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.
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.
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.
The difference is today’s vehicles can be diagnosed with a monitor and parts swapped out.
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.
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.
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 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.
Any word on how it compares to the M1161 Growler or the Phantom Badger?Mud bogging... I wonder what it would look like if the troops were fully tooled up though:
858K views · 9.8K reactions | Just out for a rip 🛻 Check out what a couple of the first troops to train on the LTV have to say about the newest addition to the Light Infantry. | Canadian Army
Just out for a rip 🛻 Check out what a couple of the first troops to train on the LTV have to say about the newest addition to the Light Infantry..www.facebook.com
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.
Any word on how it compares to the M1161 Growler or the Phantom Badger?
M1161 Growler - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Boeing Phantom Badger - Wikipedia
The Growler and Badger also work and are available.
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.
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.
mil.in.ua
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.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.
Ukraine Receives 1,400 Senator Armored Vehicles Since War’s Outset
Since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, Ukraine has received 1400 Senator armored vehicles.
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.
