Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Isuzu Trooper

1162163165167168388

Comments

  • savvas_esavvas_e Posts: 347
    Haven't had that piece of advice from anyone. Down here, the general feeling that the 4WD magazines generate is that the Jackaroo has continuously evolved into a very capable and under-rated piece of machinery. TOD also makes the newer Troopers that much more versatile in wet conditions than the non TOD ones.

    I think that whether it is worth upgrading or not, comes down to what you plan to do with your 95.5 in the next couple of years. If you're in the market for a new SUV anyway, and you're happy to get another Trooper, then by all means grab 'em while they last. Just make sure it's a long term proposition as the value will probably plummet when they discontinue them.
  • savvas_esavvas_e Posts: 347
    I think the weight distribution will be different in the diesel as the engine is much heavier than the petrol. There is more metal in that engine simply so it can cope with the roughly 19:1 compression ratios that it generates.


    Also, I have read that with larger than standard tyres you shouldn't overinflate

    and can probably run a bit less pressure than standard. This is because the wider section width can flex more and also lead to belt fractures.


    Have a read of section 3 in this bulletin by Toyo tyres -


    http://www.toyo.com.au/tech_info6.html

  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    Are definitely heavier in the front. That's not to applicable for the gas ones.

    -mike
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    Broke down and had a shop install the one I couldn't pull out. I think i have em a bit too cranked, the front is slightly higher than the back now, so I'll turn em down in a bit. But I definitely noticed a nice change. I was able to run with the front shocks set to 2 rather than the 4 I was runinng previously.

    -mike
  • savvas_esavvas_e Posts: 347
    Mike...You've gotta put photos up on isuzu-suvs soon. Sounds like you're having fun at the moment.

    Hopefully this will let the weight question die a natural death. Have a look at the airborne trooper video clip on www.isuzu-suvs.com. Mike's Trooper comes down tail first after being airborne (heavy in the rear - the Trooper, not Mike), whereas the pickup shown before Mike's Trooper, comes down nose first (heavy in the front).
  • bawbcatbawbcat Posts: 118
    Sawas,
    Interesting numbers from the weighbridge, thanks for sharing. Can you give some info about your Monterey? Is it a current model with 4x4 and the 3.5L petrol engine? The current Monterey specs list the curb weight at 2085 kg (4601 lb) which is about the same as the US spec Trooper Ltd 4x4 which is specd at 4615 lb. You weighbridge numbers only add up to 1950 kg though (4300 lb). I wonder why yours appears to be lighter than spec. Maybe I'm misinterpreting the meaning of "curb weight"?
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    I'm on vacation and only have dialup so I will have pics up next week once I get back to the city.

    I've been wanting to get mine weighed as well, but haven't had a chance yet.

    -mike
  • 99trooper99trooper Posts: 87
    Just one more thought, I stated that with my Rancho 9000 shocks I set the front stiffer to 3 and the rear softer to 2, which led me to believe that the front is heavier. A few folks told me that the rear springs could be stiffer to start with so that would negate the fact that I set the rear softer for an "equal" ride front to rear, meaning my thought didn't "prove" that there was more weight up front. Well, one more question, if we say the rear is heavier AND has stiffer springs which would mean I would set the shocks for a softer ride in back (for the back ride to equal the front in harshness/smoothness), then WHY does the rear bottom out over large bumps, but the front does not? Also, if you set all shocks equally and stand on the front bumper and try to bounce the car, it doesnt bounce nearly as much as when you stand on the rear bumper and bounce the truck. If the rear was "stiffer" wouldnt it bounce less?...I guess this is all too confusing for this time of the morning!
  • bawbcatbawbcat Posts: 118
    An observation from this morning that adds to the confusion: With all tires on my 98 Trooper 4x4 inflated to 30 psi, and with the vehicle empty and about 1/4 tank of fuel. The front tires are visibly compressed more than the rear (i.e. more sidewall bulge near the contact patch). All tires are new and identical. I don't see how this could be the case unless the front weighs more than the rear.
  • cracoviancracovian Posts: 337
    I'm getting tempted by the price of the 2002 2WD Trooper S. It's a cool truck and I realize that the costs of maintenance are average on this vehicle. One thing that I always hated to do is having to change the timing belt every 60,000 miles on my previous cars. Does the new Trooper require any timing belt replacement, if so how often and for how much. Thank you for your responses!
  • breakorbreakor Posts: 398
    51/49 front to rear per this site - http://www.auho.com/autoinfo/reviewsframes149.html


    Still seems hard to argue with actual scale readings even if they are in metric.

  • Ok I have two complaints. First of all is anyone else experiencing spark knock? Mine is bad....really bad. And second the drivers side front power window is extremely slow. It is maybe one fourth the speed of the other windows. I am probably going to the dealer with it but I wanted to see if anyone else had the same problems as I.
  • savvas_esavvas_e Posts: 347
    My Monterey is the 2000 model which is lighter than the current model. At that time leather, power seats, etc were an option that I didn't take up. The current Monterey has these as standard as well as the environment multimeter and wheel arch flares. The current model also has a 60mm wider track front and rear than mine. Then there is climate control, condenser fan, etc., which weren't on the 2000. I can only guess that adds up to some of the 135kg difference.

    Interesting that the US and Australian figures for the LTD and Monterey are the same. If anything I'd expect the Monterey to be a bit heavier because it has the third row seats as standard. But then again, we don't get the huge moonroof.

    The definition of curb weight is supposed to mean with a full load of all fluids and factory tyres with specified air pressure. However I have read recently that it only includes a partially full tank. Don't know what's right.
  • sdc2sdc2 Posts: 780
    I guess it is too late now, but I probably could have saved you the shop charge. I had the same problem (I think), there was tension on the t-bars even after removing the adjustment bolt, and I couldn't draw them out of the front bracket due to the splines binding. So I loosened the front bracket, allowing it to swivel a little bit, and then I was able to pull the t-bars right out.

    Of course, this is all on my write-up on your website, so hopefully you read that before you tried the install... ;-)
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    Yup had the fronts loose but still couldn't get enough grip on it. I did actually read your writeup and took some pics to add to it :)

    -mike
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    Don't forget almost all US bound vehicles are slightly heavier than their Aussie counterparts due to the extra crash stuff we need in the structure. For instance the new Pontiac GTO v. Holden Monaro will be 200+lbs.

    As for the weight split I'd go with the scale/official #s. If you crank your T-bars you can shift weight to the rear or if you let em down you can shift weight to the front, or at least make it appear that way.

    -mike
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    Just got back from towing a 2800lb+ boat trailer up and down the adirondacks. The Rancho 9000s set at 2/5+ and the OME springs and the Sway Away Torsion bars did great. We had 4 225lb+ people, gear in the back and the boat loaded up. Had no problems handling the towing and the braking (unbraked trailer). I also have the 275-70-16 tires to boot!

    -mike
  • gprodickgprodick Posts: 36
    I went through a list of front engine sports cars, and others, and found none with a rear weight bias. In fact, of the ones I viewed, I didn't even see a 50/50 weight distribution. There are some out there, but they are rare. Four wheel drive cars tend to have a very high front end bias, due to the weight ofthe additional drive train in front.

    As noted by breakor, on a Trooper, the bias is 51/49 to the front. The fellow that had his weighed was reporting 55% of his weight on the rear. This doesn't sound right at all. Factoring in all the fluids, including a 1/2 tank of gas and fluids in the engine, cooling system, trans etc., there should not be a 55% rear weight bias. Gas doesn't weigh that much! In fact, if you subtracted the weight of all the fluids in that Trooper, it would make his Trooper( Monterey) the lightest anywhere. I believe the reported factory spec weights are probably dry weights. The weight on that Monterey, dry, would be well under the 4300 lbs bawbcat was figuring. Certainly, different accessories could account for a lot of that weight difference. A 55% rear weight bias is hard to imagine, without a load.
  • boxtrooperboxtrooper Posts: 843
    I know it is a little early for this, but paison, please give a comparison of the improvement of the OME springs on the rear to the improvement of the SwayAways on the front.

    Are the SwayAways progressive like the OMEs so they provide a nice ride and are much stiffer when flexed to give the advantages of stiffer springs when needed?
  • sdc2sdc2 Posts: 780
    I don't think it is possible to make a progressive torsion bar, it's just a straight piece of spring steel.
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    They are significantly stiffer. If you are looking for a soft lincoln like ride out of them it's not going to happen. Although with the 9000s set to #2 they are relatively soft. I bet if I turn them down to 1 they'll be about stockish. Body roll and brake dive are far better than before. So far so good :)

    -mike
  • cracoviancracovian Posts: 337
    I just got a quote for a new 2002 Trooper LS 4x2 selling for $22,850. It's from one of the dealers in north Atlanta. It sounds like a fair deal, what do you think? Should I try to push them a bit lower?

    Also, they told me that the timing belt does need to be replaced every 100,000 miles. The similar service on other cars would run me about $400. Is this what I should expect to pay in Trooper's case? Are there any other maintenance ''surprises'' I should expect on top of changing fluids and drive belts every 60,000 miles?
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    Timing belt intervals on all CA equipped cars is 105k.

    Fluids should be swapped probably less than 60K IMHO.

    -mike
  • justdrivinjustdrivin Posts: 17
    Hello all,

    Has anyone had any experience with aftermarket wiring harnesses?? At another board I go to for SUV's, they all rave about the improvement of their stock headlights with the install of one of these wiring harness kits...I believe my 2000S uses the 9004 set-up. http://www.suvlights.com/

    Also, I read a lot about the Sylvania Silverstar replacement bulbs...much better than stock, even better with the new wiring harness, about $25.00 a piece(?). BTW, what our the Trooper headlight wattages (60/80)??

    Thanks for any responses. David
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    You could put 150w bulbs in our headlights and the reflectors and lenses still are horrible. I run 80/100w bulbs and they help a little. I also have 100w H3 fogs and for high beams I have 130w Hella 4000s. Check out pics on http://isuzu-suvs.com


    I think the 9004 bulbs are 45/60w


    -mike

  • breakorbreakor Posts: 398
    The valve adjustment at 60k requirement for the 3.5l was a surprise to me. So too is the nature of the job as it requires shims. What's up with that?
  • troop2shostroop2shos Posts: 235
    Just your typical DOHC engine requiring shims - nothing special or unusual. 60k seems too soon for an automatic tranny - doesn't see the higher sustained RPM's as w/ using a manual. 100k should be the minimum check w/ modern engines & that's still questionable as long as the oil & filter are changed regularly - could be fine at 200k+. The shims are the wear items & if they become pitted, they can tear-up cam lobes.
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Posts: 2,554
    I think I've overlooked this one for our 98 Trooper (3.5L). I'll have to check the owners manual, but I think it's in there.

    Is this really necessary? What kind of cost should I expect?

    Our 98 is at 66,xxx miles.
  • cracoviancracovian Posts: 337
    I actually test drove the Trooper today and, though I liked it a lot since I'm used to driving a compact pickup truck, my wife didn't like it too much :-( I must say the seats are relatively small and not too comfortable. Anyway, the price for the LS 2x4 was $22,152 plus $850 for custom leather seating. Leather seats are the absolute must in this otherwise unimpressive interior. It does seem like a decent price for what you get ($24,872 out the door) but somehow I don't feel like I'd be "stealing"... What do you guys think?
  • paisanpaisan Posts: 21,181
    Think about it cracovian... Name 1 other SUV you can get with that much room that is under $30K and will last for 200K miles?

    ------None-------

    So IMHO you are getting an outstanding deal.

    -mike
Sign In or Register to comment.