Updates etc: 1. I made an error, the Isuzu power is 114kW not 144kW, that's a typo by me, sorry. I have numerous other 4x4 light-truck videos so please check them out too.
Not in the market for one of these beasts but wouldn't complain if I could have one as a second 4x4, as a campervan. In any case the content was insightful (and useful if I win Lotto - although I need to play if I have a chance of winning). Thanks Rob. Cheers
Hi Robert. Thanks for aother great video. I am always particularly intersted in your Fuso videos you produce as we have a FGB71 in the UK which we are converting into a motorhome at the moment. The super single videos are really useful too. Do you know if AAV export their wheels to the UK as we do not have anyone manufacturing the same kind of wheel & tyre combinations here or anyone with the knowledge you and AAV seem to have on the subject.
I'd just email AAV. I'm sure they could export and would strongly recommend the Super Singles if you're doing anything other than a little bit of gravel roads. Don't know how you'd go with roadworthy compliance though.
With the Fuso the warranty is reduced to 1 year if the vehicle is used off road or on beaches. This makes the warranty a major decision factor. It doesn't state what a off road use is. Is it a gravel road like the strzelecki track, a National park road, a forestry road or a bush track? It is a 4wd that has major reduction in warranty for off road use. Does this mean the vehicle is not strong enough.
I didn't know til I brought a fuso. It is written as a sub note in the warranty booklet but is not as I can find in any other spec on the web. @@L2SFBC
With out watch sec in. Isuzu. Hands down. ..... work in the out back. And in a real aboriginal communities. Experience. Mitsubishi is rubbish. And allways have a alternator that will not charge. If ide. Common. Look the market. Price cost with what has worked and reliable . Thats why they exspsive. Ps both can get upgrades. Experience. Kalgoorlie. Laverton. Fitzroy Crossing. Darwin. Be safe.
This is the last thing we need.. bigger, noisier, fuel guzzling monsters smashing though the countryside towing their monolithic caravans wearing out roads and tracks, scaring wildlife and.. blocking views and sunlight from camping areas! Humans! 😝 How on earth did we survive with those pathetic little Landcruisers, Patrols and Landrovers (let alone those miniature Ranger, Dmax, Hilux etc toys)
Have you considered the total mass of one of these trucks, and its fuel consumption, vs a 4x4 car towing a caravan? The point with these trucks is that they are often replacement for caravans, or sometimes, bases for tradies working full-time on the road, or a family of 5-7 who needs the truck and a van. Do you think any of the above is a valid use case?
I’d rather people towing with these than the majority of cowboys towing way over the gvm/gcm. There should be mandatory weigh-ins once you’re towing say (for example) over 2.5t or something that has a mass greater than the tow vehicle.
My comment was largely tongue-in-cheek but I understand what you're saying. You're looking at it from a technical point of view and I look at it from the perspective of someone who has travelled the outback (and coast/mountains) for decades and have many changes that are not always good. I recently returned from 6 weeks in the red centre and only saw a few of these behemoths. More often than not they were towing a small car, which I assume would be used to tour around local towns, tourist spots etc. I'm simply not a fan of the American ethos of bigger, more, even bigger and even more. Leave these things in more populated areas and Big4 caravan parks as far as I'm concerned. Yulara is starting to look like a multi hectare commercial truck/caravan retail demo outlet and it's ugly!
I agree but that's a slightly different topic. We just seem to be going down the American road of everything getting bigger and bigger and it's just ugly in bush. Ugly on many levels. @@camdcam
Also, the UGE is available in 5.1 L I-4 displacement in 3.6 m WB or in 7.7 L I-6 displacement in 3.9 m WB. They told me that the 4.1 m WB is available in Australia.
Great content as always Robert! I really have to thank you, your comparison between the Ranger and NPS is what convinced me a truck was the way to go! I was looking at both the Canter and NPS and just bought what came up first. I'm happy with the NPS though, I feel the extra 2.2L in engine displacement while making essentially the same power has got to last a lot longer. For me this is important factor as I'm planning on keeping this truck forever. keep up the good work mate, the more truck content the better 👍
Some more info on the Hino 817 Dual cab, to compare with your slides around the 15:00 mark. Overall the Hino is slightly bigger than the Isuzu, a bit more powerful, and the tech is a bit newer than either Fuso or Isuzu (VSC, TC, cruise control, 6 speed manual) Hino has 121kw (Fuso 110kw, Isuzu 114kw) and 464nm of torque (419nm for Isuzu, 370nm for Fuso) GVM is 7500kg, GCM is 11000kg (same as Isuzu). 6 speed manual plus hi lo range 3500mm wheel base (3415mm for Fuso, 3395mm for Isuzu) 6205mm overall length (Isuzu is 5985) 2130mm overall width (Isuzu is 2040) The Hino has vehicle stability control (VSC), traction control (TC) as well as ABS obviously. Exhaust brake. Stock fuel tanks are 100L + 70L auxiliary = 170L. Compared to 100L for Fuso and 140L for Isuzu. Fuel economy is about 17L per 100km. I can't find it in the video now but I think you said 12L for the Fuso and 14L for the Isuzu? 24v power system Warranty is 3 years, 100,000km
Very good Robert. After 50 years of LandCruisers, I recently ordered the Hino 300 4x4 (model 817) I was concerned you had not included it. However, you eventually got around to including it. The 'selling' point for me was the Hino has - disc brakes all around and a six speed manual (close ratio). Every other statistic is in between the Fuso and the Isuzu, thus highly comparable. All the research I did indicated the Hino has a better 'fit n finish'. After all, the Hino is Toyota !
They don’t really do this at all in Canada. Too bad. I d be waiting for a second hand one to come up. Bu no luck. How hard is it to convert 2wd to 4!? How much money? I’m a kitchen sink kinda guy so I would guess I’d be going with the Isuzu.
Mitsubishi Fuso is better stronger off-road heavy duty engine for around the world traveling adventure, Isuzu only fuels economy and this truck running more faster
Unfortunately they are all very underpowered for sand driving, i think its best to stay as light as possible and stick with a ute. More weight equals more problems.
Got say I've used both on fraser island for fire fighting purposes for the last ten years and find them great in the sand fully loaded just got set them up with correct tires pressures we do run super singles❤
I use the nps truck on a mine site. Lasted 7000 Kms before it went into limp mode. Heaps of problems with it and unbelievable how gutless it is. even worse than 70 series when towing. Maybe just a dud? I was very excited to try it out and unfortunately very disappointed. Wasn't a dpf problem but I'm not going to pretend that I know much about diesel engine's. All I know is the LandCruisers and good for around 150000 km of abuse average and the nps was good for around 7000 on this particular mine site 😢. Better suited to on road in my opinion.
I would personally rather get a 6 wheel conversion on a ute the buy a truck like this, they woll perform better on sand even if only 4 of 6 wheels are driven, parts are cheaper and you will use less fuel and have more power and comfort
Sorry, I do apologise. However the word you are looking for is “The” not “Duh” I feel bad but it’s a cringe every time. I know, just don’t watch the vids and move on. I do like the content, just the “Duh Isuzu ….” These not Deez 🤔
Steer well clear. We use both at the NSW RFS and neither are practical off road. We are not allowed to take them down fire trains now, specially the NPS. These are banned from anything worse than a secondary dirt road or a 10% slope. The manual transmission and clutch on the NPS is fragile (we have replaced then twice a year), and they are way underpowered considering their weight. The Canter is even worse but they are a lot cheaper. Take either of them into sand or mud and its game over.
RFS drivers have to undergo a 3 month training course to drive an RFS truck. These Isuzus are absolute rubbish, specially the new ones with auto transmission. The computer just cuts the power if the wheels start slipping and you can't turn it off. The new ones will be Scanias but the replacement budget has been slashed. @@kulaak-krii
The reason the RFS do such long training courses is all the red tape B.S too cover there asses has nothing to do with the isuzu trucks being rubbish 90% of the people who join need training cos they have NFI how too drive these trucks especially in deep sand and hills. I'd rather a hino GT 💪 any day over these toys its a stronger truck but maybe getting too big for some people. I wouldn't waste my time with an automatic transmission either.
The Fuso lunching gearboxes would be a real worry, my fondness for Isuzu reliability would win out here. If the 1 or 2l/100 extra fuel was a real concern, you could drop the tyre size by an inch and that would fix that. The interiors from the 70s not a real problem, the big thing you want is a very good seat. Note that people happily pay $80,000+++ for a 79 series with 70s interior and a very bad seat :)
I wouldn't say the Canter has a reputation for 'lunching gearboxes', we've had ours for many years and had zero driveline issues. It's more about picking the vehicle that is fittest for the buyer's purpose. For us the Canter's off road performance was a clear winner and our towing demands are very light.
@@einfelder8262 One vehicle having two fifth gear failures does not equate to a reputation for 'lunching gearboxes'. It could be down to the way that particular vehicle was driven, for instance. It would be like me suggesting the Landcruiser 79 has a reputation for lunching frame rails because I of know two owners who bent theirs, and am aware of others doing the same. I doubt it would be fun recovering a 79 from the Canning either, yet plenty of 79s do the Canning each year. If Canter gearboxes were such a problem, companies like AAV and ATW wouldn't still be using them as a platform for their builds. We are not alone in having covered huge distances in remote areas with our Canter, many others on travel forums have done the same with the same vehicle.
So to be clear both the Canter and the NPS are well-proven, reliable vehicles. If they weren't, then AAV wouldn't be working with them - they dropped the Iveco Daily for poor reliability, as an example. I've not seen anything that indicates potential owners be concerned about reliability and didn't mean to give that impression in the video. However, as EMAT says, abuse can break anything and even trucks as robust as these can be abused and break.
ha yes!!! I must admit I really fear running out of water when hiking. I carry a Lifestraw as they have proven to be really good, and also can boil water.
Do you also offer suspension upgrades/ lifts for 2x4 trucks? I dont require a serious 4x4 truck, but just a bit more ground clearance. Looking at doing a dual cab build touring and towing a van. Cheers
I like these vechicles but as a family of 5 one of my children would have to sit in a lap only seat belt. These where outlawed in Australian passenger vehicles in 2006 for good reason. It makes me question how safe the rest of the vehicle is in an accident. I would like to see some crash testing data from these vehicles before I was keen to buy one.
Unlikely to happen for commercial vehicles, and yes your concerns are very valid. I should have noted that in the review specifically, but elsewhere I do note that you won't get either the active or passive safety from these trucks you would in say a Ranger.
Sadly here in the US, we don't have either now. There aren't any cabover 4x4 at all no matter how much one is willing to spend. US market is so perverse. And you can only get automatic transmissions in most vehicles.
2010 ISUZU STAND CREW CAB 4X4 AND DRIVING RIGHT ON ROAD AT RIGHT SPEED CAN GOOD FUEL OUT THEM AS TRIP IN AUSTRALIA WHERE 16 LITE FOR 100KM OUT ISUZU AS WEIGHT DOWN
Everyone always talks about these large 4x4 Trucks and compares them to Utes. A lot of people, myself included, do not wish to have such a large vehicle as their daily drive but would appreciate a little extra weight capacity. Any chance you could take a NLS for a test drive ?? Mabey do a comparison with a Landcruiser
These forward control trucks were never meant for long distance driving and having driven this style of truck for work there is no way I you would get me to use one for long distance driving in the bush. They are a death trap (literally) in the event of a front end collision and the recommended procedure for a front ender is get your legs out from under the dash or risk having them severely injured and then being trapped in the vehicle due to being pinned by the legs. The ride is terrible over rough terrain and the cramped seating position is a big PITA. The concept looks great but the experience is far less than great.
No, didn't have one to hand, and I chose those two as if you want the camper, those are your choices. Also, video length is a consideration. Then there's Daily, Unimog...others.
It seems routine to see footage of these machines in ambitiously sticky situations, often ending in some unfortunate loud bangs and broken halfshafts or CV joints. Perhaps people have convinced themselves they are in Unimogs and not a vehicle with some offroad ability ?
@L2SFBC I think expectations exceed reality ! Says me, happy to tackle the wilderness of Iceland with a 27 year old Unimog 2150 and so far no regrets in selecting this over a shiny new lightweight truck as a recent replacement choice for a 26 year old U1250!
Given that both these units may well be used to tow with, it could be worth a video as part of your towing education/legality series, outlining how 50mm towing gear derates based upon the GVM of the tow vehicle when fitted to heavy vehicles (over 4500 Kg GVM). There is a chart included in VSB6 that tells all, but the general idea is that you start with the full 3500 Kg rating at 4500 Kg GVM, and end up at a shade over 2000Kg when fitted to a vehicle with a 15000Kg GVM. There is sufficient derating at the 6000 to 7500 Kg point to take largish boats or caravans outside rated capacities of 50mm tow gear. 70mm tow gear is NOT derated by GVM.
An excellent point thank you. I will do something on this, not well known. I cannot really see why the trailer ATM needs to be derated, but rules are rules.
@@L2SFBCI have a feeling that it has to do with the less compliant suspension of the heavy vehicle causing the coupling to be subjected to greater shock loadings than would be the case with a vehicle with less stiff rear suspension. I gather that mainland states have observed this rule for quite a while now, while Tasmania for example lagged behind and only started to observe this rule in the last 6 or 7 years - yet another case of national laws that ain't so national.
hmm well the heavier vehicle would arguably move less relative to the trailer so I don't quite follow that logic either. I'm sure there's an excellent reason for this, always is eh!
@@L2SFBC I’m thinking there’s a market for it. The AAV global explorer is probably over A$300k so what’s another 50k ? Portals are a game changer and I’m thinking you’ll be able to run up to 44in tyres and here in NZ can drive on standard car licence up to 6000kg GVM 💪🥰♥️🙏🇳🇿
Sure, but where could you go with portals that you can't go without? Not many places, and then consider the weight, higher CoG, compromised reliability, etc. Not all positives. Personally I wouldn't bother. It'd be cool though.
Yes. Apart from on reliability. Broken transfer cases, overheating brakes. The one show in the video - Tucks Truck - had the broken transfer case and issues with the AC. Why can’t Fiat make reliable cars or trucks…
Anybody that says that a Canter is better offroad than the Isuzu is on drugs. Having run both as firefighting appliances, the Canter is left in the Isuzu's dust when offroad. The Isuzu climbs like a billygoat and there are few places that you can't get them. On road, there is no comparison either, Isuzu wins again. I wonder how much Fuso paid for the glowing review?
Well they were about to transfer a six-digit sum into my account but then they saw the bit about "if you want to tow, get the Isuzu" and canned the deal. Oh well.
@@L2SFBC good to see that people with a sense of humour still exist. I wasn't having a crack at you in my comment, as always you presented the facts as told to you in an unbiased fashion. I was more aiming my comment at the off road outfitter that you interviewed as many of his comments would be unlikely to stand up to scrutiny. As I mentioned, I've run both and there is no comparison between the Canter and the Isuzu on any level - there are good reasons why the Isuzu costs more and these are shown once you start running the pair side by side.
"Having run both..." During which time period? For a few years Mitsubishi/Fuso removed the low range gearing from the Canter because they believed it wasn't necessary. Many of these ended up as fire trucks here. If you directly compared the two during this time frame the Canter was a very poor performer compared with the Isuzu. It was partly because of feedback from end-users like firefighters and the military that Fuso reintroduced low range gearing to the 4x4 Canter range. Both now come standard with low range gearing, and it would be in this form the comment was made about off road performance. I've also used and tested both extensively and in many cases the Canter's lower first gear ratio (when it has low range gearing) and additional chassis flex make it a better crawler in standard form. When we tested them the Canter 4x4 even had the special order option of 5.714 or 6.166 differential ratios, potentially giving the Canter a 67:31 low range first gear vs 54.54 for the Isuzu. Even in 'off the shelf' form the Canter has a 57.69 low range first. When it came time to buying one for private use we chose a short wheelbase Canter because the lighter weight, chassis flex and low range first gear make it more capable off road, especially since our vehicle has 'super singles' that aren't great for off road gearing.
Thank you, that's consistent with what Brett said. I also noted that the Isuzu's larger diff housing would mean less ground clearance, and slightly larger dimensions would also be a small factor. Fundamentally when it comes to offroad touring your need "X" amount of capability, and once you get beyond "X", then it's a law of diminishing returns. Everything I've seen indicates both vehicles exceed "X", and the differences between them are not such that one would complete an obstacle with ease where the other one struggles - as would be the case for example between two Canters, one with 37" SuperSingles and one without, or comparing a Forester with a Fortuner. So, I think for most buyers, the determining factor is not absolute offroad capability but cost, the ATM, the Isuzu towing etc. Anyway, my job is to present information, the reader/viewer can than decide what they need to do.
