Traction Control vs Locked Diff.

Pajero's eh? Well, I've shown them up also in my Forester. Even on road tyres (Bridgestone RE002's) towing a camper trailer, I made it up first go where the Pajero took 3-4 goes and it was definitely on off road tyres. This is where it all happened.

 
I've personally found the lighter Forester has been better in sand then Pajero's aswel. The comparison was just between lockers and a good traction control.

But it does not matter if your running the latest and greatest technology or good old locking hubs, it is driver skill is the most dominate factor in what defines the capabilities of a 4wd.
 
I love it, the traction control v diff lock debate is just the same as every other comparo: MT v AT, steel rims v alloy for offroad, lifted springs v strut top blocks, etc etc etc... Everyone with their opinions and views...

By the way, have we got a rear diff lock option for a R160 diff available at a reasonable price?

Retro-fitting VDC in my Forester is out of the question, I would say...
 
pezimm said:
have we got a rear diff lock option for a R160 diff available at a reasonable price?
Click to expand...

Not yet... Still waiting :rolleyessarcstic:

Something will come up some day, but I reckon it will be a one-off limited production!

There were guys in the US working on an auto locker, but I'm not keen on that, I want to lock it when I want it locked!

Cheers

Bennie
 
pezimm said:
I love it, the traction control v diff lock debate is just the same as every other comparo: MT v AT, steel rims v alloy for offroad, lifted springs v strut top blocks, etc etc etc... Everyone with their opinions and views...

By the way, have we got a rear diff lock option for a R160 diff available at a reasonable price?

Retro-fitting VDC in my Forester is out of the question, I would say...
Click to expand...

In this context, this is true, indeed. All that matters is that the vehicle gets its driver where s/he wants the way s/he wants.

Ratbag, what you describe is ActiveAWD, which is now the only system available on US OBs as VTD and MT bit the dust. However, VTD, and I think MT, too, have more than a purely nominal front/rear split. Indeed, the whole purpose of the VTD is to keep that rear-biased split. Thus my statement about 45:55 is not misleading even though a similar statement about 90:10, 80:20 or 60:40 would have been.

If anyone has a link to a tread in which freeSSM data about VTD's operation in practice has been posted, please post it.
 
I have read somewhere in Subaru information (and I can't remember where) that the vLSD is not so much for off-road traction but for handling balance in on-road situations.
 
Last edited:
In the case of the Ford both was best. But IMO cars with better traction control, such as Pajeros, Range Rovers, ect, will perform better with just electronics and no locks. This is because the locks limit what the traction control can do. With out the locks better electronics can completely stop spin on any of the wheels that have no traction while adjusting exactly how much spin to give each individual wheel on the car to give the car it's best chance of making it. The Ford was an example of poor electronics, but there are better examples of modern electronics out there.

To me this is just plain boring as it removes the driver skill, but it can make cars more capable.
 
MiddleAgeSubie said:
In this context, this is true, indeed. All that matters is that the vehicle gets its driver where s/he wants the way s/he wants.

Ratbag, what you describe is ActiveAWD, which is now the only system available on US OBs as VTD and MT bit the dust. However, VTD, and I think MT, too, have more than a purely nominal front/rear split. Indeed, the whole purpose of the VTD is to keep that rear-biased split. Thus my statement about 45:55 is not misleading even though a similar statement about 90:10, 80:20 or 60:40 would have been.
Click to expand...

Not so, sorry.

Try this from Subaru, here:

https://www.subaru-global.com/tec_awd.html

Bottom of the page ...

"Viscous centre differential AWD

An AWD system for manual transmissions with a simple layout consisting of a centre differential and viscous LSD. A 50:50 front and rear torque distribution is set under normal conditions. This maximises traction and provides driving backed with stability. When the front or rear wheels slip and traction is lost, or the wheel speed differs between the front and rear axles, the viscous LSD maintains optimum torque distribution between the front and rear and distributes power to the wheels with the most traction. It links the flexible gear shifting of the manual transmission to deliver sporty driving that always maximises the available traction."

The various other systems are also described on that page.
 
Ratbag said:
Not so, sorry.

Try this from Subaru, here:

https://www.subaru-global.com/tec_awd.html
Click to expand...

They change the technology they apply to their models from year to year... My MY07 4EAT uses a VTD AWD system, but this link says the Active AWD (old MP-T technology...) is the one on 4EAT transmissions. It gets confusing.

I'm sure the early SH9 started with VTD and VDC for their automatics, but when their association with Prodrive finished, they returned to MP-T - don't quote me, but think it was MY11 models.

What I'm trying to say is that the USDM might really be left to MP-T only, which is not nice in my opinion.

As far as VDC is concerned, when my car was made, it was only available with VTD and with the traditional MT transfer diff. I am not sure how it works with the MP-T transmissions...

Still, we've got access to traction control in Subaru's. The challenge is getting a diff lock to that rear axle! :lildevil:

Pedro.
 
Ratbag,
There is no contradiction between my post and yours. On the contrary, what you cite supports my point. VTD and MT cars have fairly stable distribution until traction challenges occur. By contrast, you spoke of constantly varying ratio in the earlier post, which would be activeAWD.
 
Back
Top