Advantages of Fuso 4X4?

[tobg]

I,too, am in the throws of deciding between a CC & CO. Currently drive a GM 350 dually with a Northstar SC850. I could switch to a Hallmark with some customization or get the Mitsu & build a camper. I am curious about the needed suspension modifications ( truck will also need to be a daily driver) as well as the necessity of isolating the camper from chassis twist. I'm not sure I like the idea of the camper weight resting on one bolt as in the 3 point systems. Any input?

[Verkstad]

I,too, am in the throws of deciding between a CC & CO. Currently drive a GM 350 dually with a Northstar SC850. I could switch to a Hallmark with some customization or get the Mitsu & build a camper. I am curious about the needed suspension modifications ( truck will also need to be a daily driver) as well as the necessity of isolating the camper from chassis twist. I'm not sure I like the idea of the camper weight resting on one bolt as in the 3 point systems. Any input?

Then build it as a 4 point system, Its most common with longer UNIMOG chassis.

[kerry]

I've got a Northstar T1000 on my service body FG with no isolation mechanism. So far so good. 10k miles.

I,too, am in the throws of deciding between a CC & CO. Currently drive a GM 350 dually with a Northstar SC850. I could switch to a Hallmark with some customization or get the Mitsu & build a camper. I am curious about the needed suspension modifications ( truck will also need to be a daily driver) as well as the necessity of isolating the camper from chassis twist. I'm not sure I like the idea of the camper weight resting on one bolt as in the 3 point systems. Any input?

[dhackney]

the necessity of isolating the camper from chassis twist. I'm not sure I like the idea of the camper weight resting on one bolt as in the 3 point systems. Any input?

The three point payload suspension design only works on an FG if the payload is *very* light. A 3 point payload suspension system puts all the weight of the payload into two places on the length of the frame, the front and rear points of the 3 point system. That leads to a lot of flexing as the payload loads and unloads the frame. Not good with anything but a *very* light load.

The Australian system, originally used for tanker trucks and pioneered for expedition vehicle payloads by All Terrain Warriors, is a much, much better approach with the relatively lightweight frame of the FG. The Oz system spreads the weight of the payload down the entire length of the frame, while still allowing the frame to flex as designed. It's a vastly superior approach for the relatively thin, flexible frame on the FG.

A 3 or 4 point payload system works great on larger capacity trucks with thicker, more rigid frames that are capable of being loaded in only a few places on the longitudinal axis.