Fuso 3.0 , Duonic transmission, SCR ?

McCulloch

New member
So I have a bit of an update. Fuso has rewritten the engine management software. Apparently it is originally Fiat software written in Switzerland. Who knew? Anyway Mitsu recognizes there is a big issue here and has had 40 or so engineers from around the world gathered in New Jersey rewriting the software over the last couple of months. A regional Mitsu rep installed the software in both of my trucks this week. The gist of the issue that I got was the software parameters were written with unnecessary tight tolerances to meet CARB requirements. I reviewed this thread and the service histories of the trucks with the rep and he felt that the issues that I have been experiencing are moisture related, but different than I suspected. In the original software the cat temperature sensor had to read high enough to allow a reburn. In very wet weather the cat would cool down and the reburn could not happen. This temperature variation and lack of reburn would de rate the engine and cause the codes I was seeing. The new software does not check cat temperature before reburn. This tells me this issue is/was widespread. He did allow that they had seen some issues with moisture intrusion into harnesses but that threw different codes. We discussed the transmission issues at length and said that had not been identified as a major issue. He suggested that our local hilly environment was substantially different than the norm and that was why we were experiencing the issue. He did not feel the software update would fix it. He agreed to document and forward the problem to engineering. I drove the 125 today and did not experience any major differences in driveability after the update. Wait till the rains return in the fall, then we will see.
 
Last edited:

theburtseoni

Observer
Dagnabbit anyway!! I just finished this thread and now I am bummed that the Mit Fuso FG4X4 Canter has so many 'issues'! :confused: I was really looking hard at them, but now realize they are not up to par yet for power, transmission issues, and reliability for the way we would use them here in the Pacific Northwest. They need at least 200 hp with at least 350 ft lbs of torque, and a 2-spd transfer case. And- it needs a much better price point to be competitive!! The best price I have found is around $42K for a 2012 standard cab chassis unit at a dealer in Colo. :Wow1: I suspect I better stick with the Dodge 6.7L Cummins in the 1-ton 4X4 dually 12-ft flatbed truck I have currently. It sounds like it even gets better mileage (15 mpg city, 19 mpg highway) at a curb weight of almost 10,000 lbs empty.
 
Last edited:

donjuan

New member
Hello,

does anyone has any experience with Mistubishi Fuso canter 3s13 DUONIC in Europe?like what is the consumption and how does the truck behavior under weight?
any kind of information I would be very grateful.

Thank you
 

mog

Kodiak Buckaroo
Mitsubishi appears to be acknowledging that the AMT is not suited for off highway use. They are bringing the manual + 2-speed transfer case back, at least in Australia.
http://www.carsguide.com.au/news-and-reviews/car-news/mitsubishi_fuso_canter_4x4_dual_range_returns

Pugslyyy, great find!
I've posted a copy of the article below, just incase the linked article goes away.
-
I had a chance last week to drive a new Duonic equipped Fuso with a Host Outback camper on back and will be writing a man-on-the street review of both.
I will say on-road the new Fuso is very impressive and proves 'numbers in the book' don't mean much. While on paper it has almost the same horsepower and torque as my 2002 FG, it would run circles around my FG.
It drives like a new truck (meaning our 'new' trucks here drive more like cars, then trucks of yesteryear). Performance in town is great, very smooth, fast with great acceleration. Even with the Host camper on back, in Bend Oregon rush hours traffic, it was just fine with no "O-********, I'm stuck in traffic with a big truck". Lane changes (to pass, WHAT, in a Fuso), were great with both power and maneuverability. The automatic works very well and shift points seem set for 'performance' and were very smooth. The shift pattern is like new cars. P-R-N then a left side shift to Automatic Drive. From that left point you can up or down shift manually if you like (no need to need in town).
I was not able to do a max speed run due to traffic and 'adult supervision' in the cab, but this is a Fuso you could surly get a speeding ticket in. 60+ mph was effortless, and I would guess it would easily exceed 70-80 mph, even with the Host camper. So one word review for on-road/in town performance - Impressive!
-
-


By James Stanford Carsguide 29 May 2012-
Mitsubishi Fuso is reinstating a popular go-anywhere version of its Canter 4x4 with dual-range gearbox.
-
The Japanese brand recently introduced the latest generation Canter 4x4 and although the new model brought a wide range of improvements it was missing the low range gearing that gave the previous models remarkable off-road capability.
-
Mitsubishi Fuso has accepted feedback, much of it from Australia, and is currently well advanced developing a new Canter 4x4 with a dual range gear set that will allow the rig to take-on the toughest terrain. It is currently referred to as the ‘high-low gear' version.
-
The company will also continue to sell the existing Canter 4x4 that does without low range because it is lighter, uses less fuel and easier on its engine (at highway speeds) as it has taller gearing, which allows for easier highway cruising. This is currently called the ‘high gear' version. It will also be cheaper, although Mitsubishi Fuso is not about to say how much less it will cost.
-
Mitsubishi Fuso Australia says the new Canter 4x4 without low-range is doing well and has no problem running in mild off-road conditions. It is doing particularly well in mining applications, as the selectable 4x4 system is more than capable on slippery surfaces such as gravel and dirt.
-
The new model has also been well accepted by many companies who turn the Canter 4x4 into a versatile camper that is not limited to tarmac roads. While it could conquer some of the meanest terrain, hop rocks and wade through deep mud, the lower gearing of the previous dual-range Canter 4x4 meant that it was not at home cruising on the highway.
-
Its engine revved hard to maintain 95km/h, making it a mobile chicane for many other motorists and it was far from serene in the cabin. The 4x4 model that has just been introduced benefits from a smoother-revving engine and different gearing, which allows for a theoretical top speed of 129km/h. This in turn means that cruising at 100km/h is a far more serene experience.
-
Mitsubishi Fuso is expecting the new ‘high-low' model will appeal to hardcore go-anywhere campers, utility companies that need to access extremely difficult locations and rural fire services. Both the ‘high gear‘ and ‘high-low gear' models will be available with the standard cab as well as the crew cab version.
-
Apart from the gearing the trucks will be essentially the same. They have a gross vehicle mass of 6500kg (including the truck and its load), which gives it best it class payload. The trucks run a 3.0-litre four-cylinder diesel that generates 110kW between 2840 and 3500revs and 370Nm between 1350 and 2840revs. It runs a variable geometry turbocharger for a more even spread of torque.
-
While the European version runs Selective Catalytic Reduction and requires AdBlue exhaust treatment fluid, the Australia specification gets by without it. However, it does use a Diesel Particulate Filter, which catches a range of exhaust nasties and burns them off at super high temperatures. This is an active system, working away in the background as you drive, but may also require the truck to be stopped for a manual burn-off.
-
A five-speed manual gearbox is the only transmission option. While the regular Canter is available with the ground breaking Duonic dual clutch automated manual gearbox, which can automatically change gears far quicker and more intuitively than a regular automated manual transmission, it is not available with the 4x4 model.
-
This is partly due to the fact that an automated manual is not the best solution for an off-road vehicle carrying heavy loads as both the payload and off-road capability would be compromised. A torque convertor automatic, which would be the best solution, is not available. The Canter 4x4 comes with a front airbag for the driver and passenger and a standard suspended driver's seat.
 

McCulloch

New member
I have an update on the Duonic transmission. Fuso has issued a recall that includes replacement of transmission fluid and a reflash. The result is a huge difference in performance. All starts are now in first gear, not second. Shifts are smooth and RPMs are kept in the higher end of the range. On the highway when trying to accelerate the downshift is to fifth is immediate. The regional Fuso rep contacted our dealer and asked them to contact us to get our two units upgraded as he felt that it would address the issues that I had previously walked him through. It did just that. Makes the truck far better to drive than the original programming. Driver feedback to me is that it now feels and performs like a normal automatic transmission. One driver called me this morning and said the difference in loaded performance was nothing short of amazing. It's too early to tell what the impact on fuel economy will be but driver satisfaction on both units is way up.
 

Gatsma

Adventurer
Wow. Just read the whole thread, and every post right up to the one by McCulloch just before this one backed up what I'd been hearing about the newer Fusos(gutless engines, bad-performing/fried transmissions). Maybe Isuzu did the right thing by putting their 3.0L engine in only their lightest NPR-ECO model, keeping the 5.2L in all higher-GVW models.
Plus ALL units use the proven Aisin 6-spd automatic trans w/ lockup in 2-6 gear, with 5th and 6th gears being overdriven.
The ECO uses Aisin 460 model due to the smaller/less powerful engine, where the heavier models use the Aisin 465.
The Isuzu 5.2L puts out 215HP@2500rpm and 452lb-ft@1850rpm compared to the Isuzu 3.0L with 150HP@2800rpm and 282lb-ft@1600-2800rpm.
To my mind, I would rather sacrifice a bit of fuel economy to have the huge increase in torque the 5.2 has, especially in a truck w/19,500GVW as the NRR has.
The Fuso 3.0/Duonic, while apparently improved lately, has got to be working its guts out pushing the heavier Fuso trucks around.
It just doesn't seem like a good idea to use that small an engine for the full model line, but then, Mitsubishi's engineering budget probably doesn't match Isuzu's either.
 
Last edited:

Flys Lo

Adventurer
Wow. Just read the whole thread, and every post right up to the one by McCulloch just before this one backed up what I'd been hearing about the newer Fusos(gutless engines, bad-performing/fried transmissions). Maybe Isuzu did the right thing by putting their 3.0L engine in only their lightest NPR-ECO model, keeping the 5.2L in all higher-GVW models.
Plus ALL units use the proven Aisin 6-spd automatic trans w/ lockup in 2-6 gear, with 5th and 6th gears being overdriven.
The ECO uses Aisin 460 model due to the smaller/less powerful engine, where the heavier models use the Aisin 465.
The Isuzu 5.2L puts out 215HP@2500rpm and 452lb-ft@1850rpm compared to the Isuzu 3.0L with 150HP@2800rpm and 282lb-ft@1600-2800rpm.
To my mind, I would rather sacrifice a bit of fuel economy to have the huge increase in torque the 5.2 has, especially in a truck w/19,500GVW as the NRR has.
The Fuso 3.0/Duonic, while apparently improved lately, has got to be working its guts out pushing the heavier Fuso trucks around.
It just doesn't seem like a good idea to use that small an engine for the full model line, but then, Mitsubishi's engineering budget probably doesn't match Isuzu's either.
Keep in mind that the purchaser of these trucks is very rarely the driver. Mitsubishi can no doubt show reduction in fuel costs with the smaller engine (and also sell the truck for cheaper by fitting a cheaper engine...) to fleet managers and win them over. As long as the truck passes grade-ability testing in engineering, it will be fine.

My 1988 Canter (Fuso) was fitted with a naturally aspirated indirect injection 2.8 diesel, which had around 80hp and 146lb ft of torque, half what the current truck has, with one less gear. It was rated up to a 19,500lb GVM. Yes it was slow when it was loaded, but it always got there :)
 

Gatsma

Adventurer
Keep in mind that the purchaser of these trucks is very rarely the driver. Mitsubishi can no doubt show reduction in fuel costs with the smaller engine (and also sell the truck for cheaper by fitting a cheaper engine...) to fleet managers and win them over. As long as the truck passes grade-ability testing in engineering, it will be fine.

My 1988 Canter (Fuso) was fitted with a naturally aspirated indirect injection 2.8 diesel, which had around 80hp and 146lb ft of torque, half what the current truck has, with one less gear. It was rated up to a 19,500lb GVM. Yes it was slow when it was loaded, but it always got there :)
You make some good points. Back when your '88 was built none of the Japanese trucks put out much power; as long as they got to where they were going the customer was satisfied, and much fuel was saved compared to what else was available then.
The bar has been raised since then, and I guess my point was that Fuso should give us the OPTION of a larger engine, at least in the heavier GVW models. But maybe Mitsubishi does NOT have a larger, but still certifiable engine to suit the application. At least with Isuzu one has that choice. I just don't think a 3.0L 160HP engine will cut it in a 19,500#GVW truck, and that is what you are stuck with in a Fuso. Isuzu only puts their 3.0L in the NPR ECO model here in the states(can't speak for other countries). Everything else gets the 5.2L.
 
Last edited:

McCulloch

New member
Actually the Fuso was offered in 3 2WD GVWs in NA. 12.5, now 13, 16 and 18. No 19.5 is available. Payload on the 18k is equal to the payload on a 19.5 Ford F550 Payload on the 16 is equal to an 18k F550. 18 is important as it eliminates the requirement for commercial vehicle inspections in my province in Canada. The dealer said it was similar to the regulations in many US states and why Fuso builds an 18. With the type of consistent load our trucks carry the 16k goes out the door at 15.7 with driver each and every day. Frontal area of the box is about 85 sq. ft. Power at that weight with the new transmission program is more than adequate and a huge improvement in driveability over the original programming. Despite the Fuso rep telling me that they had never heard of anyone else expressing concerns about the transmission operation it seems reprogramming was developed, just for me I guess. The transmission issues have been resolved, the DPF issues have been resolved and all that's left is to see what this falls rain brings. Having said that I'm in the market for two 18k Fusos or two 19.5k F550s and right now I'm leaning to the Fords given the journey it has been with the Fuso's getting them to this point. The F550 that I bought at the same time as the 16k Fuso still has only seen oil changes in 100k of service with identical payloads. Actually the Ford did have a weeping pan gasket that was replaced under warranty during an oil change. That's it. No drama and just marginally poorer fuel economy.
 

Gatsma

Adventurer
Interesting! Fuso must have gotten the gearing right for the 3.0L to perform "more than adequately" while fully loaded.
At this early stage, do you have fuel economy numbers yet? I'm curious to see how good they may be, as sometimes a small engine working very hard will get either equal or slightly less mileage than a larger engine at the SAME LEVEL of performance. The larger engine loses when run faster, of course.
I'm glad the reprogramming worked so well! But boy, did it cost Mitsubishi! ALL those replaced transmissions, ALL the reprogramming, etc. Somebody really dropped the ball on that deal. I wonder if a few heads rolled in the executive meetings....
McCulloch- I stand corrected- had to look it up, and yup, 17,995# max. GVW. I guess 18,000 is the "line" Canada draws on the inspection requirement. I would even bet that spec is only "on paper", in that Fuso just declared a former 19,500# unit to now be limited to 17,995#. Not the first time I've seen this happen, and it works to your advantage. 1505# difference isn't that much to worry about.
 
Last edited:

McCulloch

New member
Our trucks carry identical loads every day. On one standing start from a stoplight on a highway the driver gets to 90 KMH when passing the same small shed beside the road. After the transmission reprogramming he said he hit 105 when passing the shed. He was amazed at the difference. I test drove the 12.5 truck lightly loaded to between 8 and 9K and it was far more responsive than before. When trying to accelerate on the highway the downshift to 5th gear was immediate, even at partial throttle. Acceleration is certainly not neck snapping but given the Fuso 4wd has a GVW of only 14k power should not be an issue. That is subjective of course but I don't think that is a great worry any longer.
 

Gatsma

Adventurer
Man, that is a HUGE difference without ANY mechanical modification; just reflashing the computer! Sounds like Fuso has it right!
You've got to be feeling pretty good about all this.....
 

dlh62c

Explorer
But boy, did it cost Mitsubishi! ALL those replaced transmissions, ALL the reprogramming, etc. Somebody really dropped the ball on that deal. I wonder if a few heads rolled in the executive meetings....

Its possible that there's two failure modes at play here, one hardware and the other software.

Mitsubishi Fuso Truck of America announced a recall of 7,819 model year 2012-2014 FEC52, FEC72, FEC92 and FGB72 trucks back in March. In the affected vehicles, the transmission may not have been cleaned sufficiently during manufacturing, allowing debris to contaminate the automatic transmission fluid.

A computer re-flash might not fix a transmission issue if its already damaged internally by debris. It also sounds like Mitsubishi has since fine tuned their computer re-flash as well.
 
Last edited:

Gatsma

Adventurer
In the affected vehicles, the transmission may not have been cleaned sufficiently during manufacturing, allowing debris to contaminate the automatic transmission fluid.

A computer re-flash might not fix a transmission issue if its already damaged internally by debris. It also sounds like Mitsubishi has since fine tuned their computer re-flash as well.
That explains a lot. I wasn't sure those trannies were failing strictly from a computer glitch, but what do I know? Thank you for the clarification!
 

Forum statistics

Threads
186,809
Messages
2,890,312
Members
227,012
Latest member
dalewelsh
Top