Thinking about getting an SUV

[Donald]

Originally Posted By: redhat
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek

You are clearly not well informed here.

I had AWD subaru (AT) and it was FWD until slip detected and the rears would then kick in. To have it 4WD from the get go, you would have to use 1st gear selection on the shifter.

I have RAV4 now and it works exactly the same, but you have the 4WD switch that gives you 4WD up to 25 mph.

Another difference was Subaru had hydraulically activated center diff, while RAV4 has electric coupler.


But it's still part time. What good is 4WD if you can't have any after 25mph? That's another thing I'm having a problem with.


Be careful with the phrase "part-time". My Jeep has part-time 4WD and it basically locks all the wheels and so you should only use it in heavy snow or mud, (ie., part-time). It moans and groans on a dry road.

 

[redhat]

That can definitely add a layer of confusion. So we have part-time 4WD, then I'll refer to the others as on-demand 4WD.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
I believe the current crop of Subaru use an always-on viscous center coupling.


only MT

 

[glock19]

Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: redhat
Plus a lot of these vehicles come with a "we'll give you what we think you want when you don't want it" AWD/4WD/Part-Time/Real-Time system. Besides Subaru, they all look like they do the same thing -- try some power in the rear when the front spins.


You are clearly not well informed here.

I had AWD subaru (AT) and it was FWD until slip detected and the rears would then kick in. To have it 4WD from the get go, you would have to use 1st gear selection on the shifter.

I have RAV4 now and it works exactly the same, but you have the 4WD switch that gives you 4WD up to 25 mph.

Another difference was Subaru had hydraulically activated center diff, while RAV4 has electric coupler.


This isn't necessarily true for all Subarus. Subaru has several systems but the one being put into the Forester and Outback (since we're talking about CUVs) with CVTs defaults to a 60-40 split under normal conditions and 50-50 split during slippage. That's a slight front bias, but not much.

 

[Astro14]

You won't regret getting a 4 Runner.

Great build quality. True body on frame construction. Great off road. There is no better truck out there, that's why I've still got mine.

 

[friendly_jacek]

Originally Posted By: glock19
Originally Posted By: friendly_jacek
Originally Posted By: redhat
Plus a lot of these vehicles come with a "we'll give you what we think you want when you don't want it" AWD/4WD/Part-Time/Real-Time system. Besides Subaru, they all look like they do the same thing -- try some power in the rear when the front spins.


You are clearly not well informed here.

I had AWD subaru (AT) and it was FWD until slip detected and the rears would then kick in. To have it 4WD from the get go, you would have to use 1st gear selection on the shifter.

I have RAV4 now and it works exactly the same, but you have the 4WD switch that gives you 4WD up to 25 mph.

Another difference was Subaru had hydraulically activated center diff, while RAV4 has electric coupler.


This isn't necessarily true for all Subarus. Subaru has several systems but the one being put into the Forester and Outback (since we're talking about CUVs) with CVTs defaults to a 60-40 split under normal conditions and 50-50 split during slippage. That's a slight front bias, but not much.


I believe you, as I'm not current on subaru anymore. I had my AT subaru 2000-2006 and it was 90/10 normal power split and 50/50 with slippage detected.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd

Originally Posted By: redhat
I hate to admit this too, and you didn't hear me say this: [whispering I'm am getting a little tired of shifting and wouldn't mind an automatic.]


Despite what gets said on here sometimes, you don't have to turn in your man card or "car guy" card for buying an automatic. A manual transmission is not required to be able to enjoy a vehicle.


True- and there are some applications where an automatic is objectively far better. Offroad rock-crawling is definitely one of those. I went so long *without* a stick that even after 2 years I'm still thrilled to be able to stir gears myself... but I don't automatically (heh heh) dislike automatic vehicles.


You totally have to had in your man card if you buy an automatic. If you're the sort who thinks you have to have a card in order to be a man in the first place, that is; or if you have to have others pat you on the back and afirm that you are man because of what you drive.

*

I'm not sure what the goals here are. I see two vehicles in your sig; is one yours and the other the wife's?

I don't know how much you drive, but it can be nice having a big vehicle for weekend duty. That is what I do, with what is now a beater for daily non-snow duty. If I need to drive a long distance, go out in cold or snowy weather, or need a nice looking vehicle, I use my truck.

In your case I wonder if a well-used SUV for occasional duty makes more sense, since you have a nice car already.

*

I will say that part time 4x4 can drive me nuts. Light bed is a hindrance that I bet an SUV would not have. I often need 4WD--but the rigidly locked transer case means I often feel binding in those cases. I won't notice it today while being on a few inches of snow, but other times its there. I also found snow tires really helped here: I can stay in 2WD longer, and then when I need 4WD, conditions are slippery enough that I don't notice the binding (as much). YMMV.

As for AWD kicking out above 25mph: For a while I wanted a RAV4, and its locking 4WD (let's just call it a locked center diff for now, even though it's not) disables above 25mph or so. I'm not sure what I need 4WD above crawling for, most of the time; and IIRC that does not mean it is 2WD only above 25mph. Just that becomes FWD-biased, until wheelslip is detected.

 

[4wheeldog]

I live in snow country. 7200' elevation. We normally get several dumps of over a foot, every year. Sometime 2'.

I have an older 4runner (2000) and a newer Lesbaru Outback (2012). Both have about the same amount of room inside. And either one will get you where you need to go, even in unplowed snow. The Outback does it with less skill required, and less drama, so my wife gets first pick and takes it. The 4runner is probably marginally more capable, but if the conditions challenge the Outback, it would be best to just stay home.

The Outback gets about 30mpg overall (4 banger,CVT), and has more amenities, being newer. The 4runner is my choice for those treks off of what most would consider roads, and does so very well, and has for 250k miles. You could not ask for a more reliable vehicle. It generally gets about 20/22mpg, overall (V6 manual trannie).

 

[redhat]

To answer your question, yes the Accord is mine, the Impala is hers.

 

[geeman789]

Originally Posted By: redhat


But it's still part time. What good is 4WD if you can't have any after 25mph? That's another thing I'm having a problem with.



AWD does one thing well... that is get you moving, on slick roads, or deep snow etc. Once you are moving, the advantages are minimal. In fact, when I moved from FWD to AWD with my Subaru, I had to adjust to the TAIL HAPPY nature at higher speed... the rear end WILL jump out with heavy throttle on icy / snowy roads. I'm ok with that, but my wife has commented about how the car feels less stable than her FWD van.

 

[Bgallagher]

Tahoe or Yukon if you ask me. Stlish, great in the snow and those 5.2 liters are bullet proof.

 

[285south]

Back in November when we had the car show (new cars to look at-sit in-what have you) As a 6'4" tall guy I was blown away with the Acura Rdx.

 

[glock19]

Originally Posted By: geeman789
In fact, when I moved from FWD to AWD with my Subaru, I had to adjust to the TAIL HAPPY nature at higher speed... the rear end WILL jump out with heavy throttle on icy / snowy roads.


Those two things don't normally go well together unless it's a rally stage.

 

[285south]

Originally Posted By: redhat


For full body on frame brand-new vehicles, that leaves us with a Tahoe, Suburban, Yukon or 4Runner. Out of them all, I am leaning towards the 4Runner.


Have you looked at the Toyota FJ besides the 4Runner?

 

[SF0059]

I certainly understand where you are coming from. I recently switched from a sedan, however, I came to a different conclusion than you and went with a CUV.

In the way of 4WD/AWD I have had a 1999 Dodge Durango, 2006 Jeep Commander, 2006 Subaru Forester, 2004 Audi A4 and a 2000 Audi A6 prior to my RAV4. The conclusion I came to after owning body on frame SUVs, a CUV and AWD sedans is that you need to look at what you want to get out of them and also how the 4WD/AWD is designed.

For body on frame, the Durango was a 2H/4H/4L setup. To be honest, it was OK in the the snow, but not amazing even in 4L. The Commander was the best in weather by far. It was AWD with optional 4H/4L lock. It could go over just about anything, but I paid the price with an average 13 mpg over its life.

The Audi Quattro systems I had were functional, but limited due to their applications in passenger cars. The Subaru was really decent in the weather, but it came at the expensive of driving a vehicle that felt like a cracker box and rode like a buckboard. Not worth the tradeoff, in my opinion.

When I started shopping for an SUV/CUV, I realized that I didn't need a truck/SUV. It was just more than I needed with the added penalty of lower MPGs and higher cost of entry. I, like you, want to be able to tow a small utility or tent trailer, but I didn't need a full size for that either.

Next up I looked at AWD cars. They had too little ground clearance, not enough tow capacity and were really only available in luxury brands, which meant too much money. Subaru was the loan exception. I drove the Outback and the Forester... didn't like either of them. I didn't like our 2006 Forester and the new models didn't change that. Add to that the dicey oil consumption issues and I wrote them off.

Finally I looked at CUVs. The key with this subset is you need to look at the quality of the AWD and programming. I really good example of poor programming/execution is the Honda CRV. Just watch the video. While some are really complex systems, some are little more than FWD+.

I finally settled on the Toyota for a multitude of reasons, but one of the main ones being the AWD system. It is "lockable" (not true 4L, but 50/50 distribution below 25mph). It is also torque vectoring so it can send power to the inside or outside wheels depending on the situation. This is a feature not even full-sized SUVs have, since they are typically much more rudimentary setups with the possible exception of Jeep.

No, I'm not saying you should get a RAV4. That is what worked for me... maybe it won't for you. What I am saying, however, is not to write off CUVs because they are "based on cars". Some are little more than an elevated sedan, but there are some that rise above that. I'll be the first to admit my RAV4 is not nearly as cool or masculine as the 4Runner I test drove, but it fits my needs. I wanted to be able to tow light loads, put a bunch of stuff inside and get through a decent snow. It does all that while returning close to 25 mpg. If I really wanted to go off-road, I would get the 4Runner. If I wanted to seriously tow, I would get a Ram. But if my goal is to get the most utility for the highest economy, the CUV provides the most benefits at the lowest price with the fewest compromises.

 

[geeman789]

Originally Posted By: glock19
Originally Posted By: geeman789
In fact, when I moved from FWD to AWD with my Subaru, I had to adjust to the TAIL HAPPY nature at higher speed... the rear end WILL jump out with heavy throttle on icy / snowy roads.


Those two things don't normally go well together unless it's a rally stage.


Depending on road conditions, heavy throttle can be ANY throttle... like the freezing rain we are getting right now.

FWD and RWD / AWD react differently when traction is low... just a fact.

 

[redhat]

Thank you SF0059 for the writeup. So based upon others opinions, which 4WD/AWD systems do you all like/think are decent besides conventional transfer case 4WD?

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: redhat
Thank you SF0059 for the writeup. So based upon others opinions, which 4WD/AWD systems do you all like/think are decent besides conventional transfer case 4WD?


For my part, I like the "automatic" AWD systems that are also lockable to some degree. The ones in the RAV4 are like that and the ones in the Honda Pilot and our older generation Acura MDX are like that. It's Honda's VTM+4 system. It does torque vectoring and it is manually "lockable" with a button. I agree with the notion that the benefits of a locked drivetrain significantly diminish above about 15 mph. Honda's VTM+4's lock is gone by 18 mph. Toyota's system is gone by 25 mph. I think that confirms that a locked drivetrain isn't much of an advantage once you really get moving. And once you have that momentum, FWD generally gets the job done. When there's a little slip, the rear can assist and keep you going.

In other words, these systems are designed to get you moving, and then to assist in keeping you moving once you are. No, you can't go plow snow in a CR-V or RAV4. But they work GREAT if used as intended. The benefits include much less weight than a bulkier system...less mass to move forward and less mass to rotate. I wouldn't say that I obsess over weight in a vehicle, but I am a big proponent of not carrying significantly more than you need to get the job done that you need to get done.

Plowing snow or towing? Sure, get a 1/2 or 3/4 ton.

Commuting to work? I like the lighter vehicles myself.

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: redhat
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
And Wrangler/Wrangler Unlimited. A bit different from the others, but still brand-new, body-on-frame, and easily the most offroad capable of the list (if that's your priority). Also available with the combination of a Pentastar v6 and 6-speed stick- a combination that *should* be available in other vehicles as well.


Thank you, I completely forgot about Jeep. I for some reason thought they were all crossover. I remember looking up the fact that the Grand Cherokee was now uni-body along with the Durango.

Any why is the Explorer a uni-body? C'mon Ford, you still would've sold a boat load if they were body on frame. When I look at the new Explorer in parking lots, they look like they sit too low.


I have no problem with unibody per se. The original and much-loved XJ Cherokee was a unibody, and it was several hundred pounds lighter than and at least as rigid as the TJ and YJ Wranglers (which were its contemporaries). But the Wrangler didn't rely on the roof for any structural rigidity, and won (narrowly...) on arrival/departure angles and (the YJ anyway) on rear suspension flex.

The reason I have a problem with the current Explorer and new Cherokee (but not the Grand Cherokee) is that they're inherently front-drove platforms with transverse engines, limited ground clearance, and a profound forward axle weight and torque bias even in the 4x4 models. The Grand Cherokee is a longitudinal-engine rear-drive or 4x4 layout that happens to have independent suspension and a unibody. Its not as serious an offroader as the old Grand Wagoneer, the Wrangler, or the XJ... but then its no slouch either.

I do agree with the others- the 4Runner sounds like its probably in your wheelhouse. I just miss the days when the 4Runner was more like an XJ Cherokee. Its become a lot more like a Grand Cherokee or (minus the FWD genetics) the Explorer.

 

[redhat]

I grossly assumed that all uni-body CUV/SUVs had transversely mounted engines. Good to know. Learn something new everyday.