What was the rear like when it was in service? The Aus ones look taller but narrower.
 

Attachments

  • 65 Ambo#4.jpg
    65 Ambo#4.jpg
    145 KB · Views: 1,074
  • 65 Ambo#3.jpg
    65 Ambo#3.jpg
    152.4 KB · Views: 660
  • 65 ambo int#3.jpg
    65 ambo int#3.jpg
    153.5 KB · Views: 618
  • 2360a amb interior.jpg
    2360a amb interior.jpg
    229 KB · Views: 1,931
  • Shed#1.jpg
    Shed#1.jpg
    150.1 KB · Views: 801
You are right it is a bit lacking in head room but the extra width does help when squeezing in between the strechers. Somehow I prefer the english version. I guess the Aus ones were converted in aus by a different company. They roll a bit when cornering so I think the extra height would be a disadvantage.

I'll let you know how it perfoms as a camper and on a long run after the May bank Holiday weekend!

Roger
 
The rear body looks pretty solid to me - I think it would keep it's shape much better than a normal Land-Rover in a roll. But on the other hand it's more top heavy so more likely to roll!



body is alloy over softwood with hardboard inside so would crumple just as good i have a 64 ambi converting to camper

SAM_0638.jpg

pic of mine
 

Similar threads