• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Logistic Vehicle Modernization Project - Replacing everything from LUVW to SHLVW

Outsider here. I know the Army has struggled to find the right role for the TAPV but, in terms of design, Where did it go wrong? Did we choose an inherently bad platform, or take a decent platform dink around with it too much? I understand the roof-mounted spare and crane adds upper level weight but, in the overall design, does it make that much of a difference?
There's a litany of problems. Some are no ABS (especially scary in the winter), using it for purposes it's not designed for, poor material quality in intricate mechanisms like the doors, poor QC, overweight for the transmission, although that last one is hearsay on my part.
 
Most modern vehicles are garbage, reliability in vehicles peaked around the end of the 20th century. Regulations, marketing and accountants have driven the reliability factor into the ground.

You want diesels that don't have EGR valves, fuel solenoids, use DPF. You want body panels that are simple to produce. Simple transmissions, even if they are automatic. Make sure your axles and suspension components are beefy. Modern braking systems are ok.
The same arguments about reliability have been made about every advance in technology. Yet there is a reason we don't still go to war in Chariots, wearing bronze armour.

Modern vehicles are reliable enough, and more efficient. The less fuel you burn to get the job done, the less fuel you need to transport to the front to keep the vehicles moving.
 
The same arguments about reliability have been made about every advance in technology. Yet there is a reason we don't still go to war in Chariots, wearing bronze armour.

Modern vehicles are reliable enough, and more efficient. The less fuel you burn to get the job done, the less fuel you need to transport to the front to keep the vehicles moving.
I will utterly disagree with you. Toyota is about to spend an astronomical amount to replace engines in their pickup trucks. Almost every CVT transmission is failing earlier. Every car brand has at least one dud engine in their lineup. Honda, a stalwart of reliability has gone from 1st to 15 in the reliability list. Engines are being built to lightly for the hp that they try to squeeze out of them. Cars are becoming to expensive to fix. Older EV may become uninsurable due to fire risks. I think it's GM that has a engine which has a bolt that when it comes loose, drops into your intake manifold and grenades the engine.
 
I will utterly disagree with you. Toyota is about to spend an astronomical amount to replace engines in their pickup trucks. Almost every CVT transmission is failing earlier. Every car brand has at least one dud engine in their lineup. Honda, a stalwart of reliability has gone from 1st to 15 in the reliability list. Engines are being built to lightly for the hp that they try to squeeze out of them. Cars are becoming to expensive to fix. Older EV may become uninsurable due to fire risks. I think it's GM that has an engine which has a bolt that when it comes loose, drops into your intake manifold and grenades the engine.
The difference is today’s vehicles can be diagnosed with a monitor and parts swapped out.
 
I will utterly disagree with you. Toyota is about to spend an astronomical amount to replace engines in their pickup trucks. Almost every CVT transmission is failing earlier. Every car brand has at least one dud engine in their lineup. Honda, a stalwart of reliability has gone from 1st to 15 in the reliability list. Engines are being built to lightly for the hp that they try to squeeze out of them. Cars are becoming to expensive to fix. Older EV may become uninsurable due to fire risks. I think it's GM that has a engine which has a bolt that when it comes loose, drops into your intake manifold and grenades the engine.
Vehicles always had massive recalls, and always had lots of failures. We hear about them more now because instead of Toyota owners getting a letter, and a one day TV news item, it's on the internet and fed to you by an algorithm that determined that people in your demographic like engage with those stories.

There are lots of newer engines and transmission that run for more than 100K miles before having issues. Honda has dropped not just because they aren't quite as good as they used to be, but because everybody else (except Stelantis) is catching up. Hyundai and Kia make better vehicles now than Ford and GM did in the late 90s-early 00s.

People love to claim that cars were "better" back in the day, but it doesn't align with reality. What cars did better back in the day was hide their faults until something blew up. Today's the cars tell you something is wrong before it blows up, so you can fix it.

Also, as @KevinB highlighted, vehicles today tell you exactly what is wrong and what to fix. You don't have to hope your mechanic/Veh Tech is a savant.
 
Vehicles always had massive recalls, and always had lots of failures. We hear about them more now because instead of Toyota owners getting a letter, and a one day TV news item, it's on the internet and fed to you by an algorithm that determined that people in your demographic like engage with those stories.

There are lots of newer engines and transmission that run for more than 100K miles before having issues. Honda has dropped not just because they aren't quite as good as they used to be, but because everybody else (except Stelantis) is catching up. Hyundai and Kia make better vehicles now than Ford and GM did in the late 90s-early 00s.

People love to claim that cars were "better" back in the day, but it doesn't align with reality. What cars did better back in the day was hide their faults until something blew up. Today's the cars tell you something is wrong before it blows up, so you can fix it.

Also, as @KevinB highlighted, vehicles today tell you exactly what is wrong and what to fix. You don't have to hope your mechanic/Veh Tech is a savant.
Hyundai had massive engine failures and also a paint issue from 2015 (We almost bought one when our Honda got wrecked, thank god we didn't). Price, reliability and features peaked roughly early 2000. The current fuel economy and environmental regs, along with the demand for more horsepower from smaller engines is leading to major failures. Fuel economy regs led to the adoption of 0/30 oils which are bad for your engine long term life, but gives a smallish boost to fuel economy. Extended service times, leads to fuel dilution of lubricating oils and premature transmission failures.
 
Hyundai had massive engine failures and also a paint issue from 2015 (We almost bought one when our Honda got wrecked, thank god we didn't). Price, reliability and features peaked roughly early 2000. The current fuel economy and environmental regs, along with the demand for more horsepower from smaller engines is leading to major failures. Fuel economy regs led to the adoption of 0/30 oils which are bad for your engine long term life, but gives a smallish boost to fuel economy. Extended service times, leads to fuel dilution of lubricating oils and premature transmission failures.
They had massive engine failures in one particular engine, for a few years. Was it a big problem? Yes. Was it the first time a manufacturer had made a dud engine? No.

I know I'm not going to change your mind on this, and am not going to waste the time to dig up the old pre-internet articles outlining all of the issues with various brands over the decades. So let's just call this derailment a draw and move on.
 
Hyundai had massive engine failures and also a paint issue from 2015 (We almost bought one when our Honda got wrecked, thank god we didn't). Price, reliability and features peaked roughly early 2000. The current fuel economy and environmental regs, along with the demand for more horsepower from smaller engines is leading to major failures. Fuel economy regs led to the adoption of 0/30 oils which are bad for your engine long term life, but gives a smallish boost to fuel economy. Extended service times, leads to fuel dilution of lubricating oils and premature transmission failures.
Agree on the second point. Squeaking numbers out of the their CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency) rating has driven all of the manufacturers to go with lighter, more complex engines and CV transmissions.

We've had two Hyundais in that period. The current one has had a few recalls to re-flash the ECM. So far so good. One thing I learned is always use an OEM oil filter. One the first car, after the first oil change, it sounded 'rattley', so I did some reading and swapped out the filter to OEM. I don't know what the issue is but stayed the course ever since.

Our Corolla is 10 years, 108k km, and still on the original brake pads.

Driving like an idiot has impacts on your car...
We had a 2000 Mazda Tribute (first year/first generation, when they were re-badged Escapes). It still had drum brakes on the back. I had the front discs changed around 160K and sold it at about 210K with the original drums brakes still installed.
 
Mud bogging... I wonder what it would look like if the troops were fully tooled up though:

Any word on how it compares to the M1161 Growler or the Phantom Badger?


 
I will utterly disagree with you. Toyota is about to spend an astronomical amount to replace engines in their pickup trucks. Almost every CVT transmission is failing earlier. Every car brand has at least one dud engine in their lineup. Honda, a stalwart of reliability has gone from 1st to 15 in the reliability list. Engines are being built to lightly for the hp that they try to squeeze out of them. Cars are becoming to expensive to fix. Older EV may become uninsurable due to fire risks. I think it's GM that has a engine which has a bolt that when it comes loose, drops into your intake manifold and grenades the engine.
You'll have to forgive Colin, he owns a Land Rover. Any Mechanic who doesn't smelt the ore to make the iron for the engine block is just another poseur.
 
A wartime B fleet vehicle should be fuel-efficient, but it doesn't need to be high-performance. It should be able to sustain 40 k/h for long periods, maybe 60 k/h for short bursts, and idle for long periods.
 
Who cares. It works and it is available. More important a decision has been made.

If it turns into another TAPV then it will be time enough to do the other thing.
The Growler and Badger also work and are available.

The big thing is one is a midsized pickup converted into a light utility vehicle, the other two are built from the ground up to be modern-day Jeeps. So there are going to be differences in capabilities.
 
The Growler and Badger also work and are available.
The first point is arguable.

The big thing is one is a midsized pickup converted into a light utility vehicle, the other two are built from the ground up to be modern-day Jeeps. So there are going to be differences in capabilities.
Those two were designed to fit into an Osprey - that was the goal, working beyond that doesn’t appear to have been a primary thought.

Given that Canada doesn’t have Ospreys, I can’t see why anyone would be so foolish to acquire either of them.
 
The first point is arguable.


Those two were designed to fit into an Osprey - that was the goal, working beyond that doesn’t appear to have been a primary thought.

Given that Canada doesn’t have Ospreys, I can’t see why anyone would be so foolish to acquire either of them.
Yeah, even as just a weather weinie I saw flaws in comparing the ISV/LTV to those systems. They are compromises to fit a small aircraft, not ideals we should be working towards.

It would be like saying that all new trains in Canada should be built like the O-Train, because the O-Train exists, and can go underground...
 
Roshel delivers its 1400th Senator vehicle to Ukraine. Now producing two types and from another article they can produce 9 vehicles a day.


The Senator armored vehicle is built on a Ford heavy-duty truck base. The company’s specialists are carrying out a major modernization of the civilian base to enable the armored vehicle to be used in the near-front and frontline areas. The ballistic protection provides the ability to withstand 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm caliber bullets at a distance of 30 meters at a speed of 695 m/s.

In the MRAP version, the armored vehicle received STANAG lvl 2b protection, which provides protection against 6 kg of explosives and anti-tank mines.

With this level of protection, the vehicle is equipped with a 400-horsepower engine that provides excellent off-road performance. The vehicle is also equipped with a central tire inflation system.
 
Roshel delivers its 1400th Senator vehicle to Ukraine. Now producing two types and from another article they can produce 9 vehicles a day.


The Senator armored vehicle is built on a Ford heavy-duty truck base. The company’s specialists are carrying out a major modernization of the civilian base to enable the armored vehicle to be used in the near-front and frontline areas. The ballistic protection provides the ability to withstand 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm caliber bullets at a distance of 30 meters at a speed of 695 m/s.

In the MRAP version, the armored vehicle received STANAG lvl 2b protection, which provides protection against 6 kg of explosives and anti-tank mines.

With this level of protection, the vehicle is equipped with a 400-horsepower engine that provides excellent off-road performance. The vehicle is also equipped with a central tire inflation system.
It's a cool truck but personally I think it's too big for what we need. Do we really need hundreds of vehicles designed to carry 10-12 people? The pickup variant is interesting to me but how does it stack up against the competition? I personally am leaning more towards the new JTLVA2 being our best choice. I do wonder what Armatec is keeping secret up their sleeve though.
 
It's a cool truck but personally I think it's too big for what we need. Do we really need hundreds of vehicles designed to carry 10-12 people? The pickup variant is interesting to me but how does it stack up against the competition? I personally am leaning more towards the new JTLVA2 being our best choice. I do wonder what Armatec is keeping secret up their sleeve though.
For ambulances and CP's it will work nicely. It's 1m longer than the LSVW so not to big. The JTLVA2 is bigger than the Senator and carries 4. It has much better protection and would be a better choice for the upfront shooty bits. I see the current Senator versions and some more version to fulfil the secondary roles where some armour would be good and yet won't break the bank to buy or the maintenance budget.
 
Back
Top