Symmetrical All Wheel Fail

[Soup DeVille]

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

That's a Fiat with a body kit.

[giant_mtb]

Goddamn I want an XJ so bad.

[12,000 RPM]

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.

What would a modern XJ do that a Wrangler doesn't?

[2o6]

What would a modern XJ do that a Wrangler doesn't?

This. If you want a car with solid axles and BOF and good approach and departure angles, buy a Wrangler.


The current lineup of Car-based off-roaders are perfect for Jeep clientele. Most old Cherokees stayed on road anyway. And the new style FWD crossovers actually don't embarass themselves off road, either.

[giant_mtb]

What would a modern XJ do that a Wrangler doesn't?

Be smaller.  Have a more livable cabin.

[Soup DeVille]

This. If you want a car with solid axles and BOF and good approach and departure angles, buy a Wrangler.


The current lineup of Car-based off-roaders are perfect for Jeep clientele. Most old Cherokees stayed on road anyway. And the new style FWD crossovers actually don't embarass themselves off road, either.

The Cherokee was never BOF.

It was also more livable with day-to-day, is smaller than modern Wranglers, and as capable as it needs to be.

Its always he guys that do not and have no interest in off roading that don't get it; and that's OK.

[CaminoRacer]

I like the looks of the XJ more than the Wrangler.

The Patriot is similar, and because of that I sometimes have a weird desire for one. But other than styling it's not very good.

[2o6]

The Cherokee was never BOF.

It was also more livable with day-to-day, is smaller than modern Wranglers, and as capable as it needs to be.

Its always he guys that do not and have no interest in off roading that don't get it; and that's OK.

Who would buy one tho? I can't see Jeep making a unibody small RWD chassis with solid axles for people to buy. The last one they had was the Liberty (although had independent front suspension) and it was mediocre, and effectively got its ass handed to it by the CR-V crowd.



I could see something like a Jeep version of the new Suzuki Jimny working. But a compact RWD SUV? IDK it seems like it wouldn't be worth the trouble.

I like the looks of the XJ more than the Wrangler.

The Patriot is similar, and because of that I sometimes have a weird desire for one. But other than styling it's not very good.

That's a Lancer with a lift kit

Be smaller.  Have a more livable cabin.

Smaller, yeah. But IDK modern wranglers (especially the very latest one) are pretty fuckin nice for what they are.

[CaminoRacer]

That's a Lancer with a lift kit

That's why I said the styling is the only part that really attracts me. I wish it had a V6 and a beefier platform.

Smaller, yeah. But IDK modern wranglers (especially the very latest one) are pretty fuckin nice for what they are.

Until they crash because the frame welds fail.

[BimmerM3]

Yeah no chance that they'll make a modernized old-school Cherokee. It would just eat either Wrangler or CUV Cherokee sales, and 4Runners exist for people who want off-road capability with a comfortable cabin.

It'd be nice if Nissan brought back the Xterra though. That's basically the original Cherokee's market segment.

[BimmerM3]

BTW, so that I don't have to scroll through 7 pages of posts, someone did post the follow-up video where they turned off X Mode and made it up, right?

[giant_mtb]

BTW, so that I don't have to scroll through 7 pages of posts, someone did post the follow-up video where they turned off X Mode and made it up, right?

Yes.

[MX793]

They recently posted a new video demonstrating what Subaru's, and the other CUVs', AWD system is really designed for: slick road surfaces.  They put rollers under varying wheels to simulate low/no traction (ice) at that wheel.  Including scenarios when 3 tires are on ice. 

[r0tor]

They recently posted a new video demonstrating what Subaru's, and the other CUVs', AWD system is really designed for: slick road surfaces.  They put rollers under varying wheels to simulate low/no traction (ice) at that wheel.  Including scenarios when 3 tires are on ice. 

90% of systems can pass that test... You only need to transfer maybe 3% of the engine power to move a car on level ground 1 foot

[BimmerM3]

90% of systems can pass that test... You only need to transfer maybe 3% of the engine power to move a car on level ground 1 foot

If it makes you feel any better, they also did it on a sloped loading dock (though less successfully).

http://youtu.be/zE5hfbhN5FM?t=243

[r0tor]

Most predictable...

[BimmerM3]

Most predictable...

You predicted that the primary reason it wouldn't succeed was tire traction, not a limitation of the AWD system itself?

[r0tor]

Poor tire traction is caused by poor articulation.  It is unknown if it could transfer enough power if the wheel had enough traction.... or if the CVT would limit the power. It is incredibly hard to transfer power by brakes alone.

After a minute or two of that the system would completely overheat and fail... Like the original video.

[BimmerM3]

Poor tire traction is caused by poor articulation. It is unknown if it could transfer enough power if the wheel had enough traction.... or if the CVT would limit the power. It is incredibly hard to transfer power by brakes alone.

That's fair. I'd be interested to see what would happen if they put a block with traction under the fourth wheel so that all four would be at the same height. It's also kind of weird that they didn't try it with both VDC and X Mode on.

FWIW, they tried the same test with a Pilot with effectively the same results - it only got off the rollers because it slid sideways and gained traction on the edge of the riser. I don't think they've done the inclined test with any other vehicles yet. The Outback at least looked like it was trying a bit harder to find a wheel with traction. The Pilot had a lot more spinning.

After a minute or two of that the system would completely overheat and fail... Like the original video.

...but not like the follow-up where they made it up the same feature.

Besides, as has been reiterated, very few people purchase these cars to go up true off-road features like that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan of the CVT and will get a manual if I buy a Subaru, but calling them garbage off-road because of one video where they were obviously putting it somewhere the vehicle wasn't really supposed to go, especially since they went back and made it up later one, is... actually about what I've come to expect around here.

[12,000 RPM]

[r0tor]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge fan of the CVT and will get a manual if I buy a Subaru, but calling them garbage off-road because of one video where they were obviously putting it somewhere the vehicle wasn't really supposed to go, especially since they went back and made it up later one, is... actually about what I've come to expect around here.

The tests show Subaru has downgraded itself from class leading awd to just plain average. I have little doubt a 15 year old Outback would pass these tests relatively easily.

Is average fine for most - probably.  Does it still deserve being highly touted for their awd... probably not.  For a brand that pins its success on awd, I think it's a problematic direction.

[Laconian]

I don't disagree, but they probably feel the need to have their consumption and on-road performance specs be somewhat competitive with the cheater AWD-lite configurations. They still need to sell units, and CVT gives them parity in the metrics that most [naive] customers care about.

[MX793]

Poor tire traction is caused by poor articulation.  It is unknown if it could transfer enough power if the wheel had enough traction.... or if the CVT would limit the power. It is incredibly hard to transfer power by brakes alone.

After a minute or two of that the system would completely overheat and fail... Like the original video.

I really don't think those rollers are high enough for it to be an articulation issue.  With an IRS, the rear tire should have still had a pretty square stance and contact patch.  I'd say it came down to the fact that on an incline, there is less normal force between the road and tires, so friction is reduced.  I'd also be curious just how grippy that loading dock pavement was relative to well-travel road pavement.  It very well could have been contaminated with oils or other things that washed down the ramp in the rain and collected near the bottom.  Or, if it had recently been sealed, it wouldn't be very grippy (coloration makes it look like it was sealed much more recently than the grayer pavement next to it).

[r0tor]

Ummm... It's highly unlikely a loading ramp would require 4wd/awd since the trucks that use it are RWD with open diffs

[Soup DeVille]

Ummm... It's highly unlikely a loading ramp would require 4wd/awd since the trucks that use it are RWD with open diffs

No, they wouldn't normally have a problem. And the drive wheels barely enter the ramped portion at all.

Did get stuck in one once though.  And then again at the driveway leaving the plant.

[giant_mtb]

I imagine the folks at Subaru also have to take into account the strength of the half shafts.  Can't just go putting full load on one CV shaft unless it's designed for it. 

[BimmerM3]

I don't disagree, but they probably feel the need to have their consumption and on-road performance specs be somewhat competitive with the cheater AWD-lite configurations. They still need to sell units, and CVT gives them parity in the metrics that most [naive] customers care about.

Not to mention that they still have more ground clearance than almost any other crossover, which is more important than AWD fanciness for the type of off-roading that real world owners buy these vehicles for (rough gravel roads).

I'd be a lot more concerned about long term durability of the CVT than whether or not it can push me up a ramp with one wheel.