Most reliable, economic and capable AWD vehicle?

[glock19]

Originally Posted by DriveHard
Can't believe this has been overlooked...not sure you will find a more capable and affordable AWD than the Jeep Renegade...especially if you spring for the Trailhawk version.


I suspect because of the first criteria:

Most reliable, economic and capable AWD vehicle?

 

[slacktide_bitog]

Originally Posted by DriveHard
Can't believe this has been overlooked...not sure you will find a more capable and affordable AWD than the Jeep Renegade...especially if you spring for the Trailhawk version.


Renegade reliable?

Reliability. It's NOT a Jeep Thing

 

[Al]

Originally Posted by DriveHard

I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure symmetrical AWD has nothing to do with the length of the driveshafts, but more that equal torque can be applied to all 4 corners equally...as in, not biased to the front or rear.


"Why does Subaru call it symmetrical all wheel drive?
If you cut a Subaru drivetrain in half, lengthwise, then each side would weigh the same. They are essentially mirror images...symmetrical. "

When you accelerate or go around corners the difference in front wheel axle length in non symmetrical drive trains causes pulling on the side with the short axle. Makes a big difference.

 

[DaRider34]

Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by maxdustington
Subarus have 50/50 AWD and the others have asymmetrical? Is that the difference? I know the Audis have Torsen? AWD but I'm not sure about the Subarus. Either way that's pretty awesome.

Symetrical refers to the fact that the front drive shafts are equal length due to the boxer engine installed inline. Audi "can" be called symetricl but it does this in a more complicated way. Very few AWDs can get 50/50 (front/rear) subaru can. Again it is one of the best AWDs if not the best.

 

[DriveHard]

Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by DriveHard

I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure symmetrical AWD has nothing to do with the length of the driveshafts, but more that equal torque can be applied to all 4 corners equally...as in, not biased to the front or rear.


"Why does Subaru call it symmetrical all wheel drive?
If you cut a Subaru drivetrain in half, lengthwise, then each side would weigh the same. They are essentially mirror images...symmetrical. "

When you accelerate or go around corners the difference in front wheel axle length in non symmetrical drive trains causes pulling on the side with the short axle. Makes a big difference.



This is only due to poor design. If you engineer the driveshafts correctly, this does not have to be the case. The offset of the weight can also be accounted for by, say, putting the battery on the other side of the car. I mean, I love symmetry as much as the next guy, but I'm not sure it matters a hill of beans if you compare to a properly engineered design that is not symmetrical.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Al
Originally Posted by DriveHard

I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure symmetrical AWD has nothing to do with the length of the driveshafts, but more that equal torque can be applied to all 4 corners equally...as in, not biased to the front or rear.


"Why does Subaru call it symmetrical all wheel drive?
If you cut a Subaru drivetrain in half, lengthwise, then each side would weigh the same. They are essentially mirror images...symmetrical. "

When you accelerate or go around corners the difference in front wheel axle length in non symmetrical drive trains causes pulling on the side with the short axle. Makes a big difference.


As far as I know, bunch of Subaru's have wither FWD bias or RWD bias, depending on model. For example STi and WRX have RWD bias, while basic models have FWD bias. I think Outback, Forester are only one with 50:50.
What Subaru should focus more would be weight distribution if they are so stuck on that, as they are heavier in front then back. However, where Subaru is going, I would not be surprised they start using regular 4cyl engines from Toyota. 99.99% of their customers would not notice difference.

 

[buster]

It's 60/40 for all non VC AWD models, which is most.

 

[bobdoo]

Having owned and read everything about 3 Subies, I can attest that the Impreza/Crosstrek run 90% front wheel bias most of the time. This is also true of my CX-5. 90/10 gives the best MPG.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted by bobdoo
Having owned and read everything about 3 Subies, I can attest that the Impreza/Crosstrek run 90% front wheel bias most of the time. This is also true of my CX-5. 90/10 gives the best MPG.



I don't think that is correct. It's 50/50, 60/40 and 45/55.

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted by edyvw
However, where Subaru is going, I would not be surprised they start using regular 4cyl engines from Toyota. 99.99% of their customers would not notice difference.



Their AWD system is built completely around the flat 4. Not to mention, the low center of gravity (safety) would be lost if they changed it up. I don't see subaru walking away from that anytime soon. Nor should they. They already have the most fuel efficient AWD setup on the market. Doesn't make sense to go away.

 

[buster]

Originally Posted by badtlc
Originally Posted by edyvw
However, where Subaru is going, I would not be surprised they start using regular 4cyl engines from Toyota. 99.99% of their customers would not notice difference.



Their AWD system is built completely around the flat 4. Not to mention, the low center of gravity (safety) would be lost if they changed it up. I don't see subaru walking away from that anytime soon. Nor should they. They already have the most fuel efficient AWD setup on the market. Doesn't make sense to go away.


Good points I agree. Unike the other systems, which are decent, Subaru builds it around their engine. The symmetrical aspect is another attribute.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by badtlc
Originally Posted by edyvw
However, where Subaru is going, I would not be surprised they start using regular 4cyl engines from Toyota. 99.99% of their customers would not notice difference.



Their AWD system is built completely around the flat 4. Not to mention, the low center of gravity (safety) would be lost if they changed it up. I don't see subaru walking away from that anytime soon. Nor should they. They already have the most fuel efficient AWD setup on the market. Doesn't make sense to go away.

I am not sure that their AWD is any efficient then Audi's or BMW's or MB's etc.
They should not go from boxer engine. But while boxer engine has its advantages, it has disadvantages too. Subaru threw away a lot of stuff in last decade that made them unique vehicles. They are now not any different then your average Corolla with much more capable AWD. I am not sure how CVT goes along that Subaru heritage and the fact you cannot get manual on bunch of their cars. Their customers do not care, they only care about Subaru+AWD. Now Subaru abandoned LSD, and their customers do not care about it. Tomorrow they will put Haldex type AWD and as long as they have commercial where the guy hits truck, but then next scene he stops few inches before just because he drives Subaru, people will drive it and claim they have "best" AWD. Customer base that SUbaru targets last decade does not care what is under the hood, nor they buy it because it is boxer engine. They buy marketing.

 

[PimTac]

Subaru is well known for their awd and their reputation is built in that. A number of automakers have caught up to Subaru though. While every vehicle is different in how they handle due to many variables, Audi, Mazda, and Kia have excellent predictive systems that are top notch.

It should also be said that any awd system depends on the skill of the driver and the tires on that vehicle.

 

[KrisZ]

Subaru builds 2wd models too, just not for the NA market. The AWD specialization is a view Subaru fostered very carefully and over many years in NA. It clearly works as as they intended.

A boxer setup, while lower to the ground, has to stick out up front, over the front axle more and cannot be tucked in under the cabin and behind the front axle, like a normal I4 can be, thus give a better front/rear weight distribution.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Subaru is well known for their awd and their reputation is built in that. A number of automakers have caught up to Subaru though. While every vehicle is different in how they handle due to many variables, Audi, Mazda, and Kia have excellent predictive systems that are top notch.

It should also be said that any awd system depends on the skill of the driver and the tires on that vehicle.

Not sure how Audi is in same sentence with Mazda and KIA when it comes to AWD. I would always choose Audi AWD system over Subaru even if Subaru offered everything else Audi offers, which they do not.
First and foremost capability of any car, FWD, RWD or AWD depends on tires. It would be nice from Subaru to emphasize that, as they are most common cars in ditch here in CO. When I see Outback in rearview mirror first thing I do is hit the gas. Probability of Subaru having proper tires in winter is almost not existing.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by KrisZ
Subaru builds 2wd models too, just not for the NA market. The AWD specialization is a view Subaru fostered very carefully and over many years in NA. It clearly works as as they intended.

A boxer setup, while lower to the ground, has to stick out up front, over the front axle more and cannot be tucked in under the cabin and behind the front axle, like a normal I4 can be, thus give a better front/rear weight distribution.



You are talking about BRZ. That is development of Toyota and Subaru. However, per Toyota's claim Subaru never delivered power that they suppose to in that project. They are nice cars, but never had appropriate engines under.
As for specialization, yes, Subaru invests a lot in marketing. However, while they are still focusing on AWD and golden retrievers and similar stuff, it seems they now more focusing on fear mongering like: if you do not get Subaru you will hit trash truck because Subaru brakes for you or accident where "we survived thanks to our Subaru." Their marketing is pure insult to intelligence and it works. That is why I said that I would not be surprised if they further water down this brand because customers they aim at do not care about it. There are three people at my work who drive Subaru, and I asked all three what engine is under the hood. They do not know of course. One actually told me: i do not care enough to know. That is Subaru customer in 2018. Put AWD from my Toyota Sienna in it and 99% of their customer base would never notice that.

 

[DaRider34]

Originally Posted by edyvw

They should not go from boxer engine. But while boxer engine has its advantages, it has disadvantages too. Subaru threw away a lot of stuff in last decade that made them unique vehicles. They are now not any different then your average Corolla with much more capable AWD. I am not sure how CVT goes along that Subaru heritage and the fact you cannot get manual on bunch of their cars. Their customers do not care, they only care about Subaru+AWD. Now Subaru abandoned LSD, and their customers do not care about it. Tomorrow they will put Haldex type AWD and as long as they have commercial where the guy hits truck, but then next scene he stops few inches before just because he drives Subaru, people will drive it and claim they have "best" AWD. Customer base that SUbaru targets last decade does not care what is under the hood, nor they buy it because it is boxer engine. They buy marketing.



Thats because they actually started to sell vehicles. 10 years ago i hardly ever saw a subaru out on the road, now they're all over the place. And its like you said they had to sacrifice some of the good stuff that made them unique to meet mass demands of new customers like the lsd, or horsepower to keep the mpgs near their competitors. Even with the decline of manuals they shoulda went with the dual clutch versus the cvt and refined it like acura did, by adding a torque convertor to the 8sp dct like ilx has. since americans dont like behavior of the dct at low speeds.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by DaRider34
Originally Posted by edyvw

They should not go from boxer engine. But while boxer engine has its advantages, it has disadvantages too. Subaru threw away a lot of stuff in last decade that made them unique vehicles. They are now not any different then your average Corolla with much more capable AWD. I am not sure how CVT goes along that Subaru heritage and the fact you cannot get manual on bunch of their cars. Their customers do not care, they only care about Subaru+AWD. Now Subaru abandoned LSD, and their customers do not care about it. Tomorrow they will put Haldex type AWD and as long as they have commercial where the guy hits truck, but then next scene he stops few inches before just because he drives Subaru, people will drive it and claim they have "best" AWD. Customer base that SUbaru targets last decade does not care what is under the hood, nor they buy it because it is boxer engine. They buy marketing.



Thats because they actually started to sell vehicles. 10 years ago i hardly ever saw a subaru out on the road, now they're all over the place. And its like you said they had to sacrifice some of the good stuff that made them unique to meet mass demands of new customers like the lsd, or horsepower to keep the mpgs near their competitors. Even with the decline of manuals they shoulda went with the dual clutch versus the cvt and refined it like acura did, by adding a torque convertor to the 8sp dct like ilx has. since americans dont like behavior of the dct at low speeds.

They should go with 8 speed, but they did not. They should have 8 speed with turbo in Outback where people who liked Subaru's, ones before this Toyota philosophy copy/paste could find something for them, but they did not. There is a lot of stuff they should do, but they moved away from those customers to suburban customers who just want four wheels on the ground. People who spend 30sec on stop sign because there is jogger 100 yards away. People who order groceries online because it is safer then walking into grocery store etc. And it works for Subaru, there is no doubt about that.

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted by edyvw

I am not sure that their AWD is any efficient then Audi's or BMW's or MB's etc.


I can't find a single Forester equivalent SUV with better MPGs regardless of manufacturer. That is how it is the most efficient.

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted by edyvw

Not sure how Audi is in same sentence with Mazda and KIA when it comes to AWD.


I'm not sure about KIA but Mazda's AWD did take down subaru in some snow test in colorado last year. There are videos on Youtube.