What, if any, is the difference between the AWD system on the Santa Fes and the Subarus? The Subaru salesman says they use a "patented" AWD system with "fluid filled" differential distribution and a salesman at Hyundai told me the Santa Fe uses the same system but described it as "all the time AWD with a constant 60% - 40% split of power distribution between the front and rear wheels with no adaptation for changing conditions. Then a Suzuki salesman told me the Santa Fe wouldn't be a good vehicle for me because it has one front wheel with 60% of the power and the opposite rear wheel with 40% of the power and that there is no adaptation of that for actual conditions (as in the Suburu) and it can't be "forced" into a better configuration by shifting into 4WD Low like the Suzuki X-L. I have read all sorts of things on the internet about how AWD, 4WD and 2WD work and thought I understood it, but I can't find any of the particulars above. Does anyone have the real scoop on this or know where I can click to find it? I don't want to go off roading, but I do live in northern Vermont where for 6 months of the year I am driving on uplowed roads through mud, snow and ice. I need good traction as well as the ability to power through and around snow drifts ocassionally. Anyone driving the Santa Fe in similar conditions? Is the AWD Santa Fe a good choice for me? Thank you very much!
The manual tranny Subaru uses a Viscous Coupling center differential as its AWD system, same as all Santa Fes. The Santa Fe does indeed adjust for changing conditions, both do. Subaru defaults to 50/50, that's the main difference.
Automatic Subies have a different AWD system, but still acts full-time. What the salesman probably meant was that this AWD is proactive, as opposed to the reactive nature of a VC. It does, IMO, carry a slight advantage.
Subarus have an optional rear limited-slip differential. Hyundais offer that, too, or a traction control option.
Neither has a low range, which is fine if you just want to get around safely in snow and rain, and maybe try some light trails. Ground clearance is probably a bigger issue than traction, which both will offer plenty of.
Vermont, eh? The capital of Subaru-dom. Truly, it's the state where Subaru has its biggest market share, at a whopping 6%. It's just 0.4% in the snow belt, for comparison. When in Rome...
I think either will be fine for your needs. Subaru will sell you a Yakima ski rack that they resell with their name on it. Nice thing is you can equip it and roll the cost into your financing.
Hyundai has that solid warranty and just got uprated to "better than average" in reliability, same as the Forester.
Well, you gotta naval jelly, clean, and touch-up paint any scratches, because any zinc coating comes off with the paint.
But newer Subies have cladding on their lower half. The Forester doesn't have any exposed metal below the top of the wheel arches, pretty much, so stone chips won't do any harm besides aesthetic.
You can get factory flares for more protection, too (I have them). The unpainted lower cladding the 1998-2002 L and the 2003 X models are great - like teflon. Perfect for snow country.
They use salt here in DC too. I hate it. Cars get all white, the stuff really cakes on. I remember in New Mexico they'd just throw down sand, which is much better IMO.
Most sand, in my experience anyway, is "treated" with salt (or similar) to keep it from freezing together and clumping so it'll spread from the trucks. May not help if they switch to "sand" there.
Thank you for that very informative explanation; it really is helpful to me. Yes, there are TONS of Subarus in Vermont. They just seem to go and go and go -- and this place is rough going for any car with the severe weather, the road salt and the endless road ruts. All my neighbors have Subarus and the parking lots are jammed full of them -- especially here in the north. That's why I want to get a Hyundai Santa Fe. Once I get into town, I want to be able to find my own car to get home!
You gotta love Vermont. Anywhere else in the US and people who buy Subarus are guaranteed to have a vehicle that stands out in a crowd but in Vermont it's the exact opposite! :-)
SF's AWD is full time and uses a VC similar to Subaru's. If you want to stand out, they do, sort of.
There are plenty of Subies in CT, too, in fact the farther north, the higher their concentration.
We went to CT for Turkey Day and got 6" of snow, it was great. First snow for our Legacy (the Forester has seen plenty). Also got sleet on the way back in Jersey.
My brother-in-law's Prelude got stuck in his front yard. We were able to drive right around him. Gotta love AWD.
I've read a number of studies that indicate a good traction control system is as good as...and in some cases better than... AWD in the rain/snow as individual wheels can be slowed if they spin. Jaguar and Mercedes both published pretty extensive studies on the subject.
I'll tell you tomorrow morning when I try driving into work in my new FWD 5-speed view with ABS/Traction control.
But anything Jag or Benz publishes will have a clear-cut bias towards whatever they use.
It's funny to see Jag making AWD standard on the X-Type, and Benz adversiting it's 4Matic heavily no that snow season is arriving.
Volvo hosted a Fire & Ice event, and I got to drive an S60 FWD TC and an S60 AWD back-to-back. They had a tarp with soapy water to simulate ice. The FWD model hopelessly watched the brakes battle the engine as is made slow, painful progress.
The AWD model just went. Got through in less than half the time with far less drama.
It's funny but it was almost as if Volvo was telling you to buy a Subaru. ;-)
I'd pick AWD any day. Plus factor in better weight balance, FWD models are front-heavy, and you end up with better braking.
Let's see... a good AWD system directs power to the wheels that have traction versus the TC approach of applying the brakes to the wheels that don't have traction. So which one is more likely to get you moving and which is better in preventing you from getting stuck? AWD wins hands down.
Seeing pics like that make me miss my first car, a '79 LeBaron with a 360 and big snow tires on the back. Not as good as AWD but a heck of a lot of fun at 16.
You are making it harder for me to be patient about replacing that 2WD Taco of mine... If the TD works through the brakes, then it wouldn't help me if I am stuck in my driveway, parked on ice (something I have been more than once with the 2WD Taco).
My favorite one was the woman stuck on a long semi-steep hill in her MB CLK something or other (the sporty little coupe,). I watched her back up onto the sidewalk from my rear view mirror as I sat at the top of the hill waiting for the light to turn green. I don't know how she though big flat sports car tires were going to get up a large hill covered with about 3-4 inches of snow, slush, and ice.
We got snow powder here in NE PA. I could have gone the rest of my life without snow but I was interested in how the Forester X 03 would do. By the way I like to be cautious in the white stuff so I don't push it. In the morning it was an inch or two and real slippery. The X did great although I could feel it slip a little until it grabbed. When I went home it was nine inches mostly plowed but still very slippery. The AWD and ABS were used and I was satisfied with the performance. Like I have seen on the Subaru posts many time tires make the difference but the Yokahammas were good.
I wonder how you feel they stack up. True Forester is rated the best in the group, however, crash tests clearly come with the caveat that cars are individually tested against their own weight- I'm assuming this is an individual weight equal to the car, not a general weight for the category. Furthermore, there are several extended studies by the highway safety with graphs indicating that within each group- cars, pickups, and SUVs, the lightest cars within the group have far more injuries. Therefore, I wonder how the three respective cars safety is when you include their crash tests in conjuncion with the fact that Forester weights about 3100lbs (I get some variation with the 2003 weight), and the other two are closer to 3800 or 3900. I would like to then factor avoidance as well. Go for it fellas, your knowledge has enormously impressed me thanks Steve
always downplay the importance of low weight in collision avoidance, it seems to me. Lower weight can also be helpful in maneuverability, especially in low-traction situations.
The almost-two-ton vehicles would be at a disadvantage in many types of situations. I don't believe all the electronic gadgetry can compensate entirely for the abilities of a much lighter vehicle with a viscous coupling in the center.
When I am out in the snow, I am always scared of the big SUVs you see in the mountains come snow time - they are often driven by people who rely much too heavily on that little "VSC/4WD" badge on the dash, and who do not compensate in their driving habits for the reduced traction under-tire.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Had an interesting conversation with a person who owns an SUV in this class that is truck base frame. We started to compare SUV's in this class. I asked this person how often they "offroad" and get full use of this offroad ability. He said they mainly use access roads and don't really offroad at all! Basically use it to skii... This just proved to me once again that the commercials that are shoved down our throats are pure image... when concering "offroad ability".. Maybe we should start a room that is "truck base frame vs car frame"??
4Runner is truck-based, and I use it to go offroad regularly, so not all the hype is just hype.
I was reading some SUV reviews today, and the terms they used were "traditional" and "car-based", to distinguish the body-on-frame 4LO's from the unibody AWDers.
IMHO, safe snow driving is more than 50% determined by driver behavior, and way less by 4WD sophistication and electronic aids.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
And don't forget that part-time 4x4 systems don't help when the roads are mixed dry, wet, icy and snowy. I find it hard to judge by appearance alone just how much slip there is, and find myself constantly shifting in and out of 4Hi (and lifting/lowering the lever gets old quickly) or just giving up and leaving it in 2WD. One of the main reasons I'm looking at the AWD Subies...
mine in 4HI all the time. I can see that it is definitely an improvement for the "traditional SUVs" for them to have the electronic traction control, and stability control too, because full-time 4WD is not as good as AWD for maintaining traction in the snow.
Problem is, come summer, the low clearance of the outback et al is not enough to get along the forest service tracks and even off the road in places I like to go in the mountains. Short of having about 4 vehicles, I have to go with the truck.
I would LOVE it if Subie would make a super-Forester with about 10 inches of ground clearance and bigger tires. That would be the last SUV (mini-ute) I would buy. (one extra wish: put the H-6 in it and make it $30K or less, please! Gee, I don't want everything, do I??!!)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
We started a discussion on here of "True SUVs with Low range and AWD for 23->27K" or some faximile thereof. Basically the only 3 we can find in the class are Liberty, Axiom, Montero Sport and Sorento. All are RWD Based, Offroadable, Affordable, and 2/3 of them have Frames.
Comments
-juice
I use a beret because hats with long brims can blow off!
-juice
-juice
What, if any, is the difference between the AWD system on the Santa Fes and the Subarus? The Subaru salesman says they use a "patented" AWD system with "fluid filled" differential distribution and a salesman at Hyundai told me the Santa Fe uses the same system but described it as "all the time AWD with a constant 60% - 40% split of power distribution between the front and rear wheels with no adaptation for changing conditions. Then a Suzuki salesman told me the Santa Fe wouldn't be a good vehicle for me because it has one front wheel with 60% of the power and the opposite rear wheel with 40% of the power and that there is no adaptation of that for actual conditions (as in the Suburu) and it can't be "forced" into a better configuration by shifting into 4WD Low like the Suzuki X-L. I have read all sorts of things on the internet about how AWD, 4WD and 2WD work and thought I understood it, but I can't find any of the particulars above. Does anyone have the real scoop on this or know where I can click to find it? I don't want to go off roading, but I do live in northern Vermont where for 6 months of the year I am driving on uplowed roads through mud, snow and ice. I need good traction as well as the ability to power through and around snow drifts ocassionally. Anyone driving the Santa Fe in similar conditions? Is the AWD Santa Fe a good choice for me? Thank you very much!
The manual tranny Subaru uses a Viscous Coupling center differential as its AWD system, same as all Santa Fes. The Santa Fe does indeed adjust for changing conditions, both do. Subaru defaults to 50/50, that's the main difference.
Automatic Subies have a different AWD system, but still acts full-time. What the salesman probably meant was that this AWD is proactive, as opposed to the reactive nature of a VC. It does, IMO, carry a slight advantage.
Subarus have an optional rear limited-slip differential. Hyundais offer that, too, or a traction control option.
Neither has a low range, which is fine if you just want to get around safely in snow and rain, and maybe try some light trails. Ground clearance is probably a bigger issue than traction, which both will offer plenty of.
Vermont, eh? The capital of Subaru-dom. Truly, it's the state where Subaru has its biggest market share, at a whopping 6%. It's just 0.4% in the snow belt, for comparison. When in Rome...
I think either will be fine for your needs. Subaru will sell you a Yakima ski rack that they resell with their name on it. Nice thing is you can equip it and roll the cost into your financing.
Hyundai has that solid warranty and just got uprated to "better than average" in reliability, same as the Forester.
Good luck shopping.
-juice
I have the new CR Buyer's Guide for 2003, and in the Paint/Trim/Rust category every Subaru since 1994 scores average or better, most much better.
So for a decade now they've been good.
-juice
The stones in the mud chip the paint and zinc and steel down to the core, and then the salt water gets in.
But newer Subies have cladding on their lower half. The Forester doesn't have any exposed metal below the top of the wheel arches, pretty much, so stone chips won't do any harm besides aesthetic.
You can get factory flares for more protection, too (I have them). The unpainted lower cladding the 1998-2002 L and the 2003 X models are great - like teflon. Perfect for snow country.
They use salt here in DC too. I hate it. Cars get all white, the stuff really cakes on. I remember in New Mexico they'd just throw down sand, which is much better IMO.
-juice
Steve, Host
We don't get much snow here, so when we do, the drivers lack any real experience and it would be comical were it not so dangerous.
-juice
btw, don't forget the chat tonight. Everyone welcome, even if you don't drive a Subaru. The link is on the left side bar and the main Town Hall page.
Steve, Host
We usually end up talking about food!
Last week talk like Yoda, we did. ;-)
-juice
-mike
Snow + salt + hills = Wet roads.
I'll take the caked on white stuff any day.
"I thought it was FWD til slippage occured? Anyone know the default torque split on it?"
The Santa Fe is 60% front/40% rear by default.
Here's where I found that:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/columns/healey/2001-03-16-santa-fe.htm
-mike
-Frank P.
-mike
I tried paisan. No one else really makes mention of the numbers but them. Not even their own web site.
Tirekicking Today
Both say it's a 60/40 split - usual disclaimers.
Steve, Host
If you were driving, I'm not surprised. At the speed you drive, you should pretty much be able to cross the entire state in an hour! :-)
-Frank P.
Steve, it's time to start getting out a little more!
Come'on snow....
Steve, Host
There are plenty of Subies in CT, too, in fact the farther north, the higher their concentration.
We went to CT for Turkey Day and got 6" of snow, it was great. First snow for our Legacy (the Forester has seen plenty). Also got sleet on the way back in Jersey.
My brother-in-law's Prelude got stuck in his front yard. We were able to drive right around him. Gotta love AWD.
-juice
I'll tell you tomorrow morning when I try driving into work in my new FWD 5-speed view with ABS/Traction control.
It's funny to see Jag making AWD standard on the X-Type, and Benz adversiting it's 4Matic heavily no that snow season is arriving.
Volvo hosted a Fire & Ice event, and I got to drive an S60 FWD TC and an S60 AWD back-to-back. They had a tarp with soapy water to simulate ice. The FWD model hopelessly watched the brakes battle the engine as is made slow, painful progress.
The AWD model just went. Got through in less than half the time with far less drama.
It's funny but it was almost as if Volvo was telling you to buy a Subaru. ;-)
I'd pick AWD any day. Plus factor in better weight balance, FWD models are front-heavy, and you end up with better braking.
-juice
The plates on the top car used to be on the bottom one before it was sold. I like AWD
-mike
-Frank P.
Hopefully that link works. It's about a guy in PA with a VW Jetta w/TC and how he couldn't make it up a hill! The topic is "winter driving"
-mike
Driving right by all the FWD cars spinning their tires climbing hills. The weight transfers to the back axle and it's worse than RWD.
-juice
My favorite one was the woman stuck on a long semi-steep hill in her MB CLK something or other (the sporty little coupe,). I watched her back up onto the sidewalk from my rear view mirror as I sat at the top of the hill waiting for the light to turn green. I don't know how she though big flat sports car tires were going to get up a large hill covered with about 3-4 inches of snow, slush, and ice.
I could have gone the rest of my life without snow but I was interested in how the Forester X 03 would do. By the way I like to be cautious in the white stuff so I don't push it.
In the morning it was an inch or two and real slippery. The X did great although I could feel it slip a little until it grabbed. When I went home it was nine inches mostly plowed but still very slippery. The AWD and ABS were used and I was satisfied with the performance. Like I have seen on the Subaru posts many time tires make the difference but the Yokahammas were good.
crash tests clearly come with the caveat that cars are individually tested against their own weight- I'm assuming this is an individual weight equal to the car, not a general weight for the category. Furthermore, there are several extended studies by the highway safety with graphs indicating that within each group- cars, pickups, and SUVs, the lightest cars within the group have far more injuries. Therefore, I wonder how the three respective cars safety is when you include their crash tests in conjuncion with the fact that Forester weights about 3100lbs
(I get some variation with the 2003 weight), and the other two are closer to 3800 or 3900. I would like to then factor avoidance as well.
Go for it fellas, your knowledge has enormously impressed me
thanks
Steve
The almost-two-ton vehicles would be at a disadvantage in many types of situations. I don't believe all the electronic gadgetry can compensate entirely for the abilities of a much lighter vehicle with a viscous coupling in the center.
When I am out in the snow, I am always scared of the big SUVs you see in the mountains come snow time - they are often driven by people who rely much too heavily on that little "VSC/4WD" badge on the dash, and who do not compensate in their driving habits for the reduced traction under-tire.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
This just proved to me once again that the commercials that are shoved down our throats are pure image... when concering "offroad ability"..
Maybe we should start a room that is "truck base frame vs car frame"??
I was reading some SUV reviews today, and the terms they used were "traditional" and "car-based", to distinguish the body-on-frame 4LO's from the unibody AWDers.
IMHO, safe snow driving is more than 50% determined by driver behavior, and way less by 4WD sophistication and electronic aids.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Problem is, come summer, the low clearance of the outback et al is not enough to get along the forest service tracks and even off the road in places I like to go in the mountains. Short of having about 4 vehicles, I have to go with the truck.
I would LOVE it if Subie would make a super-Forester with about 10 inches of ground clearance and bigger tires. That would be the last SUV (mini-ute) I would buy. (one extra wish: put the H-6 in it and make it $30K or less, please! Gee, I don't want everything, do I??!!)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
-mike