![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:28 • Filed to: None | ![]() | ![]() |
Due to some very weird elements, I don't imagine this will take very long if anyone knows the vehicle.
Pic now uncropped, should make some things clearer.
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:32 |
|
Toyota Previa?
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:32 |
|
Suzuki Carry?
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:32 |
|
Some kind of FC Bantam?
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:33 |
|
Odd. COE, 4WD, Split Rear Bumper.
Is it a mid 70's Econoline Van?
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:34 |
|
FC rover?
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:35 |
|
FC Jeep?
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:36 |
|
Oddly, no. Under the skin, a IIB is pretty much just a 109" One Ton. That means a common-mount transfer box, normal axles, normal axle locations, only a weird steering box location.
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:37 |
|
It'd be a bitching thing to put under one of those, but it wouldn't be stock. When you see what it actually is, you might like it.
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:38 |
|
Nope, you're thinking the right technological level, but the wrong decade actually made (due to production line bloody-mindedness). But yes, despite being more modern than your guess, it has a splitcase rear diff.
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:39 |
|
Nope. That I think had the good sense to exacerbate its weight issues with a common-mount transfer case, something this doesn't.
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:39 |
|
Nope. Not Japanese - too primitive by half.
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:39 |
|
I wish.
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:46 |
|
Land Rover 101 ? Maybe-kinda-sorta?
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:46 |
|
My next guess would have been an International Metro van but those are pretty much the same decade and I don't think they offered a 4X4 option.
I got nuthin'.
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:50 |
|
Tartra van?
Just making SWAGs at this point ...
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:51 |
|
VW Bus?
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:51 |
|
The engine is in the wrong place.
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:52 |
|
hrm. Wierd. Leaf springs at all four corners, a tow hitch. This is one strange vehicle.
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:53 |
|
Oops.
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:54 |
|
Some resemblances, but the FC101 has modern diffs and straight frame rails made out of thin sheet steel box.
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:55 |
|
Narp, but a very solid guess, and getting warmer.
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:55 |
|
An old Grumman?
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:56 |
|
Well then I've got nuthin'...
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:57 |
|
Under that, I'd expect you'd see a modified period GM delivery chassis. The frame rail setup in my pic is way too goofy for ordinary American iron, though, because it's not heavy straight-rail - it's multi-sectioned and different widths.
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:58 |
|
Isn't that a Toyota Land Cruiser FJ40?
I know I read a manual with that diagram lately, and I don't think it's a Land Rover.
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:58 |
|
Unimog?
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:58 |
|
In some respects, it's more primitive than an FJ40, and as others rightly noticed, it's something forward control. Also correct that it's not a Landie.
![]() 10/03/2013 at 19:59 |
|
Perhaps one of the Laplander Volvos then?
![]() 10/03/2013 at 20:00 |
|
I believe made in far greater numbers, for one.
![]() 10/03/2013 at 20:02 |
|
The Unimog has one throwback feature that this doesn't, that is, a torque tube on each axle. The ' mog was ever thus, though, and has always featured coils.
![]() 10/03/2013 at 20:04 |
|
Citroen H Van?
![]() 10/03/2013 at 20:06 |
|
An older Unimog?
![]() 10/03/2013 at 20:11 |
|
Nope. Mogs actually mount the engine through the transmission and transfer case, and have always been coil-sprung, as they're designed to articulate a lot more than this. Also, the diff design on this is what's called a split-case, very popular in the 20s-30s and requires disassembly of one side from the other to work on. It would make Germans cry.
![]() 10/03/2013 at 20:12 |
|
It would be sweet if those were 4wd, but no. They're not even BOF, they're unibody.
![]() 10/03/2013 at 20:14 |
|
Pinzgauer?
![]() 10/03/2013 at 20:14 |
|
Is it a GAZ-66?
![]() 10/03/2013 at 20:26 |
|
Nope, but good guesses. Answer is now up:
http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/finally-the-an…
![]() 10/03/2013 at 20:27 |
|
Correct direction of guess, but not quite:
http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/finally-the-an…
![]() 10/03/2013 at 20:27 |
|
Just noticed it. Thanks for the game!
![]() 10/03/2013 at 20:28 |
|
Gerr, so close.
![]() 10/03/2013 at 20:34 |
|
I posted the answer. I think you'll like it.
http://oppositelock.jalopnik.com/finally-the-an…
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
![]() 10/03/2013 at 20:35 |
|
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
![]() 10/03/2013 at 20:37 |
|
I never would've gotten that. Not ever.
![]() 10/03/2013 at 20:40 |
|
Damn wasnt even close but you led me to some cool images
I was sure the top image was getting me closer but these are both fwd.
thanks for the fun
if I would of added russian it would of been the first image on the list, blarg
![]() 10/03/2013 at 21:04 |
|
I was trying to hint with various references to it being newer than it looked and the like that the drivetrain was an
level of primitive that could only be a Russkie, and from there it's a pretty short putt: "4wd Russian van".
![]() 10/04/2013 at 11:12 |
|
I do like it. Funny how similar the econoline and the loaf look from the outside.