• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Oshkosh

ringo

Member
Reaction score
18
Points
180
What truck do you believe will win the MSVS program?
I hope its Oshkosh or MAN.

What other manufacturer's are likely to bid?
 

Gunnerlove

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Stewart and Stevenson with the FMTV.

http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/fmtv/index.html

But why buy a proven vehicle which is built (along with it's spare parts) nex door?
Oh right because it is a smart thing to do.
 

a_majoor

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
31
Points
560
Or we can look at these:

MLVW Replacment?  http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22271.0.html
 

Thompson_JM

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Bzzliteyr said:
Isn't Oshkosh "just next door" also?

the Veh. Techs, posted to hamilton dont have alot of kind things to say about oshkosh.... theyre hoping for the S&S... having looked at a couple my self when i was down south, they look pretty nice..... personally I just think its about damned time they replaced the ML with something with a decent cab... there is absolutly no good reason why we need to have such a crappy interior as the MLVW did... look at the HL... its nice inside, and it does its job just as well.... a little comfort goes a long way when youre spending the better part of your workday in there....
 

Gunnerlove

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
When I was in the states the Army had nothing bad to say about the FMTVs.

I can bitch for days about the MLVW so ..........

Also it is a nice truck to drive, imagine that.
 

ringo

Member
Reaction score
18
Points
180
Defence minister O'Connor was formerly a lobbyist for Stewart & Stevenson, hopeful his former lobbying activities will not affect his office in getting the best kit available for CAF.
Any new truck should have the option of carring armour which of course reduces cargo capacity, this is one of the reasons IMO that the MLVW replacement should be a heavier vehicle, fewer trucks are to replace those currently in service so new vehicle's should be larger to maintain or preferably increase cargo lift.

When I operated my own trucking company I went bigger every time I bought a new truck the last unit was twice the size of original vehicle. Most of the operaters I new with the 8.2L DD thought it was a POS.

Lastly Oshkosh is to change the engine in the MTVR from the Cat C-12 to C-9 to meet Canadian emission standards?
 

teddy49

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
110
ringo said:
When I operated my own trucking company I went bigger every time I bought a new truck the last unit was twice the size of original vehicle. Most of the operaters I new with the 8.2L DD thought it was a POS.

Lastly Oshkosh is to change the engine in the MTVR from the Cat C-12 to C-9 to meet Canadian emission standards?

Agreed on the 8.2 Detroit, but the last sentence doesn't make any sense at all to me.  I used to pull turnpike double in between Edmonton and Calgary with a C-12 powered tractor.  That motor is legal in Canada for highway use.  All Cat motors last I checked, met Euro III emissions regs, which are vastly more strict than ours.  As well I'm pretty sure the LAV uses a C-12 as well.  Putting a C-9 in an MTVR would be one of the best ways to ruin that truck.  It's too big and to heavy for that motor.  Even if the army does it's usual trick of trying to turn it into a overpowered bomb, like the 6V53 Detroits in the Coyotes, it'll make an unreliable, maintenance intensive headache.  Like the racers say, there's no replacement for displacement.
 

TN2IC

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
430
ringo said:
Defence minister O'Connor was formerly a lobbyist for Stewart & Stevenson, hopeful his former lobbying activities will not affect his office in getting the best kit available for CAF.
Any new truck should have the option of carring armour which of course reduces cargo capacity, this is one of the reasons IMO that the MLVW replacement should be a heavier vehicle, fewer trucks are to replace those currently in service so new vehicle's should be larger to maintain or preferably increase cargo lift.

When I operated my own trucking company I went bigger every time I bought a new truck the last unit was twice the size of original vehicle. Most of the operaters I new with the 8.2L DD thought it was a POS.

Lastly Oshkosh is to change the engine in the MTVR from the Cat C-12 to C-9 to meet Canadian emission standards?


My hopes just went out the window reading that.
 
Top