Talk:Isuzu Faster

October 2009

hlitaker@hotmail.com

please add historical info. on eng. specification:

1.timing degree

2. point gap

3. plugs & gap

also, compare with the isu for preformance & fuel econ.

i thank you for your consideratio.

hlitaker@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.62.68.41 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 29 October 2009

If you have this information available, you are more than welcome to add it. However, I am not aware of such information so I cannot do so myself. OSX (talk • contributions) 03:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

January 2011

diesels where sold from 81/87 in 2WD and 4WD models. HP in the non turbo engines ranged from 57 to 62 do to changes in bearings 81/83 are the lower hp 84/87 are the higher hp 86/87 where the only turbo years with right about 80hp no turbo pup or trooper was ever sold with a auto trans

mpg numbers for the 1984/1987 models can be found at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ please note for the diesels, that the revised 2007 mpg numbers in most cases do not reflect true mpg of these autos. they expect the auto to be able to gane speed at a rate that a 60hp auto just flat can not do as well as drive at 80 mph LOL yea right. this holds true for many other diesel powered autos from the 80s with about the same hp.

81/85 4WDs are all 4sp manual trans 86/87 are 5sp there are no 4WD Isuzu pups/luvs or troopers made before 88 with a auto trans there all manual trans. all 4WDs are 4.11 gears you can rea gear it from a 84/86 trooper in the 2WDs there was a 3sp auto, plus a 4 and 5sp sold in all years. the only 2WD diesel to get a 4sp was the mpg+ model it had a 3.42 rear end to take the place of the 3.73 rear that all other 2WD diesels got. also some gas models did get the 3.42 gears.

for much more info about pup/luvs and troopers, see http://www.isuzupup.com/index.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.176.226 (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Rename/merge

So, there are some issues with the naming of this page. P'up (delightful as it is) was a name used in the US market for what was always called the Isuzu Faster (KB20/25), which originated as a pickup version of the Florian. When the 4WD Faster was introduced (in 1979 it seems) it received the "Rodeo" suffix. For the second generation (KB21/26), the Faster/Faster Rodeo continued with the original names. For the third generation (TF), the lines were separated into two. Chevrolet LUV was used in the US for the first and second generations of the Faster, and remains in use in many markets across the world. The Faster (2WD) versions were taken off the market in 1994, leaving only the 4WD Rodeos.

Calling this article the Isuzu P'up is in violation of the policies, as it is only the US market name. However, what should be done? In my eyes, the Chevrolet LUV and Isuzu P'up pages should be merged with Isuzu Rodeo, and possibly be renamed Isuzu Faster/Rodeo (not Isuzu Faster since "Faster" is a very very obscure name and eventually died off). See here for a brief explique, and for a review of the last iteration of the Faster as sold in Japan. Common as it is, "Chevrolet LUV" is just an export market label and does not necessarily deserve its own article. Perhaps a large disambiguating article called Isuzu Pickup would be the best way to go? In many countries it was simply sold as such.

Other names commonly used (in South Africa, yes, but also in Cyprus and in several other export markets, here is a French language KB brochure and here is a Thai Isuzu KB (zoom onto fender) - see here, for proof that even the following TF was labelled "KB" somewhere in the world. I am pretty sure that at least the two first generations were called KB in the UK as well.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 23:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

It was originally the Bedford KB (link to brochure) in the UK, later also the Isuzu KB.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Mr.choppers, in spite of the ever-so "aurally agreeable" name, duly pointed out by yourself, I retitled this article "Isuzu P'up" from "Isuzu KB" as that latter was the "obscure [Seth Efrican] name". This was done on the advice of Regushee, who somewhat annoyingly deletes all the messages from his talk page after reading them (the discussion we had is archived within the page history, see here). As Regushee previsouly lived in Japan I had no reason to doubt him. And besides living there basically quadruples the weighting of your vote—I can't possibly compete with that short of enlisting the help of Autoblog Green :)

Since our convention does not care for obscurity, is the title "Isuzu Faster" (which also existed in Thailand [1]) really that bad? Most names are obscure outside of their home market. We could even merge the P'up (KB) and Rodeo (TF) articles into one "Isuzu Faster" page freeing up the Isuzu Rodeo page as a DAB page for the both the TF and Wizard based Rodeo models. The dubious IMCBD website claims that even the original Florian-based model utilised the "Faster" name, as does this photo (albeit in Thailand). So, if true that solves our "what do we call it when all three articles are merged?" predicament.

Moreover, I am not convinced that "Faster" is any less obscure than "Rodeo" in the Japanese context, as this website purports both models ran from 1988 to 1994 in TF iteration. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yup, the first generation was definitely called the Isuzu Faster in Japan at least. It seems that most markets received this car labelled as either the Chevrolet LUV or Bedford KB, depending on how popular the name was in the respective country. Most Europeans sold it as the Bedford, but I know I have seen a first generation Chevy LUV in Greece. Some few markets, where the Isuzu name was already established, received the Isuzu as the "KB" (or just plain "Pick Up" in marketing materials). The thing about the Rodeo page is that TF 4WD Fasters were sold as Rodeos in Japan.

Personally I am fine with placing all of this on an Isuzu Faster page. I myself only just realized that "Faster" was what it was called in Japan. Maybe I should place a note at the top of the Chevrolet LUV page to get some more eyes here? I just don't want to move it and then have a bunch of wrangling afterwards.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, here is your conversation with Regushee.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

If there are no objections by next week, I'd say go through with the merger. It might also be a good idea to keep the first generation section brief (à la Saturn Vue and Opel Antara), as the detailed information would be better located at Isuzu Florian. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Seconded on the merge - however, since most of the Chevrolet LUV info concerns the first generation, I think there will be a fair amount. Not a problem, I think.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright the merger is partially done (time has gotten in the way unfortunately). OSX (talk • contributions) 13:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Very nice. Go team! I will add content in a meandering fashion.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Merger complete. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Moved from here: This article is improving strongly! Great fun. However, I do have some minor concerns:

Spelling out all of the units (to me) looks bad. It is not something I see done in any other form of writing, and a careful reading of the quoted page yielded the following:

In prose it is usually better to spell out unit names, but symbols may also be used when a unit (especially one with a long name) is used repeatedly. However, spell out the first instance of each unit in an article (for example, the typical batch is 250 kilograms ... and then 15 kg of emulsifier is added).

This I read as allowing us to spend less time writing out millimetres and kilowatts and so on. As indicated, I left the first instances intact.

As for the Bebbington reference, I (and I obviously don't own the original, so I am just reading the selected highlights you helpfully placed in the footnotes) interpret the reference as signifying that it was sold as the Isuzu KB after first having been sold as the Chevrolet LUV. But I see how it could easily be the other way, maybe there is some other thing you have ready? Sales sheets or such?

Original quote: "First of these was the Isuzu KB utility, sold as the Chevrolet LUV (Light utility Vehicle) ... in 1977, the Chevrolet name was deleted and the Isuzu nameplate was used instead."

I cannot find when and how it was decided to spell out "gasoline" and "diesel" for every which engine, but I do find it redundant. Although I see that this is a topic which belongs elsewhere.

Best regards as usual,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:55, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I was always taught never to use abbreviations in general syntax—ever—hence why I use "et cetera" over "etc". Although sometimes I do get a bit lazy and don't bother—like I have just done. I am having major issues with the manual of style because of this. I can live with kilowatts and newton metres being left abbreviated, but the MoS is poorly formulated if it asks for "newton metres" the first time and then "N·m" thereafter. This is because the manual of style assumes that the reader will realise that "N·m" is the abbreviation without the article telling the reader this is the case. Therefore, I would be more inclined to abbreviate all instances as it is a difficult rule to follow on a wiki where editors add, remove, and re-arrange sentences at their own discretion. Editors are not going to make a change and then check to see if "kilogram" is used elsewhere first. For units, my only objection is for the litre—I really do not like this being abbreviated in prose. Most publications seem to agree and spell this unit out while using the abbreviated form for kW, hp, N·m, et cetera.

Regarding the "Isuzu LUV", I think you may be right. The Bebbington (2009) reference is vague in explaining this and I misinterpreted it: "the Chevrolet name was deleted and the Isuzu nameplate was used instead"—i.e. LUV was the model name for both. Google also brought up this used car advertisement for a 1979 "Isuzu KB" in Brisbane. Here is the archived version for future reference: [2], [3].

As a side note, these cars are extremely rare in Australia nowadays. A week or so after making the big changes to this article back in May 2011, I did see a Chevrolet LUV here in Sydney (with twin headlights from memory, just like the yellow one pictured on the article). You will notice that the above linked Isuzu KB only has single lights, so maybe all Australian delivered versions were fitted with twin lights when badged "Chevrolet" with single lights being introduced for the Isuzu? Regarding the Chevrolet version I saw in traffic, I really did want to photograph that one. It did not help that I was travelling in the other direction on a very busy six lane road during peak hour. I'm sure you've been in the same situation on many occasions before.

Finally, with respect to the listing of the fuel type in parentheses after the engine in the infobox, it's no more redundant than saying all the engines are inline-fours. It is necessary to know this despite the unwritten rule of "petrol until proven diesel". When I added the example infobox to WP:CARS/Conventions, I did ask if there were any objections on the WP:CARS talk page. And I recall that most of the active members did participate in the discussion we had regarding the conventions page at the time. I remember someone having an issue with the way the assembly field was formatted with the country first, but this was sorted out and there was a consensus to allow that to remain. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. please double check the following: "The engine used in most markets was a carbureted 1.6-liter (1,584 cc) gasoline SOHC inline-four of 94 PS (69 kW)". I think there may be a mix-up with units because according to GoAuto the 1.6-liter engine only produced 50 kW (67 hp).

94 PS (69 kW) can be flipped to produce 69 hp (51 kW), reducing the difference to only 1 kW. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I did a brief online search for "Isuzu LUV" before I originally deleted it, and couldn't find anything aside from people referring to their Chevy LUVs as Isuzus. The used one you found (want!) does have "KB" badging, but that could easily have been changed by the importer between model years. The word that confuses me is the word "nameplate"; one could interpret it either way. As for photo troubles, the worst is when someone who doesn't share ones interests in photographing old steel is driving and refuses to change lanes or slow down and one misses that Datsun 810 diesel wagon in mint condition...

As for the headlights, both configurations were (always?) available from Isuzu in Japan, different importers then got to choose whatever setup they preferred. It would definitely make sense to switch headlights as a way to indicate that the Isuzu-badged KB/LUV was indeed "new and improved" over the Chevy LUV. I have a lovely general market KB brochure, and it states very clearly that a "dual headlamp model is also available". The same catalog also mentions 94 PS at 5,40 rpm twice (no mention of kWs): they are Japanese "pony" horsepower (JIS). I also know that Australia had fairly strict emissions standards enacted at some point (same standards as in Sweden and Switzerland I have been told - we once had to spend two weeks in Germany waiting for a replacement head gasket to make it there from Australia for our swedish sold Opel Ascona 1.6, aka Camira), whereas an unsmogged engine to JIS standards would claim a whole lot bigger numbers. As a last bit of supporting evidence, an Isuzu Gemini with the same engine (single-carb, 8.7:1 compression) claimed 100PS (JIS) for the Japanese market.

What is weird is that the diesel's output is unchanged in all markets - but I guess no one really worried about what diesels emitted back then. As a minor issue, GoAuto states that the petrol unit produces "around" 50kW, so who knows what they actually claimed... Also, I do wonder what the chassis code for the Crew Cab version may have been?

As far as the MoS goes, since car articles are so jammed with units (I'll readily agree to "litres", "pounds", and "inches" being spelled out in full unless they're in a parenthesis) I really feel that a case could be made for Automotive Project exceptionalism - but I know that there is resistance to that from many other editors.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Just viewed your changes, very nice. I can't believe we had left the Bedford KB out before! Weird to see left-hand drive combined with Bedford badging in the brochure, but I now remember a farmer near where I grew up having a dark orange one of these when I was wee. It was rusted beyond saving before it was ten years old. Btw, the 4x4 KB you found for sale is claimed to have an 1800cc engine (which makes sense), I presume that all KB40s were thus equipped? I don't doubt that this is the case and will try to find a reference somehow. I wonder if any diesel 4x4s were built? So many possible permutations.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I cannot answer any of your questions sorry. Prior to you stating the Japanese market name was "Faster", I had no idea what this model was called there (or much else about it other than it existing). I also only found out the Australian names recently too (thanks to Terry Bebbington's book 50 Years of Holden and his newer 60 Years version).

Besides the diesel (KB to KBD) Do you know if the model codes changed with engine (à la Toyota)? If not, then we may be able to safety identify the yellow and blue two-door short-wheelbase pickups as KB20 / KBD20. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The brochure I have specifically uses KB for petrol versions and KBD for diesels: 20 signifies the short wheelbase and 25 the LWB. I know that 40 means 4x4, but don't have any definite link to any particular engine. My main curiosities are whether the 1.8 and the crew cab received different chassis codes, and then in what manner they did. Only other brochure collectors will be able to say, methinks.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)