisis management.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Colin P said:
			
		

> How about we replace all CP and radio vans with a newer version of Bison? that way we have some spares lying around.



I don't think most Reserve Units can afford the maintenance upkeep of these vehicles, I know we can barely keep our fleet of vehicles off the VOR lines. Also to able to use these vehicles you must get people both on a D&M Course and a Crew Commanders Course other wise the vehicle is useless.


----------



## Spanky

Reserves have run their own D&M and crew commander courses on AVGP and Bisons before.  Not a big deal.  Maintenance would be a problem.  However, this is not what this thread is about so............


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Spanky
You are correct, there are lots of choice for 1-1 ½ ton vehicles to choose from, the question remains, do we buy off the shelf where they are made, perhaps with a trade agreement attached or have them made under licence here, which so far has not worked out all that well. I wonder if General Dynamics has the capacity to take on another vehicle contract? They seem to do a good job on the LAV and are used to working to milspec.


----------



## lostrover

What ever the replacement may be................we need to buy directly from foreign manufactures, the made in Canada aspect doesn't work in the least.....................the Iveco 410 (aka LSVW to the rest of the world) is an amazing vehicle.............we just made junk of it here in Canada.  The LSVW is a 1.5T platform...........not many vehicles availble can fit this need, there are abundant 2.5T platforms avail (incl the FMTV), thus for a 1.5T platform, options are limited yet the Pinzgauer seems to fit the bill perfectly, old school technology, proven combat capability as does the Land Rover Defender HC130 PU, but of sorry neither of them are made in Canada................so we will most likely just add  some green paint to a Chevy Tacker and we will have aour replcement (they are made in Ontario!)


----------



## orange.paint

Patrolman said:
			
		

> At least the brakes on the Italian version don't squeal!



Seen them in 2002 and they didn't squeal either.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

From: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htarm/articles/20060509.aspx


Britain Goes With Pinzgauer in Afghanistan 
May 9, 2006: Britain is buying 80 armored trucks for their troops in Afghanistan, who are facing a more hostile environment that they did in Iraq. Eighty Pinzgauer military trucks are being bought, at a cost of $788,000 each. The Pinzgauer was developed, in the early 1970s, by the Austrian firm Steyr-Daimler-Puch (which now has an assembly plant in Britain). This new cross country truck design proved very popular with the civilian market, and then with military users. Cheaper and, to their users, more versatile and reliable than trucks from the larger military vehicle manufacturers, there are now over 30,000 Pinzgauers in service in 24 countries. The 4x4 wheel drive models carry up to 2,400 pounds, the 6x6 3,300 pounds. Each can carry twelve troops comfortably (and more than twice as many uncomfortably.) The Pinzgauer has kept up with the competition. When the American Humvee appeared two decades ago, the Pinzgauer design was modified to create a wider, lower vehicle (a feature of the Humvee that proved very successful). The Pinzgauer isn't cheaper than the Humvee, but is considered a better value and, for nations with anti-American leanings, makes them feel better.



The armored model the British are getting is called the Pinzgauer Protector and is a 6x6 vehicle that will protect its passengers from rifle bullets and roadside bombs. The protection includes a Kevlar floor, bullet proof glass and tires that will run when flat. The British, however, probably won't get their vehicles until next Summer.


----------



## soon_to_be_infantry

I think we should create our own. Then we can design it to be effective in canadas types of missions.


----------



## TN2IC

soon_to_be_infantry said:
			
		

> I think we should create our own. Then we can design it to be effective in canadas types of missions.



That will cost more in the long run.


----------



## soon_to_be_infantry

Still at least we will have a good vehicles that can be fit for Canadian missions. Also they can be built right here in Canada.


----------



## aesop081

soon_to_be_infantry said:
			
		

> Also they can be built right here in Canada.



When is the last time that worked out to be a good thing ?  :


----------



## Sig_Des

soon_to_be_infantry said:
			
		

> I think we should create our own. Then we can design it to be effective in canadas types of missions.



And good job on replying to a thread just shy of 2 months old....and adding absolutely nothing


----------



## aesop081

Sig_Des said:
			
		

> And good job on replying to a thread just shy of 2 months old....and adding absolutely nothing



yeah...what you said !!


----------



## Kalatzi

soon_to_be_infantry said:
			
		

> I think we should create our own. Then we can design it to be effective in canadas types of missions.


Hmmm, Custom Canadian Design + Burueacracy + small production run = Big Bucks in a small budget
The suggestions to go with a proven design sound a lot better


----------



## geo

cdnaviator said:
			
		

> When is the last time that worked out to be a good thing ?  :


HLVW is a good piece of kit - by any stretch of the imagination.  We got that one right!


----------



## aesop081

geo said:
			
		

> HLVW is a good piece of kit - by any stretch of the imagination.  We got that one right!



The truck is good...but the politics that went into it  were not.  The production folded after ours were built and the governments investment in job creation died along with it. Nothing against the truck itself, i loved driving it in the field but the whole affair was a fine example of why defence dollars should not be used as a regional developement tool IMHO


----------



## soon_to_be_infantry

i guess you guys are right, my bad.


----------



## retiredgrunt45

I guess i'll add my 3 cents. seems no one has posted in over 3 months.

 I remember the days of the old Dodge power wagons in the 70's, 318, 4 speed manual, 4x4 and go ANYWHERE!!! When is say anywhere i mean it had some serious ground clearance and could traverse almost any terrrain. Built like a tank and drove like a tank! But man what a truck!!

 As for the LSVW when we recieved them in the Battalions they were not well liked, as for there capabilities, they are underpowered and overweight. If they had used a 6cyl instead of the 4 banger it would have been a much more capable vehicle. Squeaky brakes, shorted starters, rusted bodies, and rear personal heaters that worked some of the time if they didn't flood or overheat. PIECE OF CRAP!!! My God they closed the testing grounds for the LSVW because the vehicle failed miserably and they then proceeded to put it through a modified test so it would pass! 

Why can't we go with something that works. *"German"* The Germans have some of the best military vehicles on the planet ie, "the *UNI-mog", " the MUNGO", "the G-wagon"[/b] which were already using in Afghanistan. These are all excellent vehicles and fit our criteria. 
Why does some flat face civy who doesn't know his A** from a rifle from "Public works" make the decision for what military hardware we purchase. Maybe, just maybe if they left this job primarly to someone who has a military background and first hand knowledge on what our actual requirements are, we wouldn't end up with pieces of junk like the LSVW. But i guess thats asking to much. I would add the HUMVEE to the list, but the americans won't give us the rights to build it up here in Canada, so until that happens say probably 30 yrs from now its of the menu.
*


----------



## Sig_Des

looks kind of cool, but how much juice can it put out, I wonder


----------



## cplcaldwell

Ah, the Pinz. (sigh)

What a beauty this would be. With it one could replace LS and the shortfall in Iltis, 4x4 and 6x6 versions. Available as a hauler and a wpns carrier, would make a poor man's recce variant. Perhaps we could convince ourselves the 6by is a replacement for ML in some roles....

Used around the world (Swiss, Brits, Kiwis and a dozen others). 

Simple as shite, gawd, there actually was one version powered by a two stroke, air cooled, Deutz diesel once (can't make a motor much simpler than that!). Current production models use the diesel from the Jetta (civ maintanence)

Can be armoured.

Simple backbone frame with swing axles. Mobile and simple, want to re-role? pull of the cab and bolt another on.

A simple carrier and recce vehicle for the reserves, and simple carrier for the LIBS. 

_To sensible,_ it will never happen. Perhaps IVECO has something in mind for us.  :-X


----------



## Rodahn

retiredgrunt45 said:
			
		

> I remember the days of the old Dodge power wagons in the 70's, 318, 4 speed manual, 4x4 and go ANYWHERE!!! When is say anywhere i mean it had some serious ground clearance and could traverse almost any terrrain. Built like a tank and drove like a tank! But man what a truck!!



I concur, it's a pity that we got rid of them..... Should have just upgraded them, and they would have served faithfully for atleast another 20 years....


----------



## fbr2o75

But can you remember back to the days of the old 3/4 tons??? They were virtually unstoppable in any terrain.


----------



## Rodahn

fbr2o75 said:
			
		

> But can you remember back to the days of the old 3/4 tons??? They were virtually unstoppable in any terrain.



Them as well..... An even better vehicle IMO....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

cplcaldwell said:
			
		

> Ah, the Pinz. (sigh)
> 
> What a beauty this would be. With it one could replace LS and the shortfall in Iltis, 4x4 and 6x6 versions. Available as a hauler and a wpns carrier, would make a poor man's recce variant. Perhaps we could convince ourselves the 6by is a replacement for ML in some roles....
> 
> Used around the world (Swiss, Brits, Kiwis and a dozen others).
> 
> Simple as shite, gawd, there actually was one version powered by a two stroke, air cooled, Deutz diesel once (can't make a motor much simpler than that!). Current production models use the diesel from the Jetta (civ maintanence)
> 
> Can be armoured.
> 
> Simple backbone frame with swing axles. Mobile and simple, want to re-role? pull of the cab and bolt another on.
> 
> A simple carrier and recce vehicle for the reserves, and simple carrier for the LIBS.
> 
> _To sensible,_ it will never happen. Perhaps IVECO has something in mind for us.  :-X



The guy down the street has a Pinzaugar that his wife drives (ex-swiss military) Also a 404 Unimog and recently sold his Haflinger (imagine the result of breeding a unimog with a golfcart) The IVECO vehicle our LSVW is based on is not a bad vehicle and is also widely used, most of the design problems were Canadian.


----------



## Wookilar

Re the LSVW, I agree with Colin.

Having the good furtune on working on a number of UNIMOG type vehicles and the Italian vehicle (that we should have bought), I can whole heartedly say that the vast majority of problems wuth the LSVW are homegrown.

The list of deficiencies that this vehicle has is.....well, no sense beating a dead horse. We all know what is wrong with it. The CF knew what was wrong with it when we accepted them. 

It's not like we had a choice. Thank you Kim Cambell and Western Star.


----------



## retiredgrunt45

We actually had a guy in Germany in the 80's "Scotty" who bought and old 3/4 ton and restored it, painted it "Fire engine red" drove it for his whole 4 years in Baden and had it shipped back to Canada, i wonder if he still has it.


----------



## geo

At one time, there were a lot of old "gin palaces" being used as low tech campers.
Indestructible.... you just had to replace the old mud tires with something that had grip

Loved that truck
Loved to confuse the newby drivers by moving the 2 / 4 WD hi/low gear levers to centre position & effectively dissengaging the drive train....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They are still in use, some have been re-equipped with a Diesel engine. I still remember the 3 colour camo, black, green and light tan.


----------



## Synthos

I think we should buy a couple of these as replacements. Bodies like a tin can but imagine the impression we would make!


----------



## George Wallace

Right!  You know you are no longer fit to be in the Unit, when you can not climb up into or out of your vehicle.  Are you sure it would be safe and one wouldn't get nose bleeds from the altitude?


----------



## Eland

Kalatzi said:
			
		

> Hmmm, Custom Canadian Design + Burueacracy + small production run = Big Bucks in a small budget
> The suggestions to go with a proven design sound a lot better



The answer to the dilemma is to build something worth exporting, and then develop Canada-centric designs from the
export version. Don't give me the hoo-ha that Canada can't do something like this (you know, the usual shibboleths - small market, 
no prior experience, yadda yadda) because a Finnish company called Patria has designed and is building a series of 
wheeled APC's from the ground up which have seen great export success. Yet Finland, to my knowledge
has no indignenous automotive industry of its own. Using your argument would mean that the Finns should not have been 
able to pull something like this off. What's the population of Finland, anyway? 2 million, tops?
By 'indigenous' I mean something which originated within the country, not simply a branch plant system with foreign designs and parts like Canada has.


----------



## TN2IC

Synthos said:
			
		

> I think we should buy a couple of these as replacements. Bodies like a tin can but imagine the impression we would make!



Lord Jee Thunderin, I'm in love. What is the chance of getting some of these? I am sure they won't bog down in Gagetown.


----------



## geo

Eland said:
			
		

> The answer to the dilemma is to build something worth exporting, and then develop Canada-centric designs from the
> export version. Don't give me the hoo-ha that Canada can't do something like this (you know, the usual shibboleths - small market,
> no prior experience, yadda yadda) because a Finnish company called Patria has designed and is building a series of
> wheeled APC's from the ground up which have seen great export success. Yet Finland, to my knowledge
> has no indignenous automotive industry of its own. Using your argument would mean that the Finns should not have been
> able to pull something like this off. What's the population of Finland, anyway? 2 million, tops?
> By 'indigenous' I mean something which originated within the country, not simply a branch plant system with foreign designs and parts like Canada has.



The Bison and the LAVIIIs are derivatives of the Mowag Cougar/ Grizzly vehicle design bought by Canada & built by GM Diesel


----------



## Eland

geo said:
			
		

> The Bison and the LAVIIIs are derivatives of the Mowag Cougar/ Grizzly vehicle design bought by Canada & built by GM Diesel



You are correct. However, the MOWAG designs Canada acquired in the mid-1970's were not designed in Canada. What happened with the MOWAG-based vehicles is that we took a foreign design and adapted them for Canadian needs in the form of the Grizzly, Cougar and later, the Bison, LAVIII and Coyote. 

The LAVIII is ultimately an extension, or an enhanced version of the LAV-25, which was built to satisfy a USMC requirement for a light cavalry vehicle. The turret mounted on the LAV-25, if I recall correctly, was originally designed and developed by Arrowpointe Systems of Detroit, Michigan. General Motors eventually bought out Arrowpointe, or acquired the rights to the turret system. Then they were manufactured by GM Delco, which was soon swallowed up by General Dynamics Land Systems. The turrets on the Grizzly are designed and made by Cadillac Gage (which I believe is now part of the GDLS fold). The Cougars were equipped with turrets made by Alvis UK in England, which were originally designed to be mounted on the hulls of the Scorpion light tank, not armoured cars.

Not much real Canadian content there. The Grizzly/Cougar/Bison/LAV-III/Coyote is a classically Canadian story: Take someone else's design, make a few improvements here and there and then slap a big maple leaf on it, as if it were something Canadians developed from the ground up. 

Our reluctance to design any serious military hardware in this country has complex roots, but they seem to go back to the Ram II tank built in World War II, which had a Canadian-designed turret and a modified, US-built M3 Grant hull. It proved to be a failure because the turret was unable to accommodate anything larger than a six-pounder gun, and the British/Canadian armies needed more firepower. So the tank ended up being relegated to the training role, and later, was converted into the Kangaroo APC.

Then came the Avro Arrow interceptor, a platform which had huge potential and capabilities, boasting the world's first true 'fly-by-wire' system. It was killed by cost overruns, Avro mismanagement, lack of foreign markets and ultimately a weak government which caved into American pressure to can it (I believe this happened because the US aerospace industry had nothing at the time which could compete).

Then came the Bobcat APC, again a wonderful idea with lots of potential, but something which collapsed under its own weight - probably due to government meddling, underfunding, and insufficient engineering/manufacturing resources.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I would not call the RAM a failure, the mantle could take a 6 pdr gun, which actually had better armour penetration than the 75mm used by the US, had the RAM come out a bit earlier and been able to take part in the African battles, it would have been our success story. As it was, they became tank trainers, SP guns, the first HAPC's, OP and a few other roles. The fact that Canada could start building and producing tanks as fast as it did was a remarkable feat. As for the turret ring issue, that was also the case for many tanks.


----------



## omniman69

Good day.

yes i am new, but from all the posts i have seen,  i don't see anyone touchin on the maint aspect of the LS.  I lost count of how many trans and tcase and engines i have had to change, let alone the times the engine has caught fire from the fuel line prob.  From everyone at the unit that i have asked they say it IS garbage.  Now if we went with the same f350 dually that the linemen use and convert it over to the other variants that it could fullfill(mrt being my personal fav) i really don't see a problem with it filling the needs for a 1.5t+ vehicle, or even a Dodge 3500 cab and chassis as a base, then modify the bed as per IMO

Cfn Ryan


----------



## Wookilar

You're right that a chassis like the f350 could fulfill the roles mentioned.

Problem is, the bids that had dually's were rejected. For the LS project, the big three domestic manufacturers all put in dually's. They were rejected in the selection process. The CF only wanted single axle designs.

I don't see this changing, the higher ups don't seem to like dually's. There are reasons for it (technical and logistical). Also, the weight load can be accommodated with single axles, but you have to build the right kind of frame and put the right kind of engine and powertrain in it. 

Ford, GM and Dodge all wanted to use a civilian truck and paint it green, charge huge prices for it and make no changes on their assembly lines (equals bigger profit for them). We need a military truck, not a green pickup. Ask the guys about the limitations of the green GM Silveradoes. Nice vehicle for around the back forty and maybe Wainwright, not great for off-road when weighted down.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

omniman69 said:
			
		

> Good day.
> 
> yes i am new, but from all the posts i have seen,  i don't see anyone touchin on the maint aspect of the LS.  I lost count of how many trans and tcase and engines i have had to change, let alone the times the engine has caught fire from the fuel line prob.  From everyone at the unit that i have asked they say it IS garbage.  Now if we went with the same f350 dually that the linemen use and convert it over to the other variants that it could fullfill(mrt being my personal fav) i really don't see a problem with it filling the needs for a 1.5t+ vehicle, or even a Dodge 3500 cab and chassis as a base, then modify the bed as per IMO
> 
> Cfn Ryan



You mean like the Dodge 3/4 tons with the 318" V8 that wouldn't start in the cold, the 5/4 tons that snapped front axles, couldn't keep up with the rest of the vehicles off-road, etc,etc. How about the wonderful 6.2L diesels in the other pickups we bought? Civy logging companies except to get approx 5 years at best out of their fleet of pickup trucks and then replace them. Our problem is we will buy them and then expect to keep them going for 15years.


----------



## omniman69

i have seen some of the trucks comin to wainwright, and with the fabech lift and 35's, the are NOW capable trucks(alot meaner lookin too).  I have no problem with the durasmack, they just need to have the power bumped up a bit for its application. >

mike


----------



## geo

FWIW in the early 70s the dodge power wagons did a commendable job.
Buy em, use em for 5 years and then replace em?..... would make the trucks that much better choice for domestic ops.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

5 year plans work fine in the small business world but a army fleet  has to be around for at least 10 years, it can take 2 years just to get the fleet exchanged and up and running, with driver training, tech support. 
but when they buy a fleet you think they  would start plans to replace it soon after they buy it, after all the red tape takes 10 years to cut to just to get the money to think about what is needed.
i think maybe a standard pickup type truck should be used thru out NATO that way the parts and techs will all have the same training, and the  fleet will be interchangeable


----------



## geo

10 years wouldn't be all that bad either.... so long as the trucks are being replaced on year 10 and not an issue of yes, we'll start looking into it now kinda thing,


----------



## Good2Golf

Remember the 5/4 was to fill the gap from 76 to 79/80 as an interim measure until the milspec light-duty came along....16 years later...

Don't know about the daully thing, but Ford and Dodge make single rear wheel 1-ton versions now.  I'm thinking it would be fairly hard to screw up a Cummins-powered 1-ton...no?  ???


----------



## geo

Dodge... better bones


----------



## Mountie

How about the Unimog?  I believe a version of this vehicle was the competitor in the original LSVW project and lost out to the Iveco variant for political reasons.  Correct me if I'm wrong.  But this Unimog is in wide spread service with Germany.


----------



## George Wallace

Unimog has been mentioned as early as page one of this discussion.


----------

