what is this beast? (LR content)

[cragswinter]

it had a land rover badge, & was obviously based on one when you look at the cab but it had me intrigued, no better shots & i didn't get to see the front of it.

some kind of land rover unimog thing?

[davepoth]

I would surmise it's a "Forward Control" Landrover.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fryske/4824111957/

[anonymous-user]

Land Rover forward control?

[anonymous-user]

davepoth said:

I would surmise it's a "Forward Control" Landrover.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/fryske/4824111957/

bd!

[bigandclever]

If it helps, here's the front...

[BLUETHUNDER]

Series 2b Land Rover forward control. Powered by a six cylinder 2.6 petrol. I owned its later brother the 101FC Whitch was V8 powered and only built for the army (check my profile)

[thinfourth2]

BLUETHUNDER said:

Series 2b Land Rover forward control. Powered by a six cylinder 2.6 petrol. I owned its later brother the 101FC Whitch was V8 powered and only built for the army (check my profile)

And here is its orphaned child

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Rover_Llama

[BLUETHUNDER]

Such a shame. It could have had potential. Dunsfold have a road registered one.

[mat777]

Some light reading for those not familiar with the breed:
http://www.lr-mad.co.uk/en/iia-a-iib-forward-contr...

BLUETHUNDER said:

Such a shame. It could have had potential

If by "potential" you mean even more glacial performance than the already woefully underpowered 109, Fugly bodged bodywork, the vague gearchange being made worse by a remote linkage, the relatively high cost and the fact that with everything under the cab and seatbox it was a pain to service.

There's a reason they didnt do well.... and Land Rover did an infintely better job with the 101FC. It is a crying shame the 101 was never sold in civvy form

[BLUETHUNDER]

mat777 said:

If by "potential" you mean even more glacial performance than the already woefully underpowered 109, Fugly bodged bodywork, the vague gearchange being made worse by a remote linkage, the relatively high cost and the fact that with everything under the cab and seatbox it was a pain to service.

There's a reason they didnt do well.... and Land Rover did an infintely better job with the 101FC. It is a crying shame the 101 was never sold in civvy form

It was easier to service than a 101. It had a tilt cab. And yes if they had gone ahead with the 200tdi rather than the V8(which I suspect they would have) as they were primarily after the military contract and NATO by then had gone over to diesel. Then it would have been a complete flop. But potential it did have. The cab was a lot more user friendly than the 101 and that would huge bonus for a start. Trust me I'm a 101 veteran. I've had four of them.

[thinfourth2]

BLUETHUNDER said:

Trust me I'm a 101 veteran. I've had four of them.

Now that is just sick

Have you considered counciling

[BLUETHUNDER]

[anonymous-user]

More years ago than i care to remeber we built a coil sprung 101 with a 5.0 TVR spec V8 and a HP22 autobox. Was a great little toy ;-)

[West4x4]

That may look like a regular 109 forward control but its been changed to coil springs and 200tdi power. Which to a die hard leafer fan like me is a pity but it works for a living which helps to save it some credit

[Bill]

D

mat777 said:

There's a reason they didnt do well.... and Land Rover did an infintely better job with the 101FC. It is a crying shame the 101 was never sold in civvy form

Wasn't the Llama a development of the 101?

[West4x4]

Llama was designed as a replacement and coil sprung it was based on a 110 chassis and a lot of things were designed more as light truck than land rover. I was an idea for a 101 replacement but not based on the 101 just took the idea in to the 80's

[BLUETHUNDER]

A few of my 101.s over the years...........







Oh and the odd LtWt.....





Not military. But one i miss the most.And should never have sold....



My 50th Anniversary V8...