2012 Canter FG details

Amesz00

Adventurer
I would almost bet any engine running DEF instead of EGR would get better MPG. Especially if the EGR had to meet new Euro5 standards and would therefore be pulling an even higher percentage exhaust gas back into the engine than they are currently at Euro 4.

John, pretty sure it is EGR + SCR (bluetec)

http://www.truckinginfo.com/news/news-detail.asp?news_id=72372&news_category_id=44

The smaller displacement engine may get better mpg, too.

i am yet to be convinced by this- all things being equal (which obviously they are not) engine displacement should make zero difference, because whatever motor is in it, it still takes x nm of torque to push the truck through the wind, the only difference should be in the BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) of the engine, basicly how efficiently it turns fuel into power at a certain rpm. but the way i see it, if it takes a constant 250nm to push the truck through the wind at 100km/h, that 250nm will be made more easily by a 4.9L than a 3L.
 

dtruzinski

4 Season Traveller
More discussion on the merits or lack of for the 2012

I agree...torque is the magic number and the 2012's 295 ft/lbs seems like a major issue for those wanting to use the carrying capacity of the truck.

On the plus side, the massive 5.71 LS option seems like a real benefit. This might have to do with the fact that they have now put in an AT and don't have a low enough first gear. Does anyone have the MT gear ratios for the prior models 2008-2010? Also, if anyone can source the gear ratios of the new AT, we can start to get a better theoretical feel for the performance of the new truck.
 

mog

Kodiak Buckaroo
Does anyone have the MT gear ratios for the prior models 2008-2010?

2004 and prior
Axle----5.714
2005 and later
Axle----4.875


2004 and prior
Transmission-------Overall reduction

1st----5.380----30.741
2nd----3.028----17.302
3rd----1.700----9.714
4th----1.009----5.765
5th----0.722----4.126

Tire Diameter (inches) 31.7 Circumference = 99.59
 
Last edited:

dzzz

Max. torque (SAE, gross) 295 lb.-ft. @ 1600 rpm

That is going to be a negative for off road. Even if there's a extra gear. The torque curve will be interesting to see. It may be somewhat disappointing too, considering the reduced displacement.
Does the horsepower number matter?
 

dtruzinski

4 Season Traveller
Thanks Mog...now it seems that the paper specs of the 2012 are closer to the 2004 (and earlier)...the 5.71's are back and the torque is down. Hmmm really want to drive one loaded down to see how the truck performs.

If it can pull the load, eliminating the need for clutch replacements and the 18k miles service interval, might make this worth considering

I do have experience with the dual clutch auto...my other car is a 2008 EVO MR X. It has a wickedly fast shifting auto that can be paddle shifted.
 

Amesz00

Adventurer
Does the horsepower number matter?

not greatly in this situation, seeing as power is only a mathematical function of torque and rpm. the engine has less torque, but being smaller can rev higher, so more power is produced.
 

GaryD

New member
I am new to all this but it seems to me that having more torque rather than hp is what you need to get the vehicle started - as when making the effort to start a loaded camper up a rocky incline (or out of some off road situation). However looking at the engine torque in isolation does not tell me much as I would think you need to know the engine torque, the low or creeping gear in the transmission and the final drive ratio to figure out torque delivered at the wheels where the effort is finally applied.

If I am not wrong about that (and I might be - someone correct me) then wouldn't the new Canter engine provide the same torque at the wheels as the older higher torque models if the gearing in the drive train has been lowered to compensate?

...........Gary (complete rookie to 4x4 vehicles)
 

DzlToy

Explorer
there are several things to consider here:

one is engine torque at low rpm, like clutch engagement when you start pulling a load or you are inching along in traffic or through a parking lot

two is peak torque both in number and in RPM

third is area under curve and fourth is torque at wheel, which is affected by gearing and tire size.

Some medium duty and heavy trucks quote torque at clutch engagement. I have never seen this for Fuso. It is usually a very low rpm, like under 1000. This tells you a lot about the characteristics of the motor as the turbos have not built boost yet and the engine is not revving or into its power band.

Torque peak for a Cummins ISB is around the 1600-2000 RPM mark in a stock motor. After this RPM, torque will stay the same or begin to drop. This is not the HP peak, but the torque peak. Now I know people will chime in and say their engine makes this or that at this RPM, but we are talking very basic/general concepts here.

Area under curve has to be figured using calculus and basically tells you what the power band feels like. You can have a torque curve that looks like a skateboard ramp from the X-Games with 1000 pound feet of torque at the peak, but the truck is going to drive like crap because of where the torque peak is and the shape of the curve. You want a torque curve that is relatively flat or gently climbing and dropping, while a HP curve should look like a hill or mountain, climbing steadily and gradually from point to point. A motor making 500 foot pounds of torque at 1600 rpm is going to feel very different than a motor making 500 foot pounds of torque at 5000 rpm, like a turbo charged gasoline engine might. So 500 foot pounds is not just 500 foot pounds.

Finally, engine torque only tells part of the story on what you feel and how the truck behaves. A good example is a stock Landcruiser with stock tires and then a lift kit and 38" tires on the same truck. The engine numbers have not changed and the gear ratio has not changed but the behaviour of the truck will. It will feel very slow and sluggish. The opposite will happen if you installed a 6.17 ring gear into a stock truck. Great performance off road, RPMs will rise quickly and you will have much more torque at the wheels as a result of gear/torque multiplication, but your RPMs will be screaming when you are driving down the hwy. Torque multiplication and driving characteristics on and off road can also be tuned with transmission or transfer case gears.

It is therefore possible to lower peak engine torque between models, lower gear ratio (5.29 to 5.71 for example) and have the same torque at the rear tires, which is what you feel pulling a load. It gets kind of complicated and you still have less torque from the motor, but its all about how and where that tells the true story of drivability. If your truck had an automatic transmission things like torque converter efficiency, slip or locked up, etc will also affect drivability.

So, the simple answer is they need to be compared back to back in a shoot out and you really need to go drive one to see how it behaves because a PDF or chart only tells a very small part of the story.

For the technically minded, HP is a completely man made number, its made up. It could just as well be fluggelbinders. Torque is a moment acting on something, a twisting force or a leveraging force. Using a simple equation HP is calculated from torque and RPM. HP is work over time. If you look at the two extremes you may understand better. HP = (TQ x RPM)/5252

A race car like an Indy Car or Formula One car makes incredibly high (800-900) hp and comparatively low (200-300 foot pounds) torque. The reason is two fold. One they dont need torque to move a 1500 pound race car down a track really fast and two the torque numbers are actually pretty constant but the engines rev as high as 18,000 RPM. So using the HP equation its easy to see that HP is a function of RPM. Want more power, rev the engine higher. This is an isolated example but a simple explanation of how 900 hp is achieved from a 2.4L Naturally aspirated V8 engine.

Now the other side of that is a big over the road truck, an 18 wheeler or a Lorry. Those trucks probably only make 300-400hp, accompanied by 1000 - 2000 foot pounds of torque, probably very low in the RPM range.

One reason is basically the same as above with the F1 car. Heavy truck engines dont rev very high at all, so they dont have an opportunity to make high HP. Making high HP at low RPM is pretty tough. Making torque at low RPM however is pretty easy. Trucks operate at low RPM, high torque for pulling loads, trailers, towing a boat, whatever. An F1 car would be terrible at this even though it makes 900HP. Trucks typically have low gears all around as well (transmission and rear axle) You would hardly ever see a heavy truck with a 3:1 first gear or 3.73 in a ring gear because the torque multiplication would be lost. They may have a 13:1 first gear and a 7 something or 6 something ring gear. They have huge running gear to put (potentially) a hundred thousand foot pounds of torque (or more) to the wheels. That is what it takes to move 60-100k pounds down the road.
 
Last edited:

mog

Kodiak Buckaroo
there are several things to consider here:..........
..
DANG, Thanks ! Boy did I get some easy to understand 'knowledge' today :Wow1:
But I still want to know how to make my '02 Fuso FG cruise at 65 mph getting 18 mpg, O....and getting the pretty girls to wave to it.
 

GaryD

New member
Eating fluggelbinders is wasteful if you might need them to help get you out of a muddy hole! So I guess we need a shoot out to see which truck uses it's fluggelbinders most efficiently in the real world.

Thanks for the explanation DzlToy - it confirms what I was thinking........ Gary
 

mog

Kodiak Buckaroo
Also, if anyone can source the gear ratios of the new AT, we can start to get a better theoretical feel for the performance of the new truck.

I've already posted the manual transmission ratios for the earlier model(s) in this thread (those came from the sales brochures).
I found the ratios for the automatic transmission (2000-2001) in the service manual (Thanks Kerry!!!), so I figured I post those here also.
(The 2012 A/T is list as a Mitsubishi Fuso DUONIC 6-speed OD AMT, so no were near the same as below)

2000, 2001 Automatic Transmission
Manufacturer-Aisin Seiki Co., Ltd.
Transmission type- M035A4
Torque converter-3 element, 1-stage, 2-phase (with lock-up clutch)
Stall torque ratio- 1.82

Type Planetary gear type, 4 forward speeds, 1 reverse speed
Gear ratio
1st- 3.018
2nd- 1.548
3rd- 1.000
4th- (FE) 0.703 (FG)0.765
Rev. 2.678
 

Forum statistics

Threads
187,963
Messages
2,900,438
Members
229,233
Latest member
cwhit5
Top