For all you Wolf fans. The Dunsfold show at the weekend had 3 of the original Wolf engineers and they bought a small display and gave a great talk.
I chatted with them for a long time and finally after 14 years of waiting got some answers to questions I know many have asked previously.
They also indicated that the latest TUM in service projections are until 2030! There have also been suggestions the 90 fleet could be re-chassised to 110 TUM configuration but this hasn’t been decided.
None of the below is my opinion just facts I was told -
The Wolf name
It doesn’t mean Wheel On Left Flank. The name came up in an informal engineering meeting, the LR Engineering Director said “if we’re not careful this project is going to bite us in the arse” The transmission manager then said “well we better call it Wolf then”........ that simple.
Not using the TD5 engine
This was purely because of the electronics in a TD5 and complexity of managing in the field.
The 300Tdi on a Wolf uses a slightly different design of timing cover but standard ones work fine. The turbo is standard.
Reinforced rear axle
The testing was extremely rigorous and Salisbury axles kept breaking, the axle was redesigned using stronger internals, hubs and outer casing, making one of the strongest axles ever made.
Why a fibreglass roof?
Far simpler to manufacture over the raised height of the roofbars, production was outsourced.
Why a wheel mounted on the side?
Everywhere else they tried caused the mountings to break free and it was too heavy for the bonnet. There are 3 versions of mounting, soft top, hard top and quick release.
Chassis
The chassis is considerably different in design although it looks similar to other LR chassis. The side walls are standard, most of the rest is bespoke.
The additional rear load bed mounting was to take increased weights as the standard chassis kept punching big dents in the rear floor.
Chassis made after the production run (service chassis) are slightly different, later ones have a triangular reinforcement behind the front outriggers, none of them have the front round tube going through the main chassis walls as it is more costly to tool and produce although it is stronger.
The chassis wasn’t galvanised due to the additional weight it adds. There were also Health and Safety concerns about the gases involved in welding a galvanised chassis, can’t remember which gases they were...
WMIK chassis
WMIKS made from the factory had 2 outriggers in the middle unlike 1 on a standard Wolf chassis (look closely at that famous Irish Guards WMIK photo by the burning oil wells in Iraq) the second outrigger is to take the extra load of the gun mounting. Many WMIKS were converted from Wolfs and kept 1 outrigger due to the hassle of putting in another one, it seems to have worked fine.
Dinitrol
All Wolf chassis were sprayed internally with Dinitrol rust proofing. The general feeling is that the chassis are dealing well with rust, those studied after 10+ years of abuse show only surface rust.
Tyres
Goodyear G90’s were designed for the project and strengthened on the sidewalls in testing. The Michelin tyres were felt to be better but more expensive and classed as an approved second choice as used on Winter/Water Wolfs.
Side Lockers
Experience from the pre Wolf Military defender showed that full jerry cans were dangerous and too tight in the lockers, the unusual shaped doors were simply to take full jerry cans more easily. They were meant to be watertight but never were.
Foreign sales
Wolf was marketed in other countries but was deemed too expensive (apart from Dutch marines). The pre wolf defenders weren’t thrashed and tested to anything like the levels Wolf was subjected to, most military Land Rover procurement agencies therefore felt because the older models passed their own testing they were fine. Wolfs are therefore far stronger and capable than preceding models.