Hee…Hee - nice pic of Ford.
Yes, those are the images that come to mind. Personally I’m just waiting to crush my finger or toe with the non-safety designed hydraulic life.
[quote=“Ducked”]
I’m not sure why you would care much about the precise tank capacity. [/quote]
Well I see shes doing about 400km to the tank, and I’ve been trying to work out her consumption so I can get an idea of some sort. The tires I just pumped up to 3bar all-round.
Thanks for all that info, I think I’ll just take your advice on the 28-35psi, the van is empty, and I’ve started riding her to work. So that means more pressure at back axle right?
Those blue trucks look like death traps if you were in an accident with one. Theres little protection in the front, and the cabs are tiny so you can guratanee a broken leg or two or some other injuries. All the weight is at the front when unloaded and they are rear wheel drive so be careful driving
I have a bull-bar up front, and you’re right, un-laden shes loose at the back, methinks maybe sandbags at the back. Pity, I really needed the van to move stuff around.
Hmmmm…so what about all those trucks that used to say “personal use”?[/quote]
‘Personal use’ means the vehicle is solely for the use of transporting the goods and equipment of the company it belongs to, not for hire to move other peoples sh… stuff.
What’s the skinny on the Delica 4 WD vans? They’re diesel aren’t they? Do you think they’d be a good surf van for driving on beaches? How readily available is diesel gas ?
The Taiwan versions had a poor engine; weak power output, questionable reliability, no intercooling. All Taiwan models are turbo-diesel. Other markets (like Australia) had options of gasoline units of 2.4 liters. Apart from the engine they are solid and fit for moderate off-road use and there are lots of aftermarket parts to make them better. MJB probably has the skinny on that. Earlier ones with manual trannies and two side doors are of course preferred. The later models have a slushbox and some silly extra windows along the roofline that somehow prompted the loss of a door. 
The problem is that every single one of them has been owned by Ah Huang for some or all it’s life… I think Mitsubishi / Fuso have a much better (later model) engine that bolts up, but Taiwan’s draconian laws forbid this. Mixed success getting around that restriction.
So, did anyone actually get a blue truck?
Oh come on, everyone has a blue truck, its the latest thing. Taiwan is all about blue trucks, haven’t you seen them? they are EVERYWHERE. And why blue? Well it must be the decades color
Oh come on, everyone has a blue truck, its the latest thing. Taiwan is all about blue trucks, haven’t you seen them? they are EVERYWHERE. And why blue? Well it must be the decades color[/quote]
ok, i’ll restate my question: Did any foreigner actually get a blue truck?
i figured the “anyone” would be acknowledged to refer to people reading this board who are, in the majority, considered foreign.
The Taiwan versions had a poor engine; weak power output, questionable reliability, no intercooling. All Taiwan models are turbo-diesel. Other markets (like Australia) had options of gasoline units of 2.4 liters. Apart from the engine they are solid and fit for moderate off-road use and there are lots of aftermarket parts to make them better. MJB probably has the skinny on that. Earlier ones with manual trannies and two side doors are of course preferred. The later models have a slushbox and some silly extra windows along the roofline that somehow prompted the loss of a door. The problem is that every single one of them has been owned by Ah Huang for some or all it’s life… I think Mitsubishi / Fuso have a much better (later model) engine that bolts up, but Taiwan’s draconian laws forbid this. Mixed success getting around that restriction.[/quote]
Much obliged Maestro! 
This is interesting to know. I have serviced quite a number of these back home in England as we were a Suzuki dealer for some time and I’ve never had one with a blown head gasket. I’m guessing that either the build quality or the average ambient temperature has something to do with it.
[quote=“JohnnyT”][quote=“Ducked”]
I’m not sure why you would care much about the precise tank capacity. [/quote]
Well I see shes doing about 400km to the tank, and I’ve been trying to work out her consumption so I can get an idea of some sort. The tires I just pumped up to 3bar all-round.
Thanks for all that info, I think I’ll just take your advice on the 28-35psi, the van is empty, and I’ve started riding her to work. So that means more pressure at back axle right?[/quote]
Re fuel consumption the most accurate (still not VERY accurate) practical way to do this is to brim the tank, set/record the mileometer and drive it for a significant proportion (say 1/4 to 3/4) of the tank capacity, record the mileage done, brim the tank again and record how much the pump says you put in.
You know how much petrol you put in the second time, you know the exact recorded mileage between fills, so you can calculate the consumption. Total tank capacity is not part of the calculation so you don’t need to know it.
For most consistency use the same pump (only practical locally, of course) and fill it yourself, though this’ll require some Chinese/mime/insistence in Taiwan. Or you could use a graduated jerrycan and a shorter fill interval, if that’s not too much hassle.
Re “more pressure at back axle right?”, yes, but unladen you could probably reduce the differential a bit, say 28/32 to start.
[quote=“sulavaca”]
This is interesting to know. I have serviced quite a number of these back home in England as we were a Suzuki dealer for some time and I’ve never had one with a blown head gasket. I’m guessing that either the build quality or the average ambient temperature has something to do with it.[/quote]
It could also be the habits of overloading and undermaintaining that Ah Huang is so fond of… 
I have a bull-bar up front, and you’re right, un-laden shes loose at the back, methinks maybe sandbags at the back. Pity, I really needed the van to move stuff around.[/quote]
I doubt the “standard” bars are very effective, though I guess better than nothing. The crashed Rascal van in the 5th Gear article I linked to had a bullbar and it didn’t save the drivers legs in what was presumably a low-speed crash. You could probably improve on the bullbars significantly (eg fitting something like the exoskeletal over-cab “rhu-bars” they use in Australia) but any such enhancement would probably be illegal in Taiwan. I’d speculate the trucks are worse than the vans.
The wee trucks get steadily bigger (and less “cute”) in later model years, probably at least partly to provide some frontal crash protection.
[quote=“ichbinjenny”]ok, I’ll restate my question: Did any foreigner actually get a blue truck?
[/quote]
A neighbor drives a freeca flatbed blue truck.
Tomogan, a former poster, drives a varica, which is a blue truck, but as a van of sorts.
[quote=“redwagon”][quote=“sulavaca”]
This is interesting to know. I have serviced quite a number of these back home in England as we were a Suzuki dealer for some time and I’ve never had one with a blown head gasket. I’m guessing that either the build quality or the average ambient temperature has something to do with it.[/quote]
It could also be the habits of overloading and undermaintaining that Ah Huang is so fond of… [/quote]
Haha. True, so very true!
I use a Canter 3.5 2 tons on the farm and I never had problems with it, except the Air conditioning belt that breaks every 3 months. It’s a 91 and it is still going strong on the mountain. (Our farm is on the mountain) Nothing can kill that engine even when we bring the fruits to Taipei on the highway at 95 kp/h with more than 3 tons loaded on the back.
I wouldn’t buy that for a daily commute tough. Ha ha ha
I have a bull-bar up front, and you’re right, un-laden shes loose at the back, methinks maybe sandbags at the back. Pity, I really needed the van to move stuff around.[/quote]
I doubt the “standard” bars are very effective, though I guess better than nothing. The crashed Rascal van in the 5th Gear article I linked to had a bullbar and it didn’t save the drivers legs in what was presumably a low-speed crash. You could probably improve on the bullbars significantly (eg fitting something like the exoskeletal over-cab “rhu-bars” they use in Australia) but any such enhancement would probably be illegal in Taiwan. I’d speculate the trucks are worse than the vans.[/quote]
I tend to agree. these short front ends are a death trap. Both because there is no length for needed elasticity in order to absorb shock or the opposite which would be an entirely rigid structure to compensate for the lack of distance between driver and impact site. The semi popular Smart is a good example with a structure that cocoons the driver and occupant, offering a rigid patented shell. The shell does a fine job of eliminating many common types of impact bone fractures and body punctures, but actually can cause excessive decelerational or negative G-force loads which can produce as devastating an injury to both body and more importantly, brain. Points given to Smart for actually coming up with a design that makes the car the safest for its size ever produced, but it doesn’t make it nearly as safe as many other longer types of vehicle. Don’t get the wrong idea though, length and panel thickness are not the simple keys to building a sage occupant environment as BMW, Volvo and Mercedes would prefer people to carry on believing. I’m not sure who planted those seeds years ago, but I’m almost worn out trying to give people the truth in that those elements have very little to do with safety at all.
What kinds of vans are safe?
Would the T4 or the Hiace be safer?