[duster92]

I'm sure the Jeeps that are supplied to the military are not civilian spec machines. They will be more than up to the task. As for "up-armoring," I read that the Hummer had serious issues once they stuck all that armor on it. It simply was not engineered for it. It made it harder to stop, drive, etc. And its durability was affected.

The US military is looking for the most cost effective solution and ordering the Gendlewagen from Benz or the Land Rover is not an option. It is not simply a matter of who is best. It is a matter protecting American jobs and saving money.

[jerseyjoe]

No matter how you slice it Jeep has been the face of the US military, its time to get it back out there where the world can see it and want to buy it. As far as an American product goes I see more foreign countries buying Jeep than a fuel sucking Hummer. To really appreciate one you have to drive it on an old mule trail in the Rockies. That's where the number of 4 wheel vehicles that can do something like that and be driven home on the highway dwindle.

This post has been edited by jerseyjoe: 07 April 2009 - 08:31 PM

[Doug in Florida]

Jim Z, on Apr 7 2009, 04:30 PM, said:

You know that thing you like? It sucks.

:lol: This wins the award for the best reply to GNJW.

[slow2run]

As a former Army officer, i can tell you all officers want to ride around in a Jeep, but no Soldier wants to be shot at or hit a land mine in any Vehicle, yet I have ran over A TM 47 tank mine ( thats 18 lbs of tnt ) in a mine proofed land-rover at about 35 km per hour.it lifted the vehicle up around 12 ft and froward about 40 ft, well i had ringing in my ears for 6 or 7 hours ,but was not hurt ,and though i had a flat unit i got out and looked.
Now this land-rover had Armor only on its bottom with no doors ,but with roll bar,and parachute harness for all + some water in the tires . So thats how simple it is to mine proof a jeep type vehicle ,also the J8 comes with some type of armor package. Also only 38% of Army is in a combat zones. So the Army can use them J8 for good fun and some work. B)

This post has been edited by slow2run: 08 April 2009 - 11:48 AM

[drew54]

slow2run, on Apr 7 2009, 10:15 PM, said:

As a former Army officer, i can tell you all officers want to ride around in a Jeeps, but no Soldier wants to be shot at or hit a land mine in any Vehicle, yet I have ran over A TM 47 tank mine ( thats 18 lbs of tnt ) in a mine proofed land-rover at about 35 km per hour.it lifted the vehicle up around 12 ft and froward about 40 ft, well i had ringing in my ears for 6 or 7 hours ,but was not hurt ,and though i had a flat unit i got out and looked.
Now this land-rover had Armor only on its bottom with no doors ,but with roll bar,and parachute harness for all + some water in the tires . So thats how simple it is to mine proof a jeep type vehicle ,also the J8 comes with some type of armor package. Also only 38% of Army is in a combat zones. So the Army can use them J8 for good fun and some work. B)

Do they spray a Rhino liner of some sort on the bottom of the floors. I cannot remember the show I watched but they were testing it as a bomb proof substance and blew up a few S-10s as a test. The Rhino liner kept most of the metal in tact and the non lined one went everywhere.

[slow2run]

Well drew54 I hit That TM 47 back in 1978, when fighting the cold war in Africa, at that time The Russians were trying get control of all the sea ports around the Cape of South Africa .This would give then control of the super tanker oil routes to the West , at that time fighting center around the country of Rhodesia, and this is where I was issued a civilian land-rover that had armor on the bottom of its cab and in the wheel welds and some water in its tire, if they had rhino liners they would have use it ; I'm sure. My point is that the jeep j8 would have been a better vehicle to mine proof than the land-rover.

This post has been edited by slow2run: 08 April 2009 - 06:33 PM

[drew54]

slow2run, on Apr 8 2009, 11:20 AM, said:

Well drew54 I hit That TM 47 back in 1978, when fighting the cold war in Africa, at that time The Russians were trying get control of all the sea ports around the Cape of South Africa .This would give then control of the super tanker oil routes to the West , at that time fighting center around the country of Rhodesia, and this is where I was issued a civilian land-rover that had armor on the bottom of its cab and in the wheel welds and some water in its tire, if they had rhino liners they would have use it ; I'm sure. My point is that the jeep j8 would have been a better vehicle to mine proof than the land-rover.

Ah, I was assuming this was in one of the Iraq wars. Its good to hear someone with your experience endorsing these vehicles for use. I know we are a biased group, but what could be better for our men and women to have other than Jeeps when they need nimble off road vehicles.

As for that show it was SmashLab on the Discovery Channel. The thought was to think of ways to over engineer vehicles that could be useful in all types of scenarios.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=2W7uFiPVF5I

Hopefully they just start painting all military vehicles in this stuff from the get go.

[tealfish]

TWX, on Apr 6 2009, 07:32 PM, said:

I'd be much more inclined to believe $1.5million in purchases. How many federal employees, including the military, would need Wranglers over any other random vehicle?

On Army posts utility vehicles are needed to run errands and deliveries, move people around etc. When I was in we used the M151 Jeep, a dubious vehicle by Ford, to do this. The rear suspension was independant and the real wheels tucked in and it would flip over like the Chevy Corvair was falsely accused of by Ralph Nader.

The H1 Hummer which was the Jeep replacement; is overkill as a utility vehicle, and terribly inefficient for these tasks, and too underarmored to be a fighting vehicle.

The Wrangler, militarized, is just what the Army needs, since the Hummers are getting old and damaged.

[slow2run]

Tealfish you are so right about the M151 ,it was a killer! and that why the Military move to the Hummers so fast. Now this Hummer is just to big to support
our Infantry in the deep woods or jungle, but the J8 Jeep will, we just need to design different package for it that can be put on or off quickly for its tasks.
A anti land mine package, a side armor package, ambulance package, a trailer package, a deep water package, a sr. commander luxuries package , this should be one of first out the door, used for escorting vip's ,and so on.

This post has been edited by slow2run: 12 April 2009 - 09:57 AM

[Chris The Mopar Man]

[Sigh] Now everyone's going to yell at me. The fact is, your wrong. The Wrangler is a horrible choice for a runabout. Why? Because today a 4-door pickup can do it for the same gas. 4-door 4wd trucks will match the wrangler's gas mileage, have a bed that will haul far more without towing, and will tow far more. The features that made the old Jeep of WWII so useful or either absent or out-of-date on the current vehicle. It's not particularly light, we use AC today, making a removable top more of a hazard than anything, few pieces of military equipment fall into a jeep's towing capability, 4x4 ATV's are better at trailbreaking for far less money, and it's still easier to flip over than average.

Now I'm not saying Chrysler couldn't deliver a world-class vehicle. The Ram or Grand Cherokee could be built to military spec rather easily, and would be far more useful.

Most people do not realize that the idea that everybody on a base drives a Jeep is caused by surplus and hollywood. before and during WWII, Staff cars like the Plymouth P11 and Buick Century would have been far more common on bases. Jeeps were going overseas. But after the war, the military had huge numbers of Jeeps left over. It simply did not make sense to order more staff cars except for top brass when you already had a bunch of Jeeps. They also ended up in the fleets of hollywood car companies. Making a military movie? Staff cars may be in short supply, but the car company probably had hundreds of Jeeps, so all the officers drove Jeeps.

We have a national guard base in a town here in the county. As a kid, I NEVER saw anyone drive a Jeep (or more accurately, Ford MUTT). The National guard guy either drove Blazers or Dodge D150 trucks that were painted olive drab or camo. These trucks were more reliable than the Mutt, more comfortable, and could go most places the NG need to get to.

I could see a military GC for use in support roles, built to military spec, in SUV wagon and 4-door open-bed models as a wonderful addition to the military fleet. Kind-of a mini-Hummer.

[TWX]

They have addressed many of your concerns with the Jeep J8, which is a longer wheelbase Jeep originally based on the Wrangler, equipped with leaf springs, bumper/frame hooks strong enough to support the vehicle's weight (like for helicopter usage), and diesel engines. I don't have any personal experience with the J8, but if it's as mil-spec as it sounds it might address many of your concerns as they pertain to the vehicle itself.

[eekamouse]

goodnightjohnwayne, on Apr 7 2009, 04:21 PM, said:

The current Wrangler lacks the ruggedness of a Mercedes Geländewagen, and certainly can't match the durability of a Landcruiser 70-series.

Oddly enough, the demand has shifted towards "up-armored" vehicles to the extent that the lightest military vehicles will most likely be based on something akin to medium duty trucks.

It's worth noting that in the third world, you really don't see all that many Jeeps. When a civilian SUV is needed by a NGO or international agency, it's most likely to be a Toyota Landcruiser or a Nissan Patrol. As much as a hate to admit it, the Landcruiser, in its many rugged export market guises, not just the cushy North American version, is the gold standard for durability and reliability. Big American SUVs apparently just don't stand up, and the Jeep Wrangler is more recreation than functional these days. In some ways, the Jeeps of the Kaiser and AMC eras were more focused and better adapted to the third world than the current model range.

Basically, the J8 is trying to go after the same segment as the Land Rover Defender, but that market has migrated to much larger, heavier, up-armored vehicles, and for the remaining market, the Landcruiser is hard to beat.

The G-wagon is a former military vehicle converted for civilian consumption. Trying to compare the two is like saying a Sherman tank is better then a H1, they aren't in competition with one another.

The 70 series has been in production since 1984, and it's earned a well deserved reputation. Having said that, I'd put the Landcruiser against a JK any day of the week, any condition at any time. The reason the trend for "up-armored" vehicles is because of hot militarized zones around the world. IED's, mines, mortars, RPG's, assault rifle, and sniper rifle fire are all things that you're asking a civilian vehicle to withstand. Under that assumption, neither vehicle is going to be asked to serve under such a condition.

Part of the reason you don't see that many jeeps is because of the relative expense at shipping one out, and the Range Rover near 75 year domination over in Africa making repairs dirt cheap, and parts plentiful. But go to places like South America, and you'll likely see just as many Jeeps in the jungles, as any other vehicle. Then you factor in the role of a jeep in the middle of a savannah and there's not much use for one. You need a larger vehicle to camp in, and travel overland with a diesel engine that can carry you farther for less. Not a gas engine with high torque in a short wheel base chassis. Like a lot of your posts you are misleading in your arguments.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

This post has been edited by eekamouse: 13 April 2009 - 10:30 AM

[73PlymouthDuster]

Jim Z, on Apr 7 2009, 04:30 PM, said:

You know that thing you like? It sucks.

This guy is joking, right?
The G Wagon is overweight and top heavy. The LandCruiser 70 is just
an outdated piece of garbage. Its obvious goodnight has never tried to take either
these off road.

A Wrangler Rubicon could leave both behind on virtually any trail.
Sorry, but the Rubicon edition of a Wrangler is a rugged as it gets from
the factory.

Its not just about armor plating -- its about traveling over difficult terrain.
The smaller Wrangler can go where even a Hummer H1 can get stuck.

This post has been edited by 73PlymouthDuster: 13 April 2009 - 11:20 AM

[Chris The Mopar Man]

Quote

They have addressed many of your concerns with the Jeep J8, which is a longer wheelbase Jeep originally based on the Wrangler, equipped with leaf springs, bumper/frame hooks strong enough to support the vehicle's weight (like for helicopter usage), and diesel engines. I don't have any personal experience with the J8, but if it's as mil-spec as it sounds it might address many of your concerns as they pertain to the vehicle itself.

I still don't see how the J8 has any real advantage over, say, a 4-door Ram. The truck is going to get as good a gas mileage, is bigger, and does more. As far as I can tell, the idea is a military vehicle that is not for the front lines, but to be used in areas where a staff car would be inappropriate. Why have a specialty-made Jeep for the military when a military spec pickup would be just as useful and probably cheaper since 90% of the content would be shared with Civilian vehicle.

There is also American Growler, who makes vehicles already that meet most of the original Jeeps roles.

Remember that when the original Jeep appeared, few vehicles offered 4wd and those that did were mostly marketed to people who lived in remote places or extreme northern climates. Its not like today when there are hundreds of 4wd offerings on the market which could be adapted to light military use.

[TENMMIKE]

I served in the infantry from 83-91, 2 years in Germany and i drove around in a m151a2 and during 2 stints on the border, a g-wagon,then back the states with the army's only motorized division (9th mtz) for over 6 great years, where we were the first full equipped hmmwv unit. where we tested the living crap out of the first HMMWV
"So what" you say?, its just to establish my experience. the military at the time did use pickup trucks quite heavily in the service and support units(chevy and dodge), they were known as "CUCV"(KUK VEE,and meant Civilian Utility Cargo Vehicle) ,the problem with all the pick-ups were they simply were not tough enough for military use, even in the rear areas (if in the field) the terrain is very tough especially in Yakima WA, or the Mojave in California, (we did 80%+ of our training in the desert) .i saw those trucks broken down with various broken suspension components ALL the time, where as the Humvee were tough as nails.a truly great vehicle...BTW the only thing a M-151 can do better then a HMMWV is drive a trail in dense woods, and that is all (IMO).
Perhaps when mil-spec pickups are mentioned in earlier posts they meant one with MAJOR upgrades but that's not what I ever saw.just lots of busted up pick ups
So in conclusion, it's been tried (pick-ups), but they only work in areas and for units that will stay in towns and virtually never go off road, and to be honest even most rear echelon units get far enough into the field during a deployment for at least some amount of time that substandard vehicles are a liability. the air force uses them quite a lot, but as you know they don't really go to the field.and the number of staff cars, would in fact be remarkably small and in my mind is not worth the time to bother with......thanks fore letting me ramble on. btw i own a 99 ram.

[MoparNorm]

TENMMIKE, on Apr 14 2009, 12:13 AM, said:

I served in the infantry from 83-91, 2 years in Germany and i drove around in a m151a2 and during 2 stints on the border, a g-wagon,then back the states with the army's only motorized division (9th mtz) for over 6 great years, where we were the first full equipped hmmwv unit. where we tested the living crap out of the first HMMWV
"So what" you say?, its just to establish my experience. the military at the time did use pickup trucks quite heavily in the service and support units(chevy and dodge), they were known as "CUCV"(KUK VEE,and meant Civilian Utility Cargo Vehicle) ,the problem with all the pick-ups were they simply were not tough enough for military use, even in the rear areas (if in the field) the terrain is very tough especially in Yakima WA, or the Mojave in California, (we did 80%+ of our training in the desert) .i saw those trucks broken down with various broken suspension components ALL the time, where as the Humvee were tough as nails.a truly great vehicle...BTW the only thing a M-151 can do better then a HMMWV is drive a trail in dense woods, and that is all (IMO).
Perhaps when mil-spec pickups are mentioned in earlier posts they meant one with MAJOR upgrades but that's not what I ever saw.just lots of busted up pick ups
So in conclusion, it's been tried (pick-ups), but they only work in areas and for units that will stay in towns and virtually never go off road, and to be honest even most rear echelon units get far enough into the field during a deployment for at least some amount of time that substandard vehicles are a liability. the air force uses them quite a lot, but as you know they don't really go to the field.and the number of staff cars, would in fact be remarkably small and in my mind is not worth the time to bother with......thanks fore letting me ramble on. btw i own a 99 ram.

Thanks for your service.
When I was in we had the M151, Gamma Goats, and CUCV's. All of those mainly sat as we used the aging, but durable and dependable Dodge M37's.
The ONLY reason that the M37 was discontinued was because of it's gasoline motor, all current military vehicles can use the same diesel or multi-fuel. It cuts in half the supply and logistics required to move a fast moving infantry.
There are many, many military uses that do not require up-armor, or Striker type vehicles. The J-8 is perfect for that and it means profit for Chrysler and Mopar. They are already selling J-8 components at Mopar Performance.

[tealfish]

nodrz, on Apr 7 2009, 09:53 AM, said:

For non-combat (to run a couple of people around or some supplies or whatever) roles they should be driving Ford Focus's, Civics or another small economy car. Why would they need a Jeep?

Civics?

You want to send our tax dollars to Japan for imports while your fellow citizens are out of work?

[Trailmaster]

I have to agree with the statement that the CUCV vehicles weren't heavy duty enough. I used to work for the towing company that had the GSA contract for Fort Carson and I've seen what the Army can do to Humvees, let alone a civy truck. I can't recall ever seeing a CUCV in olive green that wasn't absolutely thrashed, and usually the bed was the worst of the body. Civilian pickups aren't really the answer, because the Humvee already will do just about everything that a 4 dr PU will, and probably hold up better doing it.

The beauty of the Jeep wasn't so much it's indestructability, but rather it's manueverability. The Humvee is just plain to large to go all the places it needs to. I have had the oppourtunity to ride in a mil spec Hummer, and am quite impressed with the places it will go, provided there isn't some imovable object to large for it to go around or over. In the dessert, probably not an issue, in the mountains, or I assume the jungle is going to be similarly obstacle ridden, it's just plain too large to go where it needs to. The small package is the beauty of the Jeep.

Several times I had to go down range and retrieve a GSA vehicle that didn't make it back, and some of the areas in the back of Fort Carson weren't passible in a Humvee or a 1 ton tow truck, and on occasion my Trailduster or another drivers Bronco would get pressed into service going in to drag whatever out of the boulders and brush and pull it on a chain to where we could get it with the tow truck. Note the missing trim and lower body damage on the Trailduster, it didn't happen because the areas I was going to had enough space.

Many thanks to all who served, I sure wish they would have let me join your ranks.

[slow2run]

So what do you think Will happen to the Jk and J8 Wranglers when Fiat takes over Chrysler?

Will our Govt buy J8 builded stateside ?

This post has been edited by slow2run: 26 April 2009 - 12:38 PM

[Chris The Mopar Man]

People are chasing their tails in circles. Somehow, the Ram is not tough enough, but the WRANGLER (made by the same company from the same components), that's something else altogether. Your talking about the ol' Chevy pick-ups? Wern't they 1500 series? I have a really hard time believing, with the wealth of extremely heavy truck components at mopar, that a Pickup can't be built tough enough to putter around military bases and haul stuff. Both of the arguments I have heard so far, that the Jeep is more manuverable and that somehow military bases are all remote outposts, just don't hold water. I've been on military training grounds here in Virginia, and other than tracks specifically designed to test off-road driving, NONE of them has ever been beyond the capabilities of a well outfitted 4x4 truck. We also have a lot of loggers here who operate in just as tough a conditions as our military guys do, and somehow their civilian vehicles (mostly ton trucks) last for years. I still don't see the need for either a wrangler or a specialty built vehicle.