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

[NachaLuva]

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.

Exactly!

There was also the creek bank that I crawled up in Wyperfeld NP. With a 1.19LR, the only way to make it up would have been with more speed, but then you would bottom out at the start and launch at the top. Makes for spectacular photos but not so good for the longevity of your beloved Subie.

Also, remember Walhalla? I was able to make it up (just lol) a VERY long steep climb in 1st LR that Venom with his H6 was unable to with his single range GB.

Gearing is everything!

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.

Its not torsional rigidity thats the issue, its wheel travel or articulation that is the downfall of Subies

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.

But why would you want to do that? It prematurely wears out not just the LR gears but also all the other gears as in a Subie the LR is BEFORE the gears. And with your greater torque, there's no need.

LR isnt for cruising around...its for extending 1st gear and sometimes adding a gear between 1stH & 2ndH.

 

[Ratbag]

Gidday NL

LR isnt for cruising around...its for extending 1st gear and sometimes adding a gear between 1stH & 2ndH.

If one reads the Subaru Owner's Manual, that is exactly what it is designed for.
Subaru specifically recommend it for exactly this purpose.
When towing, or navigating difficult roads, either dirt or bitumen.

See SG OM pages 7-9 and 8-12 to 8-15 for some examples.

The extra torque of the 2.5L N/A donk makes up for the "lack" of a "decent" low range ratio. Big time, IMHO.

BTW, Subaru also specifically recommend the above more so if one is driving the 2.0L variant found in some countries.

Hands up all those who would feel perfectly happy driving their L series all day in LR at any reasonable turn of speed?

IMHO, one of the reasons that Subaru decreased the LR ratio is precisely because the much higher torque of the EJ-25 engine will, or may, damage the gearbox if the LR ratio were increased.

If people want an admission from me that the current gearing doesn't suit me, because it doesn't suit them (whether they have an SG or not ... ), let them keep right on wanting it.

Designing any vehicle should always be undertaken with the ultimate driving balance of the vehicle in mind. It is my opinion that Subaru do this exceptionally well, regardless of which vehicle one wants to talk about.

I have driven quite a few Subies, one way and another. Not a lot, but enough to know that they all perform well.

The 1:1.59 LR is necessary in the L series to make up for the lack of torque of the 1.8L N/A engine; it isn't as necessary in the SF, so Subaru dropped the ratio. Ditto with the SG, dropping it yet again.

 

[Rally]

I use low range every day. I have not found a time when off road where I need a lower first gear. I'm not saying I am taking the car places no one else does, but I think I've been places close to the vehicles limits in areas other than gearing. I cannot comment on how others have found the gearing inadequate because I was not there at the time. All I can say is that I have no issues with the gearing off road. You have seen photos of where I have taken the Forester, so if that is not as extreme as what can be done, then there may well be an argument for better gearing.

 

[Ratbag]

Gidday Rally

I use low range every day. I have not found a time when off road where I need a lower first gear. I'm not saying I am taking the car places no one else does, but I think I've been places close to the vehicles limits in areas other than gearing. I cannot comment on how others have found the gearing inadequate because I was not there at the time. All I can say is that I have no issues with the gearing off road. You have seen photos of where I have taken the Forester, so if that is not as extreme as what can be done, then there may well be an argument for better gearing.

Exactly.

I do not claim to have any great experience with Subaru DR boxes in particular, but I have driven various "real" 4WDs for well over 100,000 miles ... In almost all conditions ... often towing a tandem axle horse float, or other heavy live and dead loads.

On that basis, I feel reasonably qualified to hold a valid opinion as to the practicality and usability of the DR box and engine in the particular vehicle that I own and drive.

In forming the views that I hold, I do not, and have not, made any statement that anyone has to agree with me.
I do however object to others telling me that what suits me cannot possibly do so ...

I have considerable faith in the engineering and design of Subaru vehicles. While I may take issue with some of their minor decisions, if I had any major problems with their approach, I would own some other kind of vehicle. After over 18 years association with the brand, I also feel that I have some kind of right to hold views about these vehicles.

More than a little of Subaru's reputation for robustness and reliability comes from their good design and engineering decisions.

Their decision to use a LR ratio of 1:1.196 in association with their 2.5L N/A engines is part and parcel of that reputation for robustness and reliability.

 

[stilson]

Some enjoyable reading guys,

I personally would like a lower range in my SG, especially now with the larger tyres. The 1.19:1 does give me a great usable half gear and I would lose this but it is a sacrifice I would be willing to make. RB I agree with you that Subaru have adjusted the low range as the torque has increased as a protection measure for the gearbox as the reduction is at the wrong end. And I will say it works very well in most applications.

I find the LSDs rear and centre work great onroad and good offroad as I have had a wheel in the air and they still manage to slowly pull me uphill (sometimes a bit of gentle to and froing is required). They are a dam sight better than open diffs.

Torsional rigidity is key for good predictable handling but it does make lifting a wheel more likely when traversing diagonal obstacles. This is why I don't like reducing the already minimal articulation by lifting by taller/stiffer springs. Sway bar disconnects are an option for increasing articulation while maintaining the excellent handling that subarus are known for.

For what I want, the best Subaru is the SG with the LSDs, 2.5, creature comforts and great handling, with the SF or L series low range, disconnectable HD swaybars and a mild lift and that's what I plan to build.

 

[Venom]

Wether or not you want to modify further down the track is another consideration. If someone was prepared to change gearboxes i would definitely recommend the 2.5 donk, and put in the 1.49 or 1.59 down the track. 2.5 is definitely a better basis for modifying.

Its is also difficult to discuss a single aspect of the vehicle in isolation in terms of how it effects offroad ability. especially between vehicles, because there isn't a uniform basis or environment for comparison.

While i am personally tempted to say gearing is king, thinking on it the real king is the synergy between a number of carefully selected vehicle modifications. A bit of lift, the right gearing, traction aids, and the correct tyres is what really adds up. On their own their benefit is certainly reduced.

 

[Rally]

To me, driver ability is king. Be it off road, on road or the race track, this never changes. The cheapest and best way to improve your car's ability is to become a better driver. However, there is merit in what Venom has said.

 

[NachaLuva]

The 1:1.59 LR is necessary in the L series to make up for the lack of torque of the 1.8L N/A engine; it isn't as necessary in the SF, so Subaru dropped the ratio. Ditto with the SG, dropping it yet again.

From what Taza has said the SF Foz needs the 1.59 more than the L does as the L has better low end torque than the EJ20

but I have driven various "real" 4WDs for well over 100,000 miles ... In almost all conditions ... often towing a tandem axle horse float, or other heavy live and dead loads.

I think you mean an obese 4WD Truck. Subies are real 4WDs...they're certainly not imaginary!

I find the LSDs rear and centre work great onroad and good offroad as I have had a wheel in the air and they still manage to slowly pull me uphill (sometimes a bit of gentle to and froing is required). They are a dam sight better than open diffs.

+1

Torsional rigidity is key for good predictable handling but it does make lifting a wheel more likely when traversing diagonal obstacles. This is why I don't like reducing the already minimal articulation by lifting by taller/stiffer springs. Sway bar disconnects are an option for increasing articulation while maintaining the excellent handling that subarus are known for.

I like the raised springs as a good compromise for increasing onroad handling plus load carrying plus increasing clearance. However the sacrifice is wheel travel.

For what I want, the best Subaru is the SG with the LSDs, 2.5, creature comforts and great handling, with the SF or L series low range, disconnectable HD swaybars and a mild lift and that's what I plan to build.

+1 except for the mild lift...go big lol

To me, driver ability is king. Be it off road, on road or the race track, this never changes. The cheapest and best way to improve your car's ability is to become a better driver. However, there is merit in what Venom has said.

Absolutely! However, until I gain those skills I want a more capable Foz :iconwink:

 

[Ratbag]

Gidday NL

but I have driven various "real" 4WDs for well over 100,000 miles ... In almost all conditions ... often towing a tandem axle horse float, or other heavy live and dead loads.

I think you mean an obese 4WD Truck. Subies are real 4WDs...they're certainly not imaginary!

No, I didn't mean that.

I meant a "serious" military specification, flaming near indestructible, 4WD truck.

These vehicles are designed and built for a completely different purpose from the design and engineering of our vehicles.

Try towing a 1 tonne tandem axle horse float with around 1.2 tonnes of live load (horses) off-road with our vehicles. Good luck.

Our Subarus are NOT 4WD vehicles.
They ARE AWD vehicles.
There is a huge difference in design, engineering and capabilities.
Sometimes a lighter passenger type vehicle has a distinct advantage over a heavier commercial vehicle. This is rare.
Really prolonged, heavy abuse will usually lead to significant damage to the former, but not to the latter.

Try ploughing through 10 inch deep mud for 6~8 hours straight in our cars.
A Landcruiser will do it with complete equanimity.
Ours would generally be dead after the first hour - IF they lasted that long ...

Horses for courses, and all that.

 

[Barry]

... Sometimes a lighter passenger type vehicle has a distinct advantage over a heavier commercial vehicle. This is rare.
...

I always find it interesting to see winter footage of the Russian / German front in WW2.
Almost everything bogged in mud / snow / ice ... the exception usually being the 'Commander Wagons' - 4WD versions of the VW Beetle, with reduced gearing and raised bodies.
Abysmal conditions, but those little 1200cc flat engined, stripped down cars seemed to bob along like corks in the ocean, where heavier machines sunk into the snow and mud.

Of course, none of them probably made it anywhere near 100,000 km, let alone the 330,000 of my Outback. :biggrin:

 

[Ratbag]

Gidday Barry

I always find it interesting to see winter footage of the Russian / German front in WW2.
Almost everything bogged in mud / snow / ice ... the exception usually being the 'Commander Wagons' - 4WD versions of the VW Beetle, with reduced gearing and raised bodies.
Abysmal conditions, but those little 1200cc flat engined, stripped down cars seemed to bob along like corks in the ocean, where heavier machines sunk into the snow and mud.

Of course, none of them probably made it anywhere near 100,000 km, let alone the 330,000 of my Outback. :biggrin:

That's what I found with the first Brumby I drove. On wet grass and saturated black soil at Mt Barker, it would skip over it like a fairy (the old type ... ) where my LC would have become hopelessly bogged to its axles. Similar experiences with both Roo1 and Roo2.

However, that's about the only thing where there is a distinct advantage with our cars for off-road/nasty use. For sheer grunt, toughness, durability, towing ability, etc, the LC would easily win, every time.

That's OK. If those things suited my needs these days, I would own a LC, not a Subaru ...

In every driving situation - handling, performance, braking, comfort, economy, etc, etc ... the Subarus suit my needs these days FAR better than a "real" 4WD does.

I can easily see the case where the opposite is true. That's also fine.

As I said before - Horses for courses.

 

[NuZo]

How about this for an off road comparison then.

Stock EA82 Carb D/R Part time 4wd

vs

Stock EA82T MPFI D/R Fulltime 4wd.

Cheers,

Nuzo

 

[NachaLuva]

I meant a "serious" military specification, flaming near indestructible, 4WD truck.

Good luck driving that on the road! lol
While that 4WD truck is still only halfway to the offroad section, we will have comfortably cruised there & will have a cuppa waiting for you :rotfl:

Our Subarus are NOT 4WD vehicles.
They ARE AWD vehicles.

Some Subies ARE 4WDs...REAL 4WDs just not big, fat, ugly, obese, slow, bad-handling, petrol guzzling 4WD trucks!

I always find it interesting to see winter footage of the Russian / German front in WW2.
Almost everything bogged in mud / snow / ice ... the exception usually being the 'Commander Wagons' - 4WD versions of the VW Beetle, with reduced gearing and raised bodies.
Abysmal conditions, but those little 1200cc flat engined, stripped down cars seemed to bob along like corks in the ocean, where heavier machines sunk into the snow and mud.

Hell yeah!

That's what I found with the first Brumby I drove. On wet grass and saturated black soil at Mt Barker, it would skip over it like a fairy (the old type ... ) where my LC would have become hopelessly bogged to its axles. Similar experiences with both Roo1 and Roo2.

However, that's about the only thing where there is a distinct advantage with our cars for off-road/nasty use. For sheer grunt, toughness, durability, towing ability, etc, the LC would easily win, every time.

What about sand? I have read many stories on here of the big 4WDs getting stuck in soft sand where our light little Subies just "float" across the top of the sand.

Agreed that there are many times a big 4WD will be considerably more capable...just dont say our Subies arent "real"...they are as real as you & me! Perhaps call LCs, etc "big" 4WDs as opposed to "real"...unless you think we have imaginary cars

 

[Venom]

Turbo is certainly better. They boost low in the rev range giving some good useable torque offroad. Fulltime 4wd better on road, with vacuum centre diff lock so you get 50/50 split at the flick of a switch. So the gearbox is virtually the same between the two offroad.

The fulltime 4wd box what I have in my lib, awesome gearbox. By far the best bit of gear in my car.

 

[Rally]

I consider my Forrie a pretend 4WD. I don't like "real" 4WD's anyway except for the most extreme requirements

 

[NuZo]

Turbo is certainly better. They boost low in the rev range giving some good useable torque offroad. Fulltime 4wd better on road, with vacuum centre diff lock so you get 50/50 split at the flick of a switch. So the gearbox is virtually the same between the two offroad.

The fulltime 4wd box what I have in my lib, awesome gearbox. By far the best bit of gear in my car.

Hey Venom,

thanks for the reply!

Do the ea82t's have many problems compared to the ea82 carb?

Cheers,

Nuzo

 

[Venom]

Ea82t's can have head gasket problems, usually as a result of a cooling problem. A few rubber coolant hoses in very difficult to access spots that harden and crack with age. discopotatoe and a few others have done some hard work to make theirs reliable, their threads are worth reading if you seriously consider an 82 turbo.

 

[NachaLuva]

I consider my Forrie a pretend 4WD. I don't like "real" 4WD's anyway except for the most extreme requirements

 

[taza]

I consider my Forrie a pretend 4WD. I don't like "real" 4WD's anyway except for the most extreme requirements

My Foz is a real 4WD. It has 4 wheels that are driven. It goes many places a Commodore can't like over curbs, in water, up sand dunes, getting air on sand dunes, not crashing said Commodore in the wet on the way to see Grandma. Many places a standard road car won't go :lol:

My L-Series though is definately a real 4WD, it has everything but lift, more grunt and chunky tyres to make it an offroad weapon. By looking at most modern 4WD's though they aren't much better.

 

[stilson]

Real 4WD? No thanks, mines a jacked up rally car with a faux range. (I just have to remember to bring a book to read while I wait for the LCs and Patrols.)