Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

4WD and AWD systems explained

1181921232429

Comments

  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I stand corrected, got the names mixed up.

    Thanks.

    I'd like STAHAWD too. :D
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    Agreed that active power management sounds better (if more expensive) than braking wheels with no traction.

    Seems like on the Impreza and newer AWD cars, the designers are relying on braking to keep the spinning wheels under control.

    So if the Subaru anti-brakelock system can manage 4 wheels independently, and, in the possibly ridiculous situation where 3 wheels are on ice/slippery stuff and 1 wheel has traction, it brakes the 3 spinning wheels to send power to the 1 wheel with grip, it sounds worthwhile.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Yup, that's why the VDC is a great on-road system. In a track situation you would eventually overheat the brake fluid after doing lap after lap pushing the car to the edge (saw this done on an E55 AMG at Pocono) but for on-road it's pretty much the best, most cost effective way to get front and rear LSDs.

    -mike
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    Lets see if I have this right, given the changes to Impreza/Forester lines:

    '08 Impreza/ '09 Forester 4-speed Auto lines do not have center diffs, nor LSD's.
    F/R balance is 80/20; Clutch packs control amount of balance. Balance can be adjusted by varying amount of clutch engagement (handled by Vehicle Dynamic Control, I assume). To avoid wheel spin due to traction loss, they rely on braking spinning wheel (also from VDC) and/or cutting engine power.

    '08 Outbacks w/ 5speed Auto have center diff, full time LSD in rear. Balance is 45/55; unknown system (center diff??) controls balance. Wheel spin/traction loss is handled by LSD in rear, VDC for front, and VDC in rear if LSD can't do job by itself.

    Mistakes? Comments?
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    More or less. The 09 Foresters can also shift the power to 20/80 or anywhere in between. I used this same system on a 96 Impreza Racecar that I drove for a season. It had the 4-speed auto w/80/20 initial split and it ran wonderfully. So don't count that system out just yet.

    I also have an 05 Legacy GT w/ 5MT 50/50 split w/rear LSD. If I had a choice of rear LSD or VDC all around, I'd take the VDC any and every day over the rear LSD.

    -mike
    Motorsports and Modifications Host
  • xwesxxwesx Member Posts: 16,756
    Yeah, the LSD certainly does not do the same job as VDC. Compared to my '96 Outback, which had open differentials on both ends, the LSD makes the rear end of the car far more responsive to throttle inputs, but it is not going to help you recover from or manage a slide any better unless you give it the right input at the right time. VDC has the advantage of independent wheel braking and doing it without driver input. That second part is a major consideration, especially if the driver is in a panic... :surprise:
    2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    since the Forester and Impreza use clutch packs to redistribute torque...

    Are these wet clutches?
    I can't imagine dry clutches holding up to constant slippage required for such use.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    They are wet electromagnetic IIRC clutches internal to the AT. I have similar ones on my Trooper w/AWD and my Armada with AWD.

    -mike
    Motorsports and Modifications Host
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Which is better - the '09 Forester AWD system or the Mitsu Outlander FWD/AWD/4WD system?

    And why - in 500 words or less, LOL.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    10 words or less. Actually a description of how they operate would be interesting. Similiarities and differences. Grammar, punctuation, sentence structure count. The eyes of the world are watching. :shades
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    I think that would broaden the appeal, just don't put hokey switches into the thing like the Outlander. Subaru can build an efficient AWD system that's kicks the competitors butts without having the driver look out the window to determine if it is raining.

    Leave it in 4WD Auto and the Outlander behaves like the Forester. Sure, each system may have its specifics, but I think it is really hard to determine from your armchair which one really works better under given conditions. If you believe that the Forester performs better, it's your opinion and it's perfectly fine. You just don't have any data to back that up other than your personal beliefs. Have you seen any rigorous 4WD system tests between the 2009 Forester and the 2008 Outlander?

    Now here is the difference with the Outlander:
    1. If you want to "tell" the car "I don't need 4WD today because it's dry and sunny and I want to save 1 mpg", you could switch to 2WD mode.
    2. If you want to "tell" the car "Hey, I want you to send more power (50% more) to the rear because I'm driving through some deep snow today", you flip the switch to "4WD Lock".
    If you see don't see any value in having a little bit of control over the system, fine, but some do.

    Steve: I promise this is my last post on the topic. I guess all the information on the Outlander’s 4WD system is there for those really interested to learn about it.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Mike, the host states the 09 Foresters can shift 20/80 to 80/20 if I'm reading the post correctly. If that's correct the Outlander can't touch it.

    link title
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    Yeah, but Joe is saying that the 2009 Forester can only go 55/45. If that's correct, the Forester can't touch the Outlander (40/60). ;)

    Seriously, does anyone have any Subaru OFFICIAL description of how the AWD system works in the 2009 Forester? I mention the car since not all Subaru cars, from all generations have identical AWD systems.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    The Forester can do 80/20 to 20/80 depending on the situation. This is for all 4EAT transmissions in the Subarus that do not have VTD. These also have a 80/20 torque split as the "default", older 4EAT transmissions (Pre 98ish) have a 90/10 split as "default" and can go up to 20/80 if need be.

    On the 5EAT and 4EAT w/VTD (These include but may not be limited to: 02-07 WRX, 05-09 Legacy GTs, 05-09 Outbacks the 5EAT models, Tribecca) With these the default torque split is 45/55 with a slightly rear bias. They can however shift power from 80/20 to 20/80 if the need arises.

    These figures were actually conveyed to me from an engineer at Subaru, so I'm gonna trust they are quite accurite. On the Outlander, I'd imagine the "lock" is only good to a certain MPH, like the Pilot where the "lock" unlocks at 19mph. But I'm not familar with the Outlander's AWD system so can't comment on torque splits for it etc.

    -mike
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Seriously, does anyone have any Subaru OFFICIAL description of how the AWD system works in the 2009 Forester? I mention the car since not all Subaru cars, from all generations have identical AWD systems.

    Yup it's a 4EAT system with 80/20 torque split as a default and can shift up to 20/80 if need be. It has open front and rear differentials and has VDC w/ABLS. The ABLS will apply light braking to a wheel spinning faster than the other wheel on the same axle, thus forcing the power to the wheel not spinning. This is on both front and rear. This system is slightly slower than a tranditional rear LSD, however it will have a longer longevity (traditional LSDs wear out in under 100k miles, or become less effective). The advantage over a traditional LSD is that it acts on both front and rear axles, whereas a tradtional LSD only operates on the rear axle. In a track/road racing situation the ABLS may cause the brake fluid to overheat (I saw this happen on a MB E55 AMG at Pocono that MB was testing a few years back) but in regular driving situations the ABLS is better than a single rear LSD. The VDC system will apply a brake if the yaw sensors detect that you are about to spin and will also cut the fuel for a second if it detects a spin or other out of control manuver.

    Hope this helps.

    -mike
  • rcpaxrcpax Member Posts: 580
    OFFICIAL links?
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Why don't ya find 'em and post 'em instead of asking for 'em?
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    You probably won't find any links, most companies don't specify the details of their systems. Like I said, I had a sitdown with a Subaru Engineer and got that info out of em.

    -mike
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    So it appears we have no official torque split numbers from Subaru about the “Active AWD” system which equips 4-speed auto Subaru: obviously they have nothing impressive to tell.

    Subaru utilizes mainly 3 types of AWD systems:
    1. Continues AWD (5-speed manual cars)
    2. Active AWD (4-speed auto: 4EAT)
    3. VTD AWD (VRX and H6).

    Today for marketing purposes Subaru has combined all of them under the “Symmetrical AWD” to avoid the inconvenient torque split questions.

    Subaru.com does say that “Continuous All-Wheel Drive: Models equipped with 5-speed manual transmission utilize a viscous-type locking center differential and limited-slip rear differential with torque distribution normally configured at a 50/50-split front-to-rear.”

    Subaru.com does say that “Variable Torque Distribution (VTD) All-Wheel Drive: Models equipped with 5-speed automatic transmission utilize an electronically controlled variable transfer clutch in conjunction with a planetary-type center differential, and a viscous-type limited-slip rear differential. Torque distribution is normally configured at a performance-oriented rear-wheel-biased 45/55 split front-to-rear.”

    So subaru.com publishes official numbers about the Continues AWD, and about the VTD AWD system, but again still there is no official numbers available for the 4-speed auto Subaru cars equipped with “Active AWD”. The Active AWD/4-speed auto combination was utilized first time at least in 1992 on Subaru SVX and it has not changed that much since.

    If Subaru is shy to disclose the Active AWD split numbers, let’s use these independent 3-d party publications:

    1. The automatic transmission used on AWD equipped vehicles would normally send 90% of the engines torque to the front wheels and 10% to the rear wheels… When the front wheels began to experience a loss of grip, the transmission automatically sent available torque to the rear wheels, up to 50-50 split: Wikipedia.org

    2. Active AWD: 90/10 split under normal condition to 50/50 in extreme conditions: NY Times

    I have more links available, but enough said. Based on the independent info we currently have, the 4-speed Subaru are nearly FWD cars at 90/10 default split and they can do on-demand up to 50/50 under extreme road conditions, which is a typical setup in many cars to deliver decent gas mileage. The "20/80-80/20" theory has no any evidence. The Outlander's new AWD system cannot be touched here by Subaru 4EAT cars: Outlander’s 4WD Lock mode defaults to 50/50, while still delivering a decent V6 gas mileage. The 4WD Auto economy mode available on the Outlander as well, providing greater versatility.

    My neighbor is not a Subaru engineer, but he said that he is NASA rocket scientist and that no real Apollo mission to the Moon was accomplished. People say things…
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    On the Outlander, I'd imagine the "lock" is only good to a certain MPH, like the Pilot where the "lock" unlocks at 19mph. But I'm not familar with the Outlander's AWD system so can't comment on torque splits for it etc.


    No. On the Outlander, the 4WD Lock remains engaged regardless of the speed. However, at higher speeds, with no traction problems, the power sent to the rear decreases but it's always more (by 50%) compared to the 4WD Auto. At the end of the day, it's a fully automated system with a little more control for the driver.
    This is one of the differences compared to some other 4WD systems with a "lock" position which disengages above 20-25 mph. You could also switch between the settings (2WD, 4WD Auto and 4WD Lock) at any speed.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    The NYT article says things and is inaccurate in a number of points as been previously shown. As far as the credibility of the host, all one has to do is frequent the forums where Mike is hosting and you know he know things.

    I personally take more stock in someone in the business than an inaccurate NYT article that is now a few years old.

    With Mike's last set of comments, as far as I'm concerned, the debate is over. I don't need a website link to know the Forester XT can outgun the Outlander V6 with it's "multi-mode" AWD switch, which is nothing more than a glorious gas conservation feature. Something Subaru already figured out how to do without driver intervention.

    What some call choice of operation I call unnecessary complexity, with Subaru being able to figure out how do design a F/T system without driver intervention that delivers good mileage.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Have you seen any rigorous 4WD system tests between the 2009 Forester and the 2008 Outlander?

    Not the 2009, but there is a Russian comparison video on youtube in the snow, very easy to find, forester vs outlander. Forester won.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Thanks for taking the time to post this information. Very informative.

    I somewhere also remember being told by someone at the Subaru dealership the split was more than what I could find published. But I can't remember the exact details of the conversation.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    Not the 2009, but there is a Russian comparison video on youtube in the snow, very easy to find, forester vs outlander. Forester won.

    ROFL ..... Do you call that a "comparison"?

    You still don't get it: my posts aren't about who wins (wins what?) they are about how the 4WD systems really work in these vehicles and eventually see an unbiase comparison, backed up by some sort of data - not manufacturers marketing materials.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    You still don't get it: my posts aren't about who wins (wins what?) they are about how the 4WD systems really work in these vehicles and eventually see an unbiase comparison, backed up by some sort of data - not manufacturers marketing materials.

    My posts are about which AWD is inherently better, my belief is Subaru has the better AWD system.

    Subaru:

    - Full time, no driver input needed (some see this as primitive, I see this as a plus)
    - 2009 comes with TC and other goodies, previous models have LSD
    - split 80/20 (90/10) to 20/80 no driver input needed, torque varies based on acceleration, deacceleration, turning and slippage. (this not documented)
    - left to right balance is 50/50. Good for neutral handling.

    Outlander:

    - must select one of two three modes (some see this as flexibility, I see it as bad design)
    - website seems to imply rear biased is fixed at 15% unless accelerator is floored at which time split goes to about 50%.. Cannot find any sentence which says torque applied to front rear can be variable based on driving conditions.
    - AWD has a locking mode (a plus, although of limited useful on paved roads imo)
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> Subaru - Full time, no driver input needed (some see this as primitive, I see this as a plus)

    Except with 10% torque to the rear it could hardly be called “full-time”. The 4-speed auto Subaru practically defaults to FWD with on-demand torque to the rear. Subaru does not offer an official number even in regards to 10%. Why are they so shy? I suspect there is even less then 10% for better fuel economy. The Outlander on the other hand has full-time 50/50 mode while delivering decent gas mileage.
    .

    >> - 2009 comes with TC and other goodies, previous models have LSD

    Wow! Traction Control suppose to an advantage? Every car in this segment nowadays has Traction Control.
    .

    >> - split 80/20 (90/10) to 20/80 no driver input needed, torque varies based on acceleration, deacceleration, turning and slippage. (this not documented)

    If it’s not documented, why make this claim? There is no any evidence about 80/20 to 20/80 split. Forester does not even have Limited Slip Differential.
    .

    >> - left to right balance is 50/50. Good for neutral handling.

    Cool!
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Except with 10% torque to the rear it could hardly be called “full-time”.

    Even after all that is posted, if this is what you believe. Cool. Have at it.

    Nobody is out to change any minds...Stepping on the gas and having the Forester go into 20/80 mode while the Outlander limps along at 50/50 and sees the Foresters tail lights in every and any condition is the only proof I need.

    As I previously said, I don't have to look out the window to figure out which AWD setting I need to be in.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    My posts are about which AWD is inherently better, my belief is Subaru has the better AWD system.

    You said it: this is your belief. Nothing wrong with it, but you don't need to (mis) interpret and twist the information provided by the manufacturer (Mitsubishi), clear enough otherwise, to support your belief (e.g. the purpose of the selectable 4WD, torque distribution, etc.).

    And now one more for you: the Outlander also has a system called ASC, which is similar to the VCD in the 2009 Forester. I suspect somehow, the Forester's VCD is inherently better than the Outlander's ASC.

    Subaru's AWD may be better than the Outlander's or the other way around, but either way, this is just a speculation until it is backed up by some sort of credible data. My point is that unless you really put both systems to the same tests, in proper configuration and by knowledgeable, unbiased reviewers, one can only wonder.
    So far all comparisons I've seen on various car magazines are useless since they don't provide hard data about how they arrived to their conclusions (whatever they may be).

    One example: there is a video on YouTube showing a 2009 Forester XT climbing up a hill and a poor CRV failing. Now, you can see that the main problem with the CRV is that it doesn't have enough power to send to the wheels. However, the video doesn't show a normally aspired Forester, which would be comparable to the CRV, climbing up the same hill, plus you could see the Forester approaching the hill at higher speed and pushing hard to go up. It think the video was taken during a Subaru press event for the Forester so to me, it doesn't have any credibility at all. Plus, they picked the CRV for the test, which probably has the least performing AWD out of all small SUVs on the market. Why didn't they pick up a "Trail Rated" Jeep Patriot or even an Outlander? They both are direct competitors with the Forester and both companies have good off-road 4WD credentials. On the other hand, Honda has none. I know, Subaru marketing folks would say the CRV is the segment leader (for sales), but this is just marketing BS since Honda does not promote any off-road capabilities at all and Subaru's focus was exactly on the off-road.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Here are a few things on the subject of "evidence"

    NYT is often wrong, especially in the realm of cars and how they work, I've read lots and lots of things in their about all different makes and models that is blatantly wrong. They are not an automobile industry oriented news source.

    As for wikipidia, they are more often WRONG than RIGHT, especially because anyone can post anything they want there!

    As for the 4EATs in subarus w/awd they date back to about 1986 or 1987 where the RX had AWD, as I said this 4EAT AWD had a 90/10 split up until the mid/late 90s when it went to 80/20 right around 1997 when all USDM cars went to AWD across the board. The RX and XT6 5MT AWDs had a center locker as well that would lock it in 50/50 mode as well.

    As someone above noted, I am very knowledgeable about Subarus and how they work, I own a shop that works on Subarus and Subaru race and rally cars, I am also not blindly a Subaru "lover" as I own 2 Nissans, 2 Subarus and previously had 2 Isuzus. My next car will likely be a Pontiac actually.

    -mike
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> NYT is often wrong, especially in the realm of cars and how they work, I've read lots and lots of things in their about all different makes and models that is blatantly wrong. They are not an automobile industry oriented news source.

    The NY Times article is written by Eliot Lim, chief chassis engineer at Audi and earlier at General Motors. He wrote many articles all available online, including the "Introduction to All Wheel Drive systems". Quote from the article:
    "Subaru has for many years been quietly offering radically different AWD systems in the same car, depending on the transmission choice. The manual transmission Legacies and Imprezas use a full time system that is split 50-50 with viscous couplings for limiting slip. In the automatic transmission versions, however, the system is a part time, computer controlled, automatically engaging system in some models and a full time uneven torque split with computer controlled locking in other models."


    >>As for the 4EATs in subarus w/awd they date back to about 1986 or 1987 where the RX had AWD, as I said this 4EAT AWD had a 90/10 split up until the mid/late 90s when it went to 80/20 right around 1997

    Still we‘ve seen NO evidence that Subaru went to 80/20 – 20/80 system in 1997 or at any other time. In fact all sources available are consistent with 90/10 numbers. For instance, even the cars101.com (unofficial Subaru site) says that the 4-speed auto 2004 Legacy has 90/10 split, which is perfectly consistent with NYTimes and Wikipedia. Again this is a 2004 model which is way beyond of the year 1997 you mentioned. http://www.cars101.com/subaru/legacy/legacy2004.html Or you say this site is wrong too?
    .

    >>The RX and XT6 5MT AWDs had a center locker as well that would lock it in 50/50 mode as well.

    Well, we all already know that from the NYTimes article anyway, but manual tranny is not quite popular these days in US: it’s 21 Century out there.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    My next car will likely be a Pontiac actually.

    Are you going to settle for the GT or waiting for the GXP? ;)

    Not a specific brand fanboy either. I like many cars from different brands. I just don't agree with the concept that car X is better than car Y, because it's made by the company ABC. Also, there is so much inaccurate information, stereotypes and ignorance everywhere that it's hard to distinguish the good information from the bad.
    Even the car "expert" reviews are full of errors and idiotic comments. This is why, personally, I take everything coming from unofficial sources with a grain of salt.
  • psychogunpsychogun Member Posts: 129
    For everyone's information: Here is the link to the actual Mitsubishi press release detailing the Outlander's AWC system.
    http://media.mitsubishicars.com/detail?mid=MIT2006083040260&mime=ASC

    The article does not specifically use the terminology of continuously varying torque distribution. So this may still not satisfy some.
    However, throughout the article it is indicated that the system is proactive, that it shifts varying amounts of torque to the rear wheels depending on driving and road surface conditions, as well as accelerator pedal position and front-to-rear wheel speed difference.

    I would have to agree that these paper comparisons are questionable at best. The two vehicles really need to be tested on the same controlled surface under the same controlled conditions in order to yield an objective and meaningful result.

    Additionally, I feel that a lot more credibility would be brought to this discussion if an official tech paper or press release from the manufacturer in question (i.e. Subaru, GM, Nissan, Jeep, etc. were linked.
  • dcm61dcm61 Member Posts: 1,567
    Except with 10% torque to the rear it could hardly be called “full-time”. The 4-speed auto Subaru practically defaults to FWD with on-demand torque to the rear. Subaru does not offer an official number even in regards to 10%. Why are they so shy? I suspect there is even less then 10% for better fuel economy.

    An excerpt from the Mitsu website that psychogun linked:

    When "4WD Auto" mode is selected, the Outlander 4WD system always sends some power to the rear wheels, automatically increasing the amount under full-throttle acceleration. The coupling transfers up to 40 percent of available torque to the rear wheels under full-throttle acceleration, and this is reduced to 25 percent over 40 mph. At steady cruising speeds, up to 15 percent of available torque is sent to the rear wheels. At low speeds through tight corners, coupling torque is reduced, providing a smoother feel through the corner.

    Since when is 10% "part-time" reactive, but 15% is full-time proactive? Never, because they are BOTH full-time proactive.

    For driving in particularly challenging conditions, such as snow, the driver can select "4WD Lock" mode. In Lock mode, the system still apportions front and rear torque automatically, but enables greater power transfer to the rear wheels. For example, when accelerating on an upgrade, the coupling will transfer more torque to the rear wheels immediately, helping to ensure that all four wheels get traction. In contrast, an automatic on-demand part-time system would allow front wheel slippage before transferring power, which could hamper acceleration.

    Subaru's system does this without "flipping" a switch. How do I know? Because I encounter this situation every day.

    The Outlander on the other hand has full-time 50/50 mode while delivering decent gas mileage

    In dry conditions, 4WD Lock mode places priority on performance. More torque is directed to the rear wheels than in 4WD Auto mode to provide greater power off the line, better control when accelerating on snowy or loose surfaces, and enhanced stability at high speeds. Rear wheel torque transfer is increased by 50 percent over the amounts in 4WD Auto mode - meaning up to 60 percent of available torque is sent to the rear wheels under full-throttle acceleration on dry pavement. When in 4WD Lock mode, torque at the rear wheels is reduced by a smaller degree through corners than with 4WD Auto mode.

    "Up to" 40/60 <> full-time 50/50.

    The end result is that both systems appear to be very similar with the exception that Subaru does the thinking for you and Mitsu leaves it up to the driver to decide what mode they think is best.

    Drive an A/T AWD Subaru with the FWD fuse installed and you will soon realize that there's nothing part-time about the system.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    You are welcome to use this error ridden, few years old article as the source of your knowledge. If the writer is knowledgeable the editors stink big time.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Even with all the hyperbole in these press releases the obvious is not stated. I have documentation clearly stating torque is transferred between front and rear based on accleration, deaccleration, turning and slippage for Subaru.

    The Outlander wording dances around this point very elegantly. My guess is they have a couple of preprogammed front/rear bias settings not infinitly variable between the limits as the Forester.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    The end result is that both systems appear to be very similar with the exception that Subaru does the thinking for you and Mitsu leaves it up to the driver to decide what mode they think is best.

    With a small side note - Mitsu still does the thinking for you, but it only gives the driver a little bit of a "say", I totally agree that the systems seem to be very similar, regardless if you call them part-time, full-time, proactive or not. Now, if we could only get the Subaru's official torque distribution, and perhaps other details, you could get an idea.
    More so,If you read further the article linked here, you will also notice that the Mitsu's ASC is very similar to Subaru's VDC.

    The ultimate test would be to have them tested back to back in the same conditions, by third-party, unbiased reviewers, to find out which one is better. Each side's individual story is great, but how do they really compare?

    In the meantime, some great videos about the 2009 Forester (note: Subaru official events). Note that Subaru did not bring along an Outlander for their comparative demos, but instead they brought a Hyundai Tucson (?!). For what they tried to demonstrate (cargo, handling, off-road) it seems like the Outlander would've been the best challenger for the Forester, but it didn't get invited to the party. This raises a red flag to me.

    Enjoy the videos if you haven't seen them yet:
    Video 1
    Video2
    Video3
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    My next car will likely be a Pontiac actually.

    Are you going to settle for the GT or waiting for the GXP?

    Not a specific brand fanboy either. I like many cars from different brands. I just don't agree with the concept that car X is better than car Y, because it's made by the company ABC. Also, there is so much inaccurate information, stereotypes and ignorance everywhere that it's hard to distinguish the good information from the bad.
    Even the car "expert" reviews are full of errors and idiotic comments. This is why, personally, I take everything coming from unofficial sources with a grain of salt.


    The G8 GT at $32k msrp represents an outstanding value in terms of price/performance. The car weighs in at 4,000lbs so the GXP with the 6.2L 400hp engine and 6MT that wil run in the $39k range does not represent as good of a value since the 6MT would be better for racing situations, and the weight of this car clearly shows it is not meant to be a race car. With that in my mind, the 6EAT and 361hp in the GT will be perfect for a highway cruiser and ocassional track event when I can't take out my race car or my LGT wagon 5MT.

    I in no way am bashing the outlander's AWD system since I don't have any first hand knowledge of it. On the Subaru side, I've seen it in action and the 80/20 split to 20/80 split is what I got from engineers an have seen them in action in rally-x and snow/ice and can verify that it will shift a significant amount of power to the rear when needed. The TCU also learns situations where it needs to shift power proactively (TPS, Speed, etc) I road raced a 1996 Impreza L with a 4EAT with the 90/10 split for a few years.

    -mike
  • psychogunpsychogun Member Posts: 129
    You have documentation? Fantastic!

    For everyone's benefit, please scan or take digicam pics and post them here. It would be a great source and add more credibility to the discussion.

    Although I agree that the press release is just marketing spew, I do have to point out that the article does state how the AWC system variably and proactively transfers torque:

    Quoted from the Mitsubishi press release:
    ...with "4WD Auto" mode selected, the system uses a rear-mounted electronically controlled transfer clutch to automatically and seamlessly route more power to the rear wheels, depending on driving and road surface conditions.

    Distributes variable torque to rear wheels depending on accelerator pedal position and front-to-rear wheel speed difference


    Finally, please don't further pollute this discussion with unsubstantiated assumptions. There are enough of those already. Thank you. ;)
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    I too think the GT is the best value, but I like the GXP trim too. I like G8's interior very much and indeed it's an outstanding value (even in Canada where GM just released the prices).

    Back to the topic, I'm not bashing the Forester by any means either nor I think that the Outlander is the best car for everybody. I never denied for one second the fact that the Subaru has an outstanding 4WD system. The thing is, I haven't seen any evidence (video for example) of the 2009 Forester's AWD superiority over Outlander's system, even if this would be the case. I just don't agree with the argument that, even without knowing the specifics of this particular application of the Subaru's AWD in the 2009 Forester, some think it's the best inherently. If one uses the Subaru's AWD heritage (as a company) argument to justify its default superiority, oh well ... Mitsubishi has quite an impressive AWD and off-road heritage too.
    I wouldn't argue that the Subaru's AWD is better than Honda's for example. It goes without even saying.

    My point is that each implementation of a given system is different from one vehicle to another. These days it's easy to tune the same sytem in different ways by using the software that controls it. Also, the 2009 Forester is too new to have a enough information to dig into the specifics, yet some jump to the conclusion that it's better than anything else by default.

    Off topic: I was curious if the box (23.5x38.5x27.5 inches) Subaru used in one of the videos to demonstrate the Forester's superior cargo capacity, would fit in the Outlander. I measured the Outlander's cargo this morning and guess what: it would with some room to spare.
    You could fit a 38.5 x 36.5 x 36.5 inches rectangle in the cargo area of the Outlander, without touching the perimeter. The only difference is that you need to change the orientation of the box - the Outlander's cargo is narrower between the wheel wells, most likely is deeper (the rear seats slide) and for sure is taller. This makes me wonder even more if the Outlander would do just as well on the off-road course too and becasue of that, it hasn't been "invited" to the party.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Finally, please don't further pollute this discussion with unsubstantiated assumptions. There are enough of those already. Thank you. ;)

    That stuff doesn't clarify anything. Variable can be 3 positions. Its marketing hyperbole at it's best. Accelerator position can be fully off or fully depressed.

    I guess I'm looking for the words infinitly variable, between x/y and y/x depending on accleration, deacceleration, turning or slippage. But instead it reads: Distributes variable torque to rear wheels depending on accelerator pedal position and front-to-rear wheel speed difference Which leads me to believe on or off. I am not saying the Outlander doesn't have a competent AWD system, but I don't think it performs in the same way the Subaru performs, given the nebulousness of the PR. But like Subaru they could be hiding some of the inner workings....or not!

    This might all be theoretical anyway, as in real world conditions you could argue all cars somehow muddle through. However, I have no hesitation in flooring this thing on wet pavements. Something I won't do in most other vehicles as the FWD or AWD will slip.
  • paisanpaisan Member Posts: 21,181
    Coming from a true offroad background (Offroaded Isuzus for years) I laugh at people saying that any of these cute-utes are offroad capable. Unimproved roads at best. I'd be cracking up if they showed up at the trailhead for an event!

    -mike
  • psychogunpsychogun Member Posts: 129
    I think you really hit the nail on the head with your final paragraph. This is all just theoretical.
    Maybe we can get Edmunds to perform a comparison of the two vehicles that test the AWD systems in completely controlled circumstances. Petition anyone?

    Regardless, both of these vehicles are excellent and they both have superb AWD systems. If I were in the market I would test drive both of them. I honestly think it would not be an easy decision.

    Paisan - I would laugh too... :D Though I sincerely hope owners of CUV's would not be that foolish.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> Since when is 10% "part-time" reactive, but 15% is full-time proactive? Never, because they are BOTH full-time proactive.

    The Forester AWD system and Outlander Auto 4WD mode are both reactive, since computer decides how and when to react on road condition, delivering extra torque to the rear. The Outlander however has also a proactive 4WD Lock mode, which constantly delivers significant amount of torque to the rear regardless of road conditions.

    The NY Times article dated by 2003 uses 10% number of rear torque for Subaru, so does the cars101.com site for Subaru cars up to the year 2004. But after the year 2005 and there after the cars101.com site does not specify the minimum percentage while just saying: &#147;Automatic trans: electronically controlled, constantly varying, front bias&#148;. Lately the Subaru.com site does not provide this number either, which means this number could be even lower then 10%.


    >> Subaru's system does this without "flipping" a switch.

    Nope, a 4-speed auto Subaru does not have any option to deliver a significant amount of torque to the rear permanently. The Outlander on the other hand does. The Outlander driver does not have to &#147;flip a switch&#148;, having choices of:
    1. Driving in 4WD Auto mode all the time, no switch involved (a la 4EAT Forester)
    2. Driving in 4WD Lock mode all the time, no switch involved
    3. Mix both modes by flipping a switch at any speed at any time

    In addition the Outlander driver can switch to the 2WD mode, which is particularly useful for better fuel economy in heavy urban driving in good road conditions, or when you running out of gas and gas station is far.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    I hear you and I agree that the "off-road" is a very loose term when talking about these cars (including the 2009 Forester and the Outlander). The manufacturers don't even advertise them as such, except for the Subaru to a certain extent. The AWD systems in these cars are pure safety devices and they help you get out of the snow on the paved roads or gravel and stay on the slippery roads as well. They can also take you to some logging roads, but not much more.
    How many of the Subaru owners actually go off pavement or off gravel roads at the most? I bet not too many. It&#146;s all about marketing.
    I was kind of laughing when I was seeing the Subaru's press materials from the Catalina Island press event for the 2009 Forester and the subsequent "First Drive" reviews, with so much emphasis on the "off-road" capabilities. They need to try to differentiate from the rest and this is their way. I guess that drive could be done with some skills in a FWD car you don't care damaging. But today's marketing is a very powerful tool... and you could see the results on these boards.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    The Forester AWD system and Outlander Auto 4WD mode are both reactive, since computer decides how and when to react on road condition, delivering extra torque to the rear.

    Partially correct, the Forester will based on accleration, deceleration and wheel position in addition to slippage.

    The NY Times article dated by 2003 uses

    I think that it's a six year old article says it all.

    Nope, a 4-speed auto Subaru does not have any option to deliver a significant amount of torque to the rear permanently

    That is true, but with the Subarus ability to deliver 20/80 on demand it's a moot point. How many times can you truly and actually say the Outlander didn't move forward unless it was in the locked position? More than one? I've been through more than a few bad snow storms (2 feet plus) with the Forester and it didn't need that switch to keep oving forward. :shades A good AWD system shouldn't need options like this unless you are going to do severe off-roading. I make no bones, my Subaru stays on pavement or gravel.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    How many of the Subaru owners actually go off pavement or off gravel roads at the most?

    Not too often - link. I tried to get stuck on the sand road at Great Sand Dunes NP last fall but the $400 minimum towing fee scared me off. :shades:
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> Partially correct, the Forester will based on accleration, deceleration and wheel position in addition to slippage.

    It still reacts to acceleration, deceleration, etc., so it&#146;s reactive.



    >> I think that it's a six year old article says it all.

    4-speed auto/Active AWD combo is around for at least 15 years and it will be around for another 6 or so thanks to 2009 Forester. We will change a couple of presidents, fly to the Mars, but Subaru technology still will remain the same and the article will be up to date (for subary anyway).


    >> That is true, but with the Subarus ability to deliver 20/80 on demand

    No evidence of 20/80 at all, all sources available consistently suggest 90/10 up to 50/50 on-demand. It&#146;s more like your wishful thinking.
    .

    >> How many times can you truly and actually say the Outlander didn't move forward unless it was in the locked position? More than one?

    Never ever. And we get some good snow here in Chicago. Dodo2 has the same experience, quote from his previous post: &#147;I keep mine in 4WD Auto all the time, and I did not have to use the 4WD Lock mode even when I was driving through 1ft. of show last winter (on stock tires). In several occasions last winter, I took the Outlander through deep snow, with ice underneath, on hilly side roads, to test its limits, but I couldn&#146;t get it stuck or even close.&#148;
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    It still reacts to acceleration, deceleration, etc., so it&#146;s reactive

    OK I see where you are coming from. By all definitions then SH-AWD and BMWs upcoming AWD system are proactive since they deliver torque real time individually to wheels. Every other system is reactive.

    No evidence of 20/80 at all, all sources available consistently suggest 90/10 up to 50/50 on-demand. It&#146;s more like your wishful thinking.

    I believe you wish it's my wishful thinking. If you choose to disregard the input by the host (Mike) of this board okay by me. I don't have to change your mind.

    Never ever.

    And that is the point. Touting a useless feature as an advantage is ludicrous. I made it through 2.5 feet of snow with a RWD BMW with all-season tires. Didn't need AWD or snow tires. Would I do it again? No.

    During a bad snow storm last year I ended up pacing an Outlander on a nearly deserted major highway with some light snow on it. I would take off, the Outlander couldn't keep up without skidding. Got to 55 and didn't go faster. The lady in the Outlander must have had a death wish as when I eased off the gas she blew by me. This repeated through 10 miles of lights. She couldn't keep up with Subaru without spinning out after a light turned green, but had the intenstinal fortitude to blow by me when I leveled off to 55. Her tires were in better shape than mine as well.

    Don't know what mode the Outlander was in, but it was a bit of fun.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    I made it through 2.5 feet of snow with a RWD BMW with all-season tires. Didn't need AWD or snow tires.

    LOL.... Was your BMW on a flatbed or the 2.5 feet of snow were on the side of the road? :shades:

    I bet you have great fishing stories to share. :)
  • dcm61dcm61 Member Posts: 1,567
    The Outlander however has also a proactive 4WD Lock mode, which constantly delivers significant amount of torque to the rear regardless of road conditions.

    The amount of torque to the rear in lock mode varies "up to" 60%. At steady cruising speeds, it would be "up to" 22.5%. This is straight from the Outlander media release. Since Mitsubishi doesn't define a low end, by "your rules", we have to assume that "up to" starts at 0%.

    Looks like it meets your definition of reactive. ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.