Fuso 3.0 , Duonic transmission, SCR ?

jhrodd

Adventurer
Does anyone have personal experience with the current Fuso drive train and emissions equipment ? I see that they get the 3 litre and twin clutch auto "down under" but manual only on the FG. Do their engines utilize SCR? The brochure only mentions a DPF. SCR has been well received in the NA heavy truck market with significant fuel efficiency gains and greatly reduced or eliminated active DPF regeneration. I wonder if that holds true for the medium duty segment?


I see that Isuzu has their own 3.0L Eco-max that they sell alongside the 5.2L . They claim that on their recent promo tour the Eco-max with an aero body got 19 mpg driving from Central California over the Grapevine around SoCal ( stop and go ) and back to Northern CA . That was loaded to 12,000 lbs and with an Aisin auto transmission. They also claim they managed 53 mph over the grapevine at that weight. That's pretty impressive I wonder if the new Fuso can match it?

ecomax.jpg
 

Ian Smith

New member
The Fuso Canter in the United States market is junk.

Does anyone have personal experience with the current Fuso drive train and emissions equipment ? I see that they get the 3 litre and twin clutch auto "down under" but manual only on the FG. Do their engines utilize SCR? The brochure only mentions a DPF. SCR has been well received in the NA heavy truck market with significant fuel efficiency gains and greatly reduced or eliminated active DPF regeneration. I wonder if that holds true for the medium duty segment?


I see that Isuzu has their own 3.0L Eco-max that they sell alongside the 5.2L . They claim that on their recent promo tour the Eco-max with an aero body got 19 mpg driving from Central California over the Grapevine around SoCal ( stop and go ) and back to Northern CA . That was loaded to 12,000 lbs and with an Aisin auto transmission. They also claim they managed 53 mph over the grapevine at that weight. That's pretty impressive I wonder if the new Fuso can match it?

View attachment 135737

In the US market the Fuso Canter is junk. First they take an underpowered 3.0 liter and hang on the US EPA emissions, then team it up with the Duonic. All 4000 Canters sold with the Duonic are having the transmissions replaced and rebuilt. Numerous time consuming recalls. In addition you must choose a rear axle ratio at purchase. A low numeric number and the truck is ok on flat lands, would not peel the skin off of rice pudding on a hill. Higher numeric number helps, but still would be beat by a 20 year old YUGO and kills your fuel economy although already bad on flat lands. Fuel economy is a joke since you need to keep your foot into it all the time. Enter a freeway where traffic is going 60 MPG or 120 KM and you will not get there till your coffee is cold. The passenger seat has less foam in it than my pillow and it has a metal bar in the back of your spine that requires you to bring your pillow. Cab trim is about the worse I have seen. This may be an OK vehicle for the 3rd world, but does not hold a candle to the Isuzu product.
 

jhrodd

Adventurer
Ian, Thanks for the candid opinion. Why do I get the feeling that you won't be getting a Christmas Card this year from the good folks at Mitsubishi?
 

HowardH

Adventurer
Even more importantly how does someone from South Africa have so much knowledge of the performance of US sold vehicles?

100% failure rate on transmissions? Really? Where do you get your information?
 

whatcharterboat

Supporting Sponsor, Overland Certified OC0018
In the US market the Fuso Canter is junk. First they take an underpowered 3.0 liter and hang on the US EPA emissions, then team it up with the Duonic. All 4000 Canters sold with the Duonic are having the transmissions replaced and rebuilt. Numerous time consuming recalls. In addition you must choose a rear axle ratio at purchase. A low numeric number and the truck is ok on flat lands, would not peel the skin off of rice pudding on a hill. Higher numeric number helps, but still would be beat by a 20 year old YUGO and kills your fuel economy although already bad on flat lands. Fuel economy is a joke since you need to keep your foot into it all the time. Enter a freeway where traffic is going 60 MPG or 120 KM and you will not get there till your coffee is cold. The passenger seat has less foam in it than my pillow and it has a metal bar in the back of your spine that requires you to bring your pillow. Cab trim is about the worse I have seen. This may be an OK vehicle for the 3rd world, but does not hold a candle to the Isuzu product.

Wow...that's a bit harsh and that's coming from me, a staunch Isuzu fan,

....and I stress this is my opinion only but I could not disagree more about the two points you made...... the best thing by far about the current FUSO is the 3.0 litre engine and it's incredibly wide power curve and rpm range......and the worst thing by far on the Isuzu ( and there is really very little to complain about otherwise) is amazingly the foam in the passenger seat....at least the FUSO has a framed squab...the Isuzu is only a thin piece of foam on top of the engine cover..... I know cause i just did 900km road trip in an Isuzu passenger seat two weeks ago and spent the whole time trying not to end up on the floor.....absolutley zero support under your thighs. Luckily someone has aftermarket solutions. BTW The FUSO driver's seat is fine but I am told Isuzu are opting for a similar sprung suspension seat next year too.

As far as the trim goes, the current Fuso is a big improvement over the earlier models and likewise Isuzu certainly raised the bar back around 2008 from the earlier N Series but not sure that they are that dissimilar now in 2012....I still prefer the Isuzu interior but that's personal taste not based on one being " junk".

Only driven one Duonic when they first came out on the 2wd FE earlier this year......honestly thought it was great although the test vehicle was very lightly laden. I am very keen to try a new North American Duonic FG next year and I think they'd be a good option here in Australian FGs's.

Anyway, welcome to the forum even if you're you really an Isuzu salesman in disguise.
 
Last edited:

westyss

Explorer
"Anyway, welcome to the forum even if you're you really an Isuzu salesman in disguise. "

Too funny!

By the way, 60mph is 96.56 km/h and not 120km/h, that was why it took you so long to get there:)
 

Amesz00

Adventurer
....and I stress this is my opinion only but I could not disagree more about the two points you made...... the best thing by far about the current FUSO is the 3.0 litre engine and it's incredibly wide power curve and rpm range.....

you reckon?? ive only driven 2 of the new 3L FG's, bout 10 months ago, but found them horrifically slow... and i dont even know why they bothered fitting an exhaust brake, you cant tell when its on!
and i have always preferred the fuso!
 

whatcharterboat

Supporting Sponsor, Overland Certified OC0018
Didn't we have this conversation over pasta the other night?....hahaha.....answer is still the same. Push the pedal down further. They'll rev to 4250rpm or something stupid...... Hahaha.
 
Last edited:

pajero4u

New member
Ihave a fuso 815 7500 gvm RUBBISH 3 sam units ,1 turbo 2 sets of injectors, gearbox failure plus to many failures to mention these trucks are rubbish and could not pull the skin off a rice pudding
Even more importantly how does someone from South Africa have so much knowledge of the performance of US sold vehicles?

100% failure rate on transmissions? Really? Where do you get your information?
 

pajero4u

New member
Ian Smith is right these trucks are RUBBISH under power and the duonic gearbox is crap
Wow...that's a bit harsh and that's coming from me, a staunch Isuzu fan,

....and I stress this is my opinion only but I could not disagree more about the two points you made...... the best thing by far about the current FUSO is the 3.0 litre engine and it's incredibly wide power curve and rpm range......and the worst thing by far on the Isuzu ( and there is really very little to complain about otherwise) is amazingly the foam in the passenger seat....at least the FUSO has a framed squab...the Isuzu is only a thin piece of foam on top of the engine cover..... I know cause i just did 900km road trip in an Isuzu passenger seat two weeks ago and spent the whole time trying not to end up on the floor.....absolutley zero support under your thighs. Luckily someone has aftermarket solutions. BTW The FUSO driver's seat is fine but I am told Isuzu are opting for a similar sprung suspension seat next year too.

As far as the trim goes, the current Fuso is a big improvement over the earlier models and likewise Isuzu certainly raised the bar back around 2008 from the earlier N Series but not sure that they are that dissimilar now in 2012....I still prefer the Isuzu interior but that's personal taste not based on one being " junk".

Only driven one Duonic when they first came out on the 2wd FE earlier this year......honestly thought it was great although the test vehicle was very lightly laden. I am very keen to try a new North American Duonic FG next year and I think they'd be a good option here in Australian FGs's.

Anyway, welcome to the forum even if you're you really an Isuzu salesman in disguise.
 

pajero4u

New member
No just in US i have one of these trucks in Australia F*&^%$# Crap
In the US market the Fuso Canter is junk. First they take an underpowered 3.0 liter and hang on the US EPA emissions, then team it up with the Duonic. All 4000 Canters sold with the Duonic are having the transmissions replaced and rebuilt. Numerous time consuming recalls. In addition you must choose a rear axle ratio at purchase. A low numeric number and the truck is ok on flat lands, would not peel the skin off of rice pudding on a hill. Higher numeric number helps, but still would be beat by a 20 year old YUGO and kills your fuel economy although already bad on flat lands. Fuel economy is a joke since you need to keep your foot into it all the time. Enter a freeway where traffic is going 60 MPG or 120 KM and you will not get there till your coffee is cold. The passenger seat has less foam in it than my pillow and it has a metal bar in the back of your spine that requires you to bring your pillow. Cab trim is about the worse I have seen. This may be an OK vehicle for the 3rd world, but does not hold a candle to the Isuzu product.
 

McCulloch

New member
I own two 2012 Canters and unfortunately I have to agree with the other posters as to reliability. The 125 has 6,000 miles on it and the 160 has 16,000. Both have had transmissions replaced. The 160 has had an inframe engine rebuild due to internal part breakage. Both have experience 10+ service calls for DPF issues and various electrical issues. The good news is that my dealer, which has put sales of new Fusos on hold until issues are resolved, has been great. I have also heard, from what I consider reliable sources, that the transmission failure rate is 100%. All owners I have spoken with have had transmissions replaced. Not repaired, reflashed, adjusted but replaced. The transmission is still an adventure to use. For example when rolling uphill slowly the transmission will stay in 3rd gear. Depressing the throttle to accelerate will cause the transmission to "think" and not shift down. The engine RPM will not increase, the transmission will not downshift and the truck will slow, stop and roll backwards. All the while your right foot is pressed on the mat. Other drivers I have spoken with consider this truck dangerous to drive, particularly with drivers that are not expecting the unusual characteristics of the truck. The engine is underpowered but for the urban pick up and delivery market with relatively inexperienced drivers I see this as an advantage. ECO mode on the transmission makes an already slow truck undriveable. Manual does say only use ECO when the truck is unloaded. Fuel mileage on both trucks is 14 or 15 mpg imperial. Maneuverability is excellent as is the payload capacity with a cab/chassis weight of, from memory, under 5500 lbs. Exhaust brake works well and should increase brake life. Fix the DPF, transmission and electrical gremlins and this will be a great truck for urban use. Would I take one off road or more than 50 miles from a dealer? Not a chance in hell.
 

John E Davies

Adventurer
I own two 2012 Canters and unfortunately I have to agree with the other posters as to reliability.
Do you mind telling us where you live? And do you know if these transmission/ emissions issues are worldwide?

I have to admit that hearing this stuff is disheartening. I think the engineering is cool, but only if it actually works.

How could a major player like Mitsubishi screw it up so badly? Didn't they do exhaustive testing?

Oh wait.... now I remember. Mitsubishi has sure screwed up it's US car market, by offering dated junk instead of competitive, well built designs..... but since their current US market share is just 0.4% (and falling), it won't hurt their corporate bottom line. http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/12/mitsubishis-crazy-plan-for-america/

John Davies
Spokane WA USA
 
Last edited:

Forum statistics

Threads
186,786
Messages
2,890,162
Members
227,012
Latest member
dalewelsh
Top