True 4WD/AWD?
- Thread starter actionstan
- Start date
- Status
I like Subarus, they have a nice AWD system. I would not use one to pull someone out of a ditch though. I've seen plenty of damage done to vehicles both being pulled out and those doing the pulling when they aren't properly equipped.
My Cherokee with a tow strap works great, and by attaching the tow strap to the trailer hitch I know that it can handle the pulling. If looking for an on-road vehicle only the Subaru is perfect, but pulling people out would require something a little more heavy duty.
My Cherokee with a tow strap works great, and by attaching the tow strap to the trailer hitch I know that it can handle the pulling. If looking for an on-road vehicle only the Subaru is perfect, but pulling people out would require something a little more heavy duty.
Just to throw these out lol.
http://youtu.be/p20tKuoUXoA?t=1m54s
http://youtu.be/lT1O_PWyRh8?t=26s
Proper tires make a world of a difference in any vehicles. Quite a bit of people think that all terrain tires is equivalent/better compared winter tires. I gotta say thats one of the biggest misunderstanding regarding tires, thus why I see quite a bit of trucks in ditches in my city once a winter storm hits.
But I have to agree I wouldn't use my Subaru to pull anything unless its life or death(middle of nowhere with no help to be found, snow, etc). I'll let others with trucks and or Subaru owner bigger kahonies to do that.
http://youtu.be/p20tKuoUXoA?t=1m54s
http://youtu.be/lT1O_PWyRh8?t=26s
Proper tires make a world of a difference in any vehicles. Quite a bit of people think that all terrain tires is equivalent/better compared winter tires. I gotta say thats one of the biggest misunderstanding regarding tires, thus why I see quite a bit of trucks in ditches in my city once a winter storm hits.
But I have to agree I wouldn't use my Subaru to pull anything unless its life or death(middle of nowhere with no help to be found, snow, etc). I'll let others with trucks and or Subaru owner bigger kahonies to do that.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Blkstanger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw1nNdEVPf8
Impressive... That is exactly where AT tires should be used.
I felt bad for the drivetrain shock the car experience to get through some of the really tough stuff. A low range gear would have greatly helped. Maybe Subaru would consider it if they ever saw this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gw1nNdEVPf8
I felt bad for the drivetrain shock the car experience to get through some of the really tough stuff. A low range gear would have greatly helped. Maybe Subaru would consider it if they ever saw this video.
old school subarus had a low range and a real transfer case, before they went AWD.
Not sure about now, but the MT subarus from the 90s to early 2000's actually did have a limited slip center diff, so there was power sent to both ends with limited slip in the middle. the ATs back then were basically FWD with limited slip rear (the clutch was both a viscous unit + electro-mechanical modulations), with an aggressive bias to keep the rear powered. As they aged, the AT version was aggressive enough that it was not uncommon to hear complaints of chattering in turns.
Having owned both subaru and "real" 4wd vehicles, I think the subaru makes a more elegant snow machine. the center-diff-based AWD is well-suited in traffic, especially city turns or sweeping corners. a true 4wd does just fine, but true 4wd will force at least one tire to spin in every turn, sometimes causing the driver to "drive the car" a little more directly. If it were my wife, I'd want her in AWD. Now, if you romp on the 'ru, it will do exactly what a locked 4wd will do, because the limited slip center diff really doesn't allow much variation at all between axles. at least, that was the case in my '97. It could be a holy terror (gobs of fun) with 2nd gear clutch drops half way through a turn. The low CG also made it so nimble for well-controlled 4W drifts in each and every corner or turn. umm, that's what I've heard anyway.
I am glad to read that some folks like the electronic limited slip differentials (ELSD) out there. I myself have had near-pathetic experience with some of them. 2wd jeep WK had the ELSD and it was useless. It would not apply enough brake force to move the other wheel. I'm talking anything from me gently coercing the vehicle to move, to me getting out while it was idling in D, looking at that wheel spin on its own, listening to the ABS system pulse the spinning wheel, seeing the wheel pulse, and still not send enough to a) stop that wheel b) move the vehicle. it was ridiculous. In our minivan, it's a different story. It will equal out a 3/4-throttle burn out on dry pavement. I'll give credit to the jeep's ESP---- I never triggered it accidentally, but when I'd trigger it, it was like "Hand of God" and the car would immediately stabilize. Unfortunately, it would also stabilize with all throttle cut... so if you needed to keep moving out of a situation, sorry, you were plumb zero mph wherever it left you.
There ARE drawbacks to mechanical LSDs, which nobody has mentioned. In the slick stuff, if one wheel breaks loose, the spin gets sent to the other side, which will also break loose as well. So if you aren't driving for the conditions, a mechanical LSD will easily break the whole end loose causing immediate oversteer. While I personally prefer a mechanical because it's more robust, if it were my wife (or kids) driving, I'd suggest not going with a mechanical LSD. They need to understand and have good butt-physics-understanding.
Not sure about now, but the MT subarus from the 90s to early 2000's actually did have a limited slip center diff, so there was power sent to both ends with limited slip in the middle. the ATs back then were basically FWD with limited slip rear (the clutch was both a viscous unit + electro-mechanical modulations), with an aggressive bias to keep the rear powered. As they aged, the AT version was aggressive enough that it was not uncommon to hear complaints of chattering in turns.
Having owned both subaru and "real" 4wd vehicles, I think the subaru makes a more elegant snow machine. the center-diff-based AWD is well-suited in traffic, especially city turns or sweeping corners. a true 4wd does just fine, but true 4wd will force at least one tire to spin in every turn, sometimes causing the driver to "drive the car" a little more directly. If it were my wife, I'd want her in AWD. Now, if you romp on the 'ru, it will do exactly what a locked 4wd will do, because the limited slip center diff really doesn't allow much variation at all between axles. at least, that was the case in my '97. It could be a holy terror (gobs of fun) with 2nd gear clutch drops half way through a turn. The low CG also made it so nimble for well-controlled 4W drifts in each and every corner or turn. umm, that's what I've heard anyway.
I am glad to read that some folks like the electronic limited slip differentials (ELSD) out there. I myself have had near-pathetic experience with some of them. 2wd jeep WK had the ELSD and it was useless. It would not apply enough brake force to move the other wheel. I'm talking anything from me gently coercing the vehicle to move, to me getting out while it was idling in D, looking at that wheel spin on its own, listening to the ABS system pulse the spinning wheel, seeing the wheel pulse, and still not send enough to a) stop that wheel b) move the vehicle. it was ridiculous. In our minivan, it's a different story. It will equal out a 3/4-throttle burn out on dry pavement. I'll give credit to the jeep's ESP---- I never triggered it accidentally, but when I'd trigger it, it was like "Hand of God" and the car would immediately stabilize. Unfortunately, it would also stabilize with all throttle cut... so if you needed to keep moving out of a situation, sorry, you were plumb zero mph wherever it left you.
There ARE drawbacks to mechanical LSDs, which nobody has mentioned. In the slick stuff, if one wheel breaks loose, the spin gets sent to the other side, which will also break loose as well. So if you aren't driving for the conditions, a mechanical LSD will easily break the whole end loose causing immediate oversteer. While I personally prefer a mechanical because it's more robust, if it were my wife (or kids) driving, I'd suggest not going with a mechanical LSD. They need to understand and have good butt-physics-understanding.
Last edited:
Subaru have some clever AWD systems, but if you want true 'go anywhere ability' it's hard to beat a Land Rover Defender.
Full time 4wd, low range box, lockable front, centre and rear diffs, and individually articulating/locking wheels in any combination with/without putting the diffs in.
Its been good enough for the British Army and all our farmers for the best part of 50 years!
Full time 4wd, low range box, lockable front, centre and rear diffs, and individually articulating/locking wheels in any combination with/without putting the diffs in.
Its been good enough for the British Army and all our farmers for the best part of 50 years!
While I think the '14 Forester is a solid choice you won't go wrong with, I'll point out a couple of things. My friend has a '06 Forester and with 130k miles on it he's had a major front suspension component fail, the engine absolutely drinks oil, and a couple of other smaller issues like worn and slipping belts and loose heat shields.
I admit I'm a biased Honda guy but I've never known a Honda or even a late model domestic make to have so many engineering-related issues especially with mileage like that. In my opinion you'd be doing yourself a disservice not to at least consider a CR-V for several reasons. First, from what I've seen first-hand and read the Honda is engineered better from suspension to the thickness of upholstery on the seats. Consider my account above and just start "kicking tires" and touching things between one and the other and it will become apparent (to be fair I cannot speak for the new '14 Forester, it may have gotten better). Second, if you are considering a used vehicle, we used to have a '10 CR-V and after a 31" blizzard a couple years ago, I (perhaps stupidly) took the CR-V out just hours after the snow stopped falling and roads were closed. It quickly became apparent that I might not make it back, but let me tell you that CR-V got through snow that full-time 4WD trucks were literally stuck in so don't think for a second that YouTube vid. of the Subaru on the metal incline is in any way an end-all be-all account of real world conditions/performance, it's not. Further, the Real-Time AWD is very simple (vacuum/hydraulic) which makes engagement very gentle and it's reliable. Note if you look at new a new ('12+) CR-V the system is now electronically controlled and proactively sends power to the rear wheels upon acceleration as opposed to waiting for front wheel slippage.
So, OP, since you asked for a reliable AWD vehicle good for daily driving and gets good MPG you should at least consider CR-V. You get a decent amount for your money up front and down the road with reliability and resale. Good luck.
I admit I'm a biased Honda guy but I've never known a Honda or even a late model domestic make to have so many engineering-related issues especially with mileage like that. In my opinion you'd be doing yourself a disservice not to at least consider a CR-V for several reasons. First, from what I've seen first-hand and read the Honda is engineered better from suspension to the thickness of upholstery on the seats. Consider my account above and just start "kicking tires" and touching things between one and the other and it will become apparent (to be fair I cannot speak for the new '14 Forester, it may have gotten better). Second, if you are considering a used vehicle, we used to have a '10 CR-V and after a 31" blizzard a couple years ago, I (perhaps stupidly) took the CR-V out just hours after the snow stopped falling and roads were closed. It quickly became apparent that I might not make it back, but let me tell you that CR-V got through snow that full-time 4WD trucks were literally stuck in so don't think for a second that YouTube vid. of the Subaru on the metal incline is in any way an end-all be-all account of real world conditions/performance, it's not. Further, the Real-Time AWD is very simple (vacuum/hydraulic) which makes engagement very gentle and it's reliable. Note if you look at new a new ('12+) CR-V the system is now electronically controlled and proactively sends power to the rear wheels upon acceleration as opposed to waiting for front wheel slippage.
So, OP, since you asked for a reliable AWD vehicle good for daily driving and gets good MPG you should at least consider CR-V. You get a decent amount for your money up front and down the road with reliability and resale. Good luck.
Last edited:
I have an 09 F150 4x4 with the tow package
I also have an 03 Jag X-Type with AWD
The Ford has a 3.55 clutch based limited slip diff in the rear with an electronic locker. I believe it has an open diff in the front. When 4WD is engaged, the front and rear diffs are connected and there is no center diff. So turning on dry pavement is slightly more difficult. When 4WD-Low is engaged, the electronic locker in the rear makes both rear tires spin exactly the same speed, when that happens turning on pavement is nearly impossible. And if forced, all sorts of binding occurs and big, ugly noises, like snapping metal sounds.
The Jag has an open front and rear diff. The center diff has a viscous coupling. Up on jacks, it "feels" when turning the tires by hand, like a spoon in peanut butter. Stiff, but not fully connected. The jag will willingly spin any one tire in certain situations. With only "some" torque to the other tires. At least until the viscous coupling heats up a bit. Then it becomes more "locked" and will spin one front and one rear tire. Simple and quite effective. Unless both your RH tires are on ice AND both your LH tires are on pavement. Then it struggles a bit, but always seems to pull through. The Jag drives like a champ in nearly all conditions.
I also have an 03 Jag X-Type with AWD
The Ford has a 3.55 clutch based limited slip diff in the rear with an electronic locker. I believe it has an open diff in the front. When 4WD is engaged, the front and rear diffs are connected and there is no center diff. So turning on dry pavement is slightly more difficult. When 4WD-Low is engaged, the electronic locker in the rear makes both rear tires spin exactly the same speed, when that happens turning on pavement is nearly impossible. And if forced, all sorts of binding occurs and big, ugly noises, like snapping metal sounds.
The Jag has an open front and rear diff. The center diff has a viscous coupling. Up on jacks, it "feels" when turning the tires by hand, like a spoon in peanut butter. Stiff, but not fully connected. The jag will willingly spin any one tire in certain situations. With only "some" torque to the other tires. At least until the viscous coupling heats up a bit. Then it becomes more "locked" and will spin one front and one rear tire. Simple and quite effective. Unless both your RH tires are on ice AND both your LH tires are on pavement. Then it struggles a bit, but always seems to pull through. The Jag drives like a champ in nearly all conditions.
Sounds like you are looking for used. I think Jeep or Subaru will cover your needs well.
It appears Subaru went steps further with the X-Mode(off road awd) in their recent CVT equipped vehicles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5NuGequOgM
I think Jeep offers great AWD too in their Forester competitors too(Compass/Patriot).
It appears Subaru went steps further with the X-Mode(off road awd) in their recent CVT equipped vehicles.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5NuGequOgM
I think Jeep offers great AWD too in their Forester competitors too(Compass/Patriot).
^^^ I believe it's the same thing.
I'll second that the CRV is a perfectly acceptable AWD snow machine. ex had a 97, and it did just fine. Driven aggressively, the subaru AWD in my opinion offers better dynamics, but most folks, and myself now, don't drive on the edge in that stuff. the crv was not as aggressively biased as the 'ru, in that it's FWD with rear assist in both the dual-pump AWD unit and the electric system which is similar to acura's sh-awd, if not the same. they are all good in snow and have minor advantages over each other.
a little trivia--- the old dual-pump system used by honda had a 30k or 60k mile fluid interval, dual pump fluid only. they were very specific and if you tried to extend it, it would let you know with lots of parking lot chatter very soon. the newer electronic system in our MDX asks for 30k, and that fluid has come out pretty beat-up.
a little more trivia--- the rear drive in the acura AWD/SH-AWD and possibly that crv use the same setup. it's not a diff but simply a ring and pinion with dual electronic clutches on both axles. they can modulate which axle gets power that way. someone on one of the acura forums posted the shop test procedures for that unit. each axle, per the MDX shop manual, is only required to provide 155 ft/lbs of torque each, so 310 ft/lbs total. that's about 248 pounds of thrust at the ground. It's enough to make a real difference in the slick stuff, but less power to the ground than owners want to believe.
I'll second that the CRV is a perfectly acceptable AWD snow machine. ex had a 97, and it did just fine. Driven aggressively, the subaru AWD in my opinion offers better dynamics, but most folks, and myself now, don't drive on the edge in that stuff. the crv was not as aggressively biased as the 'ru, in that it's FWD with rear assist in both the dual-pump AWD unit and the electric system which is similar to acura's sh-awd, if not the same. they are all good in snow and have minor advantages over each other.
a little trivia--- the old dual-pump system used by honda had a 30k or 60k mile fluid interval, dual pump fluid only. they were very specific and if you tried to extend it, it would let you know with lots of parking lot chatter very soon. the newer electronic system in our MDX asks for 30k, and that fluid has come out pretty beat-up.
a little more trivia--- the rear drive in the acura AWD/SH-AWD and possibly that crv use the same setup. it's not a diff but simply a ring and pinion with dual electronic clutches on both axles. they can modulate which axle gets power that way. someone on one of the acura forums posted the shop test procedures for that unit. each axle, per the MDX shop manual, is only required to provide 155 ft/lbs of torque each, so 310 ft/lbs total. that's about 248 pounds of thrust at the ground. It's enough to make a real difference in the slick stuff, but less power to the ground than owners want to believe.
Last edited:
Hmm all these have given me a lot to think about. My biggest concern with Subaru is the boxer engines.. and the CVTs (even though most are going to cvts these days) I know Subarus are good, but those boxer engines look like bears to work on.. and since I like to do a lot of my own work I will have to take that into consideration. But currently because of this discussion I am leaning towards something like a Subaru forester.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: actionstan
Hmm all these have given me a lot to think about. My biggest concern with Subaru is the boxer engines.. and the CVTs (even though most are going to cvts these days) I know Subarus are good, but those boxer engines look like bears to work on.. and since I like to do a lot of my own work I will have to take that into consideration. But currently because of this discussion I am leaning towards something like a Subaru forester.
Typical maintenance items are pretty straight forward. Oil changes(motor oil, oil filter[new FB engines have oil filter on top of the engine which I think is brilliant], transmission gear oil[Mine is 5speed MT], rear diff gear oil), Brake fluid flush, engine air filter, cabin air filter, tire rotation(seasonal winter - summer set switch), brake inspections, and suspension inspections. All of the above I have done myself and gotta say that its just about similar to other cars I've worked on.
I've heard there a little bit of a learning curve tackling something like timing belt, but depending on the model year you end up getting it maybe a non-issue since the new FB engines are all chain driven.
As for the CVT's I can't say much regarding longevity. My uncle owns a 2012 Legacy that he let me take for a test drive and I gotta say I didn't think it was too bad at all. I'm pretty old school with my MT(you can still get the new models with MT if thats what you prefer). Everything I've read online seems to agree that CVT's Subaru uses are very good.
I have not had oil consumption issues. I would say almost 0 consumption in 7,500 mile oil change interval that I follow.
My friends wife owns a 2010 Impreza, My friend owns a 2013 WRX, My uncle owns a 2012 legacy, Several other coworkers own random Subarus and I haven't heard any complaints regarding reliability. (Sorry I sound like a commercial, but Subarus are very popular vehicles in mountainous regions where it snows a lot)
I'm a little biased regarding AWD tech though. Subaru's at its core have been designed to be AWD. All models come AWD standard (except for RWD BRZ). Others seem like IMO an after thought attachment.
You should go for several test drives, and try out all competing models. For all we know you may hate the way it drives. A friend of mine disliked the way the Subaru's drove and he ended up getting an AWD Mazda CX5 which I think is also an excellent CUV and we alternate driving up the mountain to go snowboarding.
Hmm all these have given me a lot to think about. My biggest concern with Subaru is the boxer engines.. and the CVTs (even though most are going to cvts these days) I know Subarus are good, but those boxer engines look like bears to work on.. and since I like to do a lot of my own work I will have to take that into consideration. But currently because of this discussion I am leaning towards something like a Subaru forester.
Typical maintenance items are pretty straight forward. Oil changes(motor oil, oil filter[new FB engines have oil filter on top of the engine which I think is brilliant], transmission gear oil[Mine is 5speed MT], rear diff gear oil), Brake fluid flush, engine air filter, cabin air filter, tire rotation(seasonal winter - summer set switch), brake inspections, and suspension inspections. All of the above I have done myself and gotta say that its just about similar to other cars I've worked on.
I've heard there a little bit of a learning curve tackling something like timing belt, but depending on the model year you end up getting it maybe a non-issue since the new FB engines are all chain driven.
As for the CVT's I can't say much regarding longevity. My uncle owns a 2012 Legacy that he let me take for a test drive and I gotta say I didn't think it was too bad at all. I'm pretty old school with my MT(you can still get the new models with MT if thats what you prefer). Everything I've read online seems to agree that CVT's Subaru uses are very good.
I have not had oil consumption issues. I would say almost 0 consumption in 7,500 mile oil change interval that I follow.
My friends wife owns a 2010 Impreza, My friend owns a 2013 WRX, My uncle owns a 2012 legacy, Several other coworkers own random Subarus and I haven't heard any complaints regarding reliability. (Sorry I sound like a commercial, but Subarus are very popular vehicles in mountainous regions where it snows a lot)
I'm a little biased regarding AWD tech though. Subaru's at its core have been designed to be AWD. All models come AWD standard (except for RWD BRZ). Others seem like IMO an after thought attachment.
You should go for several test drives, and try out all competing models. For all we know you may hate the way it drives. A friend of mine disliked the way the Subaru's drove and he ended up getting an AWD Mazda CX5 which I think is also an excellent CUV and we alternate driving up the mountain to go snowboarding.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: KHP
Originally Posted By: actionstan
Hmm all these have given me a lot to think about. My biggest concern with Subaru is the boxer engines.. and the CVTs (even though most are going to cvts these days) I know Subarus are good, but those boxer engines look like bears to work on.. and since I like to do a lot of my own work I will have to take that into consideration. But currently because of this discussion I am leaning towards something like a Subaru forester.
Typical maintenance items are pretty straight forward. Oil changes(motor oil, oil filter[new FB engines have oil filter on top of the engine which I think is brilliant], transmission gear oil[Mine is 5speed MT], rear diff gear oil), Brake fluid flush, engine air filter, cabin air filter, tire rotation(seasonal winter - summer set switch), brake inspections, and suspension inspections. All of the above I have done myself and gotta say that its just about similar to other cars I've worked on.
I've heard there a little bit of a learning curve tackling something like timing belt, but depending on the model year you end up getting it maybe a non-issue since the new FB engines are all chain driven.
As for the CVT's I can't say much regarding longevity. My uncle owns a 2012 Legacy that he let me take for a test drive and I gotta say I didn't think it was too bad at all. I'm pretty old school with my MT(you can still get the new models with MT if thats what you prefer). Everything I've read online seems to agree that CVT's Subaru uses are very good.
I have not had oil consumption issues. I would say almost 0 consumption in 7,500 mile oil change interval that I follow.
My friends wife owns a 2010 Impreza, My friend owns a 2013 WRX, My uncle owns a 2012 legacy, Several other coworkers own random Subarus and I haven't heard any complaints regarding reliability. (Sorry I sound like a commercial, but Subarus are very popular vehicles in mountainous regions where it snows a lot)
I'm a little biased regarding AWD tech though. Subaru's at its core have been designed to be AWD. All models come AWD standard (except for RWD BRZ). Others seem like IMO an after thought attachment.
You should go for several test drives, and try out all competing models. For all we know you may hate the way it drives. A friend of mine disliked the way the Subaru's drove and he ended up getting an AWD Mazda CX5 which I think is also an excellent CUV and we alternate driving up the mountain to go snowboarding.
The biggest pain is accessing the spark plugs. I had a mechanic do it for me, and my that time (after 2 book hours of labor) it was too late to back out. $60 for the plugs and $200 for the labor. I'm inclined to try myself the next time.
Originally Posted By: actionstan
Hmm all these have given me a lot to think about. My biggest concern with Subaru is the boxer engines.. and the CVTs (even though most are going to cvts these days) I know Subarus are good, but those boxer engines look like bears to work on.. and since I like to do a lot of my own work I will have to take that into consideration. But currently because of this discussion I am leaning towards something like a Subaru forester.
Typical maintenance items are pretty straight forward. Oil changes(motor oil, oil filter[new FB engines have oil filter on top of the engine which I think is brilliant], transmission gear oil[Mine is 5speed MT], rear diff gear oil), Brake fluid flush, engine air filter, cabin air filter, tire rotation(seasonal winter - summer set switch), brake inspections, and suspension inspections. All of the above I have done myself and gotta say that its just about similar to other cars I've worked on.
I've heard there a little bit of a learning curve tackling something like timing belt, but depending on the model year you end up getting it maybe a non-issue since the new FB engines are all chain driven.
As for the CVT's I can't say much regarding longevity. My uncle owns a 2012 Legacy that he let me take for a test drive and I gotta say I didn't think it was too bad at all. I'm pretty old school with my MT(you can still get the new models with MT if thats what you prefer). Everything I've read online seems to agree that CVT's Subaru uses are very good.
I have not had oil consumption issues. I would say almost 0 consumption in 7,500 mile oil change interval that I follow.
My friends wife owns a 2010 Impreza, My friend owns a 2013 WRX, My uncle owns a 2012 legacy, Several other coworkers own random Subarus and I haven't heard any complaints regarding reliability. (Sorry I sound like a commercial, but Subarus are very popular vehicles in mountainous regions where it snows a lot)
I'm a little biased regarding AWD tech though. Subaru's at its core have been designed to be AWD. All models come AWD standard (except for RWD BRZ). Others seem like IMO an after thought attachment.
You should go for several test drives, and try out all competing models. For all we know you may hate the way it drives. A friend of mine disliked the way the Subaru's drove and he ended up getting an AWD Mazda CX5 which I think is also an excellent CUV and we alternate driving up the mountain to go snowboarding.
The biggest pain is accessing the spark plugs. I had a mechanic do it for me, and my that time (after 2 book hours of labor) it was too late to back out. $60 for the plugs and $200 for the labor. I'm inclined to try myself the next time.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 5,294
Originally Posted By: actionstan
Hmm all these have given me a lot to think about. My biggest concern with Subaru is the boxer engines.. and the CVTs (even though most are going to cvts these days) I know Subarus are good, but those boxer engines look like bears to work on.. and since I like to do a lot of my own work I will have to take that into consideration. But currently because of this discussion I am leaning towards something like a Subaru forester.
Think I saw where you were considering pre-owned. A few notes.
-Head gaskets: Mostly solved model yr 2008+
-Timing sync: Belt up to 2010, chain on 2011+, belt has 105,000 mile replace interval
-Automatic trans: the 4EAT transmission is a solid unit, great rep
-Manual trans: need to use GL5 gear oil in manual trans due to the front diff sharing the oil.
-Can be lifted couple inches or so, several after market suspension mod choices
-Surprising amount of room in the model yr 2009 and up, good rear legroom
-2011+ models use 0W20 synthetic engine oil (FB engine)
-Possible oil consumption issue on some 2011+ models (FB engine)
-Older XT models (WRX's turbo engine), say 2002 - 2006 for instance, are quicker than stink. 0-60 in 4 second range when equipped w/ the 6-speed manual.
-Newer (2009+) XT models not as fast as the older ones and all have auto trans
Hmm all these have given me a lot to think about. My biggest concern with Subaru is the boxer engines.. and the CVTs (even though most are going to cvts these days) I know Subarus are good, but those boxer engines look like bears to work on.. and since I like to do a lot of my own work I will have to take that into consideration. But currently because of this discussion I am leaning towards something like a Subaru forester.
Think I saw where you were considering pre-owned. A few notes.
-Head gaskets: Mostly solved model yr 2008+
-Timing sync: Belt up to 2010, chain on 2011+, belt has 105,000 mile replace interval
-Automatic trans: the 4EAT transmission is a solid unit, great rep
-Manual trans: need to use GL5 gear oil in manual trans due to the front diff sharing the oil.
-Can be lifted couple inches or so, several after market suspension mod choices
-Surprising amount of room in the model yr 2009 and up, good rear legroom
-2011+ models use 0W20 synthetic engine oil (FB engine)
-Possible oil consumption issue on some 2011+ models (FB engine)
-Older XT models (WRX's turbo engine), say 2002 - 2006 for instance, are quicker than stink. 0-60 in 4 second range when equipped w/ the 6-speed manual.
-Newer (2009+) XT models not as fast as the older ones and all have auto trans
Granted mine was a 97, and then a 90 before that, but the 97 is still pretty common to today's inner design. It was reliable and bulletproof. chassis was stable and solid. I worked that car hard trying to keep up with beltway traffic, with the little 2.2. It was one of the most reliable vehicles I owned. By the time it reached 100,000 miles, it would use about a quart every 5-6000 miles, and I was changing the oil every 10,000 miles, or ~4 months.
I had zero trouble finding good wrench angles under the hood. stuff had to be removed to get there but that car was well-designed for maintenance. fans, reservoirs, covers, all cleverly mounted and it was quick. It was the first car I did Tbelt, and struts on myself, and it went smooth with hand tools. slower the first time... 2nd belt I did with WP and a OP tigthtening and regasketing in 3-4 hours.
By now they've done a lot of CVTs. 3 ppl I work with have subarus, 2 have the cvt. one doesn't care and is very happy with her car. the other does care and is happy with it as well. IDK if the third has the cvt or not. they find the pseudo-stick shift points to be more elegant than real gear changing. IDK-- I think there's more worry in it being different than in the tech itself by now.
If I were in the market for a smaller car, the forester XT would make the list, if I could find a used one.
I had zero trouble finding good wrench angles under the hood. stuff had to be removed to get there but that car was well-designed for maintenance. fans, reservoirs, covers, all cleverly mounted and it was quick. It was the first car I did Tbelt, and struts on myself, and it went smooth with hand tools. slower the first time... 2nd belt I did with WP and a OP tigthtening and regasketing in 3-4 hours.
By now they've done a lot of CVTs. 3 ppl I work with have subarus, 2 have the cvt. one doesn't care and is very happy with her car. the other does care and is happy with it as well. IDK if the third has the cvt or not. they find the pseudo-stick shift points to be more elegant than real gear changing. IDK-- I think there's more worry in it being different than in the tech itself by now.
If I were in the market for a smaller car, the forester XT would make the list, if I could find a used one.
Originally Posted By: actionstan
Hmm all these have given me a lot to think about. My biggest concern with Subaru is the boxer engines.. and the CVTs (even though most are going to cvts these days) I know Subarus are good, but those boxer engines look like bears to work on.. and since I like to do a lot of my own work I will have to take that into consideration. But currently because of this discussion I am leaning towards something like a Subaru forester.
I'm not sure if you saw my post regarding first-hand experience with Forester and CR-V since it's on a previous page now but I encourage you to read it if you haven't already.
Hmm all these have given me a lot to think about. My biggest concern with Subaru is the boxer engines.. and the CVTs (even though most are going to cvts these days) I know Subarus are good, but those boxer engines look like bears to work on.. and since I like to do a lot of my own work I will have to take that into consideration. But currently because of this discussion I am leaning towards something like a Subaru forester.
I'm not sure if you saw my post regarding first-hand experience with Forester and CR-V since it's on a previous page now but I encourage you to read it if you haven't already.
My subie fanatic friends ignores the existence of this video.
http://youtu.be/orysh1VuueU
The Venza has Toyota's Active AWD system, which is shared with the old RAV4, Sienna and certain model years of the RX350.
the old RAV4 and the RX350 that have it, also have a simulated "lock" function. This simulates a 60/40 lock.
the new RAV4 gets Dynamic AWD which is supposed to be more responsive and the "lock" can lock to 50/50.
TFLcar mashup, RX350 vs Allroad, where Nathan mentions the lock function
http://youtu.be/Ub05viju334
http://youtu.be/orysh1VuueU
The Venza has Toyota's Active AWD system, which is shared with the old RAV4, Sienna and certain model years of the RX350.
the old RAV4 and the RX350 that have it, also have a simulated "lock" function. This simulates a 60/40 lock.
the new RAV4 gets Dynamic AWD which is supposed to be more responsive and the "lock" can lock to 50/50.
TFLcar mashup, RX350 vs Allroad, where Nathan mentions the lock function
http://youtu.be/Ub05viju334
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: meep
^^^ I believe it's the same thing.
I'll second that the CRV is a perfectly acceptable AWD snow machine. ex had a 97, and it did just fine. Driven aggressively, the subaru AWD in my opinion offers better dynamics, but most folks, and myself now, don't drive on the edge in that stuff. the crv was not as aggressively biased as the 'ru, in that it's FWD with rear assist in both the dual-pump AWD unit and the electric system which is similar to acura's sh-awd, if not the same. they are all good in snow and have minor advantages over each other.
a little trivia--- the old dual-pump system used by honda had a 30k or 60k mile fluid interval, dual pump fluid only. they were very specific and if you tried to extend it, it would let you know with lots of parking lot chatter very soon. the newer electronic system in our MDX asks for 30k, and that fluid has come out pretty beat-up.
a little more trivia--- the rear drive in the acura AWD/SH-AWD and possibly that crv use the same setup. it's not a diff but simply a ring and pinion with dual electronic clutches on both axles. they can modulate which axle gets power that way. someone on one of the acura forums posted the shop test procedures for that unit. each axle, per the MDX shop manual, is only required to provide 155 ft/lbs of torque each, so 310 ft/lbs total. that's about 248 pounds of thrust at the ground. It's enough to make a real difference in the slick stuff, but less power to the ground than owners want to believe.
This is interesting although I have serious doubts about the validity of some of this. The system in the CR-V is said to be a newly developed system and I've found nothing to suggest it's a VTM-4 rear which is what SH-AWD is based off of.
With respect to SH-AWD those numbers may be nominal values for testing but if you follow Acura press-releases, engineer interviews, and an essay/white paper which is out there SH-AWD transmits a max of 70% of total vehicle torque to the rear for a period of time and of the 70% 100% of that can be vectored to either side of the rear. Further, SH-AWD employs a mechanical acceleration unit which actually overdrives the rear wheels by a percentage (1.7% in most applications) relative to front wheel speed. So under acceleration out of a turn, power is sent to the rear and a certain percentage of that power is vectored to the outside rear wheel which is also overdriven by 1.7% to really help push you through the corner (if the front wheels are turning at 40mph the rear wheels are turning at ~41mph). SH-AWD is an incredibly remarkable system and still one of the most advanced out there.
^^^ I believe it's the same thing.
I'll second that the CRV is a perfectly acceptable AWD snow machine. ex had a 97, and it did just fine. Driven aggressively, the subaru AWD in my opinion offers better dynamics, but most folks, and myself now, don't drive on the edge in that stuff. the crv was not as aggressively biased as the 'ru, in that it's FWD with rear assist in both the dual-pump AWD unit and the electric system which is similar to acura's sh-awd, if not the same. they are all good in snow and have minor advantages over each other.
a little trivia--- the old dual-pump system used by honda had a 30k or 60k mile fluid interval, dual pump fluid only. they were very specific and if you tried to extend it, it would let you know with lots of parking lot chatter very soon. the newer electronic system in our MDX asks for 30k, and that fluid has come out pretty beat-up.
a little more trivia--- the rear drive in the acura AWD/SH-AWD and possibly that crv use the same setup. it's not a diff but simply a ring and pinion with dual electronic clutches on both axles. they can modulate which axle gets power that way. someone on one of the acura forums posted the shop test procedures for that unit. each axle, per the MDX shop manual, is only required to provide 155 ft/lbs of torque each, so 310 ft/lbs total. that's about 248 pounds of thrust at the ground. It's enough to make a real difference in the slick stuff, but less power to the ground than owners want to believe.
This is interesting although I have serious doubts about the validity of some of this. The system in the CR-V is said to be a newly developed system and I've found nothing to suggest it's a VTM-4 rear which is what SH-AWD is based off of.
With respect to SH-AWD those numbers may be nominal values for testing but if you follow Acura press-releases, engineer interviews, and an essay/white paper which is out there SH-AWD transmits a max of 70% of total vehicle torque to the rear for a period of time and of the 70% 100% of that can be vectored to either side of the rear. Further, SH-AWD employs a mechanical acceleration unit which actually overdrives the rear wheels by a percentage (1.7% in most applications) relative to front wheel speed. So under acceleration out of a turn, power is sent to the rear and a certain percentage of that power is vectored to the outside rear wheel which is also overdriven by 1.7% to really help push you through the corner (if the front wheels are turning at 40mph the rear wheels are turning at ~41mph). SH-AWD is an incredibly remarkable system and still one of the most advanced out there.
- Status
Similar threads
