Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Isuzu Trooper

1969799101102233

Comments

  • bluedevilsbluedevils Member Posts: 2,554
    Seems a shop told me this involved something like 2-3 hours labor. If so, that's a fairly pricey maintenance item, IMO. And if the importance of it is questionable, then I question whether it's a good idea to have it done.

    Can someone more mechanical than me explain if this would be more necessary on a truck that sees a lot of off-road and/or 4-Low use? Our Trooper is pampered, relative to some of your Troopers. At 66,000 miles I have considered having the hubs repacked for the first time but so far have not had the job done.
  • savvas_esavvas_e Member Posts: 347
    If you see a lot of dirt/mud/dust/sand/water/etc, then bearing maintenance becomes very important. You probably should consider having them done more frequently in this case.


    If it's a tarmac based Trooper having an easy life, then it still needs doing. If you're at 66,000miles (110,000km) to my way of thinking it's a little overdue.


    It's actually not a difficult thing as a DIY task if you have the inclination. Here's a link that covers the 1987-1991 models. The newer Troopers aren't very different to this. Just take care with any wiring/sensors for ABS-


    http://www.geocities.com/jackaroo4wdclub/techtalk2.html

  • boxtrooperboxtrooper Member Posts: 843
    Have them greased! I did it initially on my 1984 Trooper but became late and after about 110K miles on the grease (170K on the Trooper) I was driving on a road with patchy ice. The passenger side front wheel would stop rolling and slide on the ice patches then screach back to rolling when traction returned. When I took it in (way below freezing is not time to work on your own Trooper in the driveway) the bearing was a pile a broken metal, somehow the races were OK, and new bearings and grease solved the problem. Since then I make sure to keep them greased.
  • sdc2sdc2 Member Posts: 780
    Funny, I just posted a question about this over in Maintenance, before I saw this discussion.

    I think Planet Isuzoo has a write up on this for an Amigo or something. It kinda looks like a PITA, so I might see what the dealer wants to do it.
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Member Posts: 2,554
    Is a 'bearing repack' the same as 'greasing the bearings'? I thought a bearing repack was a more involved procedure.
  • jimmyp1jimmyp1 Member Posts: 640
    in the back of my mind, I keep thinking about my only real world experience with repacked bearings....and that is that every time we had that done on our boat trailer, we'd have a bearing failure out in the middle of Utah on our way to Lake Powell. My point being that I believe there is a right way and a wrong way to do this. I will have the dealer do it after I quiz him a bit as to his experience with it.

    Jim

    P.S. Do you have pictures of those side steps, Paisan. Guess I could just look.....
  • boxtrooperboxtrooper Member Posts: 843
    I think the original grease in the wheel bearings can last longest because the seals and the seal mating surfaces are new and therefore should have the best seal. Subsequent wheel bearing grease should be changed sooner because the chance of water or dirt getting in or grease getting out is higher.

    I think on wheel bearings on Troopers there is only one way of getting new grease into the bearing, that is take the bearings out to do a "bearing repack".

    Some boat trailers have a grease fitting or bearing buddy that attempts to force new grease into the bearings without taking them apart. Applying more grease without taking the bearings apart would be "greasing the bearings" but not a "bearing repack"
  • bawbcatbawbcat Member Posts: 118
    Has anyone seen actual specs from Isuzu on the front/rear weight distribution of the Trooper? Intuitively I find it hard to believe that the rear axle on an unloaded Trooper carries significantly more weight than the front axle as others have noted.
  • bluedevilsbluedevils Member Posts: 2,554
    Thanks for the explanation. That helps.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Steps are cool. I'll have some pics up soon.

    Torsion bars are cool so far, except on the pass. side I'm having problems yanking the freed on out. I'm sure it'll come out easy in the morning.

    Weight distribution: I'm guessing that it is equal or more in the rear. Glass and all the other junk in the rear is HEAVY.

    -mike
  • sbcookesbcooke Member Posts: 2,297
    Steps and bars sound cool. Seems like there are a lot of projects going on!
  • wlbrown9wlbrown9 Member Posts: 867
    Memphis newspaper had a full page add on Isuzu today. 60month 0% financing is back (Edmunds incentive page shows 7/2/02 - 9/30/02) on Trooper, Axiom and Rodeo. Hum..tempting. I pulled the payoff on my '00 Trooper LS, got the trade value from Edmumds and KBB (Edmunds is $1400 more than KBB). I could probably come close to trading and payments not go up much over what I got 2 years ago...but I would then have 60 payments to go instead of 33. Still have almost 1 year of time and mileage left on the 36/50K full warranty.... I guess I'll have to pass on this for now...might check and see what the 2 dealers have on the lot just to satisfy my curiosity.
  • gprodickgprodick Member Posts: 36
    I think you would be hard put to find a front engine car on the planet with a rear weight bias.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    really? I know tons of front engine sports cars with a 50/50 weight distribution. Of course if you are talking big american V8 Iron block engines you are probably right, but engines are pretty light these days.

    -mike
  • 99trooper99trooper Member Posts: 87
    Hey, just to add some more fuel to the debate, on my 99 trooper I have rancho 9000 shocks. I leave the front on 3 the harder setting and the rear on 2, softer. The reason is that if the rear is on 3 it bounces around too much, more so than the front, which to me says its lighter..
  • tetonmantetonman Member Posts: 73
    Interesting to see the topic take off a bit. Guess this is one of the issues that many people have questions on.

    Thanks again,

    Tetonman
  • sbcookesbcooke Member Posts: 2,297
    The ride front to rear is based on the suspension. The rear is designed to carry significantly more than its standing weight, so it makes sense that there is a ride difference. It may have more "spring" built into the rear due to the load carrying requirements.
  • savvas_esavvas_e Member Posts: 347
    Went to a weighbridge yesterday.

    On my Monterey, the rear carries 1070kg, the front carries 880kg. This is unladen with about half a tank of fuel.
  • boxtrooperboxtrooper Member Posts: 843
    I was at the Cadillac-GMC-Pontiac-Isuzu dealer next door picking up my families 2001 Subaru Forester that we want to sell, the service was just the inspection sticker and an oil change.

    I saw three mechanics working on a new looking Isuzu Trooper. They had the computer thing attached inside and the hood open. So I had a look under the hood to compare to my 1995.5. The new engine is quieter and I like the coil-over-plug design.

    I asked the mechanics if they would recommend trading in my 1995.5 Trooper while I could still get a new 2002. To my surprise the mechanic strongly recommended sticking with my 1995.5 Trooper. I had only a minute on my way to a meeting. I asked why he thought I should keep my 1995.5, he said he in his opinion the older Troopers are better. I had not time to get more feedback.

    Has anyone else asked mechanics that work on Troopers often, if they recommend swapping and older Trooper for a 2002?

    Thank You
    BoxTrooper
  • konghhkonghh Member Posts: 20
    Just by chance and out of curosity, I used a flat ruler to check my tire thread wear this morning before I saw all these posting. I simply couldn't understand how others could inflat the tires greater than the manual's 30psi and 35psi on a LARGER tires (mine a 265/70R16 '97 Diesel Trooper) because I definitely got excessive wears at the middle of the thread. Presently having 30 psi all around. Last rotation 5000-km ago. Sure enough, the rear definitely show more overinflation than the front whereas the front show marginal excessive middle wear. I can only conclude that the rear is DEFINITELY lighter going by tire wear.
  • savvas_esavvas_e Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 21,181
    Are definitely heavier in the front. That's not to applicable for the gas ones.

    -mike
  • paisanpaisan Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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.

  • keepontroopinkeepontroopin Member Posts: 297
    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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 21,181
    Timing belt intervals on all CA equipped cars is 105k.

    Fluids should be swapped probably less than 60K IMHO.

    -mike
  • justdrivinjustdrivin Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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.