scubydoo diesel

Gidday PA

I have read road tests and various forum posts that reckon the electric steering is not as good as the hydraulic. I can think of a few reasons why this might be so, but don't know if any of them are correct, or not.

Both of ours have the hydraulic steering, as did our (sold) '93 Impreza. I like it.
I've never even test driven one with the electric steering, so have no personal experience of it at all.

Interested in your comments, as they seem to add weight to what I have already read. "Lack of feel/smoothness" and "twitchy" were words that I seem to recall being used.

Is that your experience of the difference between the two?
 
I drove an SH with electric steering. I did not know it had electric steering, and at the time I could not figure out what was wrong with it- the car was a demonstrator at the dealership. Turned me off electric steering as it was almost like an arcade game, it had no feel whatsoever. Drove a Mazda 6 with electric steering, which is noticeably better.
 
Without the caravan the Electric steering is fine
Im going to change the front steering geometry to reduce the caster that should improve its tracking a bit Also the front shocks are very week so a set in there are on the cards Just what type Im not settled on as yet
The steering cuts in and out when required Must be able to back it off a bit as well ME FINKS
Interesting when the engine is shut down the power steering works for a bit longer
Ist time i have had to play with the standard subaru setup A little disappointed
 
Gidday PA

pokeabout said:
Without the caravan the Electric steering is fine
Im going to change the front steering geometry to reduce the caster that should improve its tracking a bit Also the front shocks are very week so a set in there are on the cards Just what type Im not settled on as yet
The steering cuts in and out when required Must be able to back it off a bit as well ME FINKS
Interesting when the engine is shut down the power steering works for a bit longer
Ist time i have had to play with the standard subaru setup A little disappointed
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would be similarly disappointed.

The hydraulic power assist is very nice, IMO. Terrific at low speeds, but even at 60 km/h, both ours track like they are on rails. If anything, slightly more so than the '93 Impreza we sold.

I like the smoothness and road feel of the original steering. Not the slightest bit of that "floaty" feeling that the old American cars had, where one could be forgiven for wondering if the steering wheel was actually connected to the wheels, other than by telepathy, or something - or maybe a rubber band ... :iconwink: :puke:
 
I would have thought so.

I know with the SG, Subaru got most things right- the exception being the engine tune and the leaking head gaskets. The steering is reasonably good- substantially better than the SH's electric steering. Brakes are also most satisfactory. They have the ride/handling compromise well tuned. I bet they mourned the day that bloke left Subaru.


NachaLuva said:
Dont you mean increase the caster? More caster means less wandering & better tracking
Click to expand...
 
Gidday Rally

Rally said:
I know with the SG, Subaru got most things right
Click to expand...

I'll go along with that ... :iconwink: :biggrin:

- the exception being the engine tune and the leaking head gaskets.
Click to expand...

Only a problem with the early model EJ-25x donks, AFAIK.

The steering is reasonably good- substantially better than the SH's electric steering.
Click to expand...

SWMBO's SH has the hydraulic steering. It's an MY10 model (2009). Did they make the change when they stuck the FB engine in the SH? Or was it a feature of the XS models that they had the hydraulic steering? From the brochure I have for the 2012 models, it seems that only the diesel has the electric power steering??

Brakes are also most satisfactory.
Click to expand...

I find that they are more than merely adequate. I recall a test that Wheels did comparing the twin turbo Liberty with the Audi Quattro bi-turbo. They commented that the brakes felt better on the Audi, but they didn't work any better. Interesting comment, I thought.

They have the ride/handling compromise well tuned.
Click to expand...

I'd go along with that, too.
My Fox doesn't handle as well as the Impreza did, but I don't expect it to, either. It's a bigger, higher, heavier vehicle.

I bet they mourned the day that bloke left Subaru.
Click to expand...

I'll bet they did ...
Many of the changes (for the worse) seem to have come about while GM still owned a bucket load of the shares in Subaru. Perhaps these design changes were in the pipeline as a result of that, and will just have to flush through the system, as it were.

Bit like the changes that Ford made to Jaguar when they owned the company. Some were downright insane IMO.

Personally, I reckon that the series II SG up until the end of the MY10 SH were the best vehicles of this type that Subaru has ever produced. Our SH has a bucket load more interior room than my SG, and is a far better family car for that reason. I prefer my series II SG because it is smaller all round, and is nippy like the first Foresters up until the introduction of the SH. Each to their own.
 
I think electric steering was only on the diesel SH's. My understanding was that Subaru wanted to make the diesel very economical, and electric steering was part of that. When you look at the bigger diesel Mazda make, which has substantially more grunt and apparently better economy, Subaru not only got the new FB petrol engine wrong, but the diesel engine and the electric steering too. I can tell you the Mazda 2.5 petrol leaves the Subaru FB 2.5 for dead in economy and even more so in power.

My SG doesn't handle as well as my Impreza either, but like you I do not expect it to. I also agree the series 2 (MY06/07) was probably the best Forester made. Pity I have an MY04- I guess I will have to settle for second best!
 
Caster is toe out on turn camber is wheel lean in a straight line
to get + caster the upper ball joint is not directly above the lower it is slightly rearward this will make a wheel lean the further it is turned and is unlike camber which is obvious when the steering is straight camber is the top leaning in or out in a straight line I have very little or no camber
King pin inclination can resemble both caster and camber in a McPherson strut
caster/camber adjustment is achieved by the position of the steering bearing on the top of the strut tower If its made to be more rearward =+caster
+ camber is achieved by moving the bearing towards the opposite strut Adjustable bearing plates are made to achieve this desired affect with McPherson struts
My car has upper and lower control arms unlike older subs
The more caster = more toe out on turns also means less ability to re-centre when exiting a turn Not my problem but not desired with light steering
The less caster=heavier steering If you have ever seen the 2010 forester on full lock its resembles a motorbike in a corner Therefore it has tonnes of caster it can be backed of to make the steering centre a little better increase its weight and feel a little better "I hope"
The steering ratio is another issue thats very difficult to mess with without a rack and pinion mod and engineers certificate
 
You have a MY10 Forester? I thought it had McPherson struts with a lower control arm front & double wishbone rear?

"Negative camber" is where the top of the wheel leans in at the top, giving better cornering as the tyre sits flatter on the road as the car body leans over. In a Forester, negative camber achieved by moving the strut top in towards the opposite strut only if you have aftermarket adjustable strut tops. Otherwise its done by the factory camber bolt in the hub knuckle.

"Dynamic negative camber" is where the outside front wheel leans in more when turned, giving better "turn in" to corners.

From MRT's website:

"Caster is the backward or forward tilt of the steering axis." (which in our case is the strut)

"Q: Should I try adjusting caster or camber first to improve handling?
A: Caster, and here's why:
1. Camber doesn't improve turn-in, positive caster does.
2. Camber is not good for tyre wear.
3. Camber doesn't improve directional stability.
4. Camber adversely effects braking and acceleration.


Q: Is there such a thing as too much caster?
A: No, and here's why:
1. Maximize tyre contact patch during roll.
2. Improve turn-in response.
3. Increase directional stability.
4. Maximize tyre contact patch during braking and acceleration.
5. Improved steering feel and self-center increases dynamic negative camber (on turn"


I strongly suggest you discuss these things with someone like MRT before you reduce caster. The average wheel alignment joint doesnt even know you can adjust rear camber or front caster on a Foz :shake:
 
Last edited:
I'm really enjoying this read.

I daily live with 2 very contrasting cars - my 07 XT Forester which I am thankful I got when I did when I later saw what Subaru did to them (although I understand why and there are some real positives - ride, noise, room) - and my new mk7 Golf, also a turbo petrol designed with a completely different purpose but at the same time everyday daily transport trying to appeal to a vey wide audience like the Forester.

The Golf has 3rd generation electric steering, after it has been used on the mk5 & mk6. From all the reports being published they have now got it right. It's the future in steering and I'm certain that Subaru will get there too after another model or two. It's the European manufacturers who always lead with the new tech and then the Japanese (and now the Koreans) take it up later, making it cheaper and reliable. By comparison the steering on the SG series Forester is gluggy, inconsistent and numb compared with the fluidity and feel of the Golf.

The brakes? What brakes? does it still have them? that's my reaction now every time I get back in my Forester. I remember reading the first "Wheels" test of the XT Forester back in 2003 where they generally raved about the car. However they had one major reservation - the brakes. And to me they are the major weak link along with excessive road noise over coarse chip surfaces and the generally choppy ride on our less than perfect roads. The short wheelbase doesn't help there. My Forester's brakes are like long travel, dead, oil covered slippery feet compared with my Golf's brakes. And they are like every other Forester & Impreza (and to a lesser extent Liberty) brakes I've driven. They aren't even as good as our old Camry brakes and they were certainly nothing to write home about. There is no dynamic in my two cars that is as big a contrast. I guess we just get used to and accept what we generally use until one day something else opens our eyes.

My wife is definitely not a car person - she says as long as it goes, who cares & normally never makes a comment - but she has been reminding me every day she drives about the differences in the cars.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top