Neat arrangement.

How cool is this?
Trawling around the net this morning (don't know if it's kosher to download off someones site, but didn't see any harm),
saw this along with the manufacturers blurb.
I have no connection, but what a great set-up!
Available to be custom made up to around the 8000kg capacity.
The way he sets up the through drive and power dividers is very ingenious!

Dave.
Nice find, care to PM me the link/site?
Cheers Steve

Hey Steve! Call themselves 6x6 Australia. com.au or sometimg close to that. Up in Toowoomba Qld. When the page opens, go to "Gallery" shows heaps of differing combo's , even HQ tray set up as a 6x2. Worth a squiz! Dave. p.s. Whoops! Sorry Steve, should have been p/m ! Others may like to have a look at what he has got.

Hello Gents
Please don't misunderstand me but after a reasonable look at the photo there are a few things that would encourage me if it was my project to have the design checked out with an engineer using a reliable FEA computer package.
Rex

Hi Rex,
No misunderstanding at all, nor any intended.
We love throwing something out there and have it passed to and fro.
What I thought interesting when I first came across their site, was that they do say they can have it checked over by any states inspectors to be certified (and I do realise this is possibly not up to the standard you mentioned) ,and that also they are doing some work for both overseas armed forces as well as "toys" for what are obviously rich middle-eastern clients.
The last one may be a bit dubious having seen photos of some of the fabulous contraptions they have spent millions on.
I dunno, would the average "punter" look at that (the blurb), and say to themselves that it has certification, drafted by professionals, so therefore must be a good set up?
Possibly. I have no idea, nor connection with this mob, but a little more research revealed that here in Oz there are another couple of manufacturers of a similar product, one here in Victoria been going for thirty odd years that I know of. Started making the 6X6 concept for mining, underground at the time.
As I said, at first sight and looking at the line drawing on their site, to me it looked quite a good setup. But I am no professional engineer, just an interested bloke sitting on the side.
I suppose the bottom line is if you are going to promote and push your product out in the public arena, you first have to ensure your going to get it by the relevant authorities to have it registered? Maybe not so much in the case of underground mining application where the vehicle would spend it's life on site, maybe not even any need for rego, once it had reached the end of it's useful life either junk it or dispose of it some other way.
Just on that 6X 2 principle. seen something similar with a Falcon tray, maybe a mid 90's model , it was at some trade show also. Had a single point suspension as well, handbills being passed around at the show were saying it had either a 60/40 or may have been a 70/30 split. Maybe things have tightened up since then, but also said that there was NO alteration to the braking system. Which on reflection, may seem a bit suspect by todays requirements.
I reckon the bloke who may be leaning towards modifying his 4X4 or even his Ute, would be saying to himself that he wouldn't be too keen on having to ante up for another certification on top of manufacturing costs. Could be wrong, often am. Dave

Having seen quite a few vehicles that came in 4x4 versions, without exception none of them performed better off road in sandy or muddy conditions when developed into 6x6 or even 8x8 than their 4x4 cousins.

The only advantage is the better load carrying capacity with an attempt to keep them mobile with the extra weight.

Anyone with experience of the Army Internationals and Landrovers would grab the 4x4 version every time if asked to cross the Simpson. The MK3 Inter was a delightful vehicle while the 6x6 MK5's were lumberers.

I have a mate who had a 6x6 conversion on his Nissan Patrol about 10 years ago - reckons that although he could carry the extra weight his off-road ability was reduced considerably in anything soft either mud or sand.

A 6x6 conversion is a band aid solution to increasing the load carrying on what is often a first class 4x4. It might be good way to reduce parts and servicing problems in big fleets like the military but a larger vehicle built for the load from scratch is always superior.

Lang

Yeah Lang, I dunno about which one I would grab to cross the Simpson, but having driven both, personally I would prefer the 6X6 Mk5
Maybe in the Army's case where they seemed to have a bad habit of sticking pastrycooks, blanket folders, repossesion men and just about every other person who had little to no experience, in the Transport Corps.
They were definitely two entirely different trucks to drive, I admit that. The Mark 3 with the synchro box was generally a far easier truck to operate, steered well, stopped well, a bit gutless but OK for what they were. Same engine in the MK5 except breathed a bit better, hardly an earth shattering event.
The bogie drive version, a much better (in my own opinion) transmission, although not very forgiving if you missed a gear. Weren't they full air as well? Whereas the Mark 3's were air over hydraulic? Whatever, doesn't matter.
One of my bro in laws at the time ended up being an instructor in RAASC and if he were alive today would agree that the way the Army worked (this at the end of National Circus), they simply needed arses on seats, and didn't care where they came from!
Suppose it all comes down to personal preference, me. I'd rather drive a MK5 than a Mark3. Never had the opportunity to cross the Simpson in either, so couldn't comment. But then again, I have trouble getting past the sixties and seventies!
Dave

Dave

Just an observation on driver selection, where are you going to find any large numbers of experienced 20 year olds to give a truck to? They did not exist and in some states they could not even get a truck licence until 21. They went from recruit training direct to Corps training to become specialist drivers and the Transport Corps had no more transferees or odd-bods on charge than any other Corps. Not as bad as giving an inexperienced 20 year old a machine gun , an APC or tank or in my case, an aeroplane?

Everyone to their own and you obviously liked the MK5. I certainly found the 6x6 Inters a stodgy vehicle to drive. The Mk3 was OK for its day and a big jump up on the Studebakers but as you say, in modern terms, no flashing performer. When they stuck on an extra axle and I guess around another 2 tons of tare weight plus another 2 tons of load then only put a second carby on the same engine it just didn't do it for me.

We had a handy MK5 with a Hiab and MK3's both in our unit and I used ((and bogged) them regularly in PNG recovering WW2 aircraft on "adventure training".

Lang

I suppose the point I was trying to make was that in the days of National Service, (and I can't speak for the Navy or Air force) but the Army had this bad habit of "selecting" personnel to be trained in whatever field, be it transport, cooks, infantry, whatever.
Blokes whom you would have SOME background in either plant, trucks , mechanical trades. Farmers sons, blokes who have finished their apprenticeships in either (plant or transport) at least did have a few clues even if they possibly didn't have years of service in that field.
But having done a couple of advanced courses in both plant and transport, you would have to at least be "amused" as to where these blokes even came from. Blokes who seemingly had no mechanical aptitude or background whatsoever.
We have all seen and heard the old stories about the blokes fronting the "selection committee", "What were you before you were drafted, soldier? Bloody Happy, Sir! What about you, Digger? I was a pastrycook, Sir. Good, we'll make a fitter and turner out of you! Next! I was a grease monkey for a large construction company. OK, you'll do well as a Psych Corps trainee!"
OK, maybe I exaggerate a tad, but it did go on.
Not sure if I get your point about comparing an inexperienced infantry man armed with a machine gun to a bloke same age getting thrown into a truck, neither having previous experience in either field.
You, no doubt would have some experience in the "selection" of which personnel would be best suited for a particular "job"?
Maybe it was more a case of either not being too selective, after all, they had numbers to fill, or simply "give us some clay and we'll make you some bricks!" OR, as a mate of mine said, who incidentally WAS a Nasho panel beater pre draft, who ended up in the catering corps, "The army can make a square peg fit a round hole, just gotta keep belting it with a mallet!"
I admit again, I have no experience driving either Army vehicle across the Simpson, you may have. As far as the vehicle I would prefer to drive, it would be the Mark5, across the back paddock or in extreme conditions.
Went on quite a few exercises back in the day, often in support of other arms of the service. They may have used the Mark 3's as far as troop transport goes, but when it came to Mark 5's, they seemed to be equally represented and although may not be the Simpson,
still got into some areas where had to winch both out, or more often, skulldrag them out with the dozer.
So, lets just leave it at "to each his own", I respect anyone's opinion on something that I have no personal experience on or with.
Old argument, "You for Ford or Holden??" "Neither, I'm a Toyota bloke!" OR, more to the point, "You a Toyota or Nissan man?"
"Neither, I'm a CJ Jeep man!" Cheers, Dave

Dave

Not trying to pick an argument. We all have different experiences and likes. It would be a sad world if we all liked or wanted the same thing - just think of the poor girl!

Lang