Taza's Offroad Experiences - Low Range vs no Low Range

taza

taza

Forum Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Messages
3,820
Location
Perth, Western Australia
Well I will being with the whole turbo and non turbo thing.

Now that I have properly driven a Forester GT in manual with NO low range offroad and compared it to both a 2.5l non turbo Forester and 2.0l Forester both in manual With Low Range I have to say that the GT is more capable. I know I am eating my words but all that extra torque make a massive difference, you even have boost coming in at a low 1000rpm. I'd say there is more power down low than in a 2.5l N/A!

We tested the GT in some extremely boggy sand, up hill that went for a good few hundred meters. It had tight (35psi) road tyres and 3" of lift. It had the ability to go up the hill in 1st gear at 3000-4500rpm the whole way and had plenty of power to give. Now in my 2.0l Forester I can do the same hill screaming up in 1st low range at 5000rpm and might make it to the the top in the same situation. A 2.5l Outback with the crappy 1.119 low range will do the same hill much easier than the 2.0l in my Foz but not as easily as the GT.

Now this is where things quickly change.... If for some reason you have to stop and take off, it is much harder in the GT than my Forester. The Outback or SG/SH Foresters are in the same boat as the GT due to their crappy low range.
While my Foz I can just take off normally up hill or in a boggy spot and just drive out in 1st or 2nd Low. The others you have to either A. Ride the clutch or B. drop it drop the mid range RPM's and spin the wheels a fair bit to get you moving.

Now I am going with a 2.5l rebuilt motor in my Forester I think it will be much more capable and do these tasking without racing/thrashing the engine but still not that same as a GT.
Depending what people are doing offroad, the type of offroadingI'd recommend a turbo Subaru over non Turbo.
With a GT and offroading it(same goes for an XT in manual) I personally think the best bang for buck major mod you could do is to drop a SF Foorester box in with the semi decent 1.447.1 Low range.


Anyway I thought I'd share my experiences with you guys. Auto's will be coming up soon too in this thread, along with the older Subaru L-Series's and Brumby's from my Experience :iconwink:
 
Interesting to hear your thoughts on the EJ20 turbo/no LR vs EJ25 NA/1.19LR.

I've seen Pedro's XT in action...VERY impressive for a basically standard Foz with a little lift. Being an auto with locking centre certainly helps in many situations, esp on sand. The only thing I dont like bout the auto is less engine braking on steep descents.

Personally, I like the way you've gone with the EJ25 NA with 1.44LR. I have a feeling you'l never be satisfied with power till you've supercharged it though lol :lildevil::rotfl:
 
interesting taza how you found the GT better off-road then the 2.5 with the 1.19 low range.
what do you think will be better, a GT single range or the 2.5l combined with the 1.44 low range?

i also think this comparison is very dependent on what four wheel driving you do. sand and dune driving is very different to what we have have over east. most of the time we are not able to keep up moment and flog a car up a hill and the only option is to crawl, thus the lower the low range regardless of engine is better. This is most evident in the high country were i find that even the 1.44 is low enough to stop riding the clutch or provide enough engine breaking.
 
"better offroad" is a bit too vague for a proper comparison. They're very different. Clearly with no low range and turbo lag it a GT will struggle with low revs/high load. But on song with turbo going it'd **** on a EJ25. Any engine with a 1.44 low range is going to be better at low speed/high load sort of stuff.

GT would probably be better overall in the sand, as long as you don't stop somewhere soft. Then you're stuffed, and all the turbo power in the world is just smoking your clutch.

What is better? Personally i don't look at the stock cars and wonder. I piece together the best of both, and then ask myself what is the easiest/cheapest/least modification method to achiece it.

A gearbox change is clearly easier than an engine swap. So for my mind the GT is the best basis. Of those two.

Yet having observed Pezimm's automatic XT in action, i see a car with a great engine transmission combo that doesn't need to be touched. A little lift, bigger tyres and thats it. Sure an auto matic has crap engine braking, but seriously the Subaru low range is so poor your ride the brakes down steep descents anyway. It's essentially a moot point. Best of all no engine conversions or gearbox swaps. Easily to my mind the ideal path of the best capability with the least modification.
 
Gidday Venom

Venom said:
"better offroad" is a bit too vague for a proper comparison. They're very different. Clearly with no low range and turbo lag it a GT will struggle with low revs/high load. But on song with turbo going it'd **** on a EJ25. Any engine with a 1.44 low range is going to be better at low speed/high load sort of stuff.
Click to expand...

Agreed. "better" is a very elastic concept ...

For most purposes, the engine with the greater torque is almost always going to win in this kind of comparison; but then there's the shape of the torque curve; and the overall gear ratios; and how they both relate to the tyres/wheels and driving capabilities/style of the driver ...

I recall a situation in my youth where a guy in a V8 Fairlane was following me down the New England highway - the really curly bits ... I was in my "hot rod" Morris 1100 - 2" off the ground, would smash a coke can with the sump guard. For a heavy car with a small donk, it went like the clappers (comparatively speaking ... ). It would hold an MGB to around 105 mph (its top speed, at 7,000 rpm in top ... ). The Fairlane would come blasting up behind me on the straights, then not be able to pass because of the looming corner, lack of brakes and handling :lildevil:.
After the bottom of Moonbi Hill, it took him around 30 miles to catch up with me, then he blasted past, waved, and I never saw him after that ....
Horses for courses ...

GT would probably be better overall in the sand, as long as you don't stop somewhere soft. Then you're stuffed, and all the turbo power in the world is just smoking your clutch.
Click to expand...

Yeah. There are situations where you're better off with a tractor that has a top speed of around 30 km/h :rotfl:.

What is better? Personally i don't look at the stock cars and wonder. I piece together the best of both, and then ask myself what is the easiest/cheapest/least modification method to achiece it.
Click to expand...

One way of doing it ...
My preferred way is to make a list of what I want the car to do; then buy what will do that within its stock capabilities. 1968 LC deep-well ute for farm work and towing tandem horse float and other heavy trailers. 2006 2.5L N/A DR/5MT Forester for my needs these days ... The existing LR (1:1.196) suits my uses just fine.

As for the question of what's better - my answer is whatever best suits your own needs; not those of someone else ... :cool:

A gearbox change is clearly easier than an engine swap. So for my mind the GT is the best basis. Of those two.

Yet having observed Pezimm's automatic XT in action, i see a car with a great engine transmission combo that doesn't need to be touched. A little lift, bigger tyres and thats it. Sure an auto matic has crap engine braking, but seriously the Subaru low range is so poor your ride the brakes down steep descents anyway. It's essentially a moot point. Best of all no engine conversions or gearbox swaps. Easily to my mind the ideal path of the best capability with the least modification.
Click to expand...

Could not agree more. Like taking photographs, the wetware a few inches behind the viewfinder is considerably more important than what's a couple of inches in front of the viewfinder, almost all the time. Quite amazing how many people think that it's the other way round ...
 
I agree with Taza. 2200 RPM and above the GT had far more power than the 2.5 NA. And this GT didn't even have a healthy full power motor.

I believe even with single range a GT is superior to a 2.5 with 1.19 low range in sand. Even when taking off i think it would be. A 2.5T XT would easily destroy the NA. We effortlessly cruised through places that my 2.5 would never have done with the same amount of ease. Where we cruised through at 3000RPM half throttle (tight tires) the 2.5 would be 5000RPM foot to the floor to do the same.

Put a forester d/r box on a turbo Foz however and you have a real beast on your hands (as long as you manage not to destroy the gearbox ;)).
 
Very interesting points... I think there are multiple combinations within the Subaru scope of engines and transmissions that make up great offroaders.

Having seen some crazy performance from the H6 modified cars, Venom's Lib and Dulagarl's Foz, I can see that a big enough N/A engine is very capable mated with the right transmission...

In my case, the XT's performance and flexibility is ideal for what I want it to do. The auto in it is a pretty good match and the results in sand are just great! The weak point, as many picked it, is down-hill engine braking. I'm yet to test the "down-hill in reverse" trick... Going by reports, it seems to work on surface that is slippery enough.

I also need to declare that I'm saying all this without having driven a dual range N/A Subaru offroad, so not a complete experience base.

Pedro.
 
pezimm said:
In my case, the XT's performance and flexibility is ideal for what I want it to do. The auto in it is a pretty good match and the results in sand are just great! The weak point, as many picked it, is down-hill engine braking. I'm yet to test the "down-hill in reverse" trick... Going by reports, it seems to work on surface that is slippery enough.
Click to expand...

It certainly does well :monkeydance:

Not sure bout downhill in reverse though :shrug:
 
Gidday Pedro

pezimm said:
Very interesting points... I think there are multiple combinations within the Subaru scope of engines and transmissions that make up great offroaders.

Having seen some crazy performance from the H6 modified cars, Venom's Lib and Dulagarl's Foz, I can see that a big enough N/A engine is very capable mated with the right transmission...

In my case, the XT's performance and flexibility is ideal for what I want it to do. The auto in it is a pretty good match and the results in sand are just great! The weak point, as many picked it, is down-hill engine braking. I'm yet to test the "down-hill in reverse" trick... Going by reports, it seems to work on surface that is slippery enough.

I also need to declare that I'm saying all this without having driven a dual range N/A Subaru offroad, so not a complete experience base.

Pedro.
Click to expand...

I agree. ANY car has to suit the needs/wants of the driver ...

There is a general perception that a car has to be modified to blazes in order to perform to the owner's expectation. For many of us, this isn't the case. Nor do most of us have personal experience with any specific vehicle under all relevant conditions in order to sensibly form a view as to its suitability for any specific purpose.

During my long-ish life, I have driven well over 1,000 vehicles a minimum of around 50~100 miles. Quite a few kinds for many thousands of miles. It still doesn't make one an "expert" ("X" is the unknown factor; and a "spert" is a drip under pressure ... ) :iconwink: :rotfl:.

In my youth, I subscribed to every major car magazine for about 5 years. Read them all cover to cover. Didn't realise until near the end of that period that most of those writers had very little understanding of cars when it came down to it!! What a shock to my young system ... :confused: :huh: :mob: :shrug:

I still see the same BS being peddled today ... There is a word for it - rhymes with "bankers" and/or "cupid" ... :lol: :biggrin:.
 
Welcome to my world taza :ebiggrin:
The turbo does have it's advantages, by it also has some dis-advantages too :iconwink:

taza said:
Now this is where things quickly change.... If for some reason you have to stop and take off, it is much harder in the GT than my Forester. The Outback or SG/SH Foresters are in the same boat as the GT due to their crappy low range.
While my Foz I can just take off normally up hill or in a boggy spot and just drive out in 1st or 2nd Low. The others you have to either A. Ride the clutch or B. drop it drop the mid range RPM's and spin the wheels a fair bit to get you moving.
Click to expand...

Especially with hill climbs, as you have now discovered.

It does take a little practice, but all you have to do (easier said than done) is to find that little sweet spot (rev wise) & go from there :ebiggrin:

Regards
Mr Turbo
 
Interesting discussion, thanks for the observations Taza.

Are the low range gearboxes compatible with the turbos or will they be ripped to shreds?

I had no idea the dual range 'boxes in the Outbacks were so useless. Never really driven one before.

I've got the 3.0L with an automatic and it makes beach driving fairly easy. Just pop it back a gear or two and its got all the plenty of torque to blast up the dunes.

Setting off in soft sand is made easier by the snow/ice mode which starts the car in second gear. I turn it on and its gives me much better throttle control. I have to rev it to about 3K before the wheels even start moving, and then when they do, they do so very slowly making it crawl out nice and easy without digging a hole. Its also great on hills as it acts as a hill holder no matter what the incline. Very useful feature that.

As mentioned before, engine braking with the autos is an issue. Mines an old school 4-speed and it practically accelerates down hills so I'm forced to constantly ride the brakes. Exactly the same as my old Liberty RX. Hard to believe Subaru still sold new cars with the 4-speed up until only recently....
 
Shiv said:
As mentioned before, engine braking with the autos is an issue. Mines an old school 4-speed and it practically accelerates down hills so I'm forced to constantly ride the brakes. Exactly the same as my old Liberty RX. Hard to believe Subaru still sold new cars with the 4-speed up until only recently....
Click to expand...

i know what you mean, i went down a hill in "N" because the auto just kept trying to speed up!
 
Well i'm an auto convert never thought i would drive an auto off-road.
The only downer is lots of brakes down hill
My GT Forester is great on the steep hills it's harder to get it into boost but it still pulls all the way to the top and you don't have to give the car a hard time.
Mr turbo i agree with you about the sweet spot i remember a steep hill i went up, foot was flat only doing about 1600 rpm then it started to boost wow i thought with some sideways action i backed off and got to the top with a big grin.

Here is a video i put together 6 years ago give some comparisons of different cars the last one is auto

Jan

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iusgW94Q_RM&list=UU6j0kxMR-NTLpsNixRYAfxw&index=73"]Compare Subies - YouTube[/ame]
 
The problem I have in soft sand with my XT is with out low range I have to ride the clutch to get the power I need without spinning the tyres, if a tyre spins i'm stuffed, instantly bellied out, not enough throttle instant stall.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top