End of the Macks?

JOHN.K. wrote: A.There are Australian vehicles in the army,the 4x4 armoured cars,dunno what they call them.

John, you're thinking of these Bushmaster PMV's
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_Protected_Mobility_Vehicle
www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/defence/bushmaster

I read they are that successful that the US army wanted to buy some, but politics being what it is. They're building their own Copy/version in the States..

The Bushmasters are a very successful vehicle built for counter terrorism and limited warfare with emphasis on mine/IED survivability. They are ideal for Afghanistan/Iraq situations but as a specialist vehicle would not be produced in any quantity for operations in large scale conventional warfare.

Why get rid of the Macks? They started in 1978 - that is 40 years ago! Those who advocate our national insurance policy be equipped with vintage vehicles might like to start a fleet of 1978 Kenworths to take on the current operators - why not, they can carry as much, are only a little bit slower and what seems to be the criteria they are cheaper.

As a side comment the Macks can not do what is one of the prime roles of an army truck - carry troops. They are so rough the blokes were getting back injuries in large numbers so they are relegated to cargo only.

Mrsmackpaul and Jeffo,
You have hit the nail on the head!
Biographies stay that when Lawrence (later Sir) Lawrence (he was knighted for his services to the Australian motor industry) Hartnett was not able to get backing for his all Australian car in Australia and then in USA (he was the Australian head of GMH at the time) he decided to go it alone and source everything in Australia and build it anyhow.
Australian steel manufacturers refused to supply him. The story, although never admitted in print, was that the big users Ford and GMH, put pressure on them, saying they would import their steel if the Australian manufacturers supplied Hartnett. He then built his Hartnett cars from aluminium with fibreglass bodies but he could not compete with the big manufactures with their overseas funding.

As far as Holdens and Falcons being "Australian" cars, the 48-216 "FX" Holden was a design exercise built by and rejected by Pontiac, a division of General Motors, at the lower end of the market than Chevrolet. The first three Holdens were built in America and sent here to show us how to do it. The Falcon was America's "small Ford" when it was released here in 1962, to take over from the English built but Australian assembled Zepher.

When general Motors Holden released the very first Commodore, (was it in 1978?) their publicity at the time announced that it was the first "World Car" and that in future, car components would we sourced from which ever country produced them "most efficiently", read "cheapest", and supplied to GMH plants around the world. That is why the Holden can be bought with Vauxhall badges in Britain, Opel badges in Germany, Chevrolet in South Africa, and under other names in other countries.

The Holden is a stand alone product in the GM world.

Yes it is built here ans exported to many countries.

Very few Opel or Vauxhall parts would fit a commodore. Maybe tyres and the battery!

The only Chev parts that would fit would the drivetrain. Certainly no body parts.

The first Commodore was based on the Opel but it was widened (just like our Camry) and given a totally different mechanical package.

Here is a good summary of Hartnett cars. Not as Australian or straight forward as suggested. You could well say the Holden was more Australian. It was competing with the English Austins and Morris at a time when Australian buyers were moving to larger American style mid-size vehicles. Hartnett claimed a conspiracy with his steel panel non-delivery and the court gave him far less damages than he asked, for breach of contract by the engineering firm who claimed technical and financial (Hartnett was slow putting up the deposit) reasons for delays.

He questioned why GMH got a million pound overdraft from the Commonwealth Bank and he was refused. In other words he wanted the bank to finance the set-up of his operation for production of an unknown vehicle with no assets to cover the loan. GMH already had thousands of Australian employees, millions invested in Australian property and assets and huge on-going sales to cover the loan. Despite political interference, banks are not charities and must work to some business plan.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartnett_(car)

Hartnett in partnership with the German manufacturer Borgward also built the Lloyd-Hartnett a horrible little post-war German car that had no possibility of making an impact on the Australian buyer. in the late 50's.

Here is Hartnetts English prototype - I think Ford might have had a few words to say about the styling?






Hartnett certainly gave it a go but ego's, patriotic assumptions, political special deals are no replacement for a product the buyers want and a sound business plan and deep pockets.