Subaru Outback Forums banner
1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
After much research I've decided to sell my 04 Toy Sequoia and purchase a 2013 Outback, and although I did a search on this forum I could not find posts comparing the off-road ability of the 2.5 vs 3.6. I know that the AWD components are slightly different in the 2 but don't know how that would translate into real world situations. I'm an avid outdoor enthusiast so lots off muddy, boggy, sandy 2 tracks will be part of the equation. If the difference is significant I'm willing to pay extra in price and fuel for the 3.6.
Thanks for taking the time to reply if so inclined!
Dogwood
 

·
Premium Member
2012 Subaru Outback 2.5i Limited
Joined
·
961 Posts
If you can find a difference, then the OB is not for you. OB is not limited by any of its AWD systems, but more by its basic design (wagon on high heels). But among OB's competitors, OB has the best AWD system, regardless of engine or tranny choice.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,806 Posts
I have both an 07 Sequoia which gets packed with kids and grandparents and dog on a regular basis. The OB and the Sequoia are actually about the same minus the low range setting in the Sequoia. Given the Sequoia is really not very good on technical trails due to its size and the very short travel front suspension.

In regards to foul road conditions the OB regardless of which transmission and engine format is WAY WAY more sure footed than the sequoia simply due to weight - size and regardless of the AT choice the subaru AWD system is far quicker and more active than the old school system on the Sequoia.

When things are super ugly out the subaru MT - CVT or 5spd AT is my top choice given its just way better at keeping things controlled compared to the heavy Sequoia.

Having said that I do like the V8 in the sequoia but power in crappy road conditions and limitd traction is never a good thing. ;-)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I have both an 07 Sequoia which gets packed with kids and grandparents and dog on a regular basis. The OB and the Sequoia are actually about the same minus the low range setting in the Sequoia. Given the Sequoia is really not very good on technical trails due to its size and the very short travel front suspension.

In regards to foul road conditions the OB regardless of which transmission and engine format is WAY WAY more sure footed than the sequoia simply due to weight - size and regardless of the AT choice the subaru AWD system is far quicker and more active than the old school system on the Sequoia.

When things are super ugly out the subaru MT - CVT or 5spd AT is my top choice given its just way better at keeping things controlled compared to the heavy Sequoia.

Having said that I do like the V8 in the sequoia but power in crappy road conditions and limitd traction is never a good thing. ;-)
Thanks for the feedback. Invaluable comparison!
 

·
Premium Member
2012 Subaru Outback 2.5i Limited
Joined
·
961 Posts
Subisailor, doesn't your '07 sequoia have a full-time 4wd setting, allowing for 50/50 split under normal conditions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,806 Posts
It is 2wd - 4high and 4low. The 4high is a part time AWD system which is not Symmetric and not as active as the full time AWD systems subaru has in any Transmission format.

In slick snowy conditions my old Mt subaru and the new CVT are light years better and more sure footed than the Sequoia - also its weight has a large impact on this also.

From a handling perspective in crap road conditions the OB is far superior - the Sequoia does fine but no where near as stable for many reasons not just the less responsive AWD it has but weight and higher CG etc.
 

·
Premium Member
2012 Subaru Outback 2.5i Limited
Joined
·
961 Posts
Wow that's strange...I could swear that you could run 4HI on dry land...as a full time system. I thought that it had a similar system to the 4runner. You know it more than me since you have the vehicle, but **** my memory is failing me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,806 Posts
Wow that's strange...I could swear that you could run 4HI on dry land...as a full time system. I thought that it had a similar system to the 4runner. You know it more than me since you have the vehicle, but **** my memory is failing me.
4 hi - on dry ground is pointless unless suspension travel limits has you lifting tires off the ground and you need other tires to pull you. The sequoia is primarily built for pavement use and foul road conditions given its suspension travel is pretty lame.

The 4hi system is tolerant enough to run on dry pavement but as I said that has zero to do with why you would need AWD in the subaru or the Sequoia. Also the sequoia's system is not symmetric on very slick surfaces it likes to break loose sooner when turning one way vs the other simply because more power gets sent to one side vs the other which is where the symmetric concept comes in when AWD mechanicals are Symmetric from one side to the other the power delivery is more balanced and has less impact on traction from one side to the other when your turning on slick surfaces. Yes it makes a difference
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,806 Posts
By the way the full time AWD system my 93 Land cruiser had was far more balanced and drove much nicer in the snow than the Sequoia even with its shorter less stable wheel base.

Then again the AWD system in the J80 LC was better engineered and cost more to design vs the GM based AWD and transmission run in the 1999 and later LC - and Sequoia which is not as well built and balanced.
 

·
Premium Member
2012 Subaru Outback 2.5i Limited
Joined
·
961 Posts
Ok, so my memory is right. Sequoia has full time 4wd capability where it splits torque 50/50 over a mechanical center differential. It will shift power as needed to front and rear axles depending on traction. But with zero slippage, the center diff splits it 50/50. That was my point. And yes I know the system fairly well.

Now as far as being symmetric or not, I don't know. The 4runner system that I had was perfectly fine, especially with 4 wheel traction control and stability control. I doubt that it will make that much difference.

Sequoia made for on road and lame travel? What do you think the OB is made for?? Hardcore offroading?! :D
 

·
Premium Member
2012 Subaru Outback 2.5i Limited
Joined
·
961 Posts
By the way the full time AWD system my 93 Land cruiser had was far more balanced and drove much nicer in the snow than the Sequoia even with its shorter less stable wheel base.

Then again the AWD system in the J80 LC was better engineered and cost more to design vs the GM based AWD and transmission run in the 1999 and later LC - and Sequoia which is not as well built and balanced.
Full time plus traction control plus stability control will be superior to full time with open axles (even if u had lockers) in foul weather. Whether it is better built or not is your call. But effectiveness, I doubt it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,806 Posts
Ok, so my memory is right. Sequoia has full time 4wd capability where it splits torque 50/50 over a mechanical center differential. It will shift power as needed to front and rear axles depending on traction. But with zero slippage, the center diff splits it 50/50. That was my point. And yes I know the system fairly well.

Now as far as being symmetric or not, I don't know. The 4runner system that I had was perfectly fine, especially with 4 wheel traction control and stability control. I doubt that it will make that much difference.

Sequoia made for on road and lame travel? What do you think the OB is made for?? Hardcore offroading?! :D
Note my first post the "OB and Sequoia are not all that different off road".

My 4runner was part time 4x4 just like the Sequoia - it was very different than the full time AWD system in the Land Cruiser not even a comparison. Sure they both work but till you actually drive them both for many years through various conditions you don't realize that there is a very big difference between a high end full time AWD system and a part time 4x4 system. Simply not the same level of engineering and money spent in developing and making them.

The Sequoia's system is fine for its intended use but when compared to the subaru full time AWD regardless of the Sequoia's AWD sticker on the back and its manually selectable AWD setting is still not as good as the full time subaru system for slick roads etc. Add weight, higher CG etc and the subaru simply is far superior.
 

·
Registered
2013 OB Limited Twilight Blue
Joined
·
36 Posts
Dont know if this helps in anyway but thought I'd mention it. Took my '13 2.5 out to a local beach this last weekend. Guy asked if it was AWD, said yes & he let us on.... I passed 3 stuck pickups throughout the day in the "4x4 only section". When we stopped to setup our little spot the soft sand was almost to the bottom of the car and it did just fine. Wheels slipped maybe once or twice all day. For myself the 2.5 system has plenty of power for the situations I'd want to drive my car through.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,806 Posts
Dont know if this helps in anyway but thought I'd mention it. Took my '13 2.5 out to a local beach this last weekend. Guy asked if it was AWD, said yes & he let us on.... I passed 3 stuck pickups throughout the day in the "4x4 only section". When we stopped to setup our little spot the soft sand was almost to the bottom of the car and it did just fine. Wheels slipped maybe once or twice all day. For myself the 2.5 system has plenty of power for the situations I'd want to drive my car through.
Weight vs tire size is a big deal. All the subarus assuming your not packed super heavy have plenty of tire for their weight. The trucks on the other hand is a different story heavy truck and a stock tire in most cases equals sinking into the sand and bingo bobs your uncle your stuck. ;-)
 

·
Premium Member
2012 Subaru Outback 2.5i Limited
Joined
·
961 Posts
Actually, on SAND, stock tires will outperform most, if not all, terrain and/or mud terrain tires. The other key is to lower tire pressures in sand.

And, subiesailor, you need to learn more about 4wd systems! :D See: http://www.4x4abc.com/4WD101/abc5.html

This guy is a G-wagen owner and off-road enthusiast. He teaches off-roading.

The Sequoia is, by definition, a full-time 4wd system with 2wd capability. It is NOT a part-time system. The Subaru is AWD.

I think that the "difference" that you have felt has more to do with the different vehicles in question (Subaru vs. big heavy high off the ground Sequoia) rather than the drive/traction differences from their respective 4wd/AWD systems.

Then again the AWD system in the J80 LC was better engineered and cost more to design vs the GM based AWD and transmission run in the 1999 and later LC - and Sequoia which is not as well built and balanced.
This is news to me!! GM based???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,806 Posts
Thai - 1995 was the year Toyota started using GM technology in their Transmissions. The larger Toyota gas engines were actually copies of American engines with all that was done wrong with them - corrected. The 4.6L strait 6 I had in my Toyota was a near carbon copy to the GM strait six i rebuilt for a GM short bed stepside except Toyota did a number of things better including the simple aspect of higher quality parts and better tolerances etc.

Toyota and GM have been sharing engine and transmission designs for a long time now. It's not just a random chance that GM makes a 4.7L v8 as does Toyota.

GM developed a very nice lighter smaller 4L diesel which soon after it was mentioned Toyota was selling a new land cruiser over seas in other markets with a brand new ground up 4L diesel.
 

·
Premium Member
2012 Subaru Outback 2.5i Limited
Joined
·
961 Posts
Toyota and GM have been sharing engine and transmission designs for a long time now. It's not just a random chance that GM makes a 4.7L v8 as does Toyota.
Dude, for the love of all cars, PLEASE STOP SPEWING WRONG FACTOIDS!!! :(:rolleyes:

FYI, 2UZ-FE-type V8 gasoline engine (on Toyota Land Cruiser) was an enlarged/scaled up version of the 4-liter V8 1UZ-FE-type engine that was used in the Lexus LS400. This was done to increase torque down low (but at sacrifice of HP).

And here is a list of Toyota trannies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_A_transmission

Toyota trannies for the most part are made by Aisin-Warner. GM trannies may come from Aisin, but Toyota is the main shareholder...and also AW's main customers. GM and Ford are only minor customers.

STOP WRITING THINGS THAT YOU DON'T KNOW...STOP GIVING ADVICE ON SOMETHING THAT YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,806 Posts
Thai - design is not manufacture.
You do how ever like to challenge everyone don't you?

As for Gwagon i happen to be very good friends with the founder of the west coast Gwagon club and he has a Gwagon company. I can't even begin to write about all the discussions and nuts and bolts stuff I have talked with him over the years. He also is very good friends with one of the TOP Mercedes Transmission experts in the US a very wealthy and busy man who gets flown via private jet all over the US by dealers up to their elbows in angry customers with broken cars.

Truly facinating stuff when you can turn some bolts and fooling around doing some wild repairs with some of the most respected people in the industry. The off the shelf 4x4 and AWD system the Sequoia has is a far cheaper and not as nice system found on the older full time AWD Land cruisers hands down that is why the LC sold for 50-60-70,000 dollars while the Sequoia sold for 30 and 40K along with the pickup it was based on.

Regardless your normal every day person will never use any of these cars in conditions where the differences in the systems are made clear to them while sitting in the driver seat.
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top