For those of you who have been following my for fun comparison testing of the Heng Long Abrams, Challenger 2 and T90 here is another additions. I took the "Ditch and Bomb Crater" course and enhanced its difficulty with steeper climbs, looser dirt, pits of deep charcoal ash, simulated walls with rebar and other interesting debris that might be found on a battlefield.

To review the Abrams, Challenger 2 and T90 all have faired well in past testing with the Challenger 2 showing the best overall performance even with its "handicap" of factory plastic tracts. It was followed closely by the T90 then Abrams which had issues with its long nose digging into the ditch wall sides and stopping forward progression.

On this round of testing I expected similar results but that did not happen. The difficulty enhancements made to the course caused minor problems to become big ones and thus each tank weakness showed bright. That is with the exception of the Abrams where its longer nose now became a benefit to overcoming obstacles. I have to add here that since the last testing the Abrams used (green one in pictures) during the preceding tests had some suspension modification and though I did run it in this test, these modifications did greatly effect it performance. I used another Abrams with stock suspension geometry and running the same motors, gearbox and track. This was done to keep the testing reasonably fair and similar to the last test between the three Heng Long model designs.

On this "Battlefield Debris" course the T90 in short failed miserably. Its low ground clearance, long barrel and lack of suspension flexibility caused it to get stuck repeatedly in ways it was not able to free itself and needed recovery help (see photos below). The Challenger 2 also got repeatedly stuck on the steeper climbs with looser dirt and on many of the obstacles due in large part to its front/rear tow hook and rear fuel drums get caught up, it too needed recovery help. I will say that the Challenger 2 issues with climbing and some of the obstacles was do to the plastic tracts just not gripping. I do not believe it would have had to be recovered as much had it been running the same track as both Abrams.

The primary Abrams for this test (tan one in photos) had issues with its low ground clearance (noted about the Abrams R/C model in the last testing) causing it to become high centered, but only needing to be recovered once. All other times it was able to recover itself by simply backing off the obstacle or terrain feature and reseting its approach angel. It had no other issues with any of the obstacles and made short work of the course. The longer nose that had been a issues actually helped it slide up and onto many of the obstacles were its metal/rubber padded track could then grip and pull the Abrams over and though.

The secondary Abrams for the test (green one in photos) had a modified suspension which provided for far greater suspension flexibility and just over 1/4" (~7MM) of additional ground clearance. This made for a tank that was unstoppable. It had no issues with any obstacle or terrain feature and was just a "HOOT" to drive.

As always feel free to add any constructive input or ask questions.

Below are some of the highlight photos from the tests. More photos will follow shortly, hope you enjoy them:




Above T90 getting stuck on burned out tank.




Above Challenger 2

The cloth duffel bags are very old I have had them for over ten years sitting on a old display tank tucked away in a box in my storage unit. I thought I would dig them out and use them again on both my Abrams. Unfortunately the company "Build A Rama" that made them no longer does. I ran short by a few duffles in having enough for both my Abrams so I had to reproduced a few that are close matches, they ended up being relatively easy to make once I found the right thread count cloth.

My videos are raw footage more intended to capture screen shots and would need editing before I could post them. This would take more time than I have right now. But maybe in a few months when my work load lightens up.

I took a look at your web page and enjoyed the videos of your tank playground. I would be too tempted to leave the roads and drive cross country through some of the brush over and down rocks to give the suspension and tracks a workout. It would be fun.

You Tube

Started work on Part 3 of the test course “Step Climbs and Rock Garden”. This is the first obstacle built and it is designed to punish the suspension system. Shown here with one of my Abrams being used to cover the structure so as to not give away the excitement of seeing in use during the review write up. This obstacle is designed to be attempted from each compass point (at 45degree increments N NW W SW...). Yes I did drive the Abrams onto but not completely over and throw the obstacles,did it for photos and it was in the expected easy directions N to S. The drop in front of the tank is over 6” and did not want to chance another tank needing repairs this week.

Going to be a week or so before testing starts as both the Challenger 2 and T90 are down needing repairs. Challenger needs new road wheels and suspension arms both are badly worn out and the T90 has a broken sprocket that was repaired but I do not want to push it hard.

Hi, All your tanks are good looking, dedicated model work, and I like the Abrams Tusk I. Enjoy all the images, a lot, and as they say, better to run over your own tanks than mine! John

Yes and No. The Challenger 2 can only run the “Abrams/Leopard” track with the two piece metal sprocket that has two additional rubber “spacers” added. It takes under five minutes to install the spacers. Or it can run the “Abrams” sprocket in place of its own. The T90 can run the “Abrams/ Leopard” track but it needs a different sprocket and a slight modification to the hull around where the drive shaft passes though ( write up on this is forthcoming ). Both will need the track length set accordingly. The Challenger 2 needs two more links and the T90 needs six or eight (?) links less, can’t remember exactly right now.

I have Abrams track set ups for both. They are far different performing tanks when running the metal/rubber padded “Abrams/Leopard” track. With plastic track about equal. The T90 though can achieve close to the same grip performance as the “Abrams/Leopard” track if the plastic or metal track is modified with the addition of silicon pads added to the links. This also has the benefit of retaining lighter weight and a higher top speed. The T90 in the testing has plastic track with the silicon pad modification.

Sorry that is the shortest I could make the answer and cover the Yes an No of it all.