The Overlander.
The Terrahawk.
The Paddington.
The Isambard Kingdom Brunel.
The Crusader.
The Navigator.
How about Bazalgette.
Si
Armstrong-Vickers Tiberiator Mk IV
Armstrong-Vickers Leviathrom Mk IV
Armstrong-Vickers Cunnysack Mk IV
Armstrong-Vickers Spanker Mk IV
Armstrong-Vickers Spunkbottom Mk IV
Armstrong-Vickers Carryon Mk IV
Armstrong-Vickers Fawlty Mk IV
Armstrong-Vickers Sluggard Mk IV
Armstrong-Vickers Cleanastern Mk IV
Armstrong-Vickers Sextant Mk IV (someone had to)
That is, of course, pronounced ‘sinjon’. 
Per analogy with kangaroo I’d call it
Armstrong-Vickers Platypus Mk IV, or maybe
Armstrong-Vickers Echidna Mk IV
Though I admit that Percheron sounds really good.
Ha! I know this helicopter. It’s the one with escheresque impossible rotors. I don’t understand how it can fly in just three dimensions.
Yeah, I built one many years ago (the tool is an old one, originally issued by Hawk) and used to sit there fascinated, turning the rotors around and around. Why don’t they collide?!? 
From the Office of SDMB Space Resources
Dear Mr. Sampiro,
As you have correctly surmised, you are in fact in breach of your SDMB Space Allocation for this Topic.
There is no cause for alarm, as you are a valued poster and this is your first offence.
However we would be deeply grateful if you could see your way clear to not repeating this error. Please bear in mind that, as one of the SDMB’s more interesting posters, you are a trend-setter - and therefore must be careful about setting a poor example.
I don’t think I need to say any more, as you are undoubtedly an intelligent fellow (and also I am perilously close to reaching my own Space Alloc
When in doubt, go with history. The British love their history.
So you could name your vehicle after former Prime Minister James Hacker, who was elevated to the position on the sudden retirement of his predecessor; he did remarkable work in an impossible situation, or he accomplished virtually nothing at all, depending on your point of view. See this documentary for more information.
Plus, “Hacker” is a funny name for a vehicle. Purely on its sound, it’s short, aggressive, masculine, very Anglo-Saxon, short vowels and hard consonants. Appropriate for military. But by definition, there are all sorts of awkward little connotations that go along with it.
So: It’s the Armstrong-Vickers “Hacker” Mark Four. (The quotes are important.)
Armstrong-Vickers Clarion’s Call Mk IV
The Zulu had a brutal club (the name escapes me), and some of the lads in Red took them home after that nasty business.
Armstrong-Vickers Knout Mk IV
Armstrong-Vickers “Carbuncle” Mk IV
Armstrong-Vickers Maul Mk IV
Armstrong-Vickers Hummock Mk IV
Armstrong-Vickers Wart Mk IV
Armstrong-Vickers Ackthorp Mk IV b
Armstrong-Vickers Grunion Mk IV (for the sound it makes)
Thle British named some powerful aircraft after tiny insects. In the same vein:
Armstrong-Vickers Vole Mk IV
How about The Vickers-Armstrong Clydesdale Mk.IV. Name after the Clydesdale Horse. It fulfills the OP’s requirement for it have “connotations of strength and/or endurance”.
Vickers Armstrong Disraeli Gofast Mk 4
Vickers Armstrong Major-General Stanley Mk IV
Vickers Armstrong Cornwallis Mk IV
Vickers Armstrong Kitchener Mk IV
Vickers Armstrong Flashman Mk IV
Vickers Armstrong New Berry Fruit Mk IV: tough, crystalline exterior; firm but flexible polymer interior; able to blend in with surroundings.
And was already suggested in post 11.
There are a few Dopers in this thread whose name would be good to use.
The Lungfish.
The Quartz.
The Mudshark.
The Scissorjack.
The Sunspace.
The Wargamer.
As was mentioned upthread, the British Military were not terribly imaginative namers of things. Something like the vehicle in the picture you linked to would probably have a name like “Vehicle, Motorised, Tracked, Vickers-Armstrong Pattern 1931, Mk IV”
Now, what you want is a Commercial name for it; something Vickers-Armstrong could use to sell the vehicle to the Government of the Cape Colony or the State of Victoria or something.
There have been some excellent suggestions already (I rather liked the “Vickers-Armstong Flashman Mk IV” myself, but unless your device has sex with everyone’s wife and then runs like hell from the scene of a major battle, yet still ends up with at least one gong, it’s not really apt ;)) but realistically I’m inclined to suggest
Vickers-Armstrong Khyber Mk IV or
Vickers-Armstrong East Indiaman Mk IV
as being the sort of names a company like Vickers-Armstrong would be using in the 1930s to flog a tracked cargo vehicle like the one you describe.
The other thing is that it’s way too “open” a design for a British tracked cargo vehicle of that period, IMHO; they tended to be enclosed, probably with a funnel sticking out the back (for exhaust), and, if it’s a military vehicle, armed with at least two machine-guns.
Have you forgotten the Matildas?
How about the Vickers-Armstrong Pacaderm MkIV. Strong, load carrying, and reeking of India and the Empire
As in, “Tank, Infantry, Mk I (II), Matilda (A11/A12)”? That Matilda?
You also had the “Tank, Cruiser, Mk VI Crusader (A15)” and- one of my personal favourites- the “Tank, Infantry Mk VI (A22) Churchill Mk VII Crocodile”, which had a flame-thrower mounted in place of the hull machine-gun.
If you think all that is confusing, just wait until you get around to the small arms designations. Up until 1926 they followed the “Rifle, Short, Magazine Lee-Enfield Mk III*” format (better known as the SMLE) and then they switched to “Rifle No. 1, Mk III*” (same gun, different designation). The “Rifle No. 2” was a .22 calibre trainer, and the “Rifle No. 3” was the Pattern 1914 Enfield, which has nothing in common with the Lee-Enfield except they’re both .303 calibre bolt-action rifles. The Rifle No. 4 was basically the SMLE with a longer barrel and different sights, and the No. 5 was a carbine version of the No. 4; but the Rifle No. 1 Mk V was a trials version of the SMLE with the No. 4 Lee-Enfield sights on it, and came out about 20 years before the No. 4 was put into production. The Rifle No 1 Mk VI was the prototype version of the No. 4 Lee-Enfield, but the Rifle No. 6 was an Australian version of the No. 5 Jungle Carbine, but made using an SMLE action instead of the No. 4 action. (Confused yet? :))
If that wasn’t enough, “Pistol, No. 2 Mk I*” could refer to either the Enfield .38 calibre revolver or the Browning Hi-Power 9mm semi-automatic that were both in service at the time, and the Webley Mk VI revolver was “Pistol, Revolver, Webley No. 1 Mk VI” (Americans, of course, get confused because to you lot, a “Pistol” and a “Revolver” are completely different things; not in the Commonwealth, though.)