The New Isuzu Mu-x,

You got it all wrong, Ross - The proper pronunciation is Moooo-exx .. it rhymes with SHOE-X, and you need to say it in a Malcolm Fraser tone of voice, to give the impression of silver-spoon superiority .... [;-)

Yeah, Life wasn't meant to be easy, except for the fortunate of the breed.

Its the Izuzu version of the Colorado 7 which was released 12 months ago

Cheers,

Cruiser (who owns a Colorado 7)

Pity about the pathetically small fuel capacity which seems to be characteristic of all these ute based 4WD's.

Neil - The whole idea is to make them go 1000kms, on a 65L tank of fuel! [;-)

Keep the right foot light, and you'll never see the low-fuel light! [;-)

You can get 1697kms on 76 litres if you try! .. http://maxrun2013.isuzuute.com.au/MaxRunHistory.aspx

Just to clarify a few things,

the Isuzu has 65 litres, the Colorado has 73 litres.

the Isuzu has a 3 litre engine with 130Kw and 380Nm, the Collie has a 2.8 litre with 132Kw and 470Nm and the new 2014 version now has 500Nm

We have had our Collie since June and have only seen 7 of them on the road. We had our first service done in Gympie while we were away (14 weeks) over winter and even the Gympie dealer had never seen one.

We love ours, so it will be interesting to see reviews on the MU-X and if it is compared to the Colorado 7

Cheers,

Cruiser

For those who do not know much about Isuzu (seems to be a couple here) this is where the MU (Mysterious Utility) name for the MU-X originated from, first introduced to the Japanese market in 1989.

Isuzumu - So .. where does the "Mysterious" part come in?

Mysterious component origins?
Mysterious design engineering?
Mysterious workings of the electronic components?
Mysterious, constant disappearance of large amounts of fuel?
Mysterious squeaks, rattles and knocks?
Mysteriously attracts police radars and parking tickets?

I dunno, it's all a mystery to me, where they get these names from! [;-)

Heres a comparo

link

wizzer

Ron, firstly they came out as a utility. http://www.cars-directory.net/pictures/isuzu/mu/pic_isuzu_mu_12947.jpg

Steve - Such as ... ?

Toyota: Allion - Alphard - Auris - Belta - Blade - Caldina - Estima - Ipsum - IQ - IST - Kluger - Passo - Porte - Premio - Probox (sounds like an anti-biotic!) - Ractis - Raum - Regius - Sienta - Vitz - Voxy - Wish ...

Nissan: Bluebird Sylphy - Cima - Cube - Elgrand - Lafesta - Note - Teana - Tiida - Wingroad (just Wing it??) ...

Mazda: Bongo - Demio - Familia - Premacy ...

I wonder if the Isuzu Mu-X will get "Isuzu Mucous"?? [;-)

The young blokes always sneer at someones less-desirable set of wheels as a "bucket of snot!". [;-)

Cheers, Ron.

You've out-done me there Ron. Not heard of some of those beauts.

Love the Mazda Bongo.

There was also the Suzuki Mighty Boy, Colt Sigma (stigma) Datsun Sunny, Datsun Cherry and many more where they came from.

Back to the OP though, the torque isn't overly impressive and they look more Captiva than Landcruiser to me? Price looks alright though and it will certainly pull most campers if not vans well enough.

How could you forget the Nissan Cedric.

lol

I'd have to say the Nissan Cedric is the prizewinner

What a glorious name - who wouldn't be a proud owner (or not)

The funniest one I thought was the Mitsubishi Starion. Poor old Mitsubishi rep was on the phone to the aussie distributor telling him the name of it and it was lost in translation somewhat. If only the rep had said something like "you know, a male horse......" True story.

I just had to have a look on Wiki for the Cedric and lo and behold, it had a stablemate, the "Gloria".

Gee, I've spent all these years not knowing that. The shame.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Cedric

Steve - Could've been worse. It could have been the "Sheila". LOL

I reckon a few old blokes around my age, must've had some Glorious groping at the drive-ins, in those old Nissans! [;-)

And don't forget the nissan president!
Named for the japanese prime minister!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_President

The "Nissan Shiela"? .......don't give 'em ideas Ron.

You wouldn't put it past them.

actually Nutta, that's an awful thought. Just one step away from a Nissan Kevin or a Nissan Julia to win favour with the one in the hot seat. Their egos would surely take up the offer and the manufacturer duly rewarded.

could do with an edit button around here.... but there's another little gem in that "President" link:


I bring you: (drum roll.....) the Mitsubishi Dignity.

deary me.

It is all very nice to have lots of torks but the making of torque is fuel, so just having plenty isn't necessarily any advantage if you aren't going to have to need them.

Don't get me wrong I like the Ranger and it's engine.

Hmmmm,...That 5cyl is not really proven yet, .... Isuzu have made diesels for sixty years plus, with few known problems.


Axle.

The ford motor HAS been proven for about 40 years it is used in the Transit van all around the world. one of fords biggest all time sales.

M

Axle,
the 5cyl engine is a proven product. It is not new.

What , The 5cylinder?.. The later transits were fords biggest bucket of crap from what iv'e seen.


Cheers Axle.

The only unreliable Isuzu Diesel was the 3lt they put in the Jack, but that was because they let caterpillar do the injection side of it.
We have and Isuzu 600 at work and its going better at 270000 then when at 20000ks. Flies.
I also know of a 2.8 Isuzu that covered over 700000ks without incident.
Cheers pete

Hi Pete,..Some of them seemed to lack torque,.But revs didn't seem to worry them so all in all you could get performance out of them with reasonable fuel economy and still hold that reliability.

..... my brother had a 4bd1 in a old series landrover all he ever did was replace the fan belt in 500,000ks, ... that's the motor repair I mean!..lol.


Cheers Axle.

Hi Axle,
the 600 never got out of 6th(top) between Bathurst and Lithgow, dropped down to about 90 going up past Yetholme service station. Plenty of torque their. The truck was empty but still weighs over 5 ton empty. (Pantech) The 3.5 petrol in my jack is also very torquey pulling from 1000rpm easy in 4th.
Cheers Pete

The making of torque is fuel.........??

Of course it is....you gotta add fuel to get torque.....but the more torque you have, the better it goes even if you don't use all the torque..

I have a Challenger with over 500Nm of torque, but it's still not enough to enable it to tow a 1.3 ton van with ease..but due to the capacity of the engine ( 2.5 ), it doesn't deliver it as well as say a Ranger with "only" 470Nm....( 3.2 ltr )

From FollowUp 9 - "The ford motor HAS been proven for about 40 years it is used in the Transit van all around the world. one of fords biggest all time sales."

I think you will find their 5 cylinder diesel only dates from 2006 - It's the "Puma" I5in this table

Axle,
yes the 5 cyl is a proven motor. The transits may have been crap in your view but the motor is a good one.

I think 8 years is enough time to know whether a motor is any good.

Slow one, I did not say the Transits were crap. I was just pointing out that the 5 cylinder motor only dated from 2006 and not the 40 year claim made by Michael A. The only mistake I made was saying that his comment was in FollowUp 9, it was actually in FollowUp 3.

It was Axle that denigrated the 5 cylinder motor (twice.)

Peter,
IF you read the heading. It says "Axle" and the reply was to him.

He is the one who made the statement about the Transit vans which may or may not be correct. I don't know as I have never had anything to do with them.

Your statement is fact which is good to see.

I have to agree with Axle re the rep of transit vans of a few years ago. Although our current one with 124000ks is much better.apparently it was so bad the ferry drivers even hated moving them between locations.
Cheers Pete

Pete,
what was written was about transit vans and not their engines.

It is easy to insinuate that because a transit van wasn't good it means the engine was no good.

Quote from Axle in another post.

Axle replied:
Hi Nicholas,... I might go a bit negative here, and say i have experienced a failure with a 04 v8 petrol, ...Now everyone is going to say Service ,Service Service!!, thats the problem,... I'm not convinced!, as i have seen one stripped down after toyo 10,000ks service intervials , The Piston to bore clearance with a lot of those engines was what you would call a bit sus, and if there was piston slap happening with the motor, in reality theres no way those engines will do 400.000ks,.... On the positive note they are a beautiful smooth motor as you probably relise, good fuel economy for power, reliable as, But in my opinion only. they are a bit vunerable.!!. I still like mine, BUT!!!. in the back of my mind....lol.

Another quote.

Submitted: Sunday, Jul 22, 2012 at 19:29
Axle
I had a very rare failure on the 4.7l V8 petrol in our landcruiser. Of all things a valve retainer failed and let a exhaust valve drop. Luckily the piston survived, and all is well with everything else. the problem is there is not a one anywhere in Oz, and the search is now on in Japan for a manufacturer that can supply.

Onlly the size of a twenty cent piece, and worth $5.50 at the dealer, But sure has stopped us dead for aprox three weeks they say. So the greatest can still let you down Big time....LOL.

Cheers Axle.

Guess I can now say Landcruisers are crap, but I won't because that statement is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Oh, Same as Hose A the fireman.

They named the Pajero a Montero or Shogun anywhere they speak Spanish because Pajero is a rude slang word in Spanish. The guy who named it probably got fired. :-)

I was told Pajero was slang for w#nker in Spanish?

HaHaHa,! ..Your a funny Fellow Aren't you.:)))))

Merry Xmas

Axle.