Talk:Land Rover Perentie

Image copyright problem with File:SASR Iraq.jpg

The image File:SASR Iraq.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Designation or nickname

So a retired museum curator has stated that it is a nickname. Hmm, I am a retired museum registrar, ex RAAF and Navy employee and ex Norforce serviceman (including driving instructor) and I have seen it used as a designation. The relevant operator manual describes it as a Land Rover Perentie, as does the IPB (Illustrated Parts Breakdown). Being official Defence publications these are not available on the web so I cannot provide efidence of this, bit many in the museum world would argue about whether a curator or a registrar knows more. Of course a curator would say they know more... Djapa Owen (talk) 09:35 , 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The perentie is a goana which can run on sand. All Landrovers are light and resist bogging more than the competition, such as the HMV and Landcruiser, or others being withing aceptable costs. The Army has had experience with Landrovers since 1949 and the S3 was the last straw. All Lrs had issues with being underpowered, clutches that lasted weeks, and transfer cases that stripped after months. (I was a repair contractor during 80s and 90s.) The Army collected much evidence during the late 80s of the weaknesses in Lrs. For example, one lay shaft in the tf case was filmed by cable cameras to show it got insufficient oil. While the Army hated the poor reliability, the machine did have merits of lightness and low cost. Propbably no manufacturer in the world had been given such technical feed back by its cistomrs, yet had totally ignored the customers requests. The perentie was at least a partial admisson of guilt by Lr. Finally, Lr refused to make a machine with removalble armour. The Mercedes GP comes standard with such armour and it was the end of the Army's relationship with Lr.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.247.27 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)