Fuso FG not made for off-road

[Michel Szulc Krzyzanowski]

Ron Lucero of Mitsubishi Kearny Mesa Truck Centres informs:
"The pivot is just too much flex for the Fuso chassis. In any event, this chassis was not designed for the style of off road they are being used for. They were designed more for extreme construction sites."

Also the Fuso Szulc has proven the point Ron Lucero makes is true.
Within two years the chassis of the Fuso Szulc is twisted and deformed.
If nothing is done it will break just as the chassis of Doug Hackney's Fuso FG did.

These days the Fuso Szulc has its chassis changed from flexible to rigid.
This process is documented and explanations and images can be seen on:
www.michelszulckrzyzanowski.blogspot.com

[haven]

Wow! This is not sounding good at all. Michel, thanks for taking the time to document the repair. It will help others avoid the problems you are experiencing. Do you know the weight of your vehicle? How many miles have you driven in the camper?

Perhaps our Australian members can comment on how long the Fuso FG chassis lasts when used as an off-road tour bus.

Chip Haven

[kerry]

I don't see the pictures either. Do you mean it will be documented as opposed to already being documented?
Yes, the info on weight, miles and the kinds of roads you have been driving in addition to the kind of pivot mount you have would be very helpful.
Seems odd that the Aussies have been using FG's under what appears to be pretty extreme conditions for quite a few years apparently without these kinds of problems.

[haven]

I think the blog will display photos and description of the repair next week, after the work starts.

[Joaquin Suave]

Seems odd that the Aussies have been using FG's under what appears to be pretty extreme conditions for quite a few years apparently without these kinds of problems

Agree'd! Its always easier to blame someone else for your troubles...Especially when you don't know what your doing!

[kerry]

I'm pretty sure Ron Lucero posts on here and is very familiar with the Hackney's problems in addition to Michel's problems, so I wouldn't dismiss his opinion lightly. I'm pretty sure no construction body on a Fuso will have a pivot frame, so the issue could be the mounting systems and not the frame itself. I'd be willing to bet that most construction bodies spread the load over the full length of the Fuso frame which could make a big difference. I think some Aussie designs do a similar thing.

[mog]

Seems odd that the Aussies have been using FG's under what appears to be pretty extreme conditions for quite a few years apparently without these kinds of problems.
+2 on that. The Aussie operations sure seem to have the right-stuff (brains and equipment) to make the FGs work fine off-road. I think if it was a source of problems, they would have gone to something else a long time ago. Most of the OZ operators are making money with their trucks, not for private travel, so I am sure they are more concerned then anyone else. It is one thing to have your own rig broke down, but a far greater problem to have 20 paying customers stranded with the bad PR that brings.

The Hackney have been on as they describe 'market roads'. Surly tough roads, but not Moab or the Rubicon. So rough roads, not off road.

As other have said, and discussed in other threads, the mounting systems seem to need a good evaluation. Unimogs were designed for pivoting beds, I don't think FGs were. If the trucks are being used outside the manufacture's design specification, it is up to the operator to makes sure it comes together, such as the Aussies have done.

In following MSK's built and posts, it seems this truck has been a series of problems, from built, to brakes, to frames. I don't think I would judge the whole FG series on this truck.
There is an early FG locally that has 300000+ miles on it as a welding truck for logging equipment. Rough roads and hard work. It looks fine from frame to body, and just yesterday passed me at 75 mph on the freeway (Heck I didn't know they could go that fast). But a fully 'normal' flatbed with welders etc mounted to it, not a pivot in sight.

Long live FGs!

[slooowr6]

+3 on that
As other have said, and discussed in other threads, the mounting systems seem to need a good evaluation. Unimogs were designed for pivoting beds, I don't think FGs were. If the trucks are being used outside the manufacture's design specification, it is up to the operator to makes sure it comes together, such as the Aussies have done.


This can not be more true. Any engineering design are set to meet certain spec. If it's going to be use outside of the spec then it's up to the individual to make sure the potential issues are address.

[Terrainist]

Looking forward to seeing what the frame looks like now and what is done to it to 'fix' it ! .....

For someone like myself wanting to get an FG for an off pavement camper platform, the people that have 'gone before' and post to this website, and this website, are valuable beyond estimation.

[engineer]

Wow! This is not sounding good at all. Michel, thanks for taking the time to document the repair. It will help others avoid the problems you are experiencing. Do you know the weight of your vehicle? How many miles have you driven in the camper?

Perhaps our Australian members can comment on how long the Fuso FG chassis lasts when used as an off-road tour bus.

Chip Haven

Ours lasted until 1/2 way through the second season, mind you the coorugations are horrendus at times on the Cape. it's the pissy 4mm chassis, if they made it a 6mm, it would be better, but also tare more. If they made it out of spring steel, it would last longer, but then it would cost more.
I'm afraid there is no easy solution, we had to strip ours, remove cross members and insert 4mm internal chassis rails.
We gave ours some treatment, over rough stuff fully and sometimes over loaded flat out and driven hard. When I think of what they go through, they are ok for what they are. Cheaper than an M.A.N., easier to repair than a UNIMOG, spare parts at local butcher shop (well, almost).
Best of luck Micheal.
Engineer

[haven]

The following is pure speculation on my part.

I think the Fuso FG / Canter 4x4 with dual rear wheels
was originally introduced as a vehicle with 12,000 lbs
gross vehicle weight rating. The single rear wheel model
was designed for 9,500 lbs, if I remember correctly.

Perhaps when the FG / Canter was upgraded to today's
14,000 lbs rating, the steel used in the frame members
remained at the original thickness. If true, then it would
help explain the deformation of the frame that Michel and
Doug Hackney experienced.

Chip Haven

[93Canter]

It sounds to me like dealer speak for
"warranty is not going to cover this"

[whatcharterboat]

Wow. What a minefield this topic is and rightly so. Some very expensive lessons learnt and frustrating interruptions to travel plans. Tempers are bound to be flared.

Supposedly Ron said >>>
The pivot is just too much flex for the Fuso chassis In any event, this chassis was not designed for the style of off road they are being used for. They were designed more for extreme construction sites.

For the umpteenth time, if you use a pivot frame on an FG you are tempting fate. If the chassis fails the pivot design was the problem to begin with. Not the FG chassis.

As for the chassis not being designed for offroad conditions, sure we do some major modifications to improve them, but if you saw what the Rural Fire Brigades do with them here in virtually standard trim you wouldn’t be saying that. They really give them a hard time and have a 1000’s of litres of water sloshing around in the back as well. I’m guessing that they are by far the biggest users of FG’s. Not sure how true it was but I was told recently that there are some 600 units in the State of NSW alone.

MSK >>>
Also the Fuso Szulc has proven the point Ron Lucero makes is true. Within two years the chassis of the Fuso Szulc is twisted and deformed.

It doesn’t prove this at all. To me it PROVES that the pivot design was the problem from the beginning. To my knowledge there a no pivot designs in Oz anywhere and I have also never heard of a FG chassis twisting or deforming. Not saying it doesn’t happen but I’ve never heard of this. The damage sustained from extreme offroad use is normally cracking near cross members and suspension points. The only way they can twist or deform is if the body isn’t supported along the full length of the chassis. A pivot cannot accomplish this. This what is proven to me anyway.

Chip >>>
Perhaps our Australian members can comment on how long the Fuso FG chassis lasts when used as an off-road tour bus.


Hi Chip, Typically the operators sell our buses off after 4 years but there are some still running around that are much, much older than this. It depends on the economics of the operation more than anything. Resale value of the vehicles, lease agreements, etc, etc.

Most of them never, again I say "never" experience any chassis failure / faults however there are 2 main areas of operation that are a common exception to this. Fraser Island and Cape York. The punishment that these trucks are exposed to would far exceed anything a private operator could deal out to a truck no matter how adventurous they think they are.

The corrugations on Cape York go on forever. One 2 week trip up Cape York in a conventional 4x4 will cut years off it’s service life and these FG’s do it constantly for 6 months or more in the season. Long ago the roads used to be littered with old trailers and caravans that had fallen apart along the way and then been abandoned. I believe the endless corrugations actually “work harden” the steel which helps to induce the cracking. The better you can make the suspension here, the more you can isolate it and therefore extend the life of the truck.

As far as the beach goes, salt actually alters the metallurgy of the steel. That and the obvious corrosion problem are therefore the main factors in any chassis problems. As an example, a standard exhaust will last about 6 months on the beach and brakes may need a full rebuild after only 3 months. I would call this an “extreme” environment. Also so they are constantly wet so wherever you try and reinforce them with plates, they tend to corrode more at that point.

With most of these operators, when the FG has had enough to remain viable they simply remove the bus body and fit it to a new truck. The old ones are often sold off to farmers or as campers. Bottom line though is that (to my knowledge) failure of the chassis as described by MSK is not seen even under these extreme conditions.

Kerry >>>
I'd be willing to bet that most construction bodies spread the load over the full length of the Fuso frame which could make a big difference.


Hi Kerry, Yep.

Mog >>>
I think if it was a source of problems, they would have gone to something else a long time ago. Most of the OZ operators are making money with their trucks, not for private travel, so I am sure they are more concerned then anyone else. It is one thing to have your own rig broke down, but a far greater problem to have 20 paying customers stranded with the bad PR that brings.

One of our customers has just bought their 27th FG for the beach. It’ll be the first FG84 on Fraser. Another Fraser operator is replacing a fleet of five 200 series Cruisers with FG’s. They are definitely the weapon of choice for outback / eco tourism. In that 16 to 20 seat size anyway, which can usually get into more tight places than the bigger units do.


Mog >>>
Unimogs were designed for pivoting beds, I don't think FGs were. If the trucks are being used outside the manufacture's design specification, it is up to the operator to makes sure it comes together, such as the Aussies have done.

Absolutely

Engineer >>>
Ours lasted until 1/2 way through the second season; mind you the corrugations are horrendous at times on the Cape……….When I think of what they go through, they are ok for what they are.

Mate, you probably have more miles behind the wheel of a Canter than all of us put together. BTW I have seen one of ours (with the full suspension package) after 4 seasons up the Cape and yes, the webs around the suspension points had had a workout but the flanges were still perfect and the repairs were straightforward enough. Body mounts were still perfect too and so the old body just went straight on the replacement truck.

BTW2 I'll be up the Daintree for a family wedding in July. Will try and catch up if you're around.

[whatcharterboat]

Wow. What a minefield this topic is and rightly so. Some very expensive lessons learnt and frustrating interruptions to travel plans. Tempers are bound to be flared.

Supposedly Ron said >>>
The pivot is just too much flex for the Fuso chassis In any event, this chassis was not designed for the style of off road they are being used for. They were designed more for extreme construction sites.

For the umpteenth time, if you use a pivot frame on an FG you are tempting fate. If the chassis fails the pivot design was the problem to begin with. Not the FG chassis.

As for the chassis not being designed for offroad conditions, sure we do some major modifications to improve them, but if you saw what the Rural Fire Brigades do with them here in virtually standard trim you wouldn’t be saying that. They really give them a hard time and have a 1000’s of litres of water sloshing around in the back as well. I’m guessing that they are by far the biggest users of FG’s. Not sure how true it was but I was told recently that there are some 600 units in the State of NSW alone.

MSK >>>
Also the Fuso Szulc has proven the point Ron Lucero makes is true. Within two years the chassis of the Fuso Szulc is twisted and deformed.

It doesn’t prove this at all. To me it PROVES that the pivot design was the problem from the beginning. To my knowledge there a no pivot designs in Oz anywhere and I have also never heard of a FG chassis twisting or deforming. Not saying it doesn’t happen but I’ve never heard of this. The damage sustained from extreme offroad use is normally cracking near cross members and suspension points. The only way they can twist or deform is if the body isn’t supported along the full length of the chassis. A pivot cannot accomplish this. This what is proven to me anyway.

Chip >>>
Perhaps our Australian members can comment on how long the Fuso FG chassis lasts when used as an off-road tour bus.


Hi Chip, Typically the operators sell our buses off after 4 years but there are some still running around that are much, much older than this. It depends on the economics of the operation more than anything. Resale value of the vehicles, lease agreements, etc, etc.

Most of them never, again I say "never" experience any chassis failure / faults however there are 2 main areas of operation that are a common exception to this. Fraser Island and Cape York. The punishment that these trucks are exposed to would far exceed anything a private operator could deal out to a truck no matter how adventurous they think they are.

The corrugations on Cape York go on forever. One 2 week trip up Cape York in a conventional 4x4 will cut years off it’s service life and these FG’s do it constantly for 6 months or more in the season. Long ago the roads used to be littered with old trailers and caravans that had fallen apart along the way and then been abandoned. I believe the endless corrugations actually “work harden” the steel which helps to induce the cracking. The better you can make the suspension here, the more you can isolate it and therefore extend the life of the truck.

As far as the beach goes, salt actually alters the metallurgy of the steel. That and the obvious corrosion problem are therefore the main factors in any chassis problems. As an example, a standard exhaust will last about 6 months on the beach and brakes may need a full rebuild after only 3 months. I would call this an “extreme” environment. Also so they are constantly wet so wherever you try and reinforce them with plates, they tend to corrode more at that point.

With most of these operators, when the FG has had enough to remain viable they simply remove the bus body and fit it to a new truck. The old ones are often sold off to farmers or as campers. Bottom line though is that (to my knowledge) failure of the chassis as described by MSK is not seen even under these extreme conditions.

Kerry >>>
I'd be willing to bet that most construction bodies spread the load over the full length of the Fuso frame which could make a big difference.


Hi Kerry, Yep.

Mog >>>
I think if it was a source of problems, they would have gone to something else a long time ago. Most of the OZ operators are making money with their trucks, not for private travel, so I am sure they are more concerned then anyone else. It is one thing to have your own rig broke down, but a far greater problem to have 20 paying customers stranded with the bad PR that brings.

One of our customers has just bought their 27th FG for the beach. It’ll be the first FG84 on Fraser. Another Fraser operator is replacing a fleet of five 200 series Cruisers with FG’s. They are definitely the weapon of choice for outback / eco tourism. In that 16 to 20 seat size anyway, which can usually get into more tight places than the bigger units do.


Mog >>>
Unimogs were designed for pivoting beds, I don't think FGs were. If the trucks are being used outside the manufacture's design specification, it is up to the operator to makes sure it comes together, such as the Aussies have done.

Absolutely

Engineer >>>
Ours lasted until 1/2 way through the second season; mind you the corrugations are horrendous at times on the Cape……….When I think of what they go through, they are ok for what they are.

Mate, you probably have more miles behind the wheel of a Canter than all of us put together. BTW I have seen one of ours (with the full suspension package) after 4 seasons up the Cape and yes, the webs around the suspension points had had a workout but the flanges were still perfect and the repairs were straightforward enough. Body mounts were still perfect too and so the old body just went straight on the replacement truck.

BTW2 I'll be up the Daintree for a family wedding in July. Will try and catch up if you're around.

[whatcharterboat]

Hey, what the ?? Apologies for the double up. Don't know how that happened.

[engineer]

There are several 3 point mounted fire tenders on the rear of dual cab fg637s.
These were made by Giblins motor bodies out of Aircraft grade Aluminium, hence the need for the 3 point mounts. Brass trunions were used and it was a great success. Mind you, Giblin was building 4wd bus bodies before i was born.
He built a body on the back of a ford F250 4wd back in the 70's, i'll try and dig a photo out.

[whatcharterboat]

Yeah, I'd like to see how they did that. As I said "to my knowledge, there are none". The back of a dual cab is a bit shorter. As you know the worst area for the flex is up near the gearbox and in a dual cab this is under the rear cab whereas on a single cab it is where the body mounts.

[alan]

I'm pretty sure Ron Lucero posts on here and is very familiar with the Hackney's problems in addition to Michel's problems, so I wouldn't dismiss his opinion lightly. I'm pretty sure no construction body on a Fuso will have a pivot frame, so the issue could be the mounting systems and not the frame itself. I'd be willing to bet that most construction bodies spread the load over the full length of the Fuso frame which could make a big difference. I think some Aussie designs do a similar thing.

My Canter had a steel tray mounted the complete length of the chassis, u bolted with wood between them, it had cracks in the chassis and a bad twist.

[whatcharterboat]

Hi Alan, Was the tray twisted too??

[whatcharterboat]

There are several 3 point mounted fire tenders on the rear of dual cab fg637s.
These were made by Giblins motor bodies out of Aircraft grade Aluminium, hence the need for the 3 point mounts. Brass trunions were used and it was a great success. Mind you, Giblin was building 4wd bus bodies before i was born.
He built a body on the back of a ford F250 4wd back in the 70's, i'll try and dig a photo out.
Today 09:23 PM

Engineer, They don't do this any more do they?? Looks like this NPS is solidly mounted. Did they make your SWB FG? Is that it in their gallery?
http://giblinsmotorbodies.com.au/wp-content/gallery/service-bodies/b13.jpg

[Michel Szulc Krzyzanowski]

There is now more explanation about the situation with the Fuso Szulc and 18 pictures of the solution being worked on.
Check the posting called "Rebuilding the Fuso Szulc part 1" on
http://www.michelszulckrzyzanowski.blogspot.com

[dzzz]

Dump trucks are only mounted at two points (disregarding the hydralics), but when loaded the dump bed rests against the length of the frame. What I'm getting out of these discussions is that a better design for some/most trucks may be to have the body in full contact at rest, but not rigidly bound to the frame?
Is this a fair simplification of those who don't believe three or four point pivots are beneficial on the Cantor frame?
As an observation, the Aussie tour vehicle look to have a shorter wheelbase than the expo's. There's both more leverage and more opportunities to place the wheels in bad positions with a long wheel base.
Also, an expo build is more thing to break in the camper. Are the OZ commercial vehicles fiberglass boxes with seats? Preventing the body from twisting may be less important for the tour people. They are also professionally building the shells.
I'm not arguing with anyone, just trying to look at all the angles. What works works.

[kerry]

Thanks for posting the pictures Michel. Can you answer some questions?
What is is the total weight of your camper? Where were the frame twists that were causing the problems? Were there any cracks or breaks, or just twisting? Under what conditions were you typically driving the truck? Did you routinely go off road under conditions which induced large amounts of frame twist or were you driving mostly on dirt roads?
Do you have any idea of what was happening to cause the twist and keep the twist in place?
It seems like mounting firmly at the front and pivoting at the rear is the reverse of what people who attach service bodies to truck frames typically do. The service body is attached firmly at the rear and if it moves, it moves at the front. Do you know why your camper builder decided to do it the other way?

Seems like the new design is going to increase the stresses at the point where WhatCharterBoat says the frame flexes the most, behind the cab in the vicinity of the transmission. Since the frame under the camper is being reinforced, it won't be able to twist as much as it formerly did, making the remaining part of the frame twist more. Do other people see it that way?

[engineer]

From my understanding, the goose neck is what increases stress, what is needed is to take the travel from point of rotation an reduce it by moving the point of rotation to somewhere where less stress will be incurred.
I've seen this done, and taking advantage of the goose neck, by running a straight line from the top of the goose neck through to the rear end of the chassis. This will give alot of room to place a rear trunion mounted above the rear axle (most obvious stress point) with the pivot axis running parallel with the chassis rails. The other obvious place to mount the other 2 trunions would be to the side of the goose neck where the gearbox is.
This would allow lots of room, but I would pre-stress the roll trunion with a pair of torsion bars and a pair of shock absorbers to be safe. The 2 pitch trunions wouldn't need this as they already have lots of gravity on thier side.
BTW, yes WCBoat, that is ours. Everyone tells me that it's ugly, but we don't care. They are built for a purpose, no for good looks (typical engineers point of view.).

[mhiscox]

I'd just like to thank all the Australian participants--men with lots of other things to do--for sharing the knowledge and information they have, both here and everywhere on the Forum. It takes time to write up informative responses, post pictures, share stories, etc., and, since we Yanks don't get to have much of their stuff anyway, there's no motivation except for just being (damn) helpful.

Much appreciated. :bowdown:

[alan]

Hi Alan, Was the tray twisted too??

Not sure if the tray was twisted, it was scrapped.

[UK4X4]

Michel,

are they going to overplate these cut sections ?

as that looks like a rather large hole to fill with weld and hope it holds its strength ?


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-iSeesP7yEw/ShlkY6mWD2I/AAAAAAAAF9o/45ywTO0WXeE/s1600-h/_DSC3801.jpg

[Michel Szulc Krzyzanowski]

Now more images to see.
Posting is called: "Rebuilding the Fuso Szulc part 2"
On: http://www.michelszulckrzyzanowski.blogspot.com

[mog]

Mitsubishi did not make any radical changes from the FE to the FG in regards to specification. They put a step in the frame to accommodate the 4 wheel drive system, and that was it as far as I can tell. As far as Ron's quote of "They were designed more for extreme construction sites", that seems to follow any of the advertising I've seen from Mitsubishi. The ads are of service or work trucks at construction sites, landscaping trucks at job sites, never an expedition camper in the outback of Mongolia. We must remember that 99.5% of the Fuso customers used them for other then expeditions. I've seem enough FGs that are still alive after being used as snow plow / dump trucks ( that has to be a hard life) that there is no 'flaw' with the FG. Enough people have used them as expedition / tour platforms, and will in the future judging from all our board member with FGs. Hopefully all will have sucess.

[Terrainist]

Curious to see how the subframe rails will be attached to the truck frame rails.

Thank you for posting those photos on your blog Michel.

[kerry]

We must remember that 99.5% of the Fuso customers used them for other then expeditions. I've seem enough FGs that are still alive after being used as snow plow / dump trucks ( that has to be a hard life) that there is no 'flaw' with the FG. Enough people have used them as expedition / tour platforms, and will in the future judging from all our board member with FGs. Hopefully all will have sucess.

One of the advertising brochures that always shows up on Ebay searches shows the FG as a powerline maintenance truck (I think). I imagine that consistent use for that purpose would put the FG on roughly the same kinds of roads that expedition campers would use. I'm curious as to what the fleet managers of such trucks have found as to the frame's durability and what kind of weights the truck typically carries in that usage.
It seems that Doug Hackney is really pushing the weight limits of the chassis as I think he himself would admit. I'm curious as to Michel's weight. If Michel's weight is well within the truck's limits, then it would nice to know the exact mounting system that his builder used. I think the front rigid mount could have contributed to his problems. As I recall, Michel posted a number of months ago about bolt failure on his mounts. I wonder if these were the front mounts and whether the bolt failures were related to frame flex.

[haven]

In a blog entry entitled "Why is she tilting?" Michel acknowledges
driving too fast over a wicked Mexican speed bump. This sounds to
me like the moment when the frame was twisted. I'm surprised that
the shock mount was not broken off by the impact.

Wednesdy July 2 2008
http://michelszulckrzyzanowski.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-is-she-tilting.html

Michel's accident seems similar to the deep pothole that send Doug
Hackney's Fuso to the repair shop.

Chip Haven

[whatcharterboat]

From my understanding, the goose neck is what increases stress,

Yep, this is why they may Giblins have got away with pivot mounting on the crew cabs as the body/ tray would have been mounted down on the flat section only.


BTW, yes WCBoat, that is ours. Everyone tells me that it's ugly, but we don't care. They are built for a purpose, no for good looks (typical engineers point of view.).

Maybe ugly but in a good way. It certainly looks tough enough and I bet that top front area of the body has some useful storage and good vision for the clients out the little front window.


I've seen this done, and taking advantage of the goose neck, by running a straight line from the top of the goose neck through to the rear end of the chassis. This will give alot of room to place a rear trunion mounted above the rear axle (most obvious stress point) with the pivot axis running parallel with the chassis rails. The other obvious place to mount the other 2 trunions would be to the side of the goose neck where the gearbox is.
This would allow lots of room

IMO Too much room. Think how high the CoG will end up. Placing even more stress on everything.


Mitsubishi did not make any radical changes from the FE to the FG in regards to specification. They put a step in the frame to accommodate the 4 wheel drive system, and that was it as far as I can tell.

Hi Mog, Ours have slightly "specced" up components in the driveline and wheels but I believe as you say no "radical changes".


Enough people have used them as expedition / tour platforms, and will in the future judging from all our board member with FGs. Hopefully all will have sucess.

I only wish the same.


Not sure if the tray was twisted, it was scrapped.

Alan , Your Canter is with out a doubt the most abused specimen I've ever come across. Didn;t you say it was an ex - earthmoving company. Do you think it could have been a tipper looking at the old mounting holes?

[whatcharterboat]

Hi Mog, Ours have slightly "specced" up components in the driveline and wheels but I believe as you say no "radical changes".

Sorry I should be clearer here. By "ours" I mean Australian models. I know Kerry and I found out that the North American FG's indeed do have have the same wheels as the FE's.

[engineer]

Quote:
I've seen this done, and taking advantage of the goose neck, by running a straight line from the top of the goose neck through to the rear end of the chassis. This will give alot of room to place a rear trunion mounted above the rear axle (most obvious stress point) with the pivot axis running parallel with the chassis rails. The other obvious place to mount the other 2 trunions would be to the side of the goose neck where the gearbox is.
This would allow lots of room
IMO Too much room. Think how high the CoG will end up. Placing even more stress on everything.

Oh yes, i forgot to mention that the water tank on the fire tenders was low slung. If you ever get up to Hervey Bay, go around to Toppies yard. I think Shane Boyd still runs the whole show, they had 3 point mountings on the Unimogs with 7' headroom!!! The old Kangoala buses that Jake Pelling had to do Daintree. That's what i call top heavy. But thanks to the axles (yes even the portals) gearbox, transfer etc.. they still had a low CoG. It's only when you start putting bloody luggage on the roof, and other stuff that the CoG gets up there. I still maintain that the 2 axles on our canters weigh heaps more than the top 1/2 of our bodies.
IMO the room they gained underneath was advantagous to low sling the water tank, which in fact helped to keep the Cog low.

[KMTC]

Ok. Let me be very clear so that people here can understand what I say as fact.
The stock Fuso FG is not designed to go to remote areas, with extreme road conditions. I will tell you that now and if you were interested in purchasing it. Nobody has ever taken a stock Fuso FG out to these areas without modifying it. This tells me that everyone already knows that its not designed for this type of work. However with the proper modifications it can be done. But to mount a camper at the front rigid, and then put a pivot at the rear without modifying the frame is asking for trouble. Every time you go through a big pot hole or rough terrain then the camper starts rocking and then twists the frame. Michel's frame was completely twisted from this motion. It was if the front and rear of his chassis was held and twisted much like you would ring out a wet towel. There was also no sub-frame in place nor any frame strengthening done at the original build. As any good off road engineer knows you must make the suspension on the vehicle do the work. In Michel's case this was not so. He has one of the best built campers I have ever seen as far as quality in construction goes, however this creates a problem. It is very heavy, and the weight was never distributed across the frame evenly. We are now doing this with a new custom fabricated sub-frame, and we are eliminating the pivot and mounting the camper with a torsion free mount. I think this will be a great fix and mount. I don't know what the Aussie's are doing and I will not comment any further on that because I don't know what their way of mounting is. I do not talk about what I do not know. A pivot idea in theory is great but then modifications must be made to the frame in order to not have frame damage later. Also in Dougs case: You can not compare these two vehicles. Doug was in some pretty amazing and severe road conditions, and beyond that he had some weight issues, and also a incident of pulling another vehicle out of a situation that proved fatal for him as well. We are all learning from each other here. I do not believe that my idea is better than anyone else's yet. But I do know that the way Michel's was mounted did not work. At less than 20,000 miles, and only 250 lbs over weight on the front axle, yet almost 400 lbs under GVWR I know that it was a design flaw and not owner error. This is what I have said to Michel, Doug, and anyone else that asks. For anyone here to say otherwise is wrong, and does not know me very well.

[Michel Szulc Krzyzanowski]

New images of the rebuilding of the Fuso Szulc can now be seen on:

www.michelszulckrzyzanowski.blogspot.com

Titled: "Rebuilding the Fuso Szulc part 3"

For the moment this completes the visual documentation of the rebuilding process.
Because Eric Ferguson, the rebuilder, has indicated that a photographer around is "counter productive".

[kerry]

I know a fair number of people who don't like people looking over their shoulder while they work. Perhaps he would permit a few photos at the end of each day. I know the people on here are very curious about the design and building process and pictures could be very helpful to people planning their own FG build. Not to mention people who might be interested in having your fabricator do some work on their trucks.

[Michel Szulc Krzyzanowski]

Progress on the building of the Fuso Szulc sub-frame after two days of work can now be seen on:
http/:www.michelszulckrzyzanowski.blogspot.com
Posting titled: "Rebuilding the Fuso Szulc part 3"

[haven]

Here's a brief history of the problems Michel has experienced with
the connection between camper and truck chassis, as described in
Michel's bolg.

Chip Haven

---------------

Michel's camper is built on a steel subframe. The subframe is attached to the truck chassis at three points. The right and left front corners are bolted to the chassis. A third point at the rear pivots on a bushing. Two shock absorbers connect the chassis rails to the subframe near the rear bumper. The shocks help control the side to side rocking motion of the subframe around the pivot.

When the camper was first constructed, two square tubes are welded to the sides of the subframe near the front of the camper. The tubes extend downwards, and are bolted to the truck chassis. Two bolts are used on each side. The bolts pass horizontally through a hole in the wall of the tube, and through an existing hole in the truck frame. A nut on the inside of the truck frame draws the assembly tight together.

The subframe does not rest on the truck chassis. The weight of the camper is carried exclusively on the two sets of bolts in the front, and on the pivot bushing in the rear.

After 3 months of service, including many miles on the roads of Baja California, the bolts failed.

Read about the problem here
http://michelszulckrzyzanowski.blogspot.com/2007/06/failing-fuso-santek.html

And read about the repair here
http://michelszulckrzyzanowski.blogspot.com/2007/06/failing-fuso-santek-2.html

In August 2007, Michel returned to Santek Campers, the company that built the camper. At this time, the connection between sub-frame and truck chassis was changed. In place of the vertical square tubes and bolts described above, a steel bar was welded on each side under the subframe. These bars were attached to the truck chassis using a pair of U-bolts on each side.

http://michelszulckrzyzanowski.blogspot.com/2007/08/flying-forewards.html

The metal-to-metal contact between the bar and the truck chassis made scraping sounds when the subframe pivots. So, a few months later, Michel had a mechanic in Baja insert a thick piece of rubber between the bar and truck chassis. This eliminated the noise.

In July of 2008, Michel noticed that the truck was tilting. The explanation offered by several mechanics was that the truck was heavier on one side, and the springs on that side had sagged. The solution was to remove and re-arch the springs.

Michel thought that a bad crash over an unseen speed bump a few weeks ago might have played a role in the problem.

http://michelszulckrzyzanowski.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-is-she-tilting.html

The re-arching of the springs helped, but the problem returned by March 2009. This time the mechanics spotted the damaged truck chassis.

[haven]

Here's a photo of Michel's new camper subframe under construction.
What is the purpose of the short tubes in this photo? They are
welded to the end of the subframe. Perhaps a space to hold rubber
bushings to isolate the camper from the truck chassis?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-iSeesP7yEw/ShwfG12dOaI/AAAAAAAAGAo/AC-eFkHnumA/s1600-h/_DSC3897.jpg

[kerry]

What is the purpose of the short tubes in this photo? They are
welded to the end of the subframe. Perhaps a space to hold rubber
bushings to isolate the camper from the truck chassis?


I was wondering the same thing.

[dzzz]

I was wondering the same thing.

Rocket pods I think.

The frames upside down, right? The connections are design for compression, so I think it must be a pivot point as Haven suggests. Interesting seeing the design unfold.

Edit: I see the frame is not upside down.

[KMTC]

The tubes are in fact for a bushing that is for a torsion free mounting for the camper. It is a new design concept.

[Michel Szulc Krzyzanowski]

New report about how the building of the new sub frame is proceeding:
http:www.michelszulckrzyzanowski.blogspot.com
Posting titled: "Waiting for Ferguson".

[Michel Szulc Krzyzanowski]

Also a new story about the current state of affairs, including what is being charged for the sub frame.

http://www.michelszulckrzyzanowski.blogspot.com

Posting called: "Waiting for Ferguson 2"

[haven]

This photo shows the new sub-frame more clearly.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-iSeesP7yEw/SiAU9VRV7cI/AAAAAAAAGEA/HVa90FOOAcE/s1600-h/_DSC3909.jpg

You can see the cylindrical steel sleeves for the bushings
that will support the camper body. It will be interesting to
see how the bushings attach to the camper!

Chip Haven

[kerry]

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?

[Terrainist]

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.

[dzzz]

As far as the original thread title, who is buying the FG to use "off road"?

[haven]

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

[Michel Szulc Krzyzanowski]

Again new images of the rebuilding of the Fuso Szulc.

http://www.michelszulckrzyzanowski.blogspot.com

Posting titled:
"Rebuilding the Fuso Szulc part 4"

[Terrainist]

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]

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]

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.

[Michel Szulc Krzyzanowski]

An update on the rebuilding of the Fuso Szulc can be found on:

http://www.michelszulckrzyzanowski.blogspot.com

Posting titled Rebuilding the Fuso Szulc 5

[kerry]

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]

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.

[Michel Szulc Krzyzanowski]

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.

[Michel Szulc Krzyzanowski]

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.

[dhackney]

Ron and Michel asked me to take a look at Michel's truck when I returned from South America back in April.

I inspected the truck and prepared this assessment and recommendations: http://www.hackneys.com/mitsu/docs/fusofgskfinspection.pdf

Michel asked me to refrain from sharing or posting it here until he decided what to do about the truck, etc., so I respected his wishes.

Since the repair is now complete, I am now sharing it in the hopes that it will shed some light on the situation and assist others building on the FG platform.

As to the OP, I disagree that the FG is not made for off-road, as the Ozzies have so indisputably demonstrated.

In Michel's case, his builder had no experience (just like me) and followed the same design we were using (3 point pivot). The outcome was just like ours, but thankfully got fixed before the catastrophic chassis failure we experienced.

For building an expedition vehicle on an FG the key is to distribute the weight along the longitudinal length of the frame.

On a personal integrity note: Of everyone involved in this situation, Ron Lucero is absolutely beyond reproach. You would need to go a very, very long ways to find a person working in a retail vehicle operation, at any level, from janitor to CEO, with his level of integrity and honesty.

[haven]

Thanks, Doug, that was an enlightening report. It will inform
anyone who is thinking about building a custom camper.

I know you spent time visiting with Carl Hunter, whose Fuso FG
was built with a similar 3-point mount. In Carl's case, the pivot
is in the front, and the two fixed mounts are in the rear. In the
photos I have, the rear mount appears to be positioned above
the rear hanger for the rear spring. The front pivot sits on
the frame crossmember (not even on the frame!), above the transmission.
That's before the frame steps down.

Did you see any evidence of frame damage with Carl's rig?
If there was no visible damage, do you think the light weight
of Carl's camper could be the explanation? Or were the mounting
points located on strong parts of the frame?

Chip Haven

ps. Please tell us what you have decided to do about your Fuso!
Repair, replace, return to motorcycles?

[dzzz]

Thanks to both Michel and Doug for letting us into the problems of both vehicles. I know if I had this sort of problem the last thing I would want is a public discussion.

[kerry]

Thanks to both Michel and Doug for letting us into the problems of both vehicles. I know if I had this sort of problem the last thing I would want is a public discussion.

X2. Public discussion of these kinds of problems can be awkward. I have some questions about Doug's recommendations and the subframe that was added but I don't know if now is the time and place to ask them. Opinions on whether such discussion is appropriate?

[dhackney]

Thanks, Doug, that was an enlightening report. It will inform anyone who is thinking about building a custom camper.

Thanks Chip. As with all the material I have posted on our build site www.hackneys.com/mitsu and here on ExPo, my goal is to leave behind a record of our "open source" project so others can learn what we did right and what we did wrong.


I know you spent time visiting with Carl Hunter, whose Fuso FG was built with a similar 3-point mount. In Carl's case, the pivot is in the front, and the two fixed mounts are in the rear. In the
photos I have, the rear mount appears to be positioned above
the rear hanger for the rear spring. The front pivot sits on
the frame crossmember (not even on the frame!), above the transmission.
That's before the frame steps down.

Did you see any evidence of frame damage with Carl's rig?
If there was no visible damage, do you think the light weight
of Carl's camper could be the explanation? Or were the mounting
points located on strong parts of the frame?

There are photos of Carl & Mary's Fuso on our build site here: http://www.hackneys.com/mitsu/index-samples.htm BTW, that Fuso went around the world and then spent a year in South America.

I did not see any overt evidence of damage to the frame/chassis on Carl & Mary's Fuso.

I attribute that to:
1. Very light payload.
2. Pivoting at the front. As John has pointed out and other have observed, when you find damage, it is usually at the front mounting area. We were precluded from pivoting at the front because we needed to match the camper berth area to the garage. I think Michel's builder's made an unfortunate choice to pivot his at the rear, although I assume they were just copying other designs.


ps. Please tell us what you have decided to do about your Fuso! Repair, replace, return to motorcycles?

I will be providing an update soon on those topics on our expedition thread (http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10616). I will also post the repair info in a new thread in this topic area.

[FusoFG]

Doug,

You recommended that Michael install frame reinforcements on the step down per the Body Builder Manual.

I have an old Fuso Body Builder manual that recommends plug welding the hole in the step down if there is "excessive input" from the body.

What reinforcements are you referring to?

Tom

[dhackney]

What reinforcements are you referring to?

Tom,

The L stiffener here: http://www.hackneys.com/mitsu/docs/fusoframeFGreinforcement.pdf

Doug

[haven]

Michel got his camper back today. He plans to post a
final report about the repair on his blog, maybe tonight.

edit: the report, with lots of photos, has been posted
http://michelszulckrzyzanowski.blogspot.com/2009/06/rebuilding-fuso-szulc-6.html

In keeping with Michel's wishes, please don't post copies
of Michel's photos here. View them on his blog site.

Chip Haven

[dzzz]

Michel got his camper back today. He plans to post a
final report about the repair on his blog, maybe tonight.

edit: the report, with lots of photos, has been posted
http://michelszulckrzyzanowski.blogspot.com/2009/06/rebuilding-fuso-szulc-6.html

In keeping with Michel's wishes, please don't post copies
of Michel's photos here. View them on his blog site.

Chip Haven

I must say it's a good looking sub frame. Hopefully that counts for something?

[mog]

"But the spaces between the subframe and the truck chassis were still there.
Sheets of paper can be put through as the images show"

Hats off to the subframe builder. A previously bend and twisted frame, a stepped frame, a time constrained 'supervised' build, metal to metal with no crush spacer, and only a sheet of paper gap between the subframe and frame... WOW! Outstanding! Hopefully everything goes well now, and MSK can continue pioneering his travels and photos and not pioneering the designing, building, repairing, and rebuilding his truck. I think we all have learned a lot. Thanks.