You're heading into light truck territory:

https://www.trucksales.com.au/items/details/2012-fuso-canter/SSE-AD-6725274/?Cr=56

Carbuilders have a video for acoustic insulation. I have stuffed it everywhere in my Land Rover & it's the best improvement you can make. About 80 hours work, a second time around I could do it in 40 hours.... I have stuffed it in everywhere!

I would put in a lot more foam, at the very least double up thickness, basically fill all gaps.

https://www.carbuilders.com.au/troopy-packs

iana wrote:

---

Thankyou for the replies and messages so far, from my threads you can see I am exploring various avenues with the towing vehicle, or replacing our van. With the land-cruiser (which I owned two in Papua New Guinea, but no towing and petrol didn't matter) I am thinking of the 70 series crew cab, and fitting our Boston canopy direct onto the chassis rails, i.e. no tray, maybe a little tray at the back for firewood etc. Our BT50 tows well, but I cannot think about such things as extra solar panels etc., without exceeding the GCM.
So it is either down sizing the van, or upsizing the tug.
Incidentally the BT50 is longer than the Land Cruiser, not by much, looks can be deceiving.

---

 You are right about length,as BT50 is 6"  longer than the 79,and has 3220mm wheelbase,compared with 3180mm for the Landcruiser.However,the Landcruiser's  rear axle is rated at 2300kg,a huge 450kg more than the Mazda,although,the BT50's kerb weight is around 200kg less than that of the 79 twin cab.Cheers

iana wrote:

---

Yes that is correct, during out tourers, there were places we could see that we wanted to explore, but towing a caravan, or with a motorhome, you can't pull off the road until one finds a suitable pull over area. With the 4x4 truck its just a matter of pulling off the road and head to the site. I have looked at this idea, and spoken to a few owners.

---

 Hi Ian...you are absolutely correct with your assertion that "...with a 4x4 truck it's just a matter of pulling off the road....",which is not remotely possible in a light truck unless you are happy to spend big bikkies and buy a 4wd to start with,as Peter attests.As I posted earlier,the 79 is not the most comfortable vehicle around,but after many years driving long distance interstate in Macks,Kenworths and Western Stars etc,I am not in the least concerned about that.Indeed,if I feel like it,I can comfortably cover 1000km in one day,in the 79.Some people like to draw attention to the fact that the rear track on a 79 is narrower than the front track,but they seem not to realise that the truth is that the rear track has not changed for many years,from 1460mm.... simply put,the front track has been increased to accomodate the width of the understressed V8 that resides under the bonnet.Simple physics would suggest that making the front track wider than that on earlier models would increase stability? The only time that the difference in track can be "interesting" is in sand etc,but the little V8 soon sorts that! And in the bush,the sound of the little V8 through twin 3 pipes is music to the ears! With your need to be able to carry more,the 79 fits the bill nicely,as carrying capacity is between 1100kg and 1200kg,depending on year of manufacture.The big advantage that the 79 has over other vehicles is the fact that the rear axle is rated at 2300kg ex factory. Even with expensive GVM upgrades,other vehicles do not come near this.Another major advantage is that,in the "bush" every man and his dog has one,so in the unlikely event that you need spares or experienced help with repairs,both are readily available.If you need answers to any questions,please feel free to ask.Cheers

s we say here all the time this tripping is a compromise, and we first must sort out the priorities. This is my first Land Cruiser, its a very early model, ventilation flap below the windscreen like the Land rover, It had hi-lo ratio on the dash operating an air shift, and 4 wheel drive was a lever on the dash. Petrol motor, three speed g/box. The body was about 4 inches longer than a short wheel base. It was either a 1965 or 1967 model. This model also had two sets of jets, which I changed over depending on whether we were driving in the low lands, or the highlands (7000-12000 feet up).

The second one was a short wheel base with an Isuzu 4 cyl. motor as standard from the factory. Both vehicles were used in Papua New Guinea.

travelyounger wrote:

---

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:

---

On the other hand, the Toyota will go pretty much anywhere any vehicle can go, straight off the showroom floor, unlike the light trucks which need a lot of money spent on them first, IF you buy a 4WD one to start with.
Cheers,
Peter

---

 I would like to know what modifications you have to do to the lightweight trucks which I asume is ranger dmax triton and navara utes .I have done a lot of 4 WD in stock utes and I reckon they would go anywhere a stock 70 or 79 would go.

I personally think they are a great vehicle but overpriced at 70,000 for no auto trans and an outdated interior and rough ride.

Cheers

---

 "Light weight trucks" are vehicles with GVMs over 4.5T, by definition. They have much higher load capacity than the vehicles you mention.

They typically need super single wheels and tyres and parabolic springs to provide reasonable suspension travel and comfort.

Canters, MAN, NPS......

Cheers,

Peter

Peter_n_Margaret wrote:

---

The Toyota is about the only choice if you wish to hire a 4WD camper in this country.
Consider why that might be so....

Cheers,

Peter

---

 There would be a few reasons why the Toyota troupy is used 

A good quality 4 WD with no fancy interior features like carpet and leather seats easy to clean

Lots of spare parts available

Large cargo area for fit out and poptop with internal entry,no need to buy exspensive add on and heavy camper

980 kg payload which would more than likely would have upgraded suspension fitted to take all that extra weight

Long term rentals they have been around long time

Reliable 6 cylinder and 8 cylinder desiel engine with the HD 6 factory TD being my choice.

This  vehicle would of been my choice but the boss did not like the noise from all the gear in back and uncomfortable ride 

Cheers

iana wrote: 9th

---

I have a ute with a GCM of 6000kg, and need more. The 70 series Land Cruiser ute could fit the bill.  Maybe getting a cab chassis at the auctions, has anyone any experience with these. I heard on the grape vine that Toyota are to stop making them, as they can't meet the new crash impact regulations, is that true?

What are they like to tow with, is the fuel consumption OK?

---

 Make a big move and head for a real big car like a Ford 250, Dodge Ram, most blokes would be seriously envious.

I was recently talking with an owners wife, he wanted one and she no but after looking at there towing weights she said yes to a Dodge Ram. 2 hurried trips of late with 12 hour days, she said she will never argue again, awesome was her quote. She could not of done that in the previous Land cruiser.