Renegade Trailhawk

MiddleAgeSubie said:
Subaru is a completely irrelevant player in Europe, so frankly it does not really matter; few people will buy them either way considering that they are essentially a luxury product there.
Click to expand...

Subaru is not a luxury product in Europe, luxury brands are Mercedes-Benz, BMW…

Subaru sells their cars to people living in the Alpine region and the Scandinavian countries and to the rally fans of the 90's :iconwink:
 
jf1sf5 said:
Subaru is not a luxury product in Europe, luxury brands are Mercedes-Benz, BMW…

Subaru sells their cars to people living in the Alpine region and the Scandinavian countries and to the rally fans of the 90's :iconwink:
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, but the prices that Subaru charges in Europe are luxury car territory. More broadly, Japanese cars are pricier in Europe relative to local market than they are in the US. Also, you can spend a week in London, or in Paris, or in Rome. And see zero Subarus.

As you say, you need to go to the mountains or the far north, or to rally fans!, to see Subarus.

Ratbag,

My point is that you are still talking roads. I am talking trails. Trails in the US are the definition of "off-road" as the expression is typically used. Actual off-road is illegal almost everywhere. Trails are not roads insofar as they do not lead to any settlements or businesses. They are usually roads built half a century ago in search of minerals/service of mines. Some of them are maintained once a year or every few years and are county roads. Others are not maintained at all except by 4x4 clubs. Ditto for former forest roads that are still legal in the latest maps but no longer maintained by the forest service.

On dozens and dozens of these trails, just in the three states I go unpaved, you will not be taking but a handful of Subarus, like Vincent's, and most emphatically, you will not be taking there a stock one. That said, one will not be going there in the Renegade either.

I am not saying that conditions in the Australian OB are easy, I am saying that if you can take your Subaru there they are doable, so I imagine they are the same as what I drive here except even longer. Remember that it is hot and dry, desert climate where I live. You will not be taking your car or mine on many trails here, no matter your driving excellence. It would be interesting to see Vincent's in action, but that is a little far from stock;)
 
Here is an example of a low-end "difficult" trail I thought I might try as recently as this summer. The trail has eroded further, making my idea laughable. But this kind of erosion is typical:

https://www.traildamage.com/trails/report.php?id=1149

By contrast, even on small ledges, I need to use firewood or rocks to build them due to approach and departure angle limitations. And so, I have not gone beyond a 1', 30 cm ledge, nor do I plan to while I remain with mild mods.
 
MiddleAgeSubie said:
I know what you mean, but the prices that Subaru charges in Europe are luxury car territory. More broadly, Japanese cars are pricier in Europe relative to local market than they are in the US. Also, you can spend a week in London, or in Paris, or in Rome. And see zero Subarus.
Click to expand...

Cars are more expensive here, even the cheap ones ! And true, Subarus are more country side cars and because they didn't make any diesels before '09, they were not very popular in France nor Italy for example.


MiddleAgeSubie said:
On dozens and dozens of these trails, just in the three states I go unpaved, you will not be taking but a handful of Subarus, like Vincent's, and most emphatically, you will not be taking there a stock one. That said, one will not be going there in the Renegade either.
Click to expand...

Its me !
 
jf1sf5 said:
Cars are more expensive here, even the cheap ones ! And true, Subarus are more country side cars and because they didn't make any diesels before '09, they were not very popular in France nor Italy for example.

Its me !
Click to expand...

Right, yours! May be the most trail-ready Subaru I have read about. Kevin's maybe up there, too. Superu, who posted above, has driven a classic hard-core trail in his modified Legacy with Aussie gearbox. But even he needed a little help from a Toyota truck due to lack of sufficient break-over angle. What he drove then, Lockhart Basin is stuff the true Wrangler crowd (not the Wrangler crowd that goes no further than big box stores and fast food chains) drives all the time, not once every half a decade.

All this pushed us too far from the original topic, though.

The point is that the Renegade TrailHawk is no trail-ready off-roader. It will not go where the Rubicons go and it cannot be modified like a Wrangler can.

In addition, most people in the US that modify their vehicles, I would venture a guess, do so entirely for "looks." "Off-road" is, I would bet a penny, just a matter of "look tough" for most and that means trucks, giant tires, and big lifts.


The US is a big market and the Trailhawk trim will find its buyers, but I cannot help it and think that its existence is nothing but a nod to Jeep's heritage. One cannot sell scores and scores of specialized vehicles. But adding an off-road capable trim to each volume seller is the silver lining that allows perpetuating the perception and providing the 0.5% who care something they can actually use.

These days the average Subaru is a far more capable vehicle than the average Jeep. But that does not mean much when the going gets rough.
 
Yes, mine can handle most hard rated "trails" without problems.
 
MiddleAgeSubie said:
Ratbag,

My point is that you are still talking roads. I am talking trails. Trails in the US are the definition of "off-road" as the expression is typically used. Actual off-road is illegal almost everywhere. Trails are not roads insofar as they do not lead to any settlements or businesses. They are usually roads built half a century ago in search of minerals/service of mines. Some of them are maintained once a year or every few years and are county roads. Others are not maintained at all except by 4x4 clubs. Ditto for former forest roads that are still legal in the latest maps but no longer maintained by the forest service.

On dozens and dozens of these trails, just in the three states I go unpaved, you will not be taking but a handful of Subarus, like Vincent's, and most emphatically, you will not be taking there a stock one. That said, one will not be going there in the Renegade either.

I am not saying that conditions in the Australian OB are easy, I am saying that if you can take your Subaru there they are doable, so I imagine they are the same as what I drive here except even longer. Remember that it is hot and dry, desert climate where I live. You will not be taking your car or mine on many trails here, no matter your driving excellence. It would be interesting to see Vincent's in action, but that is a little far from stock;)
Click to expand...

There is simply no way I would regularly attempt things in my Impreza that I routinely do in my Forester. Same goes for driving a Tribeca, OB, Liberty/Legacy. The approach/departure angles of the Forester are adequate for what it is, and what I expect of it, which is to take me safely anywhere I am brave (stupid?) enough to drive it - and bring me home again afterwards ...

MiddleAgeSubie said:
Here is an example of a low-end "difficult" trail I thought I might try as recently as this summer. The trail has eroded further, making my idea laughable. But this kind of erosion is typical:

https://www.traildamage.com/trails/report.php?id=1149

By contrast, even on small ledges, I need to use firewood or rocks to build them due to approach and departure angle limitations. And so, I have not gone beyond a 1', 30 cm ledge, nor do I plan to while I remain with mild mods.
Click to expand...

{Repeat comments about approach/departure angles of Tribeca/OB/Legacy}. See also the 'small ledges' in the video I have linked below ...
These vehicles are simply not designed in stock form to do what you are stating they cannot do in stock form. This is hardly surprising ...

Even newer Foresters are reasonably well designed to do these things in stock form. No, they are not a Landcruiser Sahara with a 4.5L V8 (thank goodness ... ), however, they are very capable.

With a 1" lift in mine, the suspension will be at or about the maximum of the OEM spec range. This will be high enough for me without wrecking the vehicle's handling and braking dynamics. I do not plan on tackling slopes with an angle of greater than 25-30°. Having said that, I have been up and down 30°+ slopes in mine when stock with buggered rear suspension. It did it safely and without dramas. My '68 LC would have rolled and probably killed me in both cases.

Try here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7h-31AXxixg

Another non-technical rock climb here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5MNJlPY_6SM

And here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wXH3k_6eKYQ

More links here:

https://offroadsubarus.com/showpost.php?p=56699&postcount=2

and here:

https://offroadsubarus.com/showpost.php?p=56714&postcount=4

ALL of these are at Bunyip State Park, on marked "roads", within the Greater Melbourne area ...

There are plenty of other examples of Foresters doing what those Jeep drivers are doing, without even leaving our forum.

BTW, the definition of "road" here includes every variation on what you have described as "trails". The term "road" here is the legal term for any marked or surveyed road, track or something that exists only on a survey map somewhere, but does not exist as an identifiable thing in reality. These are marked as road reserves, RoW (Right of Way/Carriageway), etc, on the Australian Survey and Mapping maps, local government plans of subdivision, Parish Plans, etc.
I am unclear as to what, exactly, you are trying to say about these things. It appears to me that you are merely using slightly different terminology for exactly the same things - i.e. the concrete referent is identical in both cases.

Further to the site you posted a link to, from what I saw them doing I would never go out with any of them. I have seen enough videos of such vehicles being rolled in just such situations, and supposedly firm rock shelfs collapsing down the cliff face. Some people are still a living breathing proof of a Darwin Award waiting to be won ...

[EDIT] BTW, I can see Jeep selling a squillion of those. If they are reasonably well made, they will be exactly what many people want, for much the same reason/s they love Foresters. Love the description in JF's expedition portal link that describes the Forester as "too practical". That's precisely why I own one - 120 mph sports truck on the road, and surprisingly capable off road ... :poke: :biggrin: :cool: :rotfl:.
[End edit]
 
Last edited:
Yeah, ok, but I no longer even remember what the debate was all about.

I guess I said that Subaru is not considered an off-road brand in the US, its largest market by far, which is correct, whether we talk Subaru, its dealers, rangers/sheriff deputies, "wheelers," or the average car buyer. If it's offered as "off-road worthy" in Australia, that only supports my third point, see below.

I also said that Subaru does not care for off-road. This may seem more debatable, but I am at a loss how not maximizing angles, providing only a (barely) adequate battery, not providing LR, not even equipping some models with means of fixing gear ratios, not providing a full-size spare (or keeping it only after consumer pushback), not reinforcing the entire length of the rocker panel, and not offering an AT tire option at purchase can be interpreted otherwise.

Third, I ventured a guess that there is a key difference between what is considered "off-road" in Australia vs. the US. While I have not had the opportunity to visit, it is clear from this forum that when you say off-road you mean overland travel that may, of course, involve challenging situations of all sorts.

You do not seem to understand, however, that in the US the term "off-road" is understood not only as overland travel for the sake of going places, but also, indeed primarily, as the sport of tackling the toughest possible terrain. This typically involves modified Wranglers, old Cherokees, and Toyota trucks.

Now, we can debate endlessly the number of roads/trails where those vehicles are necessary and especially where their modified versions are a necessity and not a matter of looks. But not even Vincent's or Kevin's car will venture successfully on the hard-core trails that--no matter whether rightly or not--have become the standard bearers of "wheeling." Worse, a stock Subaru is far from ready from taking on even the difficult--but not extreme--trails that are worth driving for the purpose of scenery and getting places. I know "moderate" trails that I would not venture on with my mild mods.

Bottom line: if Subaru advertises more conservatively in the US, it probably is in part because they have a good understanding of what "off-road" is associated with here. And their vehicles meet neither what is actually needed, nor the "looks" that the off-road crowd generally covets.
 
In short, the off-road crowd in the US will reject the Renegade Trailhawk just as it rejected the Cherokee Trailhawk. Functionality is part of the reason, modification potential is another, and looks are a pretty big reason, too. Sure, it will attract a small sub-set of customers who are neither "wheelers," nor satisfied with what Subaru offers. But that's about it in the US.

I would expect the enormous majority to be regular, non-TH trims. Indeed, I would expect the Renegade to do far better worldwide than in the US.

In the US, the Cherokee TH was expected to provide 15-20% of Cherokee sales. No clue what the actual number is. However, I live in Wrangler country and the eye-test reveals exceptionally few TrailHawks, about as common as a Tribeca in a metro area of 5 million, with pretty much every Cherokee I see being a regular model. The same will be the case of the Renegade.
 
MiddleAgeSubie said:
Yeah, ok, but I no longer even remember what the debate was all about.
Click to expand...

Maybe re-read what you have written?

You do not seem to understand, however, that in the US the term "off-road" is understood not only as overland travel for the sake of going places, but also, indeed primarily, as the sport of tackling the toughest possible terrain. This typically involves modified Wranglers, old Cherokees, and Toyota trucks.
Click to expand...

It can be defined in whatever way a person wishes. If this is done specifically to exclude certain vehicles on some arbitrary basis, then it is nothing more than bias ...

Now, we can debate endlessly the number of roads/trails where those vehicles are necessary and especially where their modified versions are a necessity and not a matter of looks. But not even Vincent's or Kevin's car will venture successfully on the hard-core trails that--no matter whether rightly or not--have become the standard bearers of "wheeling." Worse, a stock Subaru is far from ready from taking on even the difficult--but not extreme--trails that are worth driving for the purpose of scenery and getting places. I know "moderate" trails that I would not venture on with my mild mods.
Click to expand...

As I have previously mentioned, I would not consider any of the un-modified Subaru vehicles I mentioned as being suitable for any kind of off-road use, regardless of how capable they might be in actual use (rather than theoretical use). The approach/departure angles of Legacy/Liberty, OB, Impreza and Tribeca make them all but completely unsuited to this use.

Without modifications, standard Foresters are suited for this kind of use, albeit with caveats. This latter is the case with every kind and make of vehicle that you have mentioned. NONE of them will go places that a Maybach half track or an Australian Bushmaster will happily go. It really depends on how one chooses to define things ...

You now mention 1) old, 2) modified vehicles. If one modifies even a relatively new Forester, it becomes remarkably capable in "true" off road situations. A "modified" "old" Subaru Sportswagon managed to get out of [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aJfQpHt9lY"]Mickey's hot tub[/ame] at Moab ...

Also look at [ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYuWnh_j70I"]Epic Jeep rollovers[/ame], for just one of many examples of the importance of vehicle stability in extreme circumstances ...
I mentioned before about the difference in stability between my '68 LC and my '06 Forester ...

Two relatively unmodified Subaru Sportswagons and an unmodified Subaru Brumby managed the first un-aided crossing of the Simpson Desert here in Oz back in the late 1970s. IIRC, they were the first consumer vehicles to achieve this ... How they even managed to navigate where they were going is all but miraculous to me (I have a DVD made from the film of this venture). How they managed to succeed is also quite amazing.
Perhaps they knew what they were doing, rather than just being gung-ho attention seekers?

Bottom line: if Subaru advertises more conservatively in the US, it probably is in part because they have a good understanding of what "off-road" is associated with here. And their vehicles meet neither what is actually needed, nor the "looks" that the off-road crowd generally covets.
Click to expand...

Perhaps Subaru US understands the apparent idiocy of the domestic market there? You do not have to go looking for trouble in such artificial ways to get yourself killed in this country!

If the above videos are the sort of thing you are contemplating, then we have a special name for people who do this kind of thing here in Oz ...

AND, form over substance is usually the winner in such markets. Particularly on Internet fora ... :rotfl:
 
That was a rhetorical question...
...
I purposefully avoid the term "off-road" in order to avoid certain associations...even on the forums. If I cared for the motorized scaling of boulders, I would not have bought a Subaru....
...
Basically, you agree with me, "...I would not consider any of the un-modified Subaru vehicles I mentioned as being suitable for any kind of off-road use...." But you still idealize the Forester. The 2014+ base Forester is either 1/MT without LR or 2/CVT without x-mode or paddle shifters. Your base 2015+ OB at least has CVT with x-mode and is thus more capable, approach angle notwithstanding.
...
The case of the Subie in the hot tub is irrelevant. That's hardly a road-worthy vehicle. Or a vehicle worth anything to anyone other than the owner.
...
I think your misunderstanding stems from this:

"It can be defined in whatever way a person wishes. If this is done specifically to exclude certain vehicles on some arbitrary basis,..."

Well, I am not talking PERSONS. I am talking MARKET. The MARKET demands #LookTough and, probably to a lesser extent, #GoWheeling.

Subaru, the Trailhawk versions of the Cherokee and the Renegade, and even the Grand Cherokee Overland 4x4, which will be far better on trail than the most modified Subaru, DO NOT PLAY in what the MARKET AS A WHOLE considers the OFF-ROAD category, whether we talk those who want capability or those who are happy with looks.

Hope it is clear now :)
...
That Bushmaster vehicle is too large and too heavy.

The perfect vehicle for US off-roading is the Jeep Wrangler Rubicon. A fully stock version with a skilled driver will handle all difficult and many hard-core trails. Nothing compares when it comes to crawl ratio, front and rear lockers plus BLD (like Subaru's VDC), articulation, angles, quick sway bar disconnects, structure, you name it, all comes stock. Because it excels off-road, it also is considered by the most authoritative magazine, Consumer Reports, the worst vehicle sold in the US when it comes to on-road.

And this is where Subaru or the off-road trims of Jeeps other than Wrangler come into play.

Everything is a compromise. What Subaru could do better is not to deprive us unnecessarily of little, but important things.

It does not seem to me that any of what you say disproves my points;)
 
The Jeeps you mention are useless off-road as well, AFAICS. Their roll angles in all directions make them unsafe in any off-road situation, and their total lack of body integrity means that their occupants have little chance of survival in all but the most benign of circumstances.

I have spent several hours watching videos that demonstrate this, over and over and over again. Google "epic jeep rollover" to see what I mean. They roll backwards, forwards, sideways, rear quarter and front quarter apparently with equal ease.

FYI, I do not idealise the Forester in any way.

Is it fit for my purposes? Yes. Specially with UHF radio, Spot EPIRB/tracker, cargo barrier, light bar, variable rate heavy duty rear springs/struts, sump guard, roo bar and tow bar. Mine will soon be fitted with a 1" strut lift to return my suspension height to the maximum of the OEM standard range. These items make the car ideal for my purposes, while still allowing me to safely rack up 1,000 kms in a day towing a camper trailer with ease (at 68 y.o. ... ).

I have driven very long distances in my LC, with a tonne in the back and towing a 2 tonne horse float. That was in my 20s ... It was bloody uncomfortable even then! One needed to drive within the vehicle's limitations (as with every vehicle), which were many. I can tow my CT with my Forester sitting on 100-120 kmh all day. I have also towed this trailer up a 30 deg muddy track without any hassles on several occasions.

The Forester is safe, comfortable and pleasant to drive in all situations that I intend to use it.

I think I can safely say that no Jeep satisfies any of these criteria. If I wanted to go exploring for minerals here, I would choose a diesel SWB Landcruiser.

Maybe you do not understand what I want/need in a vehicle - suffice it to say that I have not the slightest desire to drive off-road "for thrills". I have always been 'purpose oriented', and my current vehicles are no exception to this general rule.

Your wants/needs may be different. That's fine. However do not make the mistake of thinking or believing that your wants and needs are universally sought out by all.

Feel very free to buy a Jeep of your choice if that is what suits your wants/needs. If given one, I would sell it ...
 
Ugh. :)

We agree on pretty much everything. I am not sure where you get the idea that I want a Wrangler. As a third vehicle bought by someone else for me? Sure. But if I wanted a Jeep I would have bought one. If I could trust the Grand Cherokee and if I liked it otherwise, I might have bought its best trim. That's about it.

Those videos often recycle the same events and what they demonstrate is bad driving and bad ideas. The Wrangler Rubicon is far from rollover prone when properly driven and stock or properly modified. It is the readiest for off-road on the US market. No Defender here.

The difference is that I am talking market, not myself, while you talk about yourself, not the market....:)
 
I learned many years ago not to trust marketers, or the market. I don't even trust my own professional colleagues as a group ...

I can only ever make decisions based on my personal wants and needs.
This approach does not allow me ethically or in practice to make decisions for others, or to dictate what their wants/needs might be.

One of the single biggest contributors to the massive drop in the road toll here in Oz was the introduction of design rules that dictate roll angles for passenger vehicles. It is only fairly recently that these have applied (in part) to truck-based vehicles such as "real" 4WD vehicles here in Oz.

It concerns me greatly that many families here buy these trucks, thinking them to be safe. They are not. Those rollover videos of the Jeep highlight just how unstable these kinds of vehicles are. This instability negatively impacts primary safety - such as evasive capability, braking, handling and cornering, among other commonplace events that occur in daily driving.

I am a relentess proponent of people enjoying their vehicles and pursuits in a safe and legal way, such that they do not put either themselves or others at unnecessary risk. The people who appear to be championing the kind of off-road use in those videos appear to be nothing other than hoons, hooligans and lunatics who have no idea about safety, either their own or that of others.
 
Last edited:
I considered the Trailhawk before buying my Forester. I never test drove it but just read up on it etc. I thought the internal colour scheme was a bit much (with the red etc) and from memory it couldn't be lifted. The reputation Jeep has regarding reliability didn't help at all. Also, the front recovery tow-hooks weren't allowed in Australia for some reason which seems a bit odd as they were passed to be allowed on the Cherokee Trailhawk.
 
The only thing I would touch a Jeep with would be a wrecking ball. (my Son had a very bad experience with a brand new Wrangler that even broke down on the way home from the dealer! That was just the beginning of his woes. It's gone now thank heavens).
So very critical is "it will need to have lots of buyer appeal and absolute reassurance that the Jeep quality/reliability issues of old have been banished."
But, as usual, people will just buy it based on the adverts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top