Mitsubishi Canter 4x4

Hey Bob,

I'm just doing a follow up on the bloke "bloffy" to see if he brought one etc.

Cheers

this one here?

http://www.tradingpost.com.au/Automotive/Trucks-Buses/Trucks-Buses/AdNumber=TP003363574?BackToResult=true&AdOnTop

hi BC, these are a great vehicle, congrats.... anychance of hearing a a-round-about-price?

Price will depend on your level of options: fuel tanks, water tanks, bullbar, seats, centre console, roof rack, winch, etc. Ours was around $200k, about the same as our previous off-road caravan and 4x4 wagon, but this machine can go anywhere. Not cheap but everything on it runs from diesel: 5 litre turbo intercooled 4 cyl diesel engine, diesel cooktop, diesel hot water system (inside and outside shower), diesel interior heating etc. All stainless steel fittings, 1800 W pure sine inverter, solar, plenty of Fullrivers on board, etc. Electric roof, electric awning, electric steps. Not a hitch so far. The photo in the Avatar is Goog's track. It's great on sand and that's from someone who has done the Simpson 4 times, the Cape 8 times, CSR , Kimberleys, etc. It's my pre-retirement mid-life crisis! But our main purpose is we plan to spend around 6 years going right around the world and this is the ideal vehicle for it. Fits into a 20 ft shipping container! Parks in a standard car park, but has everything you need for independent travel.

Bandicoot, could I ask you to clarify the weights you mentioned please? If the Tare is 4.9t, then I would have expected the GVM to be something above that figure, not below??? I can understand the GCM being listed @ 8t.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that Tare weight is the bare weight of the vehicle (ie: with no fuel and nothing loaded).

The GVM is the maximum weight you are permitted to have on the 4 wheels of the vehicle (ie: the sum of the Tare and the "payload" permissable). I would have expected the GVM to be at least 1t to 2t (or thereabouts) higher than the Tare.

The GCM is the maximum permitted weight of the whole rig, assuming you might be towing a trailer/caravan etc. So, @ 8t, the maximum permissable towing capacity is the difference between the GVM and GCM.

However, the vehicle would also have a maximum towing limit and it may be possible to be within the GCM but still be illegal because you have a heavier-than-permitted trailer on the back. This can happen with Patrols, Cruisers etc.

As I said, I will stand corrected on anything I have said here; it's just my understanding and I am somewhat confused by the figures you have mentioned.

Bandicoot
I had been thiking of an Earthcruiser but decided to wait a year or so to make sure the operation got off the ground. The year is up and I am now seriously looking.
Did you also look at the All Terrain Warrior (which has some similarities) and the SLR Adventurer (which is not a pop top though so no good for containerisation). The SLR is Isuzu NPR 300 based - and it seems a little better spec'd for long distance driving (with a susension mod, super singles and Stratos seats like the EC). All three are big dollars and it isn't easy to find out objective "user reports".
Thanks in advance for any more info you can provide.

IAN

Roach "ee"
Sorry. That was a typo. Tare is 3.9 tonnes not 4.9 tonnes! GVM is correct at 4.5 tonnes.
The Canter is engineered to be a 6 tonne GVM, 9.2 tonne GCM vehicle. Original tare (for the cab chassis) as purchased from Fuso is 2610 kg.
However, it can be purchased "placaded" at 4.5 tonne GVM/ 8.0 tonne GCM for a number of reasons:
* Allows driving on ordinary car licence
* Cheaper rego
* No annual mechanical roadworthy before re-registration
The vehicle has identical mechanicals, brakes, etc irrespective of whether you buy it as the 4.5 t GVM or 6 t GVM version.
If you plan to take a vehicle overseas for an extended period, it's very important for it to be under 4.5 tonne GVM otherwise when you come to re-register it (while the vehicle is overseas), you have to ship it back to Australia for a roadworthy. And you won't be able to take a vehicle across an international border unless you can prove it is still registered in the country of origin. It's critical is also remains registered for insurance purposes and also to keep your Carnets valid.
Bandicoot

Ian M
I did look very seriously at both the ATM and Amesz. When i was doing my research, I didn't come across the SLR although I have been aware of its existing for probably the last 9 months.
There are a range of factors to consider. These were the most important to us (but other factors will no doubt be more important to others):
* Are you planning to take the vehicle overseas. It's cheap to ship a vehicle o/s providing you can fit it into a shipping container. This rules out anything that hasn't got a pop-top. There are other crticial reasons why vehicles have to go into shipping containers, e.g. security of the vehicle and all its contents.
* Weight: some construction methods are lighter than others and if you need to get under 4.5 tonnes (see above post) then probably anything steel-frame will be ruled out. In addition, non-pop-tops tend to have "overhead" cupboards, which are nice to have, but also add to weight.
* Cost: "custom builds" tend to end up more expensive as it's harder to get a firm price plus by definition, some of the engineering for "your" vehicle will be paid for by you alone, and not shared around. EC is not a custom-build. There are options, but apart from that, every EC (including every floor plan etc) is identical.
* Fuel source: we particularly wanted the vehicle to run solely on diesel, including diesel hot water system, diesel cooktop, diesel interior heating, and definately no LPG
* Where manufactured: We live in Brisbane which is where EC is manufacturered, so I was more confident about getting what is one of the first production units back to them for any warranty work, if needed
* Manufacture method: EC is the only one (as far as I'm aware) to be manufactured under the Federal Govt DOTARS "2nd stage manufacturing process". Traditionally motorhomes (or refrigerated vans or other “custom builds”) in Australia are created by the manufacturer first buying a cab-chassis or other “base vehicle” which is then registered (giving it licence plates and allowing it to be legally driven on the roads). The base vehicle as sold is already compliance-plated by the importer or manufacturer to prove that it meets all the Australian Design Rules (ADR) relevant to the vehicle. The base vehicle is then modified by the body-builder, certified by an engineer (e.g. for different number of seats) and then is approved by the State Government for registration in that State. It is given a new State compliance plate fitted that says it can legally be registered in that State because vehicle registration is state-based in Australia. If a person moves interstate, or the vehicle is sold interstate, then it will have to be re-registered in that new State, and this will require new inspections in that State, which will be to the guidelines applicable at the time in that State. In some cases, other States have refused to register a vehicle because it would fail to meet the different design standards of that State at that time.
Compare this to the process used by the high-volume car manufacturers. A new model of car (e.g. an import) is brought to Australia and then tested and found to meet the ADR and is then compliance-plated. All states will automatically then register that vehicle, whether new or second hand. This approval process is a federal one, not a State process. Once certified as being compliant, it never needs to be re-certified, even if the owner moves interstate.
As an example, Queensland will not allow a Fuso Canter in the 4500 kg GVM class (which is sold by Fuso with dual rear wheels) to be fitted with single rear wheels but NSW will allow this. However, if a 4.5 tonne GVM vehicle is approved federally with super single wheels (even if manufactured in Queensland), then it will automatically be registrable in ALL States including Queensland!!! How's that for "Yes, Minister"!
As I understand it, this is the reason the EarthCruiser has not gone down the normal motorhome build route. By going through the Federal process using the SMM approvals system, all EarthCruisers are then automatically registrable in Australia, and that will also help with overseas exports of EarthCruisers. They are currently preparing to send the first one to the USA.
Bandicoot

I'll post the specs on our EarthCruiser and you can check them out.

Thanks for the clarification Bandicoot, but I must say that I'm still a bit confused to a certain extent. If the tare is 3900kg and the GVM is 4500kg then you only have an effective payload of 600kg.....about the same as a Nissan patrol.

I would have thought it would have enjoyed quite a bit higher margin as once you add 2 people (say 180kg), then start adding clothes, crockery, food, bedding, maybe a gennie(?) etc etc, you would quite quickly overshoot the 600kg payload. This is one of my concerns about the "normal" 4x4 vehicles; their distinct lack of realistic payload.

Insurance issues as well as legalities are the obvious issues.

Roach "ee"
I guess you could say that the Canter has a tare of 2.6 t and GVM of 4.5 t so that's a payload of 1.9 tonnes.
The reality is that the 1.9 tonnes is taken up with the motorhome (camper), which includes basically everything you need to go away on an expedition. The only things you need to add to the 3.9 "tare" is water and fuel (it already has all the tanks and plumbing), 2 persons, clothes and groceries and a couple of camp chairs and few other minor things.
The only way to get more "payload" than 600 kg and stay under the 4.5 tonnes, would be for the original cab chassis tare to be even less than 2.6 t but this isn't very practical given the tough chassis etc.
The other thing to note is that the vehicle is engineered to 6 tonnes GVM and 9.2 tonnes GCM, so it is very much "understressed" at 4.5 t which should result in good reliability as everything on the vehicle is designed for a much larger payload: chassis, suspension, brakes, diffs, axles and housings, transmission, etc. This is in contrast to (say) a L/C which, when "overloaded" at more than its GVM, is actually over the manufacturer's stated "safe" load rating. This is not the case with the EC.
The main market for the Canter 4WDs is the bush fire brigade, followed by mining companies and then farmers.
The other side of the coin is that the more payload you have, the more you are tempted to carry that "extra" gadget or supplies. I agree that not having enough payload is a problem, but sometimes have too much surplus payload can also be a problem! I'm pretty confident we'll be able to keep at 4.5 t or very close to that.
Bandicoot

Rod im not sure if you ever saw a pic of my old 75 camper but that would be more or less the same hight and width as a canter camper

- absalutly not suitable for you

it really restricted where i could drive it and it wasnt till the 80 i could get to where i wanted

vehicles like that seem like a good idea but ultimatly are only good for dirt road driving or the beach

my camper - completly unsuitable for bush driving due to size



the fire engine :-(

Rod W
With the super single wheels, the EarthCruiser tops out at 127 kph (3100 rpm).
It's very comfortable cruising at 100 kph and I've run it at 110 kph.
100 kph is 2400 rpm. Cruisy!
Remember the super single tyres are almost 37 inch dia, much bigger than normal 4x4 tyres so this effectively adds to the "height" of the gear ratios.
Bandicoot

G'day Get outmore (Dave),
Yep I remember seeing pictures of your 75 Camper, like you say totally unsuitable for overgrown/little used bush tracks that we like and traverse here in WA.

In the meantime the fire engine has been killed and not by me. It has/had been an absolutely fantastic vehicle.

G'day everyone

Rod W, the Canter 4WD is a Truck ~ it drives like one no matter what, they are rough on and off road, yes you can spend heaps of money buying and then modifying one, but at the end of the day it's a truck.

They are quite noisy and the cab is definately not designed with the driver in mind, it is not ergonomic and if you are anywhere around six feet tall, you may end up dreading having to drive it ~ for any length of time.

I drive a variety of vehicles and the Canter 4wd is not my idea of a good vehicle to operate. There are plenty of them around in the Pilbara, but they are mainly used as "man hauls" in the mining industry.
Image Could Not Be Found

The Coach body on this Canter is something else again and it would make a genuinely good camper/motor home ~ yes even I like to dream.

I made those comments from experience with going bush with rod

i would not take a 200 series where he likes to go either

the pop top on the Ec certainly is a great idea but even with that as i said 2.5 m is way to high for bush tracks and a width of over 2m is too wide especially as the widht remains constant with hight instead of tapering in.

i have no qustion they are a good vehicle that suits many peoples needs but from knowing what rod does I doubt it

that cruiser in the pics has simular dimensions to the earth cruiser and certainly that was far too large

it was great for many things but the stress of wiping it out down even mildly overgrown tracks and often having to turn back made me change my mind about larger vehicles

Robin,

The accident has certainly made me aware of how vulnerable the Troopy is, with just a simple laying it over on its side and it becomes a right-off, but then the body is just a big empty shell so to speak.

Before the Troopy I had a 1972 Toyota Dyna Twin Cab (1.5 ton job) to which I converted into a 4x4. It, like the Troopy was narrow and fitted better down the overgrown tracks (which do give vehicles a hard time with branches constantly bashing against the window pillars and marking the paintwork all over both sides) constant that I like to traverse in the Yilgarn region here in WA.

Thinking of the Dyna got me thinking about the Canters and a cab/chassis job and I build a box on the back to suit my requirements and the dollars as well. But in looking into the dimensions of the Canters cabin it would well and truly take a hammering from the bush, so I've decided against the Canter.

Like you say Robin I'll be heading back to the beast I know but a bit different from the 4.5lt petrol straight 6 engine to the 4.5lt V8 diesel engine.