Which is better - NA dual range Foz or L Series?

[NuZo]

What do you guys rkn is better for off road use?

N/A dual range Foz
or
L Series?

Reason i ask is, I'm looking for a more modern car to the L(something that will actually pull up a hill on the highway), but don't want to lose its awesome off road ability!

Cheers,

Nuzo

 

[El_Freddo]

L series. Especially if it's got lift, 27's and an EJ22

Cheers

Bennie

 

[thunder039]

the n/a foz is great stock i would say better but i am some what biased

 

[Beigewagon]

Again, another biased opinion, but I am too afraid to lose the L's capabilty offroad, to get a forester, which would be so much better on road.

I have/had 5 L-Series'. I still own #2 Lifted Beigewagon, #4 Stock Bluewagon, and #5 Not yet rego'd Turbo lifted Blackwagon.

I feel the L also has more interior room than the early Foresters, better low range, and better low down torque.

The Foresters have more safety and luxuary features, and better power.

Still prefer my L's though.

Beigewagon. (& Bluewagon & soon to be Blackturbowagon ) :lol::lol:

 

[NachaLuva]

I feel the L also has more interior room than the early Foresters, better low range, and better low down torque.

The Foresters have more safety and luxuary features, and better power.

I agree, the other thing is the Foresters have better clearance and much better approach/departure angles. Plus they have an arm rest!

 

[stilson]

I can only compare my SG to my MY wagon. SG is a hands down winner.

In answer to the question:

The fox can be fitted with the low range from the L and the L can be upgraded to have the power of the fox. The L is lighter and cheaper and I wouldn't be as upset if I scratched it and the fox is more comfy and nice but you pay a price for that and it doesn't really help it off road.

 

[Venom]

Early foz with the 2.0 wand the 1.49 (or there abouts) low range would be an excellent compromise. Nachaluva in his stock foz goes basically everywhere we do in our 2" lifted cars. Pretty sure you can get them without airbags too which makes a lift kit (if you consider it later on) legal.

I wouldn't consider the later foz wth 1.19 low range as a comparison to L series. Definitely loss of crawl and long steep climb ability wth the 1.19. Sure you can gun it up short climbs, but anything over a decent distance is a no hope.

 

[Ratbag]

Gidday Venom

Early foz with the 2.0 wand the 1.49 (or there abouts) low range would be an excellent compromise. Nachaluva in his stock foz goes basically everywhere we do in our 2" lifted cars. Pretty sure you can get them without airbags too which makes a lift kit (if you consider it later on) legal.

I wouldn't consider the later foz wth 1.19 low range as a comparison to L series. Definitely loss of crawl and long steep climb ability wth the 1.19. Sure you can gun it up short climbs, but anything over a decent distance is a no hope.

Well, it depends ...

The 2.5L N/A has around 28% more torque, and gets up to it by around 1800 rpm compared with the 2.0L N/A which climbs to its maximum torque figure by around 3300 rpm.

In the light of those figures, perhaps the 35% higher LR gearing of the 2.5L doesn't matter quite as much as some might think ...

Specially for crawling. I prefer not to crawl at 3000+ revs.

The 1.8L N/A Impreza engine is even less impressive in the torque department, with only about 150 N/ms at pretty high revs.

Perhaps the higher gearing gives an impression of having more jump, but it really cannot make up for the sheer grunt improvement at lower revs of the bigger engine IME&O.

That is also in accordance with my experience with my 1.8L Impreza and my 2.5L N/A Forester - and that leaves the LR gearing question completely out of the equation altogether!

While I have an L series brochure in front of me as I type, it makes no mention of power or torque figures. From my understanding of the re-design of the 1.8L donk that my Impreza had in it, both these figures were improved from the earlier engine, but I do not have any kind of definitive source for that statement ... yet.

BTW, for the exact gear ratio comparison of the SF and SG models, see the table I posted here.

[EDIT]
Here are the figures for the L Series engines, last generation on Wikipedia here.
[end edit]

 

[Barry]

I agree, the other thing is the Foresters have better clearance and much better approach/departure angles. Plus they have an arm rest!

Benny has an armrest in his L! :iconwink:

 

[Ratbag]

Gidday Barry

Benny has an armrest in his L! :iconwink:

I had a car like that (more than) once; good as an armrest ... :iconwink: :lol:

Great for leaning on, and having a beer (back when I was a drinking man - a LONG time ago now ... ).

 

[Rally]

Don't forget the torque to weight ratio, combined with at what RPM the torque peaks

 

[Ratbag]

Gidday Rally

Don't forget the torque to weight ratio, combined with at what RPM the torque peaks

Agree with the torque to weight ratio thing. Has to be factored in with the overall gearing too.

Flatness of the torque curve is also hugely relevant. The 1.8L torque curve is like a ski jump, the 2.0L is not a whole lot better. The 2.5L N/A has an exceptionally flat torque curve, all the way from 1800 to the red line ...

 

[bobbotron]

Gidday Rally



Agree with the torque to weight ratio thing. Has to be factored in with the overall gearing too.

Flatness of the torque curve is also hugely relevant. The 1.8L torque curve is like a ski jump, the 2.0L is not a whole lot better. The 2.5L N/A has an exceptionally flat torque curve, all the way from 1800 to the red line ...

That's funny, I feel like things get way more interesting with my forester around 3000 RPM, it really picks up if you hit the throttle once it's at or over 3000 RPM. (But, I really don't claim to understand these things!)

 

[taza]

I have both a 1.8 carby L-Series and first gen foz.

Will give my 2 cents when I get home as ive been away for 3 days. Both have advanatges...

 

[NuZo]

I have both a 1.8 carby L-Series and first gen foz.

Will give my 2 cents when I get home as ive been away for 3 days. Both have advanatges...

Looking forward to it!

Cheers,

Nuzo

 

[taza]

Looking forward to it!

Cheers,

Nuzo

Will get around to it. I got back from the trip and partied abit.. I'm a little hung over to say the least :lol:

 

[Venom]

Despite the calculations I know from the yarra glen/healesville? trip we did with Nachaluva, Barry, RB and Matt that the 1.19 fell over on one of the steep climbs that both Nacha and Matt did with ease. On another they were able to cruise up when for the 1.19 it was a matter of going much faster than was really desirable to over come the gearing issue. I saw the same with BCOutback and his 2.5 and 1.19LR in Wyperfeld in the sand. Stopped dead in the sand when everyone else could get moving from a stop. Nacha's foz also did better than my H6 single range in the sand when it came to low speeds. I know that a lower speed is very much desirable for some of the more gnarly obstacles we come accross occasionally.

In these circumstances the exta .4 low range exceeds the exta power torque of the bigger motor.

Just a question of what sort of offroading you do. But i seriously do not consider any 1.19 car comparable to a 1.59 L series for ability to crawl over obstacles or the degree of gradient they are able to climb. If i had to recommend to someone an improvement over the comfort of an L series while keeping it in the Subaru famility and maintaining as much of the L series offroad ability as possible, i would have to suggest the 1.49 cars.

I know people will mention clearance when comparing L series to Foz, but from my experience by the time you go over something big enough for it to matter the open diffs have already stopped you.

 

[Ratbag]

Gidday Venom


BTW, both centre and rear diffs in the SG and SH Foresters are vLSD. I know that it is "fashionable" for some here to make light of this, but they still work as LSDs.
My old Landcruiser had open diffs front and rear, and a transfer case in the middle with a 1:1.995 LR, IIRC. It also had big problems in some circumstances, even though it was all but indestructible.
Given a choice, I will take the vehicle with 30 year newer technology every time, thanks.
However, if I were driving around the trackless wastes of Central Australia, I wouldn't even want a modern LC though. Give me a SWB from the 1970s in that case. Better ramp over, approach and departure angles. I can work under one sitting up ...

The OBs have the same problem as my Impreza, lesser front and rear angles, and the wheelbase is longer for the same absolute ground clearance, so ramp over angle not as good; 105 mm longer wb, and nearly 300 mm longer overall than the Foresters.
These were much more of a problem for Barry at Noojee than any shortcomings with his LR ratio, IMHO.

It would be more than interesting to see the torque at the wheels from the various engine/gearbox/LR/FD ratios.

In the meantime, we will just have to differ on this. Give me the low down torque and vLSDs in the Forester every time; I am prepared to put up with what others consider to be inadequate LR ratios. They suit me fine, for a whole swag of reasons.

 

[thunder039]

Gidday Venom



BTW, both centre and rear diffs in the SG and SH Foresters are vLSD. I know that it is "fashionable" for some here to make light of this, but they still work as LSDs.
My old Landcruiser had open diffs front and rear, and a transfer case in the middle .

the lsd in the rear works great on the flat but when the surface becomes uneven it isnt very effective, but i dont think people realise how many of the old 4x4's didnt have lsd's at all. due to the lack of articulation of subaru's lsd are very usefull

i would say the that the forester with the 1.411 LR is a good compromise between the 1.19 current LR in the foresters and the 1.59 l series low range

 

[Ratbag]

Gidday Thunder

the lsd in the rear works great on the flat but when the surface becomes uneven it isnt very effective,

Not in my experience.

I think that some here expect it to perform like a locked diff (i.e. the diff is not behaving as a differential at all ... ); then are disappointed when it doesn't.

No LSD is ever going to behave like a locked diff. A locked diff completely defeats the whole purpose of having a differential at all; which is to allow the wheels at the ends of the same axle to rotate at somewhat different speeds (LSD); or at very different speeds (normal, non-LSD).

Without the ability to rotate at different speeds, any car will be very unstable to drive, unless the surface itself allows the slippage to occur. If it doesn't, the car could easily turn itself over due to this alone. Forget about any semblance of stability with handling!

but i dont think people realise how many of the old 4x4's didnt have lsd's at all. due to the lack of articulation of subaru's lsd are very usefull

It depends what you mean by "articulation". My 1968 LC deep well ute had all the torsional rigidity of a piece of wet spaghetti. The only way to lift a wheel was to either crash the truck, or to jack a wheel up ...

Modern vehicles have far greater torsional rigidity than (most) older vehicles. This allows the designers/engineers to ensure that the wheels and suspension do precisely what they are designed to do, and not go off on a fantasy frolic of their own (e.g. 1960s Chrysler Valiants ... ).
It is these features that make the car stable on the road, with highly predictable handling characteristics so lacking in most vehicles from my youth.

i would say the that the forester with the 1.411 LR is a good compromise between the 1.19 current LR in the foresters and the 1.59 l series low range

Again, it all depends on what you want to use it for.
Personally, I find the 1:1.196 LR to be a good compromise. Would I like it to be about 1:1.250? Yes. Do I want it to be as low as 1:1.4xx? No.
The utility of the 1:1.196 is to be found in that the car can be driven in LR all day without damaging anything.
It is also far from being useless off-road, as some suggest. Coupled with the low end torque and flat torque curve of the 2.5L N/A donk, it is very usable, IMO. The SH Foresters has even more torque again (235Nm, up from 224 Nm in the MY06 SG), but I haven't seen a torque curve for it. It is a reasonable assumption IMO that it will be very similar to that of the engine in the SG Foresters.

If you want to thrash the living bejasus out of a car, I suggest that one is better off starting out with a 1970s SWB LC that has a 1:1.995 centre transfer case. Unfortunately, the ride is so sharp that it is like riding a badly designed rocking horse; and don't even think about throwing one around corners - not if you want to survive the experience, that is ... :iconwink:.
Even the ride in mine was pretty ordinary, with a WB that is 26" longer than that of the SWB version (116" vs 90").

Just a few thoughts on the subject ... .