The sale of its automobiles on the prices of 2008 g., which will be prolonged from March 23 to April 30. Thus, [UAZ] attempts to get rid of the overstock of storages. The average sum of reduction is 25 thousand rubles. With its calculation the price on UAZ Of patriot with the gasoline engine in the assembly Of classic will be 440 thousand rubles, and ” [Patriot]” in the complete assembly with the Diesel engine Of iveco it will manage to buyer into 595 thousand rubles. The buyers of the automobile UAZ Of hunter with the gasoline engine can save 20 thousand rubles, and with the diesel – 24 thousand rubles. Let us recall, since February 16 plant works three days in the week, this graph will be preserved until August 1. If until this time situation with sales does not change to the best side, company will be is forced to begin the releases of personnel, since according to the Russian legislation the reduced operating mode can be introduced in enterprise maximum for six months. It previously communicated that in 2009. ” [UAZ]” it plans to let out 53 thousand [vsedorozhnikov], which to 26,7% is less than in the past year, when were assembled 72,3 thousand automobiles. P.S. [Interestno] will influence this the prices of Ukrainian dealers.
The point of the article: since manufacturer (located in Russia) reduced pricing, will it affect pricing in Ukraine?
About vehicle: it’s a slightly restyled version of 1973 UAZ-469. It’s 4×4 with locking differentials and one foot of ground clearance. It was widely used by Russian military and police forces. Original model had 2.5-liter 75hp 4-cylinder engine with fuel economy of 18 liters per 100 km (read terrible).
Here is a bit more detail vehicle…
http://www.ridelust.com/uaz-keeps-trucking-along/
And a classic version
http://www.mortarinvestments.eu/vehicle.php?id=113
It makes me want to sing the Soviet Union anthem. Come on! You know the words!
United forever in friendship and labour,
Our mighty republics will ever endure.
The Great Soviet Union will live through the ages.
The dream of a people their fortress secure.
Long live our Soviet motherland,
Built by the people’s mighty hand.
Long live our people, united and free.
Strong in our friendship tried by fire.
Long may our crimson flag inspire,
Shining in glory for all men to see.
Through days dark and stormy where Great Lenin lead us
Our eyes saw the bright sun of freedom above
And Stalin our leader with faith in the people,
Inspired us to build up the land that we love.
Long live our Soviet motherland,
Built by the people’s mighty hand.
Long live our people, united and free.
Strong in our friendship tried by fire.
Long may our crimson flag inspire,
Shining in glory for all men to see.
We fought for the future, destroyed the invaders,
And brought to our homeland the laurels of fame.
Our glory will live in the memory of nations
And all generations will honour her name.
Long live our Soviet motherland,
Built by the people’s mighty hand.
Long live our people, united and free.
Strong in our friendship tried by fire.
Long may our crimson flag inspire,
Shining in glory for all men to see.
That’s a funny title, much like “could you please fill out this form for me”
But I wouldn’t put all those weird special characters in a url.
It looks like a G-Wagen.
like.a.kite,
you mean G-wagen looks like UAZ, since UAZ predates it.
Also, the title reads Ulyanovskij Automobil’nij Zavod (UAZ) It translates: Ulyanovsk Car Manufacturing.
When I worked in Russia in the Yeltsin years, I wanted one of these badly. Not one like that pictured, but a military green Soviet-era model. They may be slow and old tech, but they’ll go anywhere. And besides, how many other SUVs do you know of that can still be crank started in case the Siberian winter eats your battery?
What a god-awful monstrosity.
The sad part is that General Motors could probably learn a thing or three from this rolling heap.
What’s really amazing is the success of their space program. I’m sure they’ve had their mishaps just like the US, but by and large I believe their space program has been a success.
…yet they can’t even build a decent car / truck to this day…unbelievable.
Maybe one day in the not too distant future this is what Amerika will look like…once Obama finishes selling us down the river. We may be LUCKY to have such a POS as this in our garages :)
Available now from, Crazy Vaclav’s Place of Automobiles! Put it in “H”!
@Rastus
Russia covers 13 time zones.
90% of the roads require quite special vehicle skills. ;-)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3155/2857255084_77d3b5a16b_b.jpg
You’ll do some of this, when negotiating Russian roads:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3054/2857472744_2e46ecc796_b.jpg
This is quite sophisticated:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3199/2856726177_af8763f249_b.jpg
When you eff up your steering, this guy fixes it for you in a couple of hours, even if he’d never seen your car before:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3221/2859234984_4b2aaeeb15_b.jpg
Another pit stop:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3068/2858407125_ab1a015c6b_b.jpg
Flash flood – not:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3194/2881873434_37a8877884.jpg?v=0
You have to build the gear to withstand brutal punishment. Pic’s from the 2008 Arctic Trophy trip, where I unfortunately did not participate. Looked and sounded like great fun. Here’s what they in the end decided a Russian highway looked like – 100 km took eight hours:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3135/2858990932_02db5181e0.jpg?v=0
As to the level of sophistication:
Russian engineering is hardcore, and they carried out a lot of EMP testing in the 60s, which has them still deciding that complex electronics will go KAZOOT! and immobilize everything should the big one come. It’s deeply ingrained.
Russians have always built tough ground vehicles, and sometimes very good ones. Lots of Germans found this out the hard way versus the T-34 tank way back in WWII. Times have changed to be sure, but for simple, rugged vehicles I would imagine the Russians still make a good truck.
I imagine Russian efforts on vehicles like this would be very focused on reliability, given the context of the Russian experience, which is a world of harsh climate, remoteness, and questionable access to things like spare parts.
As to the pic’s above. Of course you’ll find paved multi-lane highways in Russia, but they are in the minority. Most roads are changeable, to say the least, according to the season. And you could be far away from any garage or spare parts, though getting spares sent to any location is actually amazingly easy. They have a nice network of planes, trains, automobiles and choppers that can do wonders.
De-spec’d western models, without the electronics (manual windows, transmission, the works, for instance) are quite popular. Not just because of the remote possibility of a major EMP event, but because people can fix them without taking the car to a garage.
It’s like being able to get your hands on a WWII Willys Jeep fresh from the factory. It’s not a yard ornament like most SUVs here, it’s the real thing, engineered to keep up with tanks on the field.
Time for the old cliche:”Just bring it over. It’s foreign so it must be better than what we build here.Why can’t Detroit offer something like this ? They’d sell a million of em.”
It would be nice to see something built here with an eye for durability, simplicity, do it yourself repairs and economy.A modern Model T [Tying three TTAC topics together : This one, T Vs SUV and Auto Myths].
The last time that a vehicle was offered with such attributes was the base Saturn SL.
Even power steering was optional.
Apparantly, the UAZ Hunter is really a somewhat civilized version of the old UAZ 469B. Kind of like the original Jeep CJ.
Those UAZ 469s are pretty much the real thing. Cheap to maintain, cheap to repair, and amazing when offroading. Only problem is, is that at speed its a deathtrap (like most other Russian vehicles…)
Russians have always built tough ground vehicles, and sometimes very good ones. Lots of Germans found this out the hard way versus the T-34 tank way back in WWII. Times have changed to be sure, but for simple, rugged vehicles I would imagine the Russians still make a good truck.…
Somewhat of a tangent, but talking about WWII and the Russians, there was a program on Discovery about Hilter’s underground network in Berlin. Really fascinating. As most will recall, Berlin took a major pounding by air, and a massive ground assault by the Russians. Over 90% of the city was bombed/burned out of existence. Looking at countless square miles of building shells – nothing left but the masonry – staggers the mind. A real reminder of how bad WWII really was. Also funny (and sad) is that so many people don’t even recall that Russia was an allied, not axis, power.
Rastus :
March 21st, 2009 at 10:42 pm
What a god-awful monstrosity.
The sad part is that General Motors could probably learn a thing or three from this rolling heap.
When I lived in Turkey for 2 years I had an old military one. It was rude, crude, slow, handled terribly, worst drum brakes ever made outside of a Model T, but was absolutely indestructible. Where I lived Jeeps would have broken down within a week.
One of the reasons Soviet military equipment is so rugged is the manufacturers have an expectation that the equipment will not be maintained in the field or if so, by personnel that are not well qualified.
You see this with weapons, ground vehicles and much of their aircraft. Stalin had an interesting quote that explains some of it nicely: “Quantity has a quality all its own.” Since nobody wanted to be shot for providing poor equipment that would easily break, robust, simple designs were the order of the day.
I actually kind of miss my old UAZ. I took it places I’d never consider taking another vehicle.
The UAZ is a sledgehammer.
The Cayenne is a miniature jeweler’s hammer.
I know which I’d want to have if in the field.
This is great!! Robert…let’s make this a weekly affair, shall we?
Each week you post a short write-up of a Soviet / Eastern Bloc vehicle…and the peanut gallery can all become enraptured by it and tell everyone how WONDERFUL it really is!
…how the average Westerner “just doesn’t understand”…and how you can replace the timing belt out in the middle of nowhere with a piece of leather cut from your mule’s saddle / harness.
For next week’s “Soviet Bloc”, I vote for this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zastava_Yugo
I’m so looking forward to millions who write in…as we have first-hand experience here in the US with these babies. They sold, yes, by the millions.
That’s some motivation – not wanting to be shot.
Lovely.
@Rastus – I don’t get the ire.
Certain tools are for certain jobs.
If your main purpose in life is navigating home>work>shopping mall — then a vehicle with the nervous system of a fragile pure-bred Arabian will do. If you use your vehicle as you would a combination ox/draw horse, then the UAZ will be fine. It’s a mule coupling of a Willy’s Jeep and a Defender, with some Yak thrown in for good measure.
And no, not the Yugo, this one:
Chill.
I am chilled :) It’s called humor (with a tinge of sarcasm), not ire.
And if you recall, I didn’t say the Russians “can’t” build a decent vehicle. On the contrary, I pointed out their space program, didn’t I?
I’m saying, by-and-large, they DON’T build anything worth a crap. But again, thanks for another exception…I enjoyed the clip.
The Russians are much like General Motors- taken to the extreme on a national level. They “can” build good things, they just choose NOT to.
Nyet?
That’s a valid point – and in fact curiously interesting. Did GM succumb to the perils of central planning?
But at least the UAZ is available from an extravagant € 7.500. You can probably sell the scrap metal for more. :-)
Rastus :
March 22nd, 2009 at 11:05 am
That’s some motivation – not wanting to be shot.
Lovely.
I’m guessing genuine fear lead to the tremendous numbers of the excellent T-34 tank and the massive numbers of the superb Sturmovik ground attack fighter.
Stalin’s comment to the builders of the IL-2
You have let down our country and our Red Army. You have the nerve not to manufacture IL-2s until now. Our Red Army now needs IL-2 aircraft like the air it breathes, like the bread it eats. Shenkman produces one IL-2 a day and Tretyakov builds one or two MiG-3s daily. It is a mockery of our country and the Red Army. I ask you not to try the government’s patience, and demand that you manufacture more ILs. This is my final warning.
I assume if they built a bunch of them that had wings fall off or some such, a bullet at the base of the skull would have been in order.
Yep, excellent motivation.
Speaking of military vehicles Russian tank T-90 Vladimir (named after creator) is superior to American made M1A2 Abrams. Also it has automatic round loader where Abrams has manual.
@golden2husky:
A real reminder of how bad WWII really was. Also funny (and sad) is that so many people don’t even recall that Russia was an allied, not axis, power.
Well, since we’re going tangential here allow me to point out that Russia actually was an axis power before it became an allied one. In fact, they were Germany’s most loyal and useful ally right up until June 22, 1941.
Check out this baby:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VOULfira3o
I love the part when it yanks out a tank stuck in the Siberian tundra mud.
@ Rastus: Yugoslavia cut its ties with the Soviet Union in 1948, it was never part of the Soviet block. When Stalin died in 1953, one of the letters found on Stalin’s desk was from Tito. In this letter, Tito threatened to have Stalin murdered, if he(Stalin) didn’t stop sending agents to Belgrade to murder Tito. You could make a movie out of this: Dictators in Love.
@ Ken Strumpf: You can’t learn history from watching The History Chanel, i.e., you don’t know what you’re talking about. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were never allies. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had agreed to a “non-aggression pact” which boiled down to, “I promise not to shoot you in the face, if you promise not to stab me in the back.” That’s very different from being allies.
To @Ken Strumpf:
I would not characterize relationships between the Soviets and the Nazis in ’39-’41 as allies. They had a non-aggression treaty. Soviets trained a lot of German officers who later became Nazi generals, especially tank ones. Also Soviets were selling steel (or steel ore?) and weat to Germany in early thirties. They were selling so much weat that 6M Ukrainians died of starvation. Those relationships fizzled out by mid-30th. Definitely they were on the opposit sides by the Spanish civil war.
Up until terrorism stopped it, British TV did a fantastic coverage of the Paris-Dakar Rally – so good that my wife loved it just for the sweeping cinematography. I loved to see the Russian KAZ trucks, full of spares and support teams, keeping up with their car teams. They also dominated the truck class in the rally itself.
I would also recommend doubters of Russia’s ability to build trucks to pick up “Long Way Round” with Ewan McGregor and friend riding BMW motorbikes across Siberia and having their Mitsubishi SUVs pulled out of the mud by passing Russian truck drivers.
On a slightly tangential note. I owned a 40hp Belarus tractor for 12 years. It weighed twice as much as a Fiat or Ford which is a good thing in a tractor, it cost half as much, it was unbreakable, unstoppable and did not depreciate by one penny.
Spike_in_Irvine,
trucks you’re talking about are KamAZ, not KAZ. KAZ was manufactured in Soviet Georgia, where KamAZ is Russian.
Russia also has trucks such as Ural, GAZ and ZiL. Belarus has MAZ and Ukraine has KrAZ (also very strong trucks).
yup those russians built fantastic offroaders,I had one, 1982 lada niva,independant front suspension,triple piston brake calipers,aluminum front diff that kept shearing mount bolts off.rear locking differential and a hand crank for starting.Great bush truck.A friend of mine who was helping me repair front diff mount summed it up best he said “this thing is a cross between a hummer and a wheelbarrow”
Without trying to get anyone’s goat here, may I ask why…if these trucks are so “simple” and so “reliable” and “rugged”…qualities I know *I* like, and obviously from the comments above others like these traits too…then why are they such UTTER failures in the marketplace?
I mean, do you recall the Cross Lander from Romania some yahoo was trying to import?
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=106327
They always go on to say how simple and rugged and reliable these things are….you know, the same traits which endeared an entire cult following for the original Toyota Land Cruiser.
So…if they are so great, why are we all not driving them? I know Russian tractors have done well in Canada, and now M&M of India is trying to play off it’s well-respected tractor to introduce that beast of a truck I’m sure you’ve seen:
http://image.trucktrend.com/f/truck-news/would-you-buy-a-22-000-diesel-pickup-from-indias-mahindra/8265240+cr1+re0+ar1/mahindra-pickup-truck.jpg
I’m wiling to forgive Ugly for reliable, rugged, and durable…but that remains to be seen w/ this truck (M&M) too (all you have to do is read the foreign write-ups…I’ve read where it’s nothing but junk).
Given the condition of USSR roads, a Jeep like vehicle capable of vast punishment is required. So why don’t they give up and buy Chinese?
yup those russians built fantastic offroaders,I had one, 1982 lada niva,independant front suspension,triple piston brake calipers,aluminum front diff that kept shearing mount bolts off.rear locking differential and a hand crank for starting.Great bush truck.A friend of mine who was helping me repair front diff mount summed it up best he said “this thing is a cross between a hummer and a wheelbarrow”
Oh man, the Niva. I had one for an extremely short period of time (hey, I was young, stupid, and wanted a different car and couldn’t afford anything nice). Incredibly crude and not at all reliable, but easy to fix with the simplest of tools.
I wouldn’t even pretend to call it a good car and wouldn’t buy one again unless I knew someone with a machine shop and a tow truck, but I can see the appeal.
@Rastus:
Why Russian mass-market products are crap: they didn’t have a free market. Hence, no incentive. It’s not like Russians aren’t capable of producing quality hardware – their space program and their military technology (esp. aircraft) proves that. But you see, in the space program and in the weapons arena there was [i]competition[/i]. From the West of course. And a very large incentive from the state to keep up.
For consumer products, there was no competition. Communism also dictated the bare minimum of functionality from an ideological point of view. Here, this thing gets you from A to B. Done. Now stop wasting time on people-movers you engineer, go work on that missile project. We need to keep up with the Yanks. Up to a certain point, the Soviet leadership wasn’t even convinced that cars were for mass use – it took some persuasion to get them to set up Lada (VAZ) and begin making a people’s car.
Of course these products wouldn’t be successful in the US. They are simple, rugged and resilient – but also very crude and minimalistic. American consumers want luxury. They don’t care about fixing it themselves, or having it last 30 years.
@skor,ttacfan
You can’t learn history from watching The History Chanel, i.e., you don’t know what you’re talking about. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were never allies. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union had agreed to a “non-aggression pact” which boiled down to, “I promise not to shoot you in the face, if you promise not to stab me in the back.” That’s very different from being allies.
I never watch the Hitler Channel and I used the word ally deliberately. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was publicly a non-aggression pact but privately an alliance. German and Soviet troops both invaded and destroyed Poland (the Soviets starting later than the Germans) and afterward held a joint victory parade. Soviet intelligence assisted the German invasion of Norway. The Soviets provided enormous material support to Hitler. But the most important, and under-appreciated, contribution was to the invasion of France. Thanks to the alliance with Russia, unlike 1914 Germany was able to throw everything it had against the West in 1940, secure in the knowledge that they faced no threat from the East. Churchill regarded the Soviets as practically a hostile power early in the war and the British drew up plans to actually attack the Soviet Union in 1940, plans which fortunately they never acted on.
Sorry to be so OT RF but I can’t resist a good history debate.
@Hazard
“Why Russian mass-market products are crap: they didn’t have a free market.”
So if the defining factor in making good cars is that they must be subject to a free market, how come GM and they’re ilk have made such shit for so long?
Thank you Hazard. You basically confirmed, with your level-headed analysis, what I already knew deep within…but I enjoyed reading your analysis.
…that this heap in the photo above IS a giant POS!
I think the people who reminisce fondly for such garbage are living in an idealized past. You know, when things were “so much better”.
But have them give up their Toyota or whatnot in exchange for a UAZ for one day…and they’d be ready to hit the wodka come noontime….assuming they could make it home (or to the nearest bar) from whereever this POS decides to dump them off :)
UAZ = GARBAGE!!! But maybe within the next “5 year plan” they’ll choose to “upgrade” it.
UAZ = GARBAGE!!! But maybe within the next “5 year plan” they’ll choose to “upgrade” it.
Look, let’s not get carried away. First the UAZ pictured is based on a military machine that, as far as military requirements go, does (did?) its job well.
For non-military uses, there’s a job it does well – in this case, rugged off-roading. Look, Russian stuff like this works. It does its job – its just not pretty, not flashy, and not comfortable. Your exemplars would make it home from work – but they probably wouldn’t like the ride too much. That is what I meant by “crap” – not necessarily that it will break down on your way home. Heck, I’d probably give this thing more chance at starting up at -60C or whatever than some modern Western/Japanese vehicle.
@Nicodemus:
So if the defining factor in making good cars is that they must be subject to a free market, how come GM and they’re ilk have made such shit for so long?
Because there’s a huge market for shitty products too, as long as you price them right. Like all the cheap crap that comes from China. Also remember that at one point the Big 3 had an oligopoly to themselves, without outside competition. Then the imports came and their market share has been decreasing ever since.
Look, Russian stuff like this works. It does its job – its just not pretty, not flashy, and not comfortable.
I’ve been to Cuba several times, and they have an interesting take on that:
* Russian stuff doesn’t work all that well, but it can be fixed easily enough.
* Korean and Japanese stuff works well, and has the added benefit of not leaking oil, spewing black smoke, eating parts or otherwise being utter shit.
And keep in mind, this is Cuba. When the cab drivers there tell you to avoid anything Russian-made, they’ve a certain perspective and experience talking.
Actually, hazard is right.
Number one reason consumer goods never got much attention in USSR is because all the best and brightest worked for military. There was no money to put into civilian stuff. There were cases when refrigerators were made from leftover of the missile material. Yet, they made refrigerators that lasted 10-15 years without repairs.
hazard said, “no competition”, “5 year plan” – all so correct. When government installed a manager to the Automobile Plant, the only competition there would be, is competition against time and 5 year plan. Even if there were a new models on papers, who is going to stop the factory… forget the factory. Who is going to stop a single production line for retooling? The boss has 5 years plan. Make 2 million cars, lets say. In between, he/she goes to the Communist Party meeting where they ask, “how many made so far?”. They where looking for numbers or head would roll. This is why Russians could produce same car/truck for 30 years.
As far as quality goes, it wasn’t great. They were built like tanks. they would run for half century. Their engines could be rebuilt in owner’s garage. But also they were driven on such roads and in such conditions that killed Toyotas and Hondas in just a few years. Russians liked Volvos because originally they were also rugged for terrible Swedish climate. They had great rust protection. Everything else could be replaced.
Another thing is gasoline. I want to see how long any car will last if it is designed for 93 octane but driven using 72 octane gasoline. This is exactly what happened to cars in Russia. they were not driven on spec gasoline. Many people first thing after purchase would take off cylinder head and put some asbestos gaskets to change the compression ratio to be able to use 72-76 octane gas instead of 93.
These russian cars are not great, some are really bad, like Yugos. But for Russian/USSR living condition these UAZ were in huge demand and were perfect.
And of course, for Cuba, Russian cars may be not as good as some Toyota but for East Siberia it is a different story.