Fuso FG not made for off-road

kerry

Expedition Leader
I guess the fact that the truck is not completed is not a great surprise given the progress photos we have been seeing. I find it very irritating when people fail to meet promised deadlines but in my experience, there are a lot of people in the various trades, who seem completely oblivious to the fact that they fail to meet deadlines. Don't see many options available other than waiting.
Curious as to what others think of the price. I haven't paid to have things fabricated myself, and I'm pretty frugal, so I gulped at the price.

Are the X sections at each end designed to stop the frame from flexing?
 
Last edited:

Terrainist

Explorer
About a 2 foot section of the right subframe rail looks to have half of it removed. Maybe to clear something on the camper. Right behind the drop down in the photo. Looks like a substantial portion has been removed.

Will be good to see how this design fares, using bushings. I know they can have lots of deflection, shock load dampening. Looks like the bushings, and what they attach to, will be well tested.
 

haven

Expedition Leader
I agree that it's a little too easy to say, "The frame is twisted,
so the vehicle must have been used in a way the manufacturer
did not intend."

My understanding is that Michel's driving is not so much "off-road"
as it is "off-pavement." Many of the secondary roads he travels in
Baja are unpaved and rough. With the exception of the distance
from the road to the places near the beach where Michel sets up
camp, Michel stays on some semblance of road.

The more important issue is how to attach a camper box to the
Fuso FG chassis without increasing the potential for damage to the
frame. Michel's camper had a three point attachment, with the
pivot at the rear. Doug Hackney's Fuso camper also attaches at
three points, with the pivot in the rear. We know that Doug's vehicle
was overweight. We don't know if Michel's vehicle is over the Fuso's
GVWR.

Darrin Fink's Fuso AATREK also has a multi-point mount with the
pivot in the rear. There are no reports of problems with his design.
Darrin's AATREK is right at the Fuso GVWR, if I remember correctly.

Carl Hunter's Fuso has the pivot in the front, and two fixed points
of attachment in the rear, behind the axle. His camper worked fine
during many thousands of miles of rough road travel. Carl's Fuso
was well under the 14,000 lb GVWR.

Bruce Hersey's Fuso has two rigid points of attachment at the rear,
and two airbags at the front. No chassis problems reported, but
fewer miles traveled than the above examples.

Chip Haven
 

Terrainist

Explorer
Paint looks good. Camper is close to getting mounted. The oblong holes in the mounting brackets on the camper are unique, I guess to provide more movement for the camper if need be.

Won't be long now....
 

dzzz

What would be the condition of Michel FG if the camper had been conventionally mounted when new? There must be people who just stick the box on and drive off for their world tour.
 

Terrainist

Explorer
Checked the blog;
Truck was delivered, camper on, presumably ready to go. Problems were found with the camper and subframe mounting. Truck was taken back to the fab shop to get fixed. Michel checked into a hospital for an undisclosed mental disorder.

Okay, just joking about that last part.

Maybe we will get an update.
 

KMTC

New member
some modifications needed

We actually thought that the sub frame was allowing the camper to sit 1 inch lower on the left and in fact after much measuring found that the camper built by Santek was actually one inch longer front to rear on the left side which when you looked at it from the rear it appeared to be leaning, however this was not so. The truck and camper are sitting level at all 4 corners I am happy to say. However there were some minor fixes needed. 1. The fresh water tank was rubbing the sub frame in one small area. 2. 2 of the bushings had wedged them selves out and have to be adjusted, and 3. a spacer put between the sub frame and actual frame at the front. The truck was driven yesterday and was very pleasant to drive, and does not feel like its going to roll over everytime you turn the corner. The suspension is now doing the work and the frame is no longer twisting. YAY! Success.
 

kerry

Expedition Leader
I agree the subframe should be resting on the frame. However, I think Bruce's system (also used on lots of truck bodies) of a piece of oak between the frame and the subframe would be a better solution than a metal to metal interface. Given that you have a space between the two now, installing a wood interface should not be that difficult. If you don't want a wood interface, the bolts could be removed, the subframe allowed to settle on to the frame, a new piece of steel welded over the hole in the bracket and a new hole drilled in the proper place. That would only be possible if the subframe is exactly a match to the frame and can settle down on top of it. The fact that the front section is 1" high suggests the match is not exact.
Don't know what to say about the differential angles of cab and camper. As I understand your description, if the front of the subframe were to rest on the frame the triangle would be accentuated.

Do you have any pictures?
 

KMTC

New member
Corrections

True there is an angle front to rear of the camper to the sub frame, and this is in relation to the way the under framing of the camper done by Santek. When parked on level ground the camper is 100% level at all four corners. This was observed at our dealership by the fabricator, myself, and the owner. So again the under framing of the camper by Santek is where the errors are. Not what Eric Fergusson has done. Also, there is no gap between the frame and sub frame from the drop down to the rear. That is a false claim. There was a gap at the front and through the drop down to allow minimal flex, and was part of the design. However Michel Does not like this and we are adding a spacer. The gap is not 1 inch, it is 1/4". The sub frame was clamped to the frame and then the holes for the mounting tabs were then drilled for the fastening bolts. This build was a success. The suspension is now doing the work and the chassis is no longer twisting excessively.
 
Ron Lucero from Kearny Mesa Truck Centre writes "The sub frame was clamped to the frame and then the holes for the mounting tabs were then drilled for the fastening bolts."

These images show that the subframe was put on the frame of the Fuso Szulc and that the mounting tabs were bolted to the truck frame before the camper box was on top pressing the subframe against the truck frame.
 

Attachments

  • _DSC3914.jpg
    _DSC3914.jpg
    469.5 KB · Views: 144
  • _DSC3914:a.jpg
    _DSC3914:a.jpg
    834.5 KB · Views: 132
  • _DSC3914:b.jpg
    _DSC3914:b.jpg
    379.7 KB · Views: 134
Ron Lucero of Kearny Mesa Truck Centre writes:

"There was a gap at the front and through the drop down to allow minimal flex, and was part of the design. However Michel Does not like this and we are adding a spacer."

The pictures in the above posting show that about 30 to 40 % of the weight of the camper box is carried by two mounting tabs only.
One on each side of the truck frame.
Each bolted with two bolts.
Because the sub frame is floating above that part of the truck frame, that 30 to 40 % of the weight of the camper box concentrates on one particular spot of the truck frame.
While the whole concept of the subframe is to distribute weight evenly.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
186,373
Messages
2,885,133
Members
226,303
Latest member
guapstyle
Top