Symmetrical All Wheel Fail

[Soup DeVille]

Correct; without 4Lo the Subaru can't put the power down because the gearing is too tall.

Subaru isn't going to design a system that "fights itself" by letting the driver strain the motor against the brakes or CVT.

Almost every active traction management system does.

[GoCougs]

Almost every active traction management system does.

Think about it - letting the run motor up against brakes and/or transmission is inefficient, unpredictable and strains components. The Outback just doesn't have the power (gearing).

.Such terrain management systems are concerned with wheel speed.

[GoCougs]

The Renegade Trailhawk isn't Active Drive I, it's active drive Low,


Yet and still. Who cares?

r0tor has since deleted his (wrong) comment to this poo-pooing the fact that it has a "crawl ratio" since he has no doubt discovered his error in posting the Jeeplet vid.

The Trailhawk Renegade has dedicated off road hardware including the aforementioned low range. It is not in any way equivalent to an Outback when it comes to off road perofrmance.

[Laconian]

Think about it - letting the run motor up against brakes and/or transmission is inefficient, unpredictable and strains components. The Outback just doesn't have the power (gearing).

In the video they said they smelled brake and clutch fumes after a little bit of struggle. Power was getting dumped into friction surfaces SOMEwhere...

[Soup DeVille]

Think about it - letting the run motor up against brakes and/or transmission is inefficient, unpredictable and strains components. The Outback just doesn't have the power (gearing).

.Such terrain management systems are concerned with wheel speed.

The brake actuators respond quicker than the throttle stepper motor does. In instances where the system is making rapid adjistments, there's generally some lag between the two. Having the brakes on when the throttle is open causes no more stress than pulling a trailer, or a stump. The transmission has to deal with that stress; except CVTs don't deal very well, which is why that system seems over eager to cut power.

Not because the engine can't handle it or because the gearing is too low.

[MX793]

r0tor has since deleted his (wrong) comment to this poo-pooing the fact that it has a "crawl ratio" since he has no doubt discovered his error in posting the Jeeplet vid.

The Trailhawk Renegade has dedicated off road hardware including the aforementioned low range. It is not in any way equivalent to an Outback when it comes to off road perofrmance.

Renegade has a pseudo low range.  It doesn't have a 2-speed transfer case.  Instead they use a very short 1st gear combined with a short final drive (1st + final drive is over 20:1 vs ~12-14:1 for most vehicles without a low range).  In normal driving, it basically never uses 1st and takes off in 2nd, which is geared in the same range as the typical 1st gear in most cars.  When you select "4LO", it forces it to take off in 1st gear.  Not quite a true crawler ratio of >30:1.  More akin to 2nd gear in low range on a Tacoma or 3rd gear low range on a Wrangler (or 1st gear Hi on a Rubicon).  Still a fair advantage vs most vehicles that don't have anything shorter than 14:1.

[MX793]

These videos also explain why most CUVs are absolutely terrible in even small snow storms... The average American buyer has no idea what they are even buying

Golly, these cars are useless in even small snow storms?  Begs the question how I've yet to fail to make it into work in one of America's snowiest cities for the past decade-plus driving not one of these "useless-AWD" CUVs, but a regular car with a single driven axle and open differential. 

And all-season tires.

[12,000 RPM]

Im thinking r0tor got flexed on by a CR-V millionaire

This feels personal.

[GoCougs]

The brake actuators respond quicker than the throttle stepper motor does. In instances where the system is making rapid adjistments, there's generally some lag between the two. Having the brakes on when the throttle is open causes no more stress than pulling a trailer, or a stump. The transmission has to deal with that stress; except CVTs don't deal very well, which is why that system seems over eager to cut power.

Not because the engine can't handle it or because the gearing is too low.

And fuel injectors respond faster than all by an order of magnitude or more (kHz bandwidth), which is the first line of defense for cutting power.

The Outback struggled because of a lack of power (gearing), not because it was "fighting itself" (brakes on @ full throttle).

[AutobahnSHO]

LOLS.

Subie used to put super low 1st gear in their manual cars. Just for silly shenanigans.

[MX793]

LOLS.

Subie used to put super low 1st gear in their manual cars. Just for silly shenanigans.

What are you calling old?  As far back as the early 90s, Subies typically ran a 3.55:1 first gear with either a 3.9:1 or 4.11:1 final drive (13.8-14.6:1 overall) in their MTs.  That's on the shorter end of what I'd call "typical" for a passenger car of the fuel-injection era, but not super low by any means.  My Mustang is 13.6:1.  My last Mustang was 14:1.  My Mazda was 13.6:1.  I believe Acura Integras of the 90s were in the 14.5:1 range.

[Soup DeVille]

And fuel injectors respond faster than all by an order of magnitude or more (kHz bandwidth), which is the first line of defense for cutting power.

The Outback struggled because of a lack of power (gearing), not because it was "fighting itself" (brakes on @ full throttle).

Cut the fuel supply without cutting the airflow, and you've got a lean condition which leads to detonation. Even then, if you kill the engine entirely, it won't wind down instantly, and that energy has to be dissipated somewhere; which is the brakes.

The testers could smell frying brake pads and/or clutch.

[GoCougs]

Again, no brakes, or at least not till things are bad (or old school) - how else would launch control work? Also timing, traction control futzes with timing in addition to fuel cutoff.

[Soup DeVille]

Clearly, things were bad.

[giant_mtb]

Low range is amazing. I use it more than necessary. Mostly because I want to make sure it gets engaged/disengaged enough so it doesn't just sit and something rusts shut or whatever.  It's great for idling up hills or tackling steep/technical descents to stay off the brakes so you're not sliding around.

[AutobahnSHO]

What are you calling old? 

1978.   My wagon had the spare tire up by the carberator, a 4spd, and another shift selector on the floor. That selector changed between FWD and 4WD. No clutch necessary to go into 4WD, and a GIANT green "4WD" light came on the dash. The owner manual said NEVER drive it on 4WD on dry/wet pavement or transmission damage would occur.

That thing was a tank! 

[r0tor]

r0tor has since deleted his (wrong) comment to this poo-pooing the fact that it has a "crawl ratio" since he has no doubt discovered his error in posting the Jeeplet vid.

The Trailhawk Renegade has dedicated off road hardware including the aforementioned low range. It is not in any way equivalent to an Outback when it comes to off road perofrmance.

I didn't delete anything - shrug-


Edit -> I should add the only differences between the shittiest 4wd jeep and the trailhawk version of the shittiest 4wd jeep is a slightly more aggressive gear, a 1/2" of lift, and some nice decorations

[r0tor]

I'm not sure if what world coug's "it doesn't have enough power" comment ever works... Lol

[giant_mtb]

I'm not sure if what world coug's "it doesn't have enough power" comment ever works... Lol

You were goin hard with that same comment in regards to the Roxor...

[GoCougs]

Low range is amazing. I use it more than necessary. Mostly because I want to make sure it gets engaged/disengaged enough so it doesn't just sit and something rusts shut or whatever.  It's great for idling up hills or tackling steep/technical descents to stay off the brakes so you're not sliding around.

People who have never had 4Lo don't realize how critical it is in all sorts of ways (including not bogging down).

[AutobahnSHO]

Funny no one ever talks about Humvees. Except the fact they are really really wide, they're amazing off road vehicles.

[r0tor]

You were goin hard with that same comment in regards to the Roxor...

...The Roxor has 60hp...

[Soup DeVille]

Funny no one ever talks about Humvees. Except the fact they are really really wide, they're amazing off road vehicles.

Well, because they don't fit down most trails, were 90 grand when new, and just don't make a lot of sense as daily drivers.

That being said, I do tag along with a couple of military vehicle groups (the MVPA being the big one), and yeah; they are.

(on the power argument, they're also 6000 lb vehicles with 190 Hp- but proper gearing- which makes them a real power house when being chased around by 13,000 lb M35s with 120 HP)

[MX793]

...The Roxor has 60hp...

Which is the same as most variants of the Jeep CJ...

Power doesn't matter for a crawler so long as you have adequately short gearing.  Scrambling along trails and crawling over rocks and logs and through mud isn't about getting there quickly, it's about simply getting there.  Suzuki Samurais only had like 65 hp and half the torque of a Roxor and are widely regarded as very capable off-roaders.

[r0tor]

Which is the same as most variants of the Jeep CJ...

Power doesn't matter for a crawler so long as you have adequately short gearing.  Scrambling along trails and crawling over rocks and logs and through mud isn't about getting there quickly, it's about simply getting there.  Suzuki Samurais only had like 65 hp and half the torque of a Roxor and are widely regarded as very capable off-roaders.

... and not very fun.... -shrug-

[MX793]

... and not very fun.... -shrug-

Crawling is a lot like bicycle/motorcycle trials.  It's about finesse, precision, and technique, not speed and power.  It's like solving a puzzle.  The types of terrain tackled aren't really conducive to high speeds anyway.  Something with more power isn't going to be able to traverse that terrain appreciably faster.

[r0tor]

In the case of the Roxor, it would be a hell of a lot more fun if it had the power of its side by side competition so its not limited to "rock crawling" with open diffs

... all I'm saying...

[Soup DeVille]

Its not limited to rock crawling, its simply more suited to lower speed stuff- as are a lot of utility oriented side by sides.

[MX793]

In the case of the Roxor, it would be a hell of a lot more fun if it had the power of its side by side competition so its not limited to "rock crawling" with open diffs

... all I'm saying...

It doesn't have the suspension setup to tackle rough terrain at speed.  Mahindra governs these to 45 mph (in America) and I saw one video reviewer say he wouldn't want to go faster than that off of pavement because the vehicle was rather "bouncy" and would tend to buck front to back, making it both very difficult to control and cause sea-sickness.

It is a utility vehicle that happens to also be a very capable rock crawler and technical off roader.  Its SBS competition isn't the Polaris RZR or Kawi Teryx.  It competes with the Polaris Ranger, Kawi Mule, or John Deere Gator.  Gators have <60 hp in their most potent form.  The Ranger is like 85 (only like 60 lbs-ft).  The Mule has 58 in its most potent form.

[r0tor]

Nobody is taking a Roxor with open diffs rock crawling or doing anything technical.  It needs to be modded to do that.  Nobody is also going to take it to run around and have fun in.  It's a great turd.

Almost as great a turd as Subarus CVT which can only do this IF it does not to lift a wheel while going up a hill