Bad news on FG for US

[pugslyyy]

I posted an article several months ago about how Mitsubishi recognized the need for a true high-low transfer case and alternative to the Duonic transmission for better off-highway performance... http://www.carsguide.com.au/car-news/mitsubishi-fuso-canter-4x4-dual-range-returns-20324

Just finished talking with my local dealer and they say "though we wish for a Two speed transfer case, I have been told that is not on the shelf right now, or near future."

Unfortunately this means that the new US Fusos will not be a candidate for overland vehicle builds for some time, if ever. Since this was the one global COE platform sold in the US, what does that leave as an option for a global expedition vehicle platform?

 

[dlh62c]

There are two gear ratios offered by Mitsubishi for the US FG, the standard 5.285 and the optional 5.714. The calculated Maximum Speed (MPH, est.) for each is 86 & 80. The ratios will also affect gas mileage. In January 2014, there weren’t any 2014 FGs at the ports with the standard 5.285 ratio. To get the 5.285, you had to order a 2015.

Which ratio is more desirable?

The Mitsubishi engineer my dealer talked to said it depends on what the trucks intended purpose will be. He cited plowing snow as an example; apparently the FG is popular for plowing snow here in the US. Since the Duonic lacks a 2 speed transfer case, the Mitsubishi engineer recommended the 5.714 for best performance off-road, but there’s a sacrifice in top speed and MPG. Sportsmoble runs the standard 5.285 ratio in their Demo Alfa build which averages 17.8 mpg with the larger wheels and tires. Earthcruser told me they run the 5.714 ratio in the Outback camper series.

 

[kerry]

Anyone know why Isuzu doesn't compete with Fuso when it comes to 4wd COE trucks in the USA? Did/does Isuzu's arrangement with GM in the US forbid it for some reason?

 

[haven]

Fuso makes a Canter with current 3.0L diesel engine, 4x4 and two speed transfer case. I've only seen this combination with a manual transmission. Fuso in USA seems interested only in the Duonic automatic.

The Australian web page for the current 3.0L Canter with 4x4 is here
https://www.fuso.com.au/Docs/Website/Product/Canter FG/SpecSheets/Canter_FG_4X4.pdf
and lists the following drivetrain specs

manual transmission
1st: 5.494
2nd: 3.193
3rd: 1.689
4th: 1.000
5th: 0.723

transfer case ratios
low: 1.987
high: 1.090

final drive
5.285

The Fuso USA page for the 3.0L Canter is here
http://www.mitfuso.com/Content/Documents/pdf/en-US/Canter_Spec_Sheet_Fg4x4.pdf
This page shows the final drive ratio as 5.285, with 5.714 optional

I don't see the transmission specs on the USA page, but on several international Fuso pages the ratios are listed as

Duonic M038S6
1st: 5.397
2nd: 3.788
3rd: 2.310
4th: 1.474
5th: 1.000
6th: 0.701

So the lowest low gear using the Duonic automatic is (5.397 * 5.714) = 30.84

With the manual trans and two speed transfer case in low range, the lowest low gear is (5.494 * 1.987 * 5.285) = 57.69
Low range in second gear, the ratio is (3.193 * 1.987 * 5.285) = 33.53

In other words, the Duonic automatic low gear and one speed transfer case is about equal to the Fuso with manual transmission, two speed transfer case in second gear.

Now consider how automatic transmission torque converters are designed to slip, up to a programmed stall speed. This is like slipping the clutch on a vehicle with manual transmission. The torque converter will momentarily provide the effect of a lower first gear to get the vehicle moving. This is not a solution when faced with a very steep downhill, where the lower ratio of the manual transmission would provide greater control. But in many circumstances off-road, the Duonic automatic will work well.

 

[EarthCruiser]

Thanks Chip
Very well put together, it is what we have seen in the real world.
Point taken on the down hill control, FUSO has the exhaust brake and does retard through the gear box.
It is worth noting the gear spread of popular spec`d Dodge - Chev - Ford trucks, there low range second cog looks close the FUSO Dutronic 1st.
None will have any where near the chassis real estate (more storage lower on the chassis = lcg ) or turning circle ( a BIG factor off road) of the FUSO.

 

[dlh62c]

YouTube has a video on the Duonic Transmission
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUH7L-KclaE

 

[pugslyyy]

Now consider how automatic transmission torque converters are designed to slip, up to a programmed stall speed. This is like slipping the clutch on a vehicle with manual transmission. The torque converter will momentarily provide the effect of a lower first gear to get the vehicle moving. This is not a solution when faced with a very steep downhill, where the lower ratio of the manual transmission would provide greater control. But in many circumstances off-road, the Duonic automatic will work well.

Yes, but the Duonic is an auto-shift not an automatic. It doesn't have a torque converter. And it doesn't "slip" the gears like you would if you had a manual off road.

Plenty of companies have made the argument that hi-low transfer cases are no longer required due to advance in transmissions. (Land Rover tried that with the Freelander). If it were really working then they would not have backtracked and met the needs of the Australian market by offering a 2 speed transfer case and manual transmission.

 

[EarthCruiser]

Aussie market does not get the six speed Auto in the 4x4 (only 4x2) - i wish we did have that option.
Check the gear spread on the 5 speed manual.

 

[haven]

"the Duonic is an auto-shift not an automatic. It doesn't have a torque converter."

Oops! You're correct. The Duonic uses a pair of wet clutches that provide a small amount of slip, but not as much as a true torque converter.

 

[Howard70]

Real Experience with Duonic 4x4

Colleagues:

I've seen a lot of speculation regarding why our 2014 4x4 FG with the 6 speed Duonic can't possibly be an expedition vehicle, why it will be gutless off-road, etc. All I can tell you is that after driving it nearly 3,000 miles and climbing several 4x4 hills (one about a mile long at 27 to 30% covered in loose bowling ball sized rocks) etc. I couldn't be happier with the transmission and the rear limited slip differential. I'm coming from a 2004 double cab Tacoma 4x4 with 4.88 differential gearing, 34" tires and lockers in both ends. The Fuso in first is about equal to the Tacoma in low range 2nd in real world driving which is fine for every place I've wanted to camp. If I was trying to rock crawl my EarthCruiser maybe I'd be less enthusiastic, but we didn't buy it for rock crawling. We bought it for long, unsupported trips into remote areas and the transmission has been perfect for that.

We have the 5.714 differential gearing with 315/75/16 tires. That set up seems perfect to us - running the 5.285 gearing with 34 - 35" tires would seem to sacrifice a lot of low gear 4x4 ability - if you're considering that I'd try to drive both before making your decision.

Howard L. Snell

 

[Flys Lo]

The only time you might care about low range is if you are at maximum GCM on very steep grades. This is applicable to firefighting vehicles, mining and other industries that purchase the Fuso, and load it up with both heavy loads and trailers but I don't think any expedition vehicle will be at maximum GCM (and if they are - they shouldn't be...)

 

[pugslyyy]

The only time you might care about low range is if you are at maximum GCM on very steep grades. This is applicable to firefighting vehicles, mining and other industries that purchase the Fuso, and load it up with both heavy loads and trailers but I don't think any expedition vehicle will be at maximum GCM (and if they are - they shouldn't be...)

I've found 1-low to be a very useful gear for what I have done off highway, especially recovery scenarios. The "walking pace" is very good for winching up a hill, etc where you want to assist the winch but not spin the tires. It's just not clear to me that the Duonic allows you to do that with it's fancy gear box.

 

[mog]

Colleagues:

I've seen a lot of speculation regarding why our 2014 4x4 FG with the 6 speed Duonic can't possibly be an expedition vehicle, why it will be gutless off-road, etc. All I can tell you is that after driving it nearly 3,000 miles and climbing several 4x4 hills (one about a mile long at 27 to 30% covered in loose bowling ball sized rocks) etc. I couldn't be happier with the transmission and the rear limited slip differential. I'm coming from a 2004 double cab Tacoma 4x4 with 4.88 differential gearing, 34" tires and lockers in both ends. The Fuso in first is about equal to the Tacoma in low range 2nd in real world driving which is fine for every place I've wanted to camp. If I was trying to rock crawl my EarthCruiser maybe I'd be less enthusiastic, but we didn't buy it for rock crawling. We bought it for long, unsupported trips into remote areas and the transmission has been perfect for that.

We have the 5.714 differential gearing with 315/75/16 tires. That set up seems perfect to us - running the 5.285 gearing with 34 - 35" tires would seem to sacrifice a lot of low gear 4x4 ability - if you're considering that I'd try to drive both before making your decision.

Howard L. Snell

Howard, thank you.
It is always nice to hear real-world experiences from drivers.
I'm glad it is working out so well for you, that is great to hear.

 

[Overland Hadley]

Colleagues:

I've seen a lot of speculation regarding why our 2014 4x4 FG with the 6 speed Duonic can't possibly be an expedition vehicle, why it will be gutless off-road, etc. All I can tell you is that after driving it nearly 3,000 miles and climbing several 4x4 hills (one about a mile long at 27 to 30% covered in loose bowling ball sized rocks) etc. I couldn't be happier with the transmission and the rear limited slip differential. I'm coming from a 2004 double cab Tacoma 4x4 with 4.88 differential gearing, 34" tires and lockers in both ends. The Fuso in first is about equal to the Tacoma in low range 2nd in real world driving which is fine for every place I've wanted to camp. If I was trying to rock crawl my EarthCruiser maybe I'd be less enthusiastic, but we didn't buy it for rock crawling. We bought it for long, unsupported trips into remote areas and the transmission has been perfect for that.

We have the 5.714 differential gearing with 315/75/16 tires. That set up seems perfect to us - running the 5.285 gearing with 34 - 35" tires would seem to sacrifice a lot of low gear 4x4 ability - if you're considering that I'd try to drive both before making your decision.

Howard L. Snell

Thank you for sharing your experience Howard. It is much appreciated.
Also thanks for letting us know what vehicle you have come from.

 

[DzlToy]

Unfortunately this means that the new US Fusos will not be a candidate for overland vehicle builds for some time, if ever. Since this was the one global COE platform sold in the US, what does that leave as an option for a global expedition vehicle platform?

Obviously, I am not the average consumer here, as i never understood this mentality, whether we are talking about a new Fuso, a new F550 or a new Unimog, the premise is the same.

Why would I go spend 50k on a new FG and then add 100k - 200k into building it (ATW, EC, GXV, custom build, etc) all-the-while being constrained by one axle ratio, no lockers, wet clutch transmission, no transfer case, weird bolt pattern, 29" frame rails, one wheelbase, uncomfortable seats, dated interior amenities, etc.?

Why not buy a 10 - 15 year old FG for 15 - 20k and spend 30k making it how you want? Why not buy a 1999 FE for $2,000 like a friend of mine just did, leaving you with $48,000 to spend on custom suspension, 4WD conversion, interior, super singles, etc.? Older FG's and FE's should be more serviceable if you are traveling outside the US, as opposed to something brand new that everyone may not be up to speed on or have the tools to service.

People who have 250k to buy an Earthcruiser Fuso wont care about this and EC will continue to buy new chassis as long as it meets their needs, so that is irrelevant IMO.

If I were in the market for a new FG, I have no doubts that I could build an FG cab and chassis that would run circles around the 2015 version. The modified version would trump the 2015 with real lockers and a real transfer case, no emissions crap to kill fuel economy and comfortable seats. There would be a myriad of choices for final drive gear, lockers, transfer cases and wheel/tires due to using common parts like Dana, Atlas, Wilwood, Spicer, Superior, etc. Best of all it would have an air ride suspension that doesnt cost $8,000 or ride like an ox cart like the OEM versions do.

Once you have that cab and chassis, you can do whatever you want with it, but dont handicap yourself from the start because you want to go to a stealership and plunk down 50k+ for a new FG that really isnt all that great for RTW or Expedition Grade travel in many ways (emissions, ULSD, DEF, lots of electronics, etc)

just my .03