Any 2012 and newer on "Super Singles" owners willing to share their results?

[Mock Tender]

Any 2012 and newer on "Super Singles" owners willing to share their results?

I am looking at buying a newer (2012+) FG. After reading numerous posts on why the newer FG's won't work as expedition vehicles and the majority consensus that "Super Singles" are the best way to go. I am interested in learning what has been the experiences of those with newer FG's on "SS's"? I will most likely be driving on highway/back roads to then drive on mountain roads in the Rockies and then some off-the beaten trail roads in varying conditions.

Mark

 

[Czechsix]

I'm running the 19.5 ATW setup. I don't have a heckuva lot of seat time, and total vehicle weight is a bit over 8k, so it's very light. But so far, so good, no complaints regarding handling, traction, acceleration, etc. This week I'll be taking it into sandy/rocky/hill areas in the local desert, and it'll be interesting to see how that works out. Yesterday was a short (4 mile or so) run up a local "mountain" dirt road with some decent slope changes, switchbacks, etc. Started/stopped/turned no problems. Ran it both RWD and 4x4 modes.

Only thing that's currently bugging me, and it's going into the shop for, is an annoying intermittent DPF/DEF fault indication, and incorrect DEF level guage. Doesn't detune the engine at all, and consistently goes away after 6-10 miles of travel. So relatively minor, and doesn't stop me from driving it.

One of the best things about the 19.5 setup is I can easily run at 70mph on the interstate, and the reality is that much of the mileage for travel will be under exactly that kind of condition. I'd still like to have a low range transfer case, but the 1st gear is still halfway decent. I haven't taken it on any really rough trails, and I don't intend to. My mogging days are over, but this was never intended to be a mog style of 4x4.


Also, I'll edit to add: We're intending this vehicle to be used only in US/Canada. Then again, if I get a wild hair to spectate the Dakar.....

 

[Mock Tender]

Czechsix-

Thanks. My concern is that without the hi/lo gearing in the newer FG's- wouldn't 19's be even more difficult to get up and over the odd occasional rough section, than 16's?

Mark

 

[Czechsix]

Possibly, possibly not. I'm on the iPhone here, can't easily do a site search, but I'm pretty sure the 19.5 has a larger diameter than most of the 16's that are being used. I've also seen 17's used too. That larger diameter might make an easier roll... But then again there are huge numbers of variables going on. All these tires act differently when aired down, for instance.

I have seen some interesting video of rough terrain use, and all of the various singles seem to to pretty well. One major factor to me is that the 19.5 setup has a very large weight rating safety factor - some of the other setups not so much.

Somewhere on this site is a post where someone figured out the gearing differences between the older fg's and the newer ones. Turned out that the 1st gear for the duonic trucks is very close to 2nd low in the older trucks... But I don't remember how much lower the old low-low was.

 

[Howard70]

Hello Mock Tender:

We have a 2014 FG based EarthCruiser. We're running Alan's alloy 16's with 315/75 Toyo MS tires. I think the overall diameter is nearly the same as the 19 ATW setup (I don't mean to argue with Czechsix!). I've probably read the same posts as you, so I've decided I won't go on any "Expeditions". Instead we'll take long, unsupported trips into remote areas on poor dirt roads, two tracks, etc. and leave the "Expeditions" to the experts .

I'm guessing that the main differences between the 16's and 19's are mass, tire wear, and capacity. I think the 16's are lighter and easier to handle while the 19's get better tire wear. If you're planning a really heavy rig you might need the capacity of the 19's, but, as Pugsly has pointed out in another thread, the FG axle capacity become a limiting factor at about the same time as the highest capacity 315/75 16 tires. I've not ridden nor driven on the 19's so I can't compare the two. We find the 16's comfortable and capable. However, I'm not impressed with the wear of the 315/75 16 Toyo Mud Snow tires we're running now and I plan to go to Toyo All Terrain II's when these are done.

In our experience the gearing of the 6 speed Duonic with the lower differential ratio (I don't recall the numbers but it is the lower ratio of the two available) is OK. It is the dual clutch system without a torque converter that could cause a problem - but it hasn't yet and we've done a number of bad tracks (we don't take the EC rock crawling). I do drive it differently that I drive my Tacoma. With the Duonic I find it best to keep moving above 3 mph (4 - 5 is optimal). If you're on a hill, come to a step and stop with your front tires against the step and then try to power over the step you'll likely get a transmission temperature alarm. If that happens to us, we just back off a couple of feet and take the step with a bit of momentum. If the gearing was lower, I think you'd still get the transmission temperature alarm.

As Czechsix mentions, there can be some frustrations with the emissions system components, but Fuso sorted all of ours out in two visits to the shop in the first 2,000 miles and we haven't had a problem in the last 12,000 miles. When we contacted Fuso about the differences between 2014 and 2014.5 trucks, we were told the differences dealt with electronics associated with the emissions systems and the OBDII output. If everything else was equal, I'd take a 2014.5 or newer truck assuming that they've slayed some of the gremlins that were worked out of our system. Others here on ExpoPortal received different information from Fuso and they feel that all of the 2012+ trucks are programmed by dealers to be identical. You might want to do your own research with Fuso.

We love our EarthCruiser/Fuso combination and we'd buy it again without a second thought.

Howard

 

[jomobco]

Thanks for the great insight here! Could you both clarify your gearing? Howard you sound like 5.285? The gearing would be either 5.285 or 5.714.

Also at 70 MPH what's your RPM?

 

[Howard70]

Hello John:

Sorry for the confusion about the differential ratios - I should have looked up the actual specs. Ours is the 5.714. If you run the numbers, the 5.714 with 34" tires "behaves" like the 5.285 with the stock tire size. That's one reason why a tire taller than 34" on the Duonic 6 speed might not have optimal gearing for rougher conditions. Below is a performance curve figure I redrew from a version in the Fuso "Body/Equipment Mounting Directives" (actual reference on the figure). This particular performance curve is for the 5.285 differential with stock tires. As I mentioned above, with 315/76 16's the 5.714 differential yields nearly the same performance (you can confirm that with a gearing/differential/tire diameter calculation). There's a lot of information in the curve, but it wasn't initially intuitive to me. That's why I redrew the figure with various colors.

Here's how I interpret the lines:

1. Right "y" axis (rpm) and speed axes ("x") - red lines. Speed at various rpms (up to 4,000) for gears 1 through 6.

2. Left "y" axes (tractive & road load - lbs or kg, called "load" for short from here on) and speed axes. Green dashed lines & blue curves. Each green dashed line represents a particular gradient/speed constraint in terms of load. Each blue line represents the maximum load at the speed and gradient combination. The rpm for the speed is the same as in #1 above. So in first gear, a load of more or less 2050 kg can climb about a 32 - 33% grade at 5 - 10 mph through an rpm range of about 1700 to 3200. In 6th gear the load drops to about 350 kg from 30 to 70 mph with an rpm range of 1200 to 2800. However, the gradient speed constraint for 6th has a greater curvature such that the 350 kg load can only climb a 3% gradient to about 55 mph. The tractive & road load combination takes into account gravity, rolling and wind resistance. That's why the constraint lines curve up at higher speeds - the effect of wind resistance becomes more important. Note that the load is not what the vehicle can carry, it is the total "resistance" to forward motion. I guess it would approach or equal the GVW for a vertical ascent (maybe a rocket?). The physics of all this escapes me, but I'll say that the blue lines seem pretty "real world" equivalent to me for our truck at about 11,000 - 12,000 lbs and speeds up to 60 or so.

Howard

 

[Howard70]

Medano Pass - Colorado

Hello Mark & John:

Mark mentioned potentially driving some tracks in the Rockies. While we haven't done as much travel in the Colorado Rockies as we hope to, we have taken our 2014 EarthCruiser/Fuso over Medano Pass from west to east this September. No problems at all (the trail is pretty moderate) and we fit between all the trees and under all the branches....

Howard

 

[Mock Tender]

Howard70-

Thank you- that is some excellent information.

In regard to the TOYO MT- I was wondering how all that great off-road grip would effect the longevity of the tire. I am looking at the Toyo AT and the BF KO2 and KM2 as well.

I haven't been to Medano Pass yet, but that is pretty much the terrain we are looking at.

Mark

 

[DEFENDERBEAM]

Not a 2012 + owner, but here's a couple thoughts.

the 315/75-R16 or 17 is usually less than 35".

The Toyo's M608z at 285/70 on the 19.5" wheels are supposedly 35.4".

The 19.5" truck tires from my research are a lot more durable, and will last way longer, but will ride rougher, so depending on your suspension plans (stock or modified), the standard truck tires could be a lot more smooth over bumps and a better choice?

I never owned or road in an FG with 19.5" wheels, but my 2006 SWB had 16" with 315/75's, and I liked it. I also liked the idea of the larger diameter on the 19.5" wheel without having to go up to a fat 37" tire typically used on 16" and 17" wheels. and I always fell back on the potential greater durability of the commercial tires.

 

[DEFENDERBEAM]

another funny note (I've mentioned here before somewhere?):

when I got my truck the stock size tires where not running the speedometer correct. When I changed to the 315/75-R16 set up, my speedo was spot on. I verified before and after with a couple GPS units. It was off 2-3 MPH I recall.