Thread: Fuso Canter versus Isuzu

Again, I'm no expert in this area, but this was my take on why I ended up wanting the Canter rather than the Isuzu. However, I realise some of these points may attract debate!

The two main competitors in Australia for this segment of the market are the Fuso Canter and the Isuzu NPS.
In my opinion, the Fuso has significant advantages including:
o Isuzu has electronic transfer activation (Hi/Lo and 4WD) rather than lever/cable operation
o Isuzu requires DP filter on exhaust to meet ADR (Canter has only EGR and Catalytic converter), hence Isuzu:
 Cannot get any water in the exhaust, giving it a very poor wading depth
 More maintenance
 Special engine oil
 Potential fire risk during regeneration while vehicle is stationary
o Isuzu front anti-roll (front sway) bar is low and can be easily damaged. Canter has no anti-roll (front sway) bar which improves off-road wheel articulation
o Canter has best rear limited slip rear diff
o Canter has narrower chassis rails so more flex which means more wheel travel and better traction
o Isuzu has higher chassis so higher centre of gravity (COG)
o Canter is 200 kg lighter so can take more load before reaching GVM (Isuzu and Canter have same GVM)
o Canter has more torque
o Isuzu with the EC body on it would not fit into a standard 20 ft hightop shipping containers
o The Isuzu is not sold overseas in as many countries as the Canter (which is part of the Mercedes Group)
Bandicoot

However, I realize some of these points may attract debate!

You bet. I'll edit in some pics when I get the chance later. Going to bed.

The two main competitors in Australia for this segment of the market are the Fuso Canter and the Isuzu NPS.

The NPS v FG thread was started a few months back but I sort of gave up on the idea of continuing it. I really didn't want anyone getting the wrong idea (from me anyway) about wether or not one truck was better than another for the purpose of a camper conversion. One truck is far far better engineered. Every component on one when individually compared to the other, right down to the bolts that hold it together is better engineered, stronger and more comprehensive. That still doesn't mean that one is perfectly suited to a camper conversion. There is alot to consider and money is always an issue. One truck is around $10k more but you probably get much more than $10k worth of truck quality. If you intend to turn the vehicle over regularly maybe you don't need the extra $10K of truck.


Example.
Fueltanks.


Nps tank is rectangular and only 800mm long. FG is cylindrical and about 300mm longer so that's 300mm of bin length you loose if you're fitting bins anyway. That's alot when every spare inch is used.

NPS is 140 litres. Fg is 125 but because of the round shape only 115 is useable. 25 litres difference.

NPS is has a large locking filler cap. FG doesn't.

Now obviously one tank is a hands down winner over the other but you may intend to have custom made tanks fitted which makes the debate irrelevant anyway and you can certainly build a locking flap aver the cap but I hope you can see my point. The question of one being better than the other is a very complex "debate".

The audio unit in the NPS is the best thing ever, NAV, 3 camera inputs with split / touchscreen, bluetooth , phone, video, USB ports, etc. Probably worth $3k by itself. The new FG just upgraded to a CD from a cassette tape player in the previous 649 model. Laughable but see the difference. Again you may be planning an AVIC, VMS or PC based Nav system or similar so it could also be irrelevent too.



So hope you don't mind me throwing in my 2cents. I've been working on both of them for 8 years now and had a SWB Canter, an Isuzu, a 2wd FH Canter and a 10 ton Hino for the 4 years prior to that.

o Isuzu has electronic transfer activation (Hi/Lo and 4WD) rather than lever/cable operation

Ask Engineer about how many FG "transfer activation" cables he's had to repair after they've chaffed through on the crossmember. Was always an issue. Isuzu introduced electric/vauum activation on the FSS many years back and have only just introduced it to the current model NPS.



As a matter of fact, the NPS has always had cable activated gear selection. the FG only got it on the 84 model after doing away with the old linkages and rods. The FG is always one step behind. Did you now all the FG's will have Airbags from now on?

o Isuzu requires DP filter on exhaust to meet ADR (Canter has only EGR and Catalytic converter), hence Isuzu:
 Cannot get any water in the exhaust, giving it a very poor wading depth
 More maintenance
 Special engine oil
 Potential fire risk during regeneration while vehicle is stationary

The DPD is the big question mark alright. I really don't know how the FG can get away without it. The stuff that comes out of a common rail diesel exhaust is just so harmful. What's Fuso going to do about Euro V?. DPD? Urea? This is a big issue allright. NPS's have out sold FG's in the rural fire brigades and mining due to their fitment of airbags and now they are causing problems with the DPD's. The mining guys are sorting it out slowly and the fire brigades are apparently getting exemptions to loose the DPD's but what are we going to do? I'm hoping some of the NPS owners jump in here about the wading depth and safe operation of the DPD burn. Not sure about more maintenance?

o Isuzu front anti-roll (front sway) bar is low and can be easily damaged.

And can be disconnected in 5 minutes. Even quicker with "disconnects" fitted. Also offers excellent handling and reduces body roll. Very important for any truck with a high CoG and most of these things have been lifted too with different springs, tyres etc which makes it even more useful. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I haven't seen a damaged one yet either.

o Canter has best rear limited slip rear diff

Every part of the drive line on an Isuzu is heavier and stronger. The rear diffs are no exception and they very tight. If anything, too tight. Offroad they are fantastic but then so is the FG LSD. Why would you say this???

o Canter has narrower chassis rails so more flex which means more wheel travel and better traction

Canter rails and old model NPS's are 750mm apart. The current NPS went to 850mm, I believe to give wider base for mounting of bodies. This is a good thing. The bodies put less stress on the chassis during body roll. Gee, I thought this was one of the NPS's best features. It certainly gets the shock absorbers a lot closer to the wheel at the rear. Have a look at how close the rear shocks are together next time you're under an FG.

o Isuzu has higher chassis so higher centre of gravity (COG)

Again, debatable. Our last NPS ended up with the body 65mm lower than when we mount to an FG. On the next NPS we're going to lift it up to the same height as an FG cause we didn't get the rear wheel clearance we hoped for. The CoG of the body is theoretically no different. The only CoG difference would be the rear section of the chassis rails. Also the NPS is straight so you don't need the same heavy stringer setup as on an FG. Yeah. CoG is really debatable.

o Canter is 200 kg lighter so can take more load before reaching GVM (Isuzu and Canter have same GVM)

And the NPS is 200KG stronger. Mainly because the FG chassis is only 4.5 mm and the NPS is 6mm and is also a much bigger section. Sure on a 4.5Ton truck 4.5mm should be OK and you are right ESPECIALLY if you're trying to keep to a tight 4.5ton GVM limit. Also as I said before, everything on the NPS is bigger and there is just more gear like the sway bar mentioned, and the heat shield behind the cab, bigger brakes, etc. All good gear that the FG doesn't have. As an example >> FG tailshaft loose next to a NPS. See the size difference.

o Canter has more torque

Hey , everything I've written here is from my head, so if I get the fine detail wrong , please someone jump in. The FG has 470nm and the NPS only has .....420nm. At least that's what the brochures say. This is just plain misleading.

The FG84 engine is an awesome bit of kit when compared to past generations but 470 nm arrives with a bang. If you drive a new cab chassis at the dealers, man , they feel like a sports car. Very peaky. Drive the NPS and it certainly doesn't feel anything like it. Very tame by comparison. Load them both up to 6 ton and it's a very different story.
I've probably made over a 150 passes down the dragstrip in an FG and 75 or so in an NPS. Different size wheels, tyres and weights. At full 6ton GVM, the NPS is close to 15 to 20kms faster at the 400m (1/4mile) line.

OK, so how can the NPS with supposedly less torque do this???? They have variable turbo geometry. Insane engineering. The more I learn about it the more blown out I am. For example, they say they make turbo timers totally unnecessary cause they open up straightaway and take all the pressure off the vanes as soon you back off. Must make them last alot longer by this.....Anyway the result is an extremely wide torque curve. The 419nm is available from 1600rpm to 2600rpm. Incredible really. So when you're cruising at 100kph at around 2700rpm depending on you wheels you still have almost 420nm. A standard turbo cannot do this. Sure, a bigger turbo will produce more torque higher in the rev range but at the sacrifice of the bottom end. This is like swapping turbos on the go and in real time.

Compare the area of torque curves not just the peak figure. The variable turbo is so undersold and misunderstood. They are just awesome on big long hills. Again more electronics to go wrong but hopefully answers the statement of which actually has the most torque.

o Isuzu with the EC body on it would not fit into a standard 20 ft hightop shipping containers

Yeah I've heard that one before too. Sorry can't (and won't ever on ExPo) comment on the EC body but an NPS Isuzu WILL fit in a standard 20 ft hightop shipping container with someone else's body on it.

o The Isuzu is not sold overseas in as many countries as the Canter (which is part of the Mercedes Group)

If you are talking specifically about the NPS model, then probably not but Isuzu is one of the biggest truck manufacturer's in the world I couldn't say for sure about dealer locations but I'm guessing they don't sell so many trucks without plenty of dealers. In Australia they have by far the highest percentage of all truck sales and as of this year have held that title for last 20 years. I think it was more than a 1/3 of all truck sales. Fuso was in second place with about half as many sales as that but the gap had widened from the previous year. 3rd was Hino, then UD. Everyone else was way back. Sorry OT.

In the USA, Isuzu again claim more cab over sales than any other manufacturer. Now sure, the NPS isn't sold there but the NPR is and with much of the same parts (and more options than here). I know of at least one NPS owner planning a trip through SE Asia and beyond. He seems to think there will be more than enough dealer support. One of the reasons he chose the truck to begin with.

I doubt it would be hard to find parts or service personnel for either truck, no matter where you were.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I still haven't touched on cooling systems, brakes, chassis construction, EGRs, heat behind the cab, mirrors, aircleaners, suspensions, wheels, tyres (well the last 3 would hopefully be replaced anyway on either truck cause you wouldn't leave them on a good camper if you could afford it). Tried to be as honest as I can here. One thing I agree with that's been said on ExPo before about vehicle selection for a camper conversion is that truck / diesel mechanics (and I would add people in general with a background in the trucking industry) tend to buy Isuzu's in Australia. Drivers (even ex commercial drivers) and most stepping up from a typical Landcruiser type 4x4 buy Canters.

You hit the nail smack dead centre on the head with the last two sentences.

I would have thought that one of the main problems with the NPS is that it doesn't come in a short wheel base, especially for anyone wanting to keep to the 4.5T GVM.

Also the suspension upgrades are tried and proven on the Canter but seem to still be developmental for the NPS.

I would have thought that one of the main problems with the NPS is that it doesn't come in a short wheel base, especially for anyone wanting to keep to the 4.5T GVM.

Hi Wayne, Well sort of. Its more a case of the NPS being stronger (and heavier )than it needs to be when downrated to a 4.5t GVM (aka NPS 250). Because the new NPS doesn'n have a centre bearing and 2 piece tailshaft like the previous models and the MWB FG's, they would be really easy to cut down to any shorter wheelbase you like. Literally have the tailshaft shortened, slide the spring hangers forward and cut the end off.

The wheelbase of the new nodel is 3395mm . An FG MWB is 3460 ans the SWB is 2860mm ( I believe shorter than a Landcruiser BTW).

Also the suspension upgrades are tried and proven on the Canter but seem to still be developmental for the NPS.

This is true. Regarding the suspension, both the old NP's and all the FG's have undergone very minor changes (if any) from day 1. Engines and interior etc, have had improvements with each new model. With the new model NPS , they basically wiped the drawing board clean and started from scratch. No carry over components that I can see except maybe the diffs. Not sure. That's left every one scratching their heads a bit.

If you were talking about standard suspension, that'd be different. One truck clearly has much more load carrying capacity although on paper they are both 6ton. No matter what, as far as a camper conversion is concerned, both trucks as standard do not provide a ride that you could describe as pleasant.

Hi John,

Understand what you are saying but wouldn't shortening the tailshaft increase the angles..would that induce other problems/wear? The other issue with shortening an NPS of course is the $'s..just makes an already more expensive truck even more expensive.

I am looking at it purely from a camper conversion point of view.
It just doesn't seem to me that there are "in developement" projects, no one has really come up with a good NPS suspension setup that has been road tested and given the big thumbs up.

If I am wrong it might be enough to swing me back to the NPS!!

Again from a camper conversion perspective, most of us are not going to do 1,000,000 kms. A lot of what we will do is hard k's in the bush but 150,000- 200,000 kms takes you around Oz more times than I can calculate so the relevant issue is .... in that scenario, is the NPS worth the extra $'s, or would you be better off spending the extra $'s on a suspension kit for the Canter.

I guess in 4WD terms where I am coming from, it is very much a Toyota Landcruiser/Nissan Patrol argument. Both were hard as nails but the Patrol 10k cheaper.I was never let down by my Patrols.

Hey John,
Might wan to be careful cutting down that exhaust, very touchy subject matter.
Something about it changing the DP and stuffing it allup. Might be wrong though.
The other cause for concern is Isuzus, change it and no warranty issue.
I hope they upgraded the diffs, which I'm sure they have the fss diff in the NPS now, the old one was as weak as .....

I hope they upgraded the diffs, which I'm sure they have the fss diff in the NPS now, the old one was as weak as .....

Yeah, you can just see it next to the tailshaft in the pics. Notice all the extra webbing on the outside. I think it's the same as the 10ton FSS. Actaully I think the whole driveline is. So that means an NPS 250 is running a driveline rated at more than double what it needs to be. Isn't that overkill??

I know a FSS computer and DPD will drop straight in and give 205hp. One of the dealers did it for a guy I know and it was still covered under warranty. That's how detuned they are.

Anyway, I always thought the earlier model diffs were a bit too tight for the road and copped more of a flogging from tight turns on the bitumen. More suited to offroad. One day someone will bring out a proper airlocker for all these trucks and we won't have to think about LSD clutch packs ever again.

Might wan to be careful cutting down that exhaust, very touchy subject matter.
Something about it changing the DP and stuffing it allup. Might be wrong though.

No. You are right. They are OK to re run from the DPD choke (looks like a 2nd exhaust brake) to the tailpipe but all bends have to be long radius and the length is obviously tuned. Also the outlet has to face rearwards or the air pressure will give the DPD sensors a false reading.

Yeah I know what you're thinking but hey, it is the future now and this is only just the beginning of emmissions control. Wait till Euro V hits (next year I was told).

Chocko, I'd just be really happy with an old FG 637 or '02 NPS like "1 Engine" but you can't stop what's coming.

Understand what you are saying but wouldn't shortening the tailshaft increase the angles..would that induce other problems/wear?

Not sure about that. The angle on the NPS is really flat as standard. The MWB FG transfer case output shaft setup to take the flat angle of the first half of the tailshaft. When they build a SWB all they do is remove the first half of the shaft, centre bearing and that crossmember so the SWB final tailshaft ends up at quite an angle but I don't believe it's ever been an issue on them.

The other issue with shortening an NPS of course is the $'s..just makes an already more expensive truck even more expensive.

Yep. Dead right. I wouldn't touch it anyway but then I prefer the longer wheelbase FG too. If you interested they both have a turning circle of 13.6m and the SWB is 11.4. Wayne, bottom line is if you wanted to shorten an NPS, you could and I don't think it would be a hard job for any workshop. We just stretched an FG 500 mm last week. Took a couple of days and that would have been a lot more involved.

I am looking at it purely from a camper conversion point of view.
It just doesn't seem to me that there are "in developement" projects, no one has really come up with a good NPS suspension setup that has been road tested and given the big thumbs up.

Not yet. Plenty of stuff going on behind the scenes though. The FG definitely lends it to far more modification. Judging by your H3 you aren't going to keep things too standard anyway.

Again from a camper conversion perspective, most of us are not going to do 1,000,000 kms. A lot of what we will do is hard k's in the bush but 150,000- 200,000 kms takes you around Oz more times than I can calculate so the relevant issue is .... in that scenario, is the NPS worth the extra $'s, or would you be better off spending the extra $'s on a suspension kit for the Canter.

Again Wayne, you can see how complex the issue can be. One truck is better in most aspects but does that count when you intend to upgrade the suspension anyway. Does it matter if the NPS comes with these cool 17" tubeless Michelin XZT's and the FG still has split rims and Bridgestones when it's almost a given that you'll go with super singles too.

I

guess in 4WD terms where I am coming from, it is very much a Toyota Landcruiser/Nissan Patrol argument. Both were hard as nails but the Patrol 10k cheaper.I was never let down by my Patrols.

There you go. I was always let down by LC's but never a Nissan.

Yeah, you can just see it next to the tailshaft in the pics. Notice all the extra webbing on the outside. I think it's the same as the 10ton FSS. Actaully I think the whole driveline is. So that means an NPS 250 is running a driveline rated at more than double what it needs to be. Isn't that overkill??

If you look at the specs the rear axle is rated at 6.6T! i think it must be out of an FSS, just shortened a bit.

Compare the area of torque curves not just the peak figure. The variable turbo is so undersold and misunderstood. They are just awesome on big long hills. Again more electronics to go wrong but hopefully answers the statement of which actually has the most torque.

My basic understanding of the VGT (variable geometry turbo) is that inside the exhaust housing it has fins or vanes which turn in order to change the direction and efficiency the exhaust flows onto the turbine, effectively changing the A/R ratio (giving a small ratio at low rpm, low flow, and a big A/R for high boost and flow).
The main reason they are very undersold is because for an aftermarket setup they are difficult to setup (due to the extensive electronics involved). However, i believe that the first Holset VGT's were not electronic, but operated via springs and air pressure (somehow).
Anyhow, as far as aftermarket, most guys chasing this kind of torque curve opt for twin turbos, setup in 'compound', which seems to suit diesels very well. also much cooler...

Oh yeah RE wheelbases;
we've had a 'shorty' canter, and now ive got a dualcab LWB. The SWB definetly has the advantage in maneuverability and tight offroad situations, but the LWB is much more stable on road, and on dirt (the SWB is a bit twitchy, will flick around if your not careful... but the LWB i have now will literally outrun my mates '80 series cruiser on a twisty dirt track...;P ).
As far as my opinion on best wheelbase, i think my next rig will be about 3150mm.