Symmetrical All Wheel Fail

[FoMoJo]

I bet if it had a cvt it would have made it all the way up.

Or maybe if the guy driving it didn't weigh 400 pounds.

[AutobahnSHO]

Or maybe if the guy driving it didn't weigh 400 pounds.

Better traction

[MX793]

They tried again and made it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ua51LAtgVM

[12,000 RPM]

I am sick of all this damn popcorn

[Morris Minor]

I can think of Wranglers, Land/Range Rovers & the 4Runner. Are there any other contenders out of the dealer's door for serious off-roading?

[r0tor]

Maybe weather conditions were different and suddenly the Subaru had enough power to move itself 

[AutobahnSHO]

I can think of Wranglers, Land/Range Rovers & the 4Runner. Are there any other contenders out of the dealer's door for serious off-roading?

Trucks. Big or small. Plus the older Cherokees.

[MX793]

Maybe weather conditions were different and suddenly the Subaru had enough power to move itself 

They played around with the TCS and "X mode" settings (toggling things on and off).

[MX793]

Trucks. Big or small. Plus the older Cherokees.

Big trucks (half tons and bigger) typically have low break over angles which make them pretty poor for tackling rough terrain.  Long wheelbases are killer without a huge lift kit.

[giant_mtb]

Yeah, a Silverado can be okay with a lift.  Can be made to be good in the mud.  But tight trails and technical off-roading...not so much.  Just too big/long, especially once you put a lift and some bigger tires on.  They become masssssive, and that can be very cumbersome in the woods.

[r0tor]

They played around with the TCS and "X mode" settings (toggling things on and off).

Yea... I know... Just pointing this out to cougs

[giant_mtb]

They tried again and made it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ua51LAtgVM

Whaddya know.  It did better without the fancy computer crap.

[r0tor]

A different (easier) line was what sealed the deal

[Galaxy]

Big trucks (half tons and bigger) typically have low break over angles which make them pretty poor for tackling rough terrain.  Long wheelbases are killer without a huge lift kit.

The question is for how much of off-roading one really needs such a built vehicle? The most off-roading I have done was in Namibia in a lifted VW T2, and that did not even have AWD, and that could handle most of the terrain in Africa except for the sand dunes. Granted it did not rain.

[MX793]

A different (easier) line was what sealed the deal

That same line was used by some of the other soft roaders that made it.  IIRC, they also attempted that line in the first video (and almost made it).

[MX793]

The question is for how much of off-roading one really needs such a built vehicle? The most off-roading I have done was in Namibia in a lifted VW T2, and that did not even have AWD, and that could handle most of the terrain in Africa except for the sand dunes. Granted it did not rain.

If you're traversing relatively flat terrain with dry, firm/packed soil, that's generally fine.  If you're tackling lumpier terrain (like the deserts in the American Southwest can be due to temporary streams that form during flash floods) full of steep and abrupt dips or inclines, clearance and approach/breakover/departure angles are important, as is AWD/4WD on some of the steeper hills.

[giant_mtb]

A different (easier) line was what sealed the deal

Also true.

[Soup DeVille]

A different (easier) line was what sealed the deal

Doing a test like this, it would be expected that the driver know what they're doing.

Even though the original test showed potential weaknesses in the system, its also fair to call the original test a driver failure.

[Soup DeVille]

The question is for how much of off-roading one really needs such a built vehicle? The most off-roading I have done was in Namibia in a lifted VW T2, and that did not even have AWD, and that could handle most of the terrain in Africa except for the sand dunes. Granted it did not rain.

Those old busses would surprise a lot of people, and the fact is thatmost vehicles will handle more than you would expect.

Of course here in the states, most people are convinced anything smaller than 33" tires, lockers front and rear, and a 20,000lb winch are basic equipment for traversing anything more than a slightly overgrown lawn.

There's also a big difference between using a vehicle to get where you want to be, and using it to prove where it can go.

[GoCougs]

They played around with the TCS and "X mode" settings (toggling things on and off).

Mightily struggled with power as well, which isn't its fault - low range exists for a very good reason, and an Outback on steep terrain is it.

[r0tor]

Doing a test like this, it would be expected that the driver know what they're doing.

Even though the original test showed potential weaknesses in the system, its also fair to call the original test a driver failure.

No, completely killing power to protect the transmission when using the offroad traction mode is a complete failure

[giant_mtb]

No, completely killing power to protect the transmission when using the offroad traction mode is a complete failure

I'd rather back down a hill with my powertrain intact and get home than back down a hill with a floppy half shaft or busted transmission and not get home. 

[r0tor]

I'd rather just have a transmission that doesn't need to have a life insurance policy

[giant_mtb]

I'd rather just have a transmission that doesn't need to have a life insurance policy

Well, yeah, but...if it's between blowing up and not blowing up...I'll choose not blowing up...

[AutobahnSHO]

It's all about what a vehicle is built for- and Subarus (as some of y'all pointed out) are to get to the trailhead, not to go up a big trail. My 78 wagon had an extremely low 1st gear and real locked-differentials 4wd and we took it up some silly trails but looking back now I'm glad we didn't get stranded.

ALSO, off-roading means different things to different people. Out west sometimes the "trail" is an acre wide. Some people like "mud bogging". I've heard others call off-road "Baja-ing" or "cross countrying".  That's why I mentioned trucks.

[Morris Minor]

Hmm, the Honda is quite respectable. They should do a low-range CVT option. I think Chrysler did years ago as an option for the Patriot.

Trail-Rated CR-V - there would be no excuse for for not owning a CR-V.

CR-V AWD
Torques: 179 @ 2,000
Wheelbase: 104.7"
Ground clearance: 8.2" (sits a tad higher than the 2WD)
Breakover angle 17.8°
Approach Angle: 20.8°
Departure Angle: 24.8°

Outback
Torques: 174 @ 4,000
Wheelbase: 108.1"
Ground clearance: 8.7"
Breakover angle 18.3°
Approach Angle: 18.5°
Departure Angle: 22.7°

[93JC]

old Jeep Cherokee

Torques: 225 @ 4,000 (~180 @ idle)
Wheelbase: 101.4”
Ground clearance: 8" (-ish; depends on the tires, as this is measured from the bottom of the differentials. The lowest part of the body itself is the transmission cross-member, which is about a foot off the ground.)
Breakover angle: 21°
Approach angle: 38°
Departure angle: 32°

[CaminoRacer]

It would be awesome if they sold Cherokees still. Update the engine a bit (a BIT. Nothing too complicated) and use nicer modern plastics. Keep the seats the same, the simple dash design, the rugged drivetrain. Add some gears to the transmission for better highway cruising but don't sacrifice low range.

[giant_mtb]

It would be awesome if they sold Cherokees still. Update the engine a bit (a BIT. Nothing too complicated) and use nicer modern plastics. Keep the seats the same, the simple dash design, the rugged drivetrain. Add some gears to the transmission for better highway cruising but don't sacrifice low range.

They could make a killing.

[MexicoCityM3]

It would be awesome if they sold Cherokees still. Update the engine a bit (a BIT. Nothing too complicated) and use nicer modern plastics. Keep the seats the same, the simple dash design, the rugged drivetrain. Add some gears to the transmission for better highway cruising but don't sacrifice low range.

https://www.jeep.com/cherokee.html