By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Your "definition" does not alter the way it works. The active AWD has the ability to modulate torque between front and rear depending on load. What the exact ratio is for 2009 I am unsure, for my model it's 90/10 to 10/90.
I do agree there are better AWD systems for a price, but in this price range, it is the best. With the STI adding driver controlled front-rear split.
You post contains additional inaccurate information.
If you look on Subarus website the leather shifter and steering wheel are standard on the XT limited. What you do have to pay for is the STI version of the shifter, which is an option.
The 4WD lock doesn't do much better. Sure you can lock it, but you can't go faster than 20 mph, otherwise it swicthes to AWD. I guess 20 mph works great on a wet NYC street, but it won't give you the momentum to get across a Vermont road.
The comment doesn't say that the Pilot could not do the job but the driver wanted to drive above 20 miles per hour ( i,e he could not get the momentum, he guessed).
Show me a video where the Forester is driving at 50 miles per hour on a 12" of mud. This is just bias propaganda.
What the driver was saying was the AWD was useless unless it was dropped into locking mode and then the speed was limited.
Its "traction control" cunningly stalls the engine power to ALL the wheels in the middle of a 30 yard stretch if mud
Note the quote. Propoganda bias? That's rich! :surprise I will bet you the Forester will not stall the engine.
9 test drives got me absolutely nothing but drive-time info as to how Outlander 2.5i (1 drive - was first), Outlander XT (4 drives) , Outlander H6 (2 drives), and '09 Forester XT (2 drives) compared to each other. Almost flunked the Forester on a hill climb until I saw how cratered the road was.
I visited 4 dealers to do all the drives - the last one let me do 4.
All drives were done over a period of 3 months.
Of course it can modulate torque on demand if slippage occurs. According to this NY Times article, Subaru Active AWD gets 50/50 split in extreme road conditions and 90/10 in normal conditions. So it is part-time front biased and part-time 50/50 AWD. Active AWD appears to be the least capable Subaru AWD system. None of three major Subaru systems can do 100 to 0/0 to 100 split, or drive a car on a single wheel, as some of best systems can do.
>> I do agree there are better AWD systems for a price, but in this price range, it is the best. With the STI adding driver controlled front-rear split.
For a price, I would not say so. The car I drive is cheaper but it delivers full-time 60/40 front to rear split in normal condition, or 60% to the rear axle in extreme conditions.
You keep posting here these sales videos. These videos are manufacturer’s propaganda. The comparo test results are too black and white to be true: Subaru is great while CRV, RAV, Tuscon, Rogue are all bad. I can show here that youtube video, where Lancer EVO beats Lamborghini in spectacular race, but are you really going to take that video seriously?
Subaru may have altered the driving characteristics of their AWD from model year to model year, but it's about the best for it's price and the active connotation implies the ability to dynamically alter the f/r split according to wheel slippage and acceleration, which makes it better than your AWD system. The 90/10 nominal split means zippo cruising down the highway at 65 with a steady pressure on the accelerator. Step on the gas and torque gets delivered to the rear axle, where it does most good.
Lift your foot from the gas and the return to the 90/10 split means the most efficient way to save fuel going down the highway, as there is less drivetrain loss.
Baloney. The video I posted was from edmunds, not Subaru. It's a comparison in extreme conditions,highlighting why the Subie AWD is superior to most.
I've seen that video where the EVO beats the Lambo, it's a testament to product engineering of a sort. But put both on the Bonneville Salt Flats, who do you think will come out ahead? Put both in two feet of snow, who will come out ahead, who won't be able to move two inches?
Looking at the graphic, one could make some assumptions about how these AWD/4WD drivetrains will function in extreme conditions, the videos posted show the real story however. Most people tooling along in inclement weather will never notice the difference.
It is you own impression and you do not have a link to support your theory about acceleration. And it does not matter anyway acceleration or slippage: the split is still altered on demand, when conditions appear.
>> Lift your foot from the gas and the return to the 90/10 split means the most efficient way to save fuel going down the highway, as there is less drivetrain loss.
Of course it’s most fuel efficient. Part-time or on-demand AWD is always more fuel efficient.
Baloney. I don't care who posted, I care who paid for production: the first video made by subaruofdallas.com: read the credits. Subaru of Dallas is a car dealership. They sell cars there. Car salesman is the last person I would trust in reference to a car.
The second one is called "Subaru 2008 retail driving event": read credits. It's RETAIL event. "retail" means they try to sell you stuff.
None of the videos have "edmunds" in credits. Both "events" produce primitive very biased conclusion: Subaru is the greatest - everything else...
chelentano - you've used this NY Times chart before. I tried to find it in a forum search but couldn't, so maybe those posts have been removed by moderators, not sure. If I remember right it had some inaccuracies and, because it lists an RX300, we can assume it's up to nine years old... not really relevant for the 2009 Forester thread. If I read it right, that chart says Subaru's most sophisticated system can only go from 45/55 to 50/50. Only 5% transfer? C'mon.
I'm curious if anyone can explain if and how the new 2009's AWD/VDC system will be different than another vehicle with "traction control".
Is it simply a viscous center differential that can distribute the power between front and back with "traction control" on the front and rear wheels? I'm reading that it is different ... just wondering if anyone can provide an explanation.
I find that my current car's traction control ('95 bmw) isn't all that effective in preventing wheel spin or distributing power to the wheel that needs it and I need a vehicle for winter driving through snow and up and down hills.
It is your impression and you do not have a link to support your assertion. I have a link to support the assertion that active refers to the ability to vary the power between front and rear axles based on factors other than slippage.
end of story...click here
I never drove Outlander - too many negatives and weak solo dealer sunk interest.
The NYT's chart does not explain a video demo where a Subaru Legacy climbed a ramp with only one wheel getting traction (the chart claims otherwise).
Unfortunately, getting accurate AWD info is very confusing, especially as the Manufacturers seem less than canidid in describing their systems (something Subaru points out in their own video!).
Anyway, some other notes on the '09 Forester XT:
Lumbar support's a little odd in that it "rocks". When you move it forward, the left side comes at your back first, followed by right side. When you move it back, the left side goes away from your back first, followed by right side. Result is you may find you move the support, then reverse it a bit to level it out. The Lumbar is powered by small electric motor ( on Outback, there's a manual lever). Other than that, the leather seats are proving comfortable.
There are two ducts under each front seat to send heated air back to passengers.
Grab handles are over every door - seem very sturdy.
The moonroof when opened first goes all the way back. When you try to close it, the first switch press brings glass frontwards to about halfway, second switch press closes it. It is supposed to have motion sense feature preventing someone from getting trapped.
The remote DoorFob seems to have a range of about 2 - 300 feet.
When driving, you may hear a "moan" at some RPM's - I suspect that's aspect of turbo system.
Turning circle's tight enough that on most roads you simply U-turn. My Maxx needed at least another 5 - 6' to do the same.
Mileage, in mostly city driving, remains around 19 mpg. The mileage computer, unlike the GM cars I've driven, seems reasonably accurate.
There seem to be changes from '08. The Forester Turbo engine has new intake manifold, turbo and intercooler. The trans now has sport shift and some minor recalibrations. The Limited slip diff is gone (replaced by computer controlled VDC/VTC).
Virtually every journalist has been bashing Subaru for using a 4-speed auto. Yet Car and Driver, after the usual rant, said "the automatic works fine, spaced nicely to maximize power for either engine." Matchup is important. The Saturn Ion actually __improved__ its performance and fuel economy when GM ditched its Aisin 5-speed auto for a 4-speed from Warren, Mi.
Any other '09 Foresters out there? Comments?
2nd, Subaru indeed used the label "VDC" for the AWD system on the 2006 Tribeca at its launch. It is all integrated.
I stand by what I said, then and now.
RX300? Are you serious?
Plus it's full of errors.
"Audi all"? Hello? They use a Torsen and a Haldex. Very, very different.
They say "No" for Subarus under "CAN ONE WHEEL DRIVE CAR" (their caps, not mine), yet everyone here has seen videos that prove that is wrong.
Your sources are full of errors.
Obvious errors.
Audi uses the marketing term "Quattro" for its AWD option, yet they use it for the Haldex-style systems on the Audi TT and the Audi A3, and for the Torsen style systems on the A4 and A6.
Subaru has used the marketing term "VDC", in fact so does Nissan. Now Subaru refers to all the systems generically as simply "Symmetrical AWD", even though they offer 4 distinct systems (including the STI's).
Still, that chart is horrendous. It shows how little the media really knows about AWD.
Clueless!
Let's look at the line for Audi. They say:
Audi all Quattro Yes 50/50 100 to 0/0 to 100 Yes
Every single piece of data is wrong! Every single one!
I will elaborate.
Audi - OK, they spelled the manufacturers name correctly, wow.
all - as in all models, false. As mentioned above, not all models have the same system.
Quattro - just a marketing name, but some 4Motion systems equal Quattro, and some Quattro systems equal 4Motion
For full-time, they answer "Yes". This is wrong. The Haldex systems in the A3 and the original Audi TT (which was in production when that chart came out) are in fact part-time, and primarily FWD.
For power split they say default is 50/50. This is only true for the Torsen equipped models. The Haldex default to 100/0, so this is also wrong, not all models are 50/50 default.
For the extreme on torque split, we have to look at how a Torsen works. Torsens have a bias ratio. Audi's is 2 to 1, in this example. That means by design the max torque split is 33/67 to 67/33. It cannot send more than 67% of power to any one axle.
To think otherwise simply demonstrates a lack of knowledge of how AWD systems work.
Finally, they say "Yes" to the "Can one wheel drive car?" question. Also wrong. Again, all you need is a basic knowledge of a Torsen diff to understand that with zero traction a Torsen acts as an open differential, and would fail that test.
I've actually witnessed this in person - TWICE! BMW hosted an event for the X5 and put one on a ramp. Later they also tried a 330xi and then an A4 with Quattro (Torsen). The A4 failed to climb the ramp.
Mercedes did the same thing at one of their events, again they used Audi to demonstrate that a Torsen will fail completely when you have no traction.
Why did both BMW and Mercedes use Audis with Torsens?
They were an easy target. They knew the Torsen would fail to climb the ramp.
So, as you can see, that chart was wrong on every single data point for Audi.
Those sheets of paper, and styling. He said so in the vs. thread.
I'm more of a form over function kind of guy.
Still, the NY Times should be ashamed to publish that junk. What is the Editor's job if not to verify the accuracy of that information?
Embarassing.
Audi all Quattro Yes 50/50 100 to 0/0 to 100 Yes
Every single piece of data is wrong! Every single one!
Well, when I see two contradicting opinions: one by the independent New York Times and the other one by biased Subaru enthusiast, which opinion do you think I should trust? The article is one of the best I’ve seen about the AWD systems, the guy definitely knows what he is talking about. In order to dismiss his article, you must have some credentials. What are they? I mean you even say that VDC is AWD system!
Even the Wikicars and Wikipedia both say about Quattro: “up to 100% of torque can be transferred to either axle”. I understand that the NY Times article is inconvenient for you, but the guy from NY Times is right and you are just one biased subaru fan.
Here's the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsen
Wiki correctly makes this exception: "non-Haldex Audi models" which you overlooked, and so did the NY Times.
But here is the important part, which shows where the you and the Times are wrong:
"If one wheel were raised in the air, the regular Torsens would act like an open differential and no torque would be transferred to the other wheel"
A 2nd source, since you do not believe me:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/differential6.htm
Important snippet from that article:
However, if one set of wheels loses traction completely, the Torsen differential will be unable to supply any torque to the other set of wheels. The bias ratio determines how much torque can be transferred, and five times zero is zero.
In their example the torque bias ratio was 5 to 1.
Audi's is 2 to 1. Source: Vortex Media Group. So the split varies from 33/67 to 67/33.
If Wikicars made one generalization about Quattro, it is automatically wrong. Haldex and Torsen systems are very different.
I will let you look up what a Haldex is. :P
Wikicars quote: “up to 100% of torque can be transferred to either axle.” http://wikicars.org/en/Quattro
The same numbers come from the NY Times and wikipedia.
This article also says about Audi TT:
"The standard biasing sends 85% of the torque to the front, but as much as 100% can be transferred to either axle under extreme conditions, such as a total lack of traction at one end.”
Running Laps
What a coincidence: all the 4 sources disagree with message board guy!
You might be missing something or making stuff up, just like you’ve made stuff up before, that Subaru AWD is the best and it can transfer 100% of torque to either axle, or that VDC is AWD. After all, I understand, that you are just a biased consumer, who is stuck with his 2000 subaru bux and trying to justify buying another subaru.
Very simple, really.
Wiki contradicts itself (look at your source, then look at mine), so it has to be wrong, if you think about it.
Doesn't really matter. I would not believe the NY Times however, I agree the graphic is misleading.
The article is one of the best I’ve seen about the AWD systems, the guy definitely knows what he is talking about
The graphic has little to do with real world performance however.
Even the Wikicars and Wikipedia both say about Quattro: “up to 100% of torque can be transferred to either axle”. I understand that the NY Times article is inconvenient for you, but the guy from NY Times is right and you are just one biased subaru fan
It's not that the NY Times article is not correct, it is incomplete and inaccurate. This biased fan probably knows more about AWD systems than all editors combined at the times.
It's no skin off my nose you have doubts, that doesn't change the facts of the way these vehicles operate. Why wouldn't Subaru advertise they have the best AWD in this class of car. Show me one video where the competition handly outperforms an XT.
BTW you never acknowledged the information about Symmetrical AWD being able to shift torque between front and rear based on acceleration and braking. I'll take that as a "you were wrong".
It says "Audi all".
Wrong, period. End of story.
Stop right there, you don't have to go any further to know they have no idea what they are talking about.
I can't believe this is being disputed.
1. It keeps Subaru from being a common road occurence. Imagine if there were as many Foresters on the road as Camry's.
2. It keeps the prices down...Law of Supply and Demand.
3. Let's us know that we are one up on the rest of the population that fall for the misguidance generated by these sorts of articles and comments.
The only people who would really care are the Subaru marketing and sales people. I'm not so I can simply smile and laugh off the comments and misguided articles.
All that matters to me is that proof is in the pudding. The AWD that gets you where you need to, where other AWD systems won't, regardless of what the NYTimes says or anyone else says is the best AWD for you. Subaru has a great reputation for doing just that.
As far as I know, aftermarket stereos won't work because it's not a standard DIN or double-DIN opening.
We've got '06 Legacy w/subwoofer & upgraded speakers & '06 Outback without. Legacy's sound is much better, IMHO. Pretty good, but not great.
Anyway, try out the Nav models.
So what I've done is purchased the IPOD i/f kit, and an Infinity Basslink 10" powered subwoofer ($189), and replaced the 4 stock 6.5" door speakers w/ Cerwin Vega HED 65 units ($134).
The sound is AWESOME! Better than my other car (which is a Mercedes, and cost me $2,500+ to upgrade to integral IPOD capability w/ subwoofer).
So for about $450 I have a killer sound system where I can control music (stored in IPOD) from the steering wheel, and get full song/artist info on the multi-line display of the head unit.
I thought about adding the Subaru tweeters - but really don't need them. I don't think I would recommend the Subaru subwoofer...it's probably OK, but not great.
The Infinity subwoofer has adjustable crossover, remote adjustable bass boost, etc. You can find reviews & retail sellers easily on internet.
Can I make a request that we discontinue the AWD & NYT thread and move on? There are obviously many different implementations of AWD out there, and every
mfr wants to claim theirs is the best... My experience so far = my Forester outperforms my previous rigs (Murano, XL-7) in the snow. And if you go out and ask virtually anyone driving a Subaru they will smile and tell you story after story of how their Subaru got them thru all kinds of weather and passed by all kinds of other AWD/4WD vehicles stuck in the snow... In fact, my guess is that Subaru has some of the highest Brand Loyalty in the auto business...and that, my friends, is for a very good reason...
or something... but for me, most of the time there's plenty of space available in my rear cargo area. Plus I have the roof rack w/ round bars and kayak carriers, and a tow hitch which I use for my bike carrier.
There are other smaller, lower profile powered subwoofers available, which could be installed under the seat. I went for this Infinity unit because the reviews I read online said it had really good price/performance.
I suppose it could be, but with the electric seat where would it fit? I have the upgraded stereo the subwoofer is mounted in the rear compartment. It's okay enough, but the road noise drowns out a lot of the clarity. One of the love/hate things about the vehicle.
I would contact Thule, and ask them.
Bob
In my wife's 05 Bean, and my 06 Premium, as well as my wife's 01 and my 02 Foresters, I kept the standard Premium radio but added the factory tweeter kits and the factory sub, which in all those years goes under the seat, even with the power seat. We have been very pleased with the results, everything from Aerosmith to Manheim Steamroller to Velvet Revolver.
The sub is not like the window-rattlers that fill a trunk but it does fill in the bass nicely. The tweeters make a BIG difference, and in the 05 and 06 were a piece of cake to install. The wires are already there and it literally took about 6 minutes per vehicle.
I have never moved from the standard door speakers except in my 01 Forester, but I found that keeping the standard door speakers and adding the tweeters and sub sounded better. Remember that this is not with the standard radio but with the Premium. The base radio has always been lousy in my opinion.
The genuine Subaru parts have always been available at very good prices from the usual Internet dealers. For about $200 per vehicle I find it well worth the money, and suits our needs well, even with windows and sunroof open.
Good scores all around, front and side; even for the head restraints. :shades:
I need some advice.
I got my Ipod interface installed Saturday. As mentioned, when they tried it before, when I got the car back, it had a dash rattle. Now, with the job completed, the dash rattle is even more intense~~coming from around the radio unit and the pass side, which were completely pulled out/disassembled along with the center console. I have called the dealer (Schaumburg, IL) and let them know it was rattling worse than before~~of course, they say "bring it in".
I honestly don't know if they really know what they are doing at all with re to this as my car was the first one they put an Ipod onto in house---too bad for me
In process, I told the mechanic about the rattle and begged him to put all back together with all the appropriate clips~~didn't work.
When they were finished, they told me the manual was on the front seat!!!
They gave me no instruction whatsoever on how to operate it~~~presumably bc they were clueless!!!
Anyhoo, Kurt, since you can figure out how to fix rattles, what the hell should I suggest to the dealer in order to fix mine~~and so I don't have keep taking it back~~risking the dealer to mess it up even further!!
Should I bring them some of the foam padding you discussed? Where do I get it?
Too bad you are not in the Chgoland area
Thanks
Wish I could edit my original post.