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

[stilson]

As a devout defender of the manual faith, I do disagree. In addition to their engine braking, they cost more to buy, more to fix, more to maintain, use more fuel, go through brake pads and discs more quickly, are slower and cannot be push started. In addition, they require additional underbody protection and are prone to overheat in sand or when towing. Finally, they are more boring to drive.

^this

 

[mr turbo]

Don't get me wrong the Soob's go good......
.....Great all rounders though and are very very capable offroad, especially with some slight mods like lift and tyres :iconwink:

Yes they are very capable & a lot more so than plenty of people give them credit for :ebiggrin:

Regards
Mr Turbo

 

[Venom]

In the newer or turbo cars were only 1.19 or a single range is available I would have to say an auto would be more superior offroad, especially if aiming to keep l series like ability offroad. simller than trying to fit a lower dual range. if my dual range box happens to give in to the H6 I will go a tt auto box. No concern with it holding up to power.

 

[bobbotron]

If we're talking other cars, I think the vitara, SX4 (lifted SX4's are actually pretty neat!), or nissan XTerra's are all pretty good competition.

Taza, you should get an old Suzuki Samuri, lift it and put wacky wheels on it and call it a day. Dooooo itttttt.

Edit, I think these are called Jimny Sierra's in your neck of the woods.

 

[Ratbag]

Gidday Venom

In the newer or turbo cars were only 1.19 or a single range is available I would have to say an auto would be more superior offroad, especially if aiming to keep l series like ability offroad. simller than trying to fit a lower dual range. if my dual range box happens to give in to the H6 I will go a tt auto box. No concern with it holding up to power.

Our auto 2.5 N/A Fox is a nice car to drive, and has what I consider to be a good auto box, but no way would I even start to compare it with our 2.5 N/A 5MT DR Fox equipped with the "puny" and Useless" 1.196:1 LR off road.

Sorry, but frankly it's nonsense to suggest that the auto box is preferable for off road use by a reasonably experienced and capable driver.

In the hands of someone with limited experience of driving, or of using a DR box, it may be the case; but that would be the only exception, IMNSHO.

The plain BS that's being heaped on this LR ratio here amazes me.
The way people talk about it one could be forgiven for thinking that it's an overdrive, not a reduction gear; and that they had driven one ...

 

[Venom]

I'm talking based on what i have seen, and experienced. I don't talk crap and i don't talk at all when i don't feel i have a well justified point of view.

The OT of this thread is in terms of finding comparable L series offroad capability in a newer Subaru.

We did the Wyperfeld trip which included a 1.19 and an auto. Poles apart. I'd prefer an auto to clouds of clutch smoke and getting stuck when everyone else (including my car when it had NO low range) got through. Pretty good real world comparison.

The main offoading draw back to auto's is the decent control, but reality is all Subaru low range is useless for any serious decent and we all ride the brakes anyway. Cost and reliable of autos are all well know and most people will be aware of them when they go down that route. Chuck on an oil cooler and overheating is not a serious concern.

Having owned and offroader a dual range L series, a single range H6 and a tricked out dual range H6, an auto turbo L series and a MY dual range wagon. All of which i still have minus the manual L series. I've driven Pedro's XT auto, Bennie's car, Dulagarl, and Subaruby. I've done multiple trips in a variety of terrains from high country, mud, granite to beach and desert all in Subarus. Accompanied by a broad selection of "offroading" subarus, as well as the odd Landcruiser and Range Rover. My conclusions are based on those observations. From a variety of discussions on these trips around the camp fire my conclusions also pretty closely follow that of the others that go on these trips. It is from this basis that i express my point of view. I have spent a number of years over my time owning Subaru's just contemplating the drivetrain, a number of years collecting parts and buidling to come arrive at the final product which is my Liberty. It's not an accident it is so good offroad and on. Anyone else that has seen it offroad will tell you how impressive it is.

I spent time in the military driving a variety of tracked and wheeled vehicles offroad doing things that made me come close to changing underwear, but really it's so far away from the challenge of offroading a Subaru i don't consider such things relevant. General offroad experience aside.

Considering all of that my point of view regards to gearing, crawl and climb ability a 1.49 is a very close second best to the L series, an auto is probably comparable in its cabality to an L series. Considering the various pro's/con's of the vehicles as a whole they probably come pretty close. 1.19 is a distant 4th. 5th if you're considering MY wagons, although they would lose out on a creature comforts comparison. The only thing the 1.19 may hold over the other vehicles is some extra HP/NM, which is eclipse in more extreme circumstaces by the gearing of the other vehicles.

If someone where to provide me with information or first hand experience that would allow me to arrive at a different conclusion that would be fantastic. Or just as good point out a flaw in my logic. I want to make sure my logic is as sound, well reasoned and based on as much fact as possible.

True there is some BS getting around. I think it's the responsibility of people who have more experience to balance those views by expressing their opinions.

 

[Kevin]

Sorry, but frankly it's nonsense to suggest that the auto box is preferable for off road use by a reasonably experienced and capable driver.

"Nonsense" - I think not. Others here can attest that I am "a reasonably experienced and capable driver" and I prefer auto for offroad - even went auto for the Triton (which also has low range) :iconwink:


Anyway - I think this thread should get back on topic.

 

[NachaLuva]

What Venom said!

Plus I also agree with Kevin. Having driven 2WDs in lots of dodgy situations in my kayaking/bushwalking days, I'm well experienced in getting bogged! lol. I know from experience its far easier to crawl out of mud with an auto than with a manual to avoid wheel spin which breaks the surface & instantly bogs you. This would be true of sand as well although I havent had that particular 2WD experience.

Having seen Pedros auto on sand, any doubts of an auto on sand would be foolish. Overheating aside which an AT cooler would fix.

I've also witnessed several cars in my limited 4WD experience be consumed in clouds of clutch smoke in steep ascents. I would rather avoid that smell & cost!

Also, unless you can "heel & toe" with great skill, on steep rocky terrain like Gentle Annie you are required to give bursts of accelerator/riding the clutch followed by sudden braking to avoid car damage. With an auto you would simply use a go-cart technique, one foot on either pedal...simple! Plus no burning the clutch and better wheel spin control.

As for Rallys comments, I also agree with them. Manuals have fewer hassles & are more fun to drive

To get back on topic lol (do we have to? This is great reading haha) I love the Foz's ability AND the L-series low range...why not combine the two!!!

 

[Rally]

My comments were meant to be light hearted TIC, although I still believe in the merits of the manual with dual range, there are obviously some instances when the auto is better. Time to smell the roses...

 

[thunder039]

sounds like i opened a can of worms suggesting the word 'auto' :lol:
i don't believe that auto's are better then manuals i was just stating that in comparison of the l series to a new subaru,(which is what the thread is based on) i would choose a auto over the 1.19 available to the forester (which will probably loose it with the next model anyway)

 

[mr turbo]

Others here can attest that I am "a reasonably experienced and capable driver" and I prefer auto for offroad - even went auto for the Triton (which also has low range) :iconwink:

I'll have to agree with Kevin too.
While I do prefer a manual, I have on many an occasion wished I'd had an auto whilst I've been offroading.
But thats just me :iconwink:

Anyway - I think this thread should get back on topic.

Ditto

Regards
Mr Turbo

 

[NachaLuva]

Anyway - I think this thread should get back on topic.

Ditto

Awwww...but we're having such fun! Can't we stay up a bit longer, pleeeease? :rotfl:

My comments were meant to be light hearted TIC, although I still believe in the merits of the manual with dual range, there are obviously some instances when the auto is better. Time to smell the roses...

OK, I forget you have a dry sense of humour lol :rotfl:

 

[Ratbag]

It's one thing [EDIT] for anyone here (self included) [end edit]to express an opinion.
Another altogether to insist that others either agree or defer to that opinion.

 

[El_Freddo]

Our auto 2.5 N/A Fox is a nice car to drive, and has what I consider to be a good auto box, but no way would I even start to compare it with our 2.5 N/A 5MT DR Fox equipped with the "puny" and Useless" 1.196:1 LR off road.

Sorry, but frankly it's nonsense to suggest that the auto box is preferable for off road use by a reasonably experienced and capable driver.

I would be looking at what the comp boys are running and go from there. From what I've seen there are more and more that are running autos. Why? One thing is they can crawl a pot load slower than any manual - you can't stand still with a manual and the clutch engaged in gear. Also if you've got the right auto it can take much much more punishment than a manual can with those beefed up engines. It's the same with subarus - the sole reason why the H6's only come in auto from the factory. Some joe blow can't destroy the auto gearbox with the H6 when they do something very stupid in it like they would if it were manual.

In the hands of someone with limited experience of driving, or of using a DR box, it may be the case; but that would be the only exception, IMNSHO.

Ok, maybe - but I would go as far to say that while you don't need to think about gear selection in the auto you do need to think more about controlling the car in an offroad situation in comparison to what the common auto driver would be used to, hence you'd need more 4wd experience to safely push the auto to get the most out of it. In terms of a beginner with an auto and drive train abuse it would be a good way to learn. But in the control side of things I'd be very cautious with a beginner.

And what's IMNSHO?? I'm tired of trying to work out all these new super long abbreviations to the point that I sometimes don't bother reading posts with a series of these imbedded in the text.

The plain BS that's being heaped on this LR ratio here amazes me.
The way people talk about it one could be forgiven for thinking that it's an overdrive, not a reduction gear; and that they had driven one ...

Which low range are you talking about - the 1.19:1, the 1.47:1 or the 1.59:1? I've personally driven the 1.19:1 and the 1.59:1. I can tell you that the 1.19:1 is useless for anything offroad. If you don't believe me, even with your EJ25, I suggest that you come out with me for a day and I'll select some moderate tracks we do for you to test out your "low range". The only good thing about the 1.19:1 low range is that a) we've got a dual range EJ gearbox unlike the US and b) it can be swapped for the 1.47:1 or the 1.59:1 with a bit more work.

Driving in traffic with the low range engaged is plain lazy driving in my opinion.

It's one thing [EDIT] for anyone here (self included) [end edit]to express an opinion.
Another altogether to insist that others either agree or defer to that opinion.

Expressing an opinion can be miss leading. Experience speaks volumes and for those with experience in the matter who are then engaged in an argument about something that's irrelevant to the topic can be miss leading and confusing to the OP who's looking for advice (from experience, not just opinions alone).

For the OP and to get this thread back on topic, the L series is a great base to start with for offroading, but many mods will be needed to get the most out of it and to build on it's capabilities.

The foz is much more comfortable but there is a small catch:

The 2L foz has the good low range of the EJ series - the 1.47:1 BUT it comes with the EJ20 which most on here will say is just less than adequate. I certainly wouldn't hold out on your requirement of "something that will actually pull up a hill on the highway" especially when loaded up for a decent touring trip. The member that I think is best to comment on this highway driving point is Nachaluva - he's got the 2L foz in question.

The 2.5L foz is once again a good choice for the powerplant, but it comes with the 1.19:1 low range, which if you're into a decent sand driving or hill climbing with some rough stuff will not be up to the task to keep speeds down and look after the vehicle. Either a low range swap can be done or source a good 2L foz box to swap in for the better low range.

Personally if it were me, while I love my L series, if loads of mods are not on the cards I'd be looking at the EJ25 foz with the dodgy low range and either swap the gearbox for the 2L foz box with 1.47:1 low range or do the 1.59:1 low range swap (ultimately the best setup in my book). From here there would be some form of lift and tyres then customising a camping setup in the rear cargo area. I'd also be looking at something around the 2000 to 2002 models, but again, that's my personal choice.

Loads of reading and research into other's builds and experiences/advice is always key to a well setup vehicle. I've learnt this method of vehicle building since joining a forum many years ago. My L series is a testament to this time on the forums.

For now though, I'll stick with my "tricked" out L series

Cheers

Bennie

 

[Ratbag]

Bennie, I'm not in the mood for this.

You are entitled to your opinion (of course).

Perhaps all manufacturers did stop making "real" cars in 1991, but I doubt it.

My own hands-on experience with all kinds of vehicles (including cars ... ) goes back to around 1960. I also hold a National Heavies licence. You can make of all that what you will as to whether I have any "right" to hold any opinions, and whether there might be any basis in fact and experience for any of those opinions.

I will leave it at that.

BTW, as for the acronym IMNSHO, see here, or perhaps here.

These acronyms are in extremely common usage all over the Net. Perhaps us silly old farts just might know the occasional thing or two, after all.

 

[aware]

What is it with the forums lately? It is ridiculous.

People have differing opinions - surely that has been established. But what is with the 'my opinion is better than yours' and vice versa. Are we all 5 years old or something?

 

[thunder039]

What is it with the forums lately? It is ridiculous.

People have differing opinions - surely that has been established. But what is with the 'my opinion is better than yours' and vice versa. Are we all 5 years old or something?

amen (btw not in a religious way:lol

 

[Ratbag]

Gidday Aware & Thunder

What is it with the forums lately? It is ridiculous.

People have differing opinions - surely that has been established. But what is with the 'my opinion is better than yours' and vice versa. Are we all 5 years old or something?

Precisely why I answered as I did.

I spent most of yesterday having a 'sort of' cardiovascular event ["CVE"]. These vary from making me feel very ill to entailing a trip to Epworth by ambulance. My cardiologist does not know what causes them. I have not had one like this for about 2 years now, and thought that maybe they were behind me. Patently not. They usually leave me feeling flat and mentally and physically exhausted for a day or so afterwards - i.e. not in the mood for extended 'discussions' as to why I should feel short-changed by something that suits me perfectly well ...

Having driven my MY06 some 4,000 kms now, I have yet to find any situation where I even considered it possibly necessary to think about having a lower LR ratio than it came with. As Rally (IIRC, could have been Mr T; or both of them ... ) stated that an individual driver's experience and ability is mostly going to count for more than the capability of any specific type of vehicle. I have also read many others express the same opinion.

Maybe I just don't expect it to tackle the sorts of things that either my LC or any of our 4WD tractors would routinely be used for? I thought I had made this more than abundantly clear, on many occasions. Perhaps I should qualify every single post I make here with a statement to this effect?

I really do not care one hair on a bullock's bum if the LR ratio in the SG Foresters suits someone else or not.
I do not care if some other person can gain some real or possibly imaginary advantage by having some other LR ratio fitted. I'm not stopping them ...
That is their decision; and their absolute right.

What I do not get is why those people feel free to castigate others about what suits said others.

 

[aware]

Gidday Aware & Thunder



Precisely why I answered as I did.

I spent most of yesterday having a 'sort of' cardiovascular event ["CVE"]. These vary from making me feel very ill to entailing a trip to Epworth by ambulance. My cardiologist does not know what causes them. I have not had one like this for about 2 years now, and thought that maybe they were behind me. Patently not. They usually leave me feeling flat and mentally and physically exhausted for a day or so afterwards - i.e. not in the mood for extended 'discussions' as to why I should feel short-changed by something that suits me perfectly well ...

Sorry to hear that Ratbag. Not good to hear.

What I do not get is why those people feel free to castigate others about what suits said others.

My point exactly! I'm happy to see an open discussion, but not when it turns to those sort of comments. We should be able to have a discussion, which takes into account a lot of different points of view without resorting to continuous arguments and so on.

 

[NachaLuva]

One thing is they can crawl a pot load slower than any manual - you can't stand still with a manual and the clutch engaged in gear. Also if you've got the right auto it can take much much more punishment than a manual can with those beefed up engines. It's the same with subarus - the sole reason why the H6's only come in auto from the factory. Some joe blow can't destroy the auto gearbox with the H6 when they do something very stupid in it like they would if it were manual.

Exactly right...I agree 100%

Which low range are you talking about - the 1.19:1, the 1.47:1 or the 1.59:1? I've personally driven the 1.19:1 and the 1.59:1. I can tell you that the 1.19:1 is useless for anything offroad. If you don't believe me, even with your EJ25, I suggest that you come out with me for a day and I'll select some moderate tracks we do for you to test out your "low range". The only good thing about the 1.19:1 low range is that a) we've got a dual range EJ gearbox unlike the US and b) it can be swapped for the 1.47:1 or the 1.59:1 with a bit more work.

Agree 100% here too...

The 2L foz has the good low range of the EJ series - the 1.47:1 BUT it comes with the EJ20 which most on here will say is just less than adequate. I certainly wouldn't hold out on your requirement of "something that will actually pull up a hill on the highway" especially when loaded up for a decent touring trip. The member that I think is best to comment on this highway driving point is Nachaluva - he's got the 2L foz in question.

Also Thunder and Taza, although Taza's engine is down on power. Cant wait to hear his opinion of the EJ20 when he gets his new engine. And unfortunately Thunder's just blew up

For now though, I'll stick with my "tricked" out L series

I dont blame you, its very capable!

What is it with the forums lately? It is ridiculous.

People have differing opinions - surely that has been established. But what is with the 'my opinion is better than yours' and vice versa. Are we all 5 years old or something?

Yeah great point! :iconwink:

amen (btw not in a religious way:lol

:rotfl:

not in the mood for extended 'discussions' as to why I should feel short-changed by something that suits me perfectly well ...

Sorry you're not feeling well...hope you come good soon RB.

This is the point, that your LR suits the sort of offroading you want to do but its not for everyone. Others might want to tackle steeper, rockier hills where a 1.19:1 LR just wont cut it, even with a EJ25 or even a H6! Just ask Venom.

The whole point is that we all have different requirements...for some a 1.19:1 DR Foz is fine, for others 1.447:1 DR Foz is a minimum, & others the 1.59:1 DR L-series is the bees knees.