The crossover has long been a fascinating phenomenon. Take something shaped and sized like an SUV, put it on a car platform, and watch the sales roll in. Over two decades ago, Isuzu thought it had the antidote to what was then the new crossover craze. What if it built a body-on-frame SUV, but made it like it came from 20 years in the future? The Isuzu Axiom tried to be the best of all worlds, but in the end, nobody really cared. Isuzu itself eventually pulled out of the American passenger vehicle market not even a decade later.
I was reminded that the Isuzu Axiom existed yesterday when I took my little orange license-built Vespa for a ride. As I rode fully tucked with the little scooter working hard at just 60 mph, a tan Axiom effortlessly floated by. When I finally caught up to it at a light, I thought that a design like that would rock on a crossover today.
The early 2000s were a transition point in American automotive history. As the Atlantic reports, minivan sales peaked in the year 2000. Since that mark, the minivan began a battle for relevancy among the onslaught of sport utility vehicles. Sure, the minivan was awesomely practical, just like the station wagons the minivans replaced, but the SUV was the hot new thing to have.
More than two decades ago, the SUV got a helping hand in its mission for world domination. Automakers started putting SUV-like bodies onto softer, unibody car-like platforms. The crossover is the best of both worlds for many buyers. These vehicles are bulky and stylish like SUVs, but drive like cars. Now, buyers got the high seats and tall visibility they loved, but without the jarring ride of a truck-based platform. The SUVs of old were great at off-roading, but many modern SUV buyers never leave pavement. A crossover doesn’t need lockers or a low range because those aren’t going to get used.
In 2000, Toyota launched the Highlander, a crossover riding on a common platform shared with the Toyota Camry, the Lexus ES, the Toyota Avalon, and more, but with a chunky sport utility body. This wasn’t a new concept. The Highlander was only one vehicle in a long list of crossovers, including the Toyota RAV4, the Ford Escape, the Nissan Pathfinder, and others.
But for some, the Highlander was a sort of tipping point. Early crossovers were often quirky rides that still tried to hang onto some SUV traits. The Toyota Highlander really wasn’t that. This was more or less a Camry wagon on stilts. It was just a normal car, but big, not unlike the crossovers of today. The formula has been a smashing success. Highlander sales exceeded 100,000 units in only its second year, and even in the Highlander’s bad sales years, like 2024, Toyota’s family crossover is still crushing it.
Other automakers took note of the then-new crossover craze, and they wanted their own slice of the pie.
In a way, the Axiom was two decades ahead of its time. It has tiny headlights, a bumper filled with grille openings, and it even a direct-injected V6 engine under its hood. Isuzu also filled it up with the kinds of tech that buyers expected out of soft crossovers. Yet, under the futuristic body was a body-on-frame SUV that was full of compromises.
Going All-In On Trucks, Sort Of
The Isuzu of today is known best for its compact commercial trucks, but there was a time when Isuzu meant getting a quirky car. According to Isuzu, it was created in 1916 when Tokyo Ishikawajima Shipbuilding and Engineering Co., Ltd. and Tokyo Gas and Electric Industrial Co. decided to build cars.
Just two years later, the conglomerate got a license from Britain’s Wolseley Motors Limited to build the Wolseley Model A-9 in Asia. The proto-Isuzu’s first truck came in 1919, while the first license-built Wolseley was constructed in 1922. As for the “Isuzu” name, that didn’t appear until 1934 when Tokyo Ishikawajima Shipbuilding and Engineering Co., Ltd built a truck with that name. The company would be renamed Isuzu after World War II.
So, technically, cars have almost always been part of the Isuzu story. However, the company’s success in building passenger vehicles varied. In the 1980s, MotorTrend writes, Isuzu fell behind its rivals as people found themselves enamored by the wares of Honda, Toyota, and Nissan. Isuzu figured it would recapture lost ground by going wild with vehicles the other brands didn’t have.
This resulted in rather fantastic rides like the Piazza and Impulse, the latter of which was advertised for having its handling engineered by Lotus. Isuzu also built the fabulous Geo Storm and even a rebadged Honda Integra. Unfortunately, as the Los Angeles Times reported in 1992, Japan was oversaturated with car manufacturers and Isuzu failed to capture the market like its competition did. That year, Isuzu announced that it would soon stop manufacturing its own passenger cars, citing high costs and weak global sales. The last Isuzu-developed passenger cars were made in the 1993 model year.
I will note that Isuzu did build passenger cars after this point, but these cars were rebadged versions of other cars. Isuzu did continue developing vehicles, but now it focused entirely on trucks and SUVs.
Isuzu had done a relatively good job cultivating a fanbase with its Amigo/Rodeo Sport, Rodeo, and Trooper off-roaders. Meanwhile, the VehiCROSS was legitimately a wild, unique vehicle that we’re unlikely to ever see again. Isuzu even stopped pickup truck production for the United States to focus on SUVs.
Unfortunately, as MotorWeek noted, the Rodeo and the Trooper didn’t take off like wildfires during the SUV boom of the 1990s. Worse, as MotorWeek explains, Isuzu part part-owner General Motors wanted Isuzu to pull back from building SUVs. That had to hit the folks of Isuzu hard, as earlier, GM apparently pressured Isuzu to stop car production to focus on trucks and SUVs.
If you worked at Isuzu at the time, it must have been frustrating to take all of these big swings just for them to strike out. But Isuzu had one more trick up its sleeve.
The Axiom
According to Wards Auto, Isuzu launched a new plan to boost sales. Instead of building another capable off-roader for its existing fans, it was going to chase the new crop of crossover buyers. But, instead of just copying the homework of other brands, Isuzu was going to put its own spin on the crossover concept. What if you could buy a crossover that was still a beefy SUV under the skin?
To build the Axiom, Isuzu took the internals of the Trooper and the Rodeo and combined them with a softer body packed with technology. Isuzu was certain that this was the winning formula, from Deseret News:
Isuzu is a Japanese truck company, even though it has deep-sixed its pickup to become all SUVs all the time. Its lineup now comprises the venerable Trooper, Rodeo, Rodeo Sport, ultra-weird Vehicross and now the Axiom, all built on truck chassis.
Isuzu makes no apologies for this, instead touting the strength that comes from anchoring the body to a steel box-section ladder frame, designed and blueprinted on a Cray supercomputer to provide what Isuzu describes as “the ride of a European sedan and the strength of a truck.”
Isuzu says it understands the merits of unibody construction for SUVs but says body-on-frame better suits its SUV-specialist niche and does a better job of providing “strength, reliability and longevity.”
The Isuzu was first previewed by the Isuzu ZXS concept shown at the Tokyo auto show in 1999. Isuzu then brought the Axiom concept to the New York Auto Show in 2000. Wards Auto notes that Isuzu was so confident in the Axiom that it was greenlit for production before it even crossed the auto show stage. So, regardless if the public liked it or not, the Axiom was on its way.
How fast was development? The Axiom was displayed at the 2001 Detroit North American International Auto Show in January and then launched before the year was out. Part of it was that the Axiom wasn’t an entirely new vehicle.
Isuzu raided its parts bin for the underpinnings. The Axiom shares its steel box section, eight crossmember frame, and suspension with the Isuzu Rodeo/Honda Passport. That meant a five-link coil-sprung live axle bringing up the rear and independent unequal-length control arms with torsion bars up front.
Isuzu then turned to the Trooper and stole that 4×4’s 3.5-liter DOHC 24-valve V6 engine and Torque-on-Demand four-wheel-drive system. Now, none of this is very crossover-like. For that part, we’ll have to look deeper.
The suspension (an independent setup in the rear and a solid axle out back) was connected to Isuzu’s second-generation Intelligent Suspension Control system. This system uses a computer and an array of sensors to automatically adjust shock absorber damping in hopes of limiting dive, body roll, and squat. The system also allows for the driver to pick between comfort and sporty suspension modes. The idea here is that, sure, this is a body-on-frame SUV, but it’s supposed to feel a bit more like a car.
One of the biggest selling points of the Axiom was under the hood. Sure, it used the same all-aluminum V6 from the Trooper, but it was hopped up in this application. Isuzu went through the engine, lowering friction and giving it a variable intake, a pent-roof combustion chamber design. The cherry on top is a drive-by-wire system. As a result, the Axiom’s V6 made 230 horsepower and 230 lb-ft of torque. Couple that to the Axiom’s four-speed automatic and it was good for a 60 mph sprint in 8.1 seconds.
Isuzu continued laying down the tech from there. The Axiom was available in rear-wheel-drive or four-wheel-drive and 4×4 models got the aforementioned Torque-on-Demand. How this system worked is that it used electromagnetic clutches in its BorgWarner transfer case to fire up to 50 percent power to the front wheels. In normal conditions, the Axiom was rear-wheel-drive. When slip was detected, power was sent to the front wheels. Isuzu also allowed the Axiom driver to lock the vehicle into low range with the flick of a switch. The Axiom even came with skid plates.
The unique bit about the system in the Axiom was that it used an algorithm to predict potential slipping and engaged 4×4 before actual slip happened. Car and Driver mentioned that the system might even engage 4×4 on dry roads if the programming thinks front-wheel torque could help with stability.
Finally, Isuzu wrapped the Axiom’s mechanical bits up with a relatively soft, luxurious body. Inside, you got leather heated power seats, metal appearance trim, a sunroof, a six-CD changer with 12-speaker audio, a garage door controller, and an LCD infotainment display. Yep, this SUV from 2001 got a screen featuring climate controls, a clock, a compass, the radio, and the trip computer. The clock and compass were set using GPS.
Isuzu Took A Big Swing…
The Axiom launched in 2001 for the 2002 model year as Isuzu’s flagship, and the automaker went hard on advertising. It even brought back the famous Joe Isuzu.
Even the marketing behind the Axiom’s name was sort of novel. Isuzu set up a website to choose its new SUV’s name and received over 47,000 entries. Electrical engineer, Hakan Urey submitted the name “Axiom,” which means: “a statement universally accepted as true,” and it was the winner. The Isuzu was built in Lafayette, Indiana, at Subaru Isuzu Automotive, Inc. alongside the Rodeo and Honda Passport.
Isuzu indicated to Wards Auto that the Axiom was a big deal, from WardsAuto:
[American Isuzu Motors Inc.] and its parent in Japan, Isuzu Motors Ltd., obviously are convinced their first foray into the crossover game — and the first Isuzu designed in the U.S. — will entice new customers beyond the loyal off-road crowd they’ve developed with Trooper, Rodeo, Rodeo Sport (nee Amigo) and VehiCROSS.
“Existing Isuzu owners don’t like Axiom; they want Trooper and Rodeo,” says AIMI President Yasuyuki (Sonny) Sudo. “But,” he chuckles, “that may be encouraging from a marketing standpoint.” Translation: Axiom may bring in a new kind of buyer.
Mr. Sudo reckons Axiom will only cannibalize about 20% of Rodeo’s sales. AIMI research shows buyers typically will be in their high 30s, split evenly male and female. Men are by far the predominant buyers of other Isuzu SUVs.
Isuzu targeted sales of 32,000 units in the Axiom’s first full year of sales. The base 4×2 model stickered for $25,985 ($46,922 today), and if you checked every option box, you got the 4×4 XS for $31,305 ($56,529 today). Unfortunately, both the press and the market didn’t respond perhaps how Isuzu expected.
Here’s what Car and Driver said:
A computer chooses one of 17 preprogrammed damping maps based on data from body-motion sensors and driver inputs. It directs motors mounted on each shock to individually fine-tune the rebound and compression rates as needed. The system pays its dividend on twisty sections or when accelerating or braking, when the Axiom flounders noticeably less in Sport. Indeed, we mostly left ours in Sport, as the base setting allows far too much teetering for our tastes, a problem compounded by slow steering. We wouldn’t have complained if the suspension were fully automatic, as few owners are likely to toggle the buttons anyway.
Isuzu did sweat a few details in the interior. They include the spongy molded kneepads at the base of the center stack, the billet-steel quality of the shifter release button, the garage-door control on the rearview mirror, and the titanium-colored gauge bezels. Less impressive is the center LED display, which crams data from the compass, clock, trip computer, radio, and climate control onto one hopelessly overcrowded screen.
The Axiom’s rear space feels like an afterthought. The split-folding bench is of the old-fashioned three-step variety (remove headrests, lift bottom cushions, fold down seats) and skimps on legroom. The rear doors don’t crack wide enough for anyone but a Cirque du Soleil performer to comfortably slither out, and anyone taller than six feet will have to duck under the open rear hatch or risk being bashed in the noggin (perhaps this is why Klingons have corrugated foreheads). After only a few days, the latte-colored hides of the standard-on-XS leather seats had trapped enough dirt — or lost enough dye — to be gray in places.
Of course, what review roundup is complete without something from the legendary John Davis of MotorWeek? Watch this:
MotorTrend took the Axiom off-road. This review highlights the compromises of taking an off-road SUV platform and softening it to make it drive like a car:
The Axiom is secure and stable in highway driving, with a ride that is firm yet fluid. More importantly, the Axiom’s suspension mostly worked well on trails as well, providing a well-controlled ride that was marred only by bottoming of the rear suspension in particularly rough areas. It handled washboard roads particularly well, but was out of its element when trying to make time over a two-tracker that was impacted by whoops and big bumps. Not enough tire, not enough suspension and travel, and not enough wheelbase for such activities. The transmission, meanwhile, benefits from something called “grade logic,” which is designed to help it automatically select the right gear for climbing or descending grades. For the most part we were happy to stick the transmission in Drive and allow the systems to do their respective things. The transfer case shifted smoothly and securely every time we asked it to, and its 2.05:1 low-range ratio combines with the torque converter’s functional gear reduction to provide a lower crawl ratio than the actual numbers might suggest.
The Axiom is, like so many others, easy to get stuck—all you’ve got to do is get it crossed up in ruts or bumps so that one front wheel and a rear wheel on the opposite side are off the ground. When that happens, the wheels in the air are the ones that spin, and you ain’t goin’ nowhere, bub, until you back up and try another line. Ride the brake all you want—and the Axiom’s 4-wheel system is powerful, with the pedal providing good feel and better-than-average modulation—you’re still going to back and fill. Fortunately we didn’t have to do much of that, because for all its car-like nature, the Axiom remains surprisingly capable. It took on our Area 85 test site easily, and climbed our test hill, which is composed of loose, sharp rocks, far more easily than we thought it would. We did get hung up a couple of times—the Axiom’s limited-slip diff seemed AWOL—but the biggest problem in all our off-highway testing was the Axiom’s lack of ground clearance. Even on trails that the Axiom handled with ease, we were contacting rocks and ruts with the framerails, front fascia, and rear-mounted spare tire.
The marketing push for the Axiom was ambitious. Axioms appeared in two Spy Kids movies, and the SUV even appeared as an RC car by RadioShack and an additional tie-in with McDonald’s. Isuzu wanted buyers to think of the Axiom as a sort of hybrid. It was supposed to be a bit of an SUV, minivan, and wagon in one. This was reflected in marketing materials, which didn’t identify the Axiom as an SUV or a crossover, but a “Sportwagon.”
In 2004, Isuzu pushed the technology even further, introducing direct injection to the V6. Not only did this improve horsepower and torque by nearly 10 percent, but it also upped fuel economy and lowered emissions all while running on regular gas. MotorTrend noted that at the time, the Axiom was the only car for sale in America with a direct-injection gas engine that was under $100,000.
…And Missed
Isuzu was so excited about the future the Axiom could have brought on it, even teased a possible SUV with a tiny bed on the back like the Ford Explorer Sport Trac (below). Unfortunately, that future would never arrive. Isuzu set only modest expectations for sales in 2001. At first, Isuzu wanted to sell 22,000 examples in 2001, revising that to just 12,000 units at launch.
While I could not find production data by year, things were bleak even in 2001. By the end of August of that year just 2,775 examples had been sold. There wasn’t much of the year to go and Isuzu was on track to not hitting the 12,000 figure. Isuzu blamed it on marketing, from Autoweek:
Duke Hale, senior vice president and COO of Isuzu’s sport-utility division, said larger automakers with larger ad budgets have simply outmarketed Isuzu, spending more on ads than Isuzu had anticipated at the Axiom’s launch. Hale joined the company in November, replacing Bob Reilly.Among Axiom’s competitors are the heavily marketed Ford Explorer and Toyota 4Runner. And Isuzu has said focus groups consider the Volvo V70 Cross Country and Lexus RX 300 competitors as well.
But the Axiom’s signature slab sides, narrow greenhouse and bold grille – which helped it win sport-utility of the year awards from Eyes on Design and Auto International Association, among various other award nominations – evidently haven’t taken the place of pure marketing dollars.
“It’s tough for Isuzu to outshine Toyota and Honda,” Hale said. “It’s tough to compete when they’re shouting as hard as they are. There is an enormous amount of money being spent out there. “Central to Isuzu’s problems, Hale said, is that the company hadn’t aired TV commercials since the fall of 1999.
Isuzu’s response was to put cash on the hood of the Axiom to move stock. Sadly, it just never really captured a market. The Axiom was killed off after the 2004 model year, after just 25,000 units were sold in total. That’s fewer units than what Isuzu wanted to sell in a single year and still less than what Honda and Toyota might sell in just a single month.
Thus, the concept of a body-on-frame SUV that pretended to be a crossover was a failure. Truth be told, there could have been a sort of “Swiss Cheese Model” type of domino effect going on here. The Axiom started off as a compromised vehicle and then had to face off with its peers with less advertising and a higher price than some crossovers. However, as Car and Driver noted above, it’s not like the compromises were all that minor.
The Axiom was replaced by the Isuzu Ascender, which was more or less a rebadged GMC Envoy. Isuzu limped forward on that SUV as well as the Isuzu i-Series pickup truck until 2009, when Isuzu decided to throw in the towel on making passenger vehicles for America.
Sadly, don’t expect to find a ton of Axioms out there. In 2013, the Axiom was recalled for frame rust issues. It’s unclear how many of them have survived, but it’s telling that you can find only three on Autotrader and Edmunds. Two of those three are for $2,000 and under. Oof.
Still, I feel like something like the Axiom could work today. I bet if an automaker took that basic design but made it a true crossover it would probably sell. After all, ugly crossovers do appear to be quite the rage today. That aside, it’s still wild that Isuzu even gave this a try. Instead of joining the ranks of crossovers, Isuzu held on to body-on-frame SUVs until the bitter end.
I liked my I-Mark, really enjoyed my Amigo, and still love my Vehicross. Issue made great cars for the car fans which is why with GM working against them they failed to succeed. However I seem to remember Rodeos were mega popular as well as the Trooper unless it was just where I lived
Mercedes you put 0-60 at 8.1 seconds our buddy John says 9.1 seconds, did I miss something
Great Wall Motors either copied the design or bought the tooling and gave us the GWM X240. A poorly built copy with an ancient Mitsubishi engine and no automatic option. Just what people want in their SUVs. (They later put in a more modern turbo diesel and automatic transmission).
I believe they actually did buy the tooling, stayed in production in China and Russia through 2020, and was also built in North Korea through 2012.
Living in a snowy area, I remember a decent number of these running around amongst the Jeeps, 4Runners, Explorers and Blazers of the day. People bought Rodeos in that area too. Thought they were pretty good looking for the time.
I had a 2000 trooper (in limited trim) which barely predated the Axiom. It was heavy, as aerodynamic as a brick, underpowered, and terrifying to drive on a twisty stretch of highway. Aside from that, you could fit an entire circus in the back, the 4wd system was amazing, and the engine definitely delivered off road.
Unfortunately, the non DI version of the 3.5 suffered from excessive oil consumption (1qt every 3-500 miles without telltale smoke) that killed hundreds (if not thousands) of these beasts; we took a bath and traded ours in on a Saab wagon.
The suggested 15,000 mile oil change range helped destroy engines. But check your oil.
The original line blurring was the XJ Cherokee, followed by the WK and WJ Grand’s. Unibody construction with BOF robustness. Lighter and more nimble than the competition yet still rugged.
There’s a interesting YouTube video from Hagerty describing the XJ as a “hot hatch”, touching on the weight and agility as you mentioned.
I see these from time to time at the junkyard, the instrument cluster has a very cool ‘batman the animated series’ font to the speedo.
Isuzu is a sad story. They had some cool cars, some fun marketing and some fun SUV’s. I still would love to have a first gen Impluse or an Amigo.
These were pretty cool SUV’s. I remember when they came out they did a HUGE push to kids. My daughter was like 6 and they were everywhere my kid was. She wanted one and she couldn’t even pronounce Isuzu (Zee-Toot Zoo). I think McDonalds was giving one away. They were out of my price range at the time but I thought they looked really nice and I was a sucker for the tech.
Honestly, I think that the “Compromise” actually is what a “real” SUV should be. A real body on frame truck to handle off road and “truck” things and a nice comfortable body and interior that drives nice on the road. True, 95% of Crossover buyers will never go off road, so a tall Camry wagon on stilts works fine. Honestly, the dear departed and unloved Camry wagon would work fine for 99% of those but we need our BS American tough guy aesthetic. But for me, who does need to do truck things, and does do off road, this would be a wonderful truck for me. And I do love the way it looks. Personally, I would rather have an Amigo or a Trooper II just because I would love a retro pure off road toy, but for a daily driver, one size fits all, this is a great platform for someone who does want an SUV to do everything, and we should always have choices like this.
Well said. Isuzu made some cool compact sedans/coupes back in the day that I guess were just too staid-looking for the US market, despite being decent and fun (though the Impulse/Storm twins had their moment in the 90s). I always enjoyed the bit of a rebel feel they all had, going up against more popular Hondas and Toyotas.
Isuzu I-Mark RS Turbo, anyone?
Had one
An interesting note that is missing from this article is that this was the first passenger vehicle in the USDM with Gasoline Direct Injection in the ’04s (last model year) with +20HP.
4.04 sec before they quit the market.
Seems like a bad time to appeal to new customers.
I always thought these were attractive.
Good-looking car but if the ladder frame meant driving with your legs straight out in front of you while the unibody competition offered chair-height seating, that alone was enough to kill it.
I worked with some Isuzu engineers on the original Duramax diesel program.
They had some excellent people on the powertrain side but they lacked good business direction. Their product planning for the US was not well thought out. And their dealer coverage was weak.
came for the spy kids callout, leaving satisfied
Yea exactly what I did
I remember when these launched. It was a vehicle that you wanted to like, because the design was bold and, on paper anyway, it seemed like it checked all the boxes. Unfortunately, like the reviews note, it was a death-by-paper-cuts type of a miss. There were just enough funky things off, not necessarily wrong but off, about it that it was hard to muster enough excitement to want to actually buy one.
True a journey of a thousand steps begins with the first step. After the great leap they should have designed small steps to get their instead of a time leap
I cared enough to buy one new.
One of the few Isuzus I didn’t buy
These and the Suzuki Sidekicks and XL7s were not bad designs just being sold by car companies about to disappear from the US. Had they been Toyotas or Hondas they may have sold better.
There is a LOT to be said for a dealer network. I sold those brands used (see comment below, also a fan of the XL7) but almost everyone just scratched their heads like “Yeah, but with a Toyota/Honda, Ford, or Chevy, I know what I’m getting and who can work on it.”
It’s shortsighted, but not entirely off base. That’s why I’m so surprised Tesla has even done as well as they have, including in places with zero showrooms or service centers (many jokes were made about early adopter/rich people was often made while watching their Model S get flatbedded 2-3 hours away for a windshield replacement or other major service that couldn’t be done on site). You can buy a million-dollar house and almost anyone can fix it. Cars are a little different.
the last real Isuzu sold here. It’s a shame what GM did to them 🙁
My former neighbor (former due to his divorce) STILL has one of these, with RWD and it is a total shitbox. I can’t believe it’s still running, it doesn’t have a lot of miles but my former neighbor just beats the piss out of everything he owns.
The Axiom was good-looking, though.
The Isuzu 3.2/3.5 (minus the DI ones) will basically run forever. They are known to burn oil, but will keep running as long as you top them off.
Yes but trying to figure out what engine can replace an older engine is a nightmare
I remember this one well because it jumped out at me as one of the best aesthetic designs of any crossover — I said that 25 years ago and still think it almost completely holds up against today’s designs. Between the Axiom and the Vehicross, I have to give them a lot of credit for taking some big swings.
I almost bought one from the used car lot where I worked in 2003-04. It had been sitting around forever, suffering mostly from lack of customer awareness (just like other underappreciated cars like the Suzuki XL7).