Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All Subarus with an Automatic have part time AWD (unless they've made a change with the CVT tranny), if the OP wants a Subaru for their superior AWD system, they need to go with a manual transmission one (which, for snow driving, I would anyway).
Not true for turbocharged or 6-cylinder models; and as the OP really just wants some off-the-line traction, frankly any AWD system will be adequate.
The Subaru AWD specs are confusing. The older 4EAT Automatics have a 90/10 split when on a completely smooth, straight road. But it constantly varies up to 50/50 in low traction situations. Every bump, slight curve in the road, etc will make the ratio vary. It's still a helluva lot better than anything else.
So a new Forester with the older 4 speed auto, is 10/90 I believe. Still a great system, better than any Toyota or Honda.
It is truely AWD (Symmetrical AWD Subie calls it) because all 4 wheels are powered whenever the car is moving, regardless how the power gets distributed.
Subarus rock in the snow. They are everywhere in Colorado and keep their resale value like nothing else.
Wrong. The Subaru traction control is not "better than anything else." But a Subaru dealer would agree with you 100%.
I drove a 2009 Forester MT (5 speed manual) until November 2009. I bought this car in 2008, and drove it in the interior of Alaska for nearly two winters. I used the stock tires all year long, and the traction was quite good on the usual ice-covered roads of the interior of Alaska. But the traction was not any more efficient than my wife's 2010 Rav 4 V6, also driven with the stock tires.
In fact, I could not tell the difference whatsoever, except that the Rav 4 is a lot more comfortable to drive on ice because the Forester steering is quite finicky in relation to road imperfection (it often drifts under wind gusts, and also when driven over small grooves and such on the road). Even so, I was happy enough with the Forester, and have no complains whatsoever in relation to traction on sleek surfaces. But to say that Subaru traction is better than anything else is a long stretch of one's imagination.
A problem with the automatic Subaru transmission is having 4 speeds instead of at least 5. This is not a Subaru plus over Honda or Toyota; it just makes the Subaru with a 4-speed automatic transmission less desirable. In fact, there is no comparison between the normally-aspirated Subaru with a 4-speed transmission and a Toyota Rav 4 wiht a 5-speed transmission. Not only that, but the 2009 Forester I had, with a 170HP motor and 5-speed manual used as much fuel as my wife's 2010 Rav 4 V6 with 269HP.
Subaru's is one of the most popular brands in Alaska, and so are the RAv 4, and Honda CR, all of which have excellent traction controls. But Audi, Mercedes, or BMW traction controls are better than anything else out there. These also cost a lot more, and this is where Subaru has an advantage "a good bang for the money." Nothing else. Those who can afford more expensive automobiles do that, but a person who can't afford a more expensive automobile can have a real nice deal with a Subaru.
Wrong. The Subaru traction control is not "better than anything else." But a Subaru dealer would agree with you 100%.
I drove a 2009 Forester MT (5 speed manual) until November 2009. I bought this car in 2008, and drove it in the interior of Alaska for nearly two winters. I used the stock tires all year long, and the traction was quite good on the usual ice-covered roads of the interior of Alaska. But the traction was not any more efficient than my wife's 2010 Rav 4 V6, also driven with the stock tires.
In fact, I could not tell the difference whatsoever, except that the Rav 4 is a lot more comfortable to drive on ice because the Forester steering is quite finicky in relation to road imperfection (it often drifts under wind gusts, and also when driven over small grooves and such on the road). Even so, I was happy enough with the Forester, and have no complains whatsoever in relation to traction on sleek surfaces. But to say that Subaru traction is better than anything else is a long stretch of one's imagination.
A problem with the automatic Subaru transmission is having 4 speeds instead of at least 5. This is not a Subaru plus over Honda or Toyota; it just makes the Subaru with a 4-speed automatic transmission less desirable. In fact, there is no comparison between the normally-aspirated Subaru with a 4-speed transmission and a Toyota Rav 4 wiht a 5-speed transmission. Not only that, but the 2009 Forester I had, with a 170HP motor and 5-speed manual used as much fuel as my wife's 2010 Rav 4 V6 with 269HP.
Subaru's is one of the most popular brands in Alaska, and so are the RAv 4, and Honda CR, all of which have excellent traction controls. But Audi, Mercedes, or BMW traction controls are better than anything else out there. These also cost a lot more, and this is where Subaru has an advantage "a good bang for the money." Nothing else. Those who can afford more expensive automobiles do that, but a person who can't afford a more expensive automobile can have a real nice deal with a Subaru.
There is a MASSIVE flaw in your argument there, and it's the standard tires. Of course you're not going to get more traction than your wifes car! You're using tires not designed for the condition, and at the end of the day, it's the tires that decide!
Put both cars on equal Nokian Hakkapellitta tires (even studded ones for the ultimate test) and drive in real bad conditions until one gets stuck, I can pretty much guarantee it's not going to be the Subaru.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
Not true for turbocharged or 6-cylinder models; and as the OP really just wants some off-the-line traction, frankly any AWD system will be adequate.
I hear ya, and I agree, I mentioned it more because a lot of people appear to think that all Subarus come with symmetrical AWD, buys them, and drives around thinking that's what they got. There might not be much harm in that, but I know I'd like to know what I was buying, so I figured it was worth mentioning.
We have had an 01 Subie Forester for the past 4 years and it does very well in the snow here in NH. It is a little tank. We also have a front wheel drive with snows (Camry) and it is not nearly as good....
If you are interested in fozzies, the enthusiasts are here: www.subaruforester.org. A cult like group...
Dude, if you thnk a 100% FWD car that then applies power to the rear wheels AFTER it detects slippage is better than a car constly transferring power back and forth, then you need a reality check. Check the video posted already, the Toyota can't even climb up the ramp because it doesn't have the ability to shift to the rear tires. I get you love your Rav4, but it has a reactive system.
Subaru has multiple AWD systems and all are better than anything Honda or Toyota has.
There is a MASSIVE flaw in your argument there, and it's the standard tires. Of course you're not going to get more traction than your wifes car! You're using tires not designed for the condition, and at the end of the day, it's the tires that decide!
Put both cars on equal Nokian Hakkapellitta tires (even studded ones for the ultimate test) and drive in real bad conditions until one gets stuck, I can pretty much guarantee it's not going to be the Subaru.
I hear ya, and I agree, I mentioned it more because a lot of people appear to think that all Subarus come with symmetrical AWD, buys them, and drives around thinking that's what they got. There might not be much harm in that, but I know I'd like to know what I was buying, so I figured it was worth mentioning.
And there is a MASSIVE flaw on your arguments about tires. I clearly said that I have driven both automobiles each with the stock tires, and could not tell the difference in traction between one and the other. Both had plenty of traction on glare ice such as a frozen lake, or just on glare ice on the road. By the way, if you could only drive around Fairbanks, Alaska for over 30 years, like I have, then you would understand what type of "ice on the road" I am referring to. Your driving conditions are nothing compared to the driving conditions in the interior of Alaska Also, the traction control automatically engaged equally the same, on both lateral skids (even their individual warning lights energized, plus a beeper on the Rav 4).
I have also driven a FWD '87 Civic Si on the same roads, at least 50 miles per day (work and back), and also a Suzuki Sidekick 4x4. On the Civic I have to use winter-studded tires, but not on the rest. The rest have all season radial tires, which are the stock tires out of the dealership. But I do agree that having the right tires on the vehicle helps with traction. At the same time, and just like other long-in-Alaska drivers will tell you, "the more traction, the deeper you will get stuck in the snow." The reason why we say such a thing is because the great majority of vehicles being pulled out of the ditch or the side of the roads in this area are AWD, SUVs, 4x4s (including pickup trucks), not the rest.
The last paragraph is so ridiculous that's not worth answering
After you are done looking at the "Subaru against rollers," take a look at the Audi versus rollers and notice that most traction systems can be defeated, since all serve the same purpose, and most aren't even designed by the automobile manufacturer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHJ4HBYiJeA
So, that leaves the 2009 Forester's 4x4 portion of the traction control. In this case, if stuck in the snow, turn the traction control off, which in turn locks the 4 wheels, because what the traction control does is to use the brakes and the motor to reduce wheel rotation to the one (s) that's spinning or skidding, and this is not what you want if stuck on the snow, or if pulling a boat-loaded trailer out of the water (it's on the manual). The same for the 2010 Rav 4, except that this one requires the use of two buttons, one to disengage the traction control, and the other to engage the 4x4 to lock the four wheels. Also, on the RAV 4, the traction control (VSC) button has to be held for more than one second, while on the Forester all you have to do is press and release the button.
Forgot to mention that some traction control systems are automatic, and have no electrical switches to run on/off. Some systems come on automatically to aid with traction, and then go into a stand-by mode. However, most if not all traction control systems are designed to aid with traction and do a good job at it. They just go at it in different way to achieve the same results. It's hard to say which one works the best, but the more luxurious automobiles incorporate the most sophisticated traction control systems.
Hi, folks -- venturing out of my Northern Virginia forum for a while.
Also have been looking at a Subaru (an Impreza hatchback for the sporty look and the Forester, which only comes in the bland serious look!) for the AWD factor. I don't live in Alaska, but some of the snowfalls in the metro D.C. area have scared the %$& out of me, so I was thinking that AWD would help me out a bit. (I'm very cautious in winter conditions--I know the AWD isn't going to do all the work of driving safely.)
But I drive automatic, so now I realize it's only the part-time AWD?!
So what's the tradeoff there:
On one side of the coin:
I'd still get AWD when I really need it (which is better than not having it at all?) but I pay the price for that feature and get lower mpg than other vehicles.
And on the other:
I could do equally well in the snow (ice, prob not) just by using really good snow tires and get a higher mpg. And with a lower sticker price. (My dad used snow tires when we lived in Connecticut, but I never have.)
So maybe I'm elevating AWD to a higher priority than I need, considering the winter conditions in my neck of the woods aren't always incapacitating? There are just some days that when a fierce snowstorm rolls through, when others have the day off, I always have to get in to work, and I want to be more confident getting there.
Hi, folks -- venturing out of my Northern Virginia forum for a while.
Also have been looking at a Subaru (an Impreza hatchback for the sporty look and the Forester, which only comes in the bland serious look!) for the AWD factor. I don't live in Alaska, but some of the snowfalls in the metro D.C. area have scared the %$& out of me, so I was thinking that AWD would help me out a bit. (I'm very cautious in winter conditions--I know the AWD isn't going to do all the work of driving safely.)
But I drive automatic, so now I realize it's only the part-time AWD?!
So what's the tradeoff there:
On one side of the coin:
I'd still get AWD when I really need it (which is better than not having it at all?) but I pay the price for that feature and get lower mpg than other vehicles.
And on the other:
I could do equally well in the snow (ice, prob not) just by using really good snow tires and get a higher mpg. And with a lower sticker price. (My dad used snow tires when we lived in Connecticut, but I never have.)
So maybe I'm elevating AWD to a higher priority than I need, considering the winter conditions in my neck of the woods aren't always incapacitating? There are just some days that when a fierce snowstorm rolls through, when others have the day off, I always have to get in to work, and I want to be more confident getting there.
When it comes to off-the-line traction, AWD with all-seasons still whips the crap out of FWD with snow tires, even if it's only a "part-time" AWD system. Of course, as has been mentioned, it doesn't have to be an either/or choice -- AWD with snow tires is the ideal winter combination.
Still, the threshold between a FWD car being incapacitated and an AWD car being incapacitated is only a few inches. We got 21 inches of snow here at the beginning of the month, and even Subarus weren't going anywhere until the streets were cleared. Some wally tried getting around in a Rav-4 right after the storm and got stuck in front of my house for an hour. Not that he was blocking traffic or anything since nobody was going anywhere anyway. If you really need to be sure you can get somewhere when it snows like hell, consider getting a cheap, used, big, heavy SUV with AWD or with true 4WD capability and using it only when needed. Or get a cheap, used snowmobile.
I've been driving on ice and snow probably longer than a lot of posters on this forum have been alive. What vehicle best suits a person's needs really depends on the conditions under which they plan to use it. Winter driving skills are key, and people who think that all kinds of traction systems are a substitute for those skills will find themselves getting a harsh lesson that disproves that theory sooner or later.
For probably 80% of the land area of the US, and probably 90% of the drivers, a front-wheel-drive car with traction control and decent winter tires will meet their winter driving needs in all but the most adverse conditions.
In areas where slick roads are the norm in winter, but on-road snow depths don't exceed, say, 4-5 inches, just about any AWD vehicle with decent tires will do just fine.
When snow depths on the road exceed 4" but are less than around 8", a vehicle like the Subaru Forester, with its higher ground clearance, will do OK.
If snow depths on the road exceed 6-8" inches, a regular 4WD is necessary--if its minimum ground clearance is higher than the average snow depth. Unfortunately, many of the current crop of 4WD's have little better ground clearance than a Forester. Any on-road snow depths greater than around 8-10" require a 4WD with excellent ground clearance, aggressive tires, and--preferably--locking differentials at least in the back if not also in the front. At that, any rubber-tired vehicle will get stuck in snow if the average snow depth it is trying to traverse is deeper than the running ground clearance of the vehicle.
I've driven vehicles in all of the above-listed conditions, from light snow dustings on highways to busting 3' drifts on ranch roads with a 3/4 ton 4WD truck chained up all the way around. That said, for about 90% of my winter driving, I use a fuel-economical FWD car, with a "beater 4WD" that I keep for those few times (2-6 times a year) that I need a 4WD for more arduous winter conditions.
As for the Subies, they are good cars and are generally quite reliable. But, one pays for the additional mechanical complexity and weight of an AWD in increased maintenance costs and mediocre fuel economy--the turbo and 6-cylinder models having especially mediocre fuel economy. Too bad (thanks to the US EPA) that the very fuel-efficient boxer diesel engine available overseas in Subarus is not available in the US. It performs better than the gas engine and gets about 40 mpg on the highway in the Forester.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Also, the traction control automatically engaged equally the same, on both lateral skids (even their individual warning lights energized, plus a beeper on the Rav 4).
