offroad models

johnrowley

Forum Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
2
Location
Australia
Car Year
2011
Car Model
FORESTER
Transmission
Auto
Gday I am a new chum looking to pick some brains
I owned a Suby in the late 80s manual with high low 4x4

Im told things have changed, I am now looking for an auto - that is up to middle of the range off road , could anyone tell me the best models to go for say from 2006 to 2010.

I would appreciate some adise - Thanks Johnno
 
Hi mate. Welcome. Depends what model your after? Forester or Outback is a good start. Turbo oe non turbo?

All of the models in those years only have a 4 speed auto which is a slight downfall.

What are your plans for offroad use?
 
Mind you, I am in the US and there should be differences.
But, in short:

If OB, I would get a VDC H6 car. I would stay away from the H4 for a variety of reasons, ranging from less offroad capability to higher maintanance etc. VDC is important but I do not know if they all were programmed the same, esp. Pre and post 2008. At least utnil 2008 they also had vLSD in the rear. New cars do perfectly fine w/o it so if you get a VDC 2009 without lsd in the rear it is hardly a loss. All H6 are 5 EAT and the transmission is very good. The IV gen OB has a better cooling system and an improved H6.

As for Forester, ask others, but I would take an FXT with VDC.

The OB has a very poor approach angle, so you will have to deal with that, I think esp on the gen you are looking at.
 
XT Forester with decent shocks and tyres or H6 Outback if you want something with a bit of grunt. For the Forester, go with the SH model and for Outback, Gen 4. If you can live with the looks and squishy suspension of the Gen 5 Outback, get one of them. Otherwise, a non turbo H4 in both cases. Outback has more room and is more refined, Forester better off road and a bit smaller.
 
The Gen4 Outback with the H6 has the 5EAT, rather than the usual 4EAT like the XT Forester. So could be a better option.
 
But the 4EAT is a cheaper box to maintain/fix.
 
Gidday Johnno

and :welcome: to the ORS forum.

We have both an SH and SG Forester.

The SG is a Series II MY06 5MT/DR with the EJ-253 2.5L N/A engine. The EJ-253 is a better sorted engine than the EJ-251 in the Series I, with a lot broader torque range with better fuel economy. The useful torque band of the SII engine is about 600 rpm lower, and around 1,600 rpm higher than the SI).

The SH is an MY10 (2009) with the EJ-253 and 4EAT Sportshift auto. There are two versions of this transmission - with and without the Sportshift. The Sportshift has a transmission control unit made under license from Prodrive, and allows you to use the AT just like a manual if you choose, without wrecking the transmission. Anecdotal evidence supports Rally's statement. The 4EAT is a pretty bullet-proof transmission, apparently.
Some members who have driven both consider the Sportshift version to be far superior in every respect - "chalk and cheese" was one description!

SH models later than MY10 used the FB engine, which I don't particularly like, and dropped the 4EAT in favour of the Lineartronic, which I don't particularly like, either.

The SH is a better family car, with a lot more rear seat and leg room than my SG. It has a longer wheelbase, and is larger/higher all round.

I prefer my SG. It handles better both on and off road. My SWMBO prefers her SH. Just as well, I suppose ... :iconwink: :lol:.

[EDIT]
For any kind of off-road use, I would certainly look longest and hardest at a Forester. As someone has already said, the approach and departure angles aren't very good on the Outback (same problem as my '93 Impreza - too long in the nose ... ). Not that they are wonderful on the Foresters, just better than the OB.

IMO, the 2006-2008 Series II SG Foresters were the best that Subaru have ever made. The 2008-2010 SH comes a close second. Just IMHO, and FWIW.

[end edit]
 
Last edited:
One thing I particularly like about the 4EAT which I believe is not on the 5EAT is the ability to change oil and filter without removing the sump. I believe that the 4EAT uses Dexron3- a readily available and cheap ATF. My understanding is that the 5EAT uses a special ATF which is less readily available and costs more. The key to long transmission life is regular oil and filter changes.

With the SH vs SG, the SG is far better sorted with regards springs and shocks. However, I am reasonably confident aftermarket shocks would most likely fix that problem. The FB engine, at least in NA form, is a disappointment. No 2 ways about it. Considering it is a brand new engine, it lags a long way behind engines from the likes of Mazda and others. When I drove it, the only area I could notice an improvement over my SG1- and it was a noticeable improvement granted, was driving around town in 2nd gear turning into side streets. Hardly a giant leap for mankind.

I also agree with Ratbag about the CVT. I'd like to hear more about it's running and repair costs before heading down that path.
 
Oh, and the SH has those rotten framed doors which I definitely do not like.
 
Thanks everyone for the advice -looks like I have a lot to think about

Regards Johno
 
Rally said:
Oh, and the SH has those rotten framed doors which I definitely do not like.
Click to expand...

You and me both Rally!!

Subarus are not meant to have window frames on the doors!

Cheers

Bennie
 
Ratbag said:
Some members who have driven both consider the Sportshift version to be far superior in every respect - "chalk and cheese" was one description!
Click to expand...

I'm one of these members as mentioned by Ratbag.

It's pretty simple, if you want an auto Forester, get the Sportshift version! Otherwise get a manual...

The difference between the 2 transmissions is huge, even though all the gear ratios are the same, the centre diff design is different as well as the transmission control unit, as Ratbag said. The Prodrive Sportshift one is very handy around town, not too slow in spirited driving and very, very nice in splitting the torque between front and rear axles when offroading.

Have fun choosing a car!!
Pedro.
 
It took some pain, literally, to transition to windows with frames!
 
When I took an SH for a test drive, I whacked myself in the face with the door (frame). Glad it's not just me in a way.
 
^ etc ...

I must have kept in practice as we had Number 2 and Number 3 Mitsubishi Colts and the Camry when I had the Impreza (frameless). All of them had very strong, hard window frames ... I avoided walking into them, or hitting my head getting out of the car/s. My wife tends to drive around town when we are together ... :iconwink:.

I can see the structural and safety benefits of having the solid window frames, it's just that I think they are ugly after so long without them. Getting gob smacked by them is no fun, either ... :( :cry:.
 
The frames themselves are not structural. I notice other manufacturers are switching to frameless doors. And breaking your jaw is not my idea of safety either! :)
 
^ Maybe I didn't make it clear what I meant, Rally.

Like the huge flat-head bolt that locks into the door sill box sections at the bottom of the rear doors on the SH and beyond, the window frames will help to prevent penetration of the doors into the passenger cell under impact. Glass that is only supported at the bottom cannot do this.

I agree that the door frames would not add anything of significance to the torsional rigidity of the body shell, per se.

And I also agree that it hurts like buggery when one connects with that steel door frame with one's head - or shoulders, elbows, etc, for that matter :(.
 
Back to the original question, as Ratbag is fond of saying, to each her/his own.

What your Subaru can do will depend on you and then on how you modify it. Thus it would be pointless to argue which one would be best. In stock form, I will not exchange mine for any other Subaru except, perhaps, the latest FXT. Others prefer the earlier, smaller Foz models. And so on.

Thus maybe is best to say what models would be a poor choice. I would personally not consider any 1995-2009 (US model years) H4 OB a car with actual off-road abilities even though most of those model years would have a rear LSD.

My knowledge of Foz is paper-only and I cannot say much about the Australian versions, so I will say nothing except that the first Foz that attracted my attention was the 2009 FXT and the first to seriously interest me, the 2014 FXT.

I do not personally want a vehicle that suffers from diagonal spin and/or needs more than minimal aftermarket modifications to tackle serious terrain but many on this site find it fun to work on their cars.
 
MiddleAgeSubie said:
Back to the original question, as Ratbag is fond of saying, to each her/his own.
Click to expand...

Quite ...

What your Subaru can do will depend on you and then on how you modify it. Thus it would be pointless to argue which one would be best. In stock form, I will not exchange mine for any other Subaru except, perhaps, the latest FXT. Others prefer the earlier, smaller Foz models. And so on.

Thus maybe is best to say what models would be a poor choice. I would personally not consider any 1995-2009 (US model years) H4 OB a car with actual off-road abilities even though most of those model years would have a rear LSD.
Click to expand...

As I said before, fashion dictates front air dams that will not even clear many gutter curbs where there is front-in parking. Subaru are not exempt from this, and even my old '93 Impreza had a really lousy approach angle because of this. At least I don't have this problem with my Forester ... :biggrin:

My knowledge of Foz is paper-only and I cannot say much about the Australian versions, so I will say nothing except that the first Foz that attracted my attention was the 2009 FXT and the first to seriously interest me, the 2014 FXT.
Click to expand...

As I am also fond of saying, residents of the USA are used to cars that are a lot larger than we are used to here. When one has grown up with cars that are nimble and sure footed, it is very hard to accept cars that wallow on straight roads, let alone on corners.

I would also venture to say that US roads are far, far better than those in Oz as a general rule. In fact, the roads I drove on in the USA in the late 1960s were better than almost all roads in Oz today. These factors inform our choices and assessments of vehicles in many ways ...

I do not personally want a vehicle that suffers from diagonal spin and/or needs more than minimal aftermarket modifications to tackle serious terrain but many on this site find it fun to work on their cars.
Click to expand...

Even given your criticisms (based on your paper knowledge ... :iconwink:) of the failings of the pre-VDC etc cars, including the Foresters, I have had no such problems with my antiquated vLSD - either in the centre diff, or in the one in the rear that some have described as useless.

Having driven my Impreza that had a vLSD in the centre and open diffs at both ends for nearly 18 years under all sorts of conditions, I can't say that I ever had this problem with it, either; but I can tell the difference that the vLSD in the rear of my SG makes, however.

My really primitive 1968 LWB Landcruiser had a locked transfer case (when in 4WD HR or 4WD LR) and had open diffs front and rear. It seemed to work pretty well, even given its truly antiquated and agricultural design.

Perhaps the skill and experience of the driver are more important than some appear to think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top