Honda 4x4s... not actually 4x4
Discussion
Coolbanana said:
brickwall said:
Not sure of the exact technicalities, but I think the Disco had:
- Locking front and centre diffs
- More effective traction control that mimics a locking rear diff
- An ability to send torque to different axles more flexibly than the Q5 (though not sure on this one)
Pretty much - ignoring the likes of the LR Defender and Jeep Wrangler etc, SUV's like the LR Disco/RR / Jeep GC / Mitsubishi Shogun / Toyota LC and the like have much better 4x4 systems including a low range than the soft-roaders like the X5, Q5/7, X-Trail's etc have- Locking front and centre diffs
- More effective traction control that mimics a locking rear diff
- An ability to send torque to different axles more flexibly than the Q5 (though not sure on this one)
Tyres make a huge difference.
mwstewart said:
hondafanatic said:
Why am I a bit of tard? Just out of interest...
They are vehciles designed for on road use that but saddled with the high ground clearance and poor aerodyanmics - i.e. the compormises - associated with a vehcile designed for off-road ability. They aren't in the same league as other vehciles with those similar compromises, either on or off road. To me they are just a fad.Sheepshanks said:
jackh707 said:
The original Mk1 CRV was quite good in comparison.
No electronic goodies and a good old fashioned viscous coupling, front wheels slip... Sends drive to the rear, key is to keep your foot in and keep the fronts spinning on slippery surfaces.
Suprisingly fun at oversteer in a snowy car park or at the beach. Loved mine, far more capable than the newer ones.
I read somewhere that AWD is used so infrequently that on older CRVs (not sure if this is series specific) it hardly ever works when called for.No electronic goodies and a good old fashioned viscous coupling, front wheels slip... Sends drive to the rear, key is to keep your foot in and keep the fronts spinning on slippery surfaces.
Suprisingly fun at oversteer in a snowy car park or at the beach. Loved mine, far more capable than the newer ones. You have to be ready to catch it when the rear engages - it goes from straight lining understeer to oversteer, so you it nearly caught me out at first.
Comedy "blizzard" tyres on the front were better than I expected.
Coolbanana said:
The Disco and X5 are in a completely different league in terms of ability and aimed at different customers. The X5 is road biased with some basic Trail ability whereas the Disco is far better off-road but not as composed on the tarmac.
the disco and X5 share the same transfer case, ie, they operate in exactly the same way.both are effectively SW controlled, and can transmit all drive to either end of the car.
Scuffers said:
the disco and X5 share the same transfer case, ie, they operate in exactly the same way.
both are effectively SW controlled, and can transmit all drive to either end of the car.
So, you are suggesting that an X5 is just as good off-road - assuming same tyres on each vehicle - as a Disco 3/4? both are effectively SW controlled, and can transmit all drive to either end of the car.
Seriously?
Have you ever done any serious off-roading in either? Or tried to, in the X5's case?
Coolbanana said:
Scuffers said:
the disco and X5 share the same transfer case, ie, they operate in exactly the same way.
both are effectively SW controlled, and can transmit all drive to either end of the car.
So, you are suggesting that an X5 is just as good off-road - assuming same tyres on each vehicle - as a Disco 3/4? both are effectively SW controlled, and can transmit all drive to either end of the car.
Seriously?
Have you ever done any serious off-roading in either? Or tried to, in the X5's case?
in the context of traction abilities (not suspension travel, etc) then yes, they are pretty much the same.
No, that does not mean I would take a X5 rock climbing or bogging, but that's not the subject of this thread is it?
(and yes, just to answer you impetuous question, I have done quite a bit of off-roading, both at home in the UK and overseas, however, it has no relevance to this thread.)
Just to spell it out, the thread is about the good/bad implementations of 4WD systems and how some are extremely limited - it is not a thread on the off-roading abilities of various 4x4's.
NomduJour said:
Not really. No Land Rover has a locking front diff from the factory, and not many have locking rear diffs. Discovery and RR Sport no longer all have a low range box - those ones have a Torsen centre diff and 42/58 torque split rather than the usual 50/50.
Tyres make a huge difference.
No one is saying tyres do not make a major difference - I was comparing a level playing field with each model using the same tyres. Tyres make a huge difference.
It is true that you can get models of the main 4x4 manufacturers that have the 42/58 torque split option but you can get a 50/50 torque split in the RRS.
They offer: "One set-up will suit the minority of owners who'll be venturing off road, providing a two-speed transfer case with low-range option, plus a front/rear 50/50 percent default torque split and 100 percent locking capability. The other system is designed for those whose 'off piste' use of this car will be slight. Here, the 4x4 layout is 18kg lighter and features a single-speed transfer case with a Torsen differential. In this case, a default front-rear torque split of 42/58 percent is designed to provide a rear-wheel drive bias for optimum road driving dynamics"
You make a choice, an SUV like the X5 which is road-biased or an SUV which is a true 4x4 and off-road biased.
I'm surprised there isn't some official classification for 4WD but perhaps the fact that most people don't even notice makes it unnecessary.
As a Forester owner just about to take it out into the snow for the first time, I shall reserve any smugness until I get back safely.
Be a bit heartbreaking to slag Honda off then go and find I can't get out of my street
As a Forester owner just about to take it out into the snow for the first time, I shall reserve any smugness until I get back safely.
Be a bit heartbreaking to slag Honda off then go and find I can't get out of my street
Scuffers said:
why did I know that was coming?
in the context of traction abilities (not suspension travel, etc) then yes, they are pretty much the same.
No, that does not mean I would take a X5 rock climbing or bogging, but that's not the subject of this thread is it?
(and yes, just to answer you impetuous question, I have done quite a bit of off-roading, both at home in the UK and overseas, however, it has no relevance to this thread.)
Just to spell it out, the thread is about the good/bad implementations of 4WD systems and how some are extremely limited - it is not a thread on the off-roading abilities of various 4x4's.
Calm down dear, your blood pressure is rising in the context of traction abilities (not suspension travel, etc) then yes, they are pretty much the same.
No, that does not mean I would take a X5 rock climbing or bogging, but that's not the subject of this thread is it?
(and yes, just to answer you impetuous question, I have done quite a bit of off-roading, both at home in the UK and overseas, however, it has no relevance to this thread.)
Just to spell it out, the thread is about the good/bad implementations of 4WD systems and how some are extremely limited - it is not a thread on the off-roading abilities of various 4x4's.
"Impetuous" 
You are funny 
Now, as far as I recall - this may be different in the current models, granted - the BMW X5 uses a NV125 transfer box and LR the NV225? So different models and the NV225 has a high and low range. I have never seen an X5 with a 50/50 torque split nor a low range option. This, ignoring the Terrain Response systems that LR/Jeep/Toyota use nowadays to make better use of their traction control systems.
In terms of traction, the X5 does not have the same level of traction control that the LR Disco 4, for example, has. Not at all.
Good to hear you have done some genuine off-roading - I go to SA every year for my 4x4 thrills. Never seen an X5 follow me off the track in Kruger or anywhere else.
Anyway, off to take my Jeep on a run through some snow. Have a lovely day.
NomduJour said:
Scuffers said:
both are effectively SW controlled, and can transmit all drive to either end of the car.
More homework required (and the X5's system has changed over its different iterations).E53 X5 used mostly Range Rover L322 parts (including transfer case and electronics)
E70 X5 uses ATC-300 transfer case.
Both do the same job, both capable of locking the front and rear prop-shafts, one is chain linked one is gear.
your point being?
NomduJour said:
My point being cars with a fixed torque split cannot "transmit all drive to either end of the car". The centre diff locking (or partially locking in some cases) mdechanism just concerns itself with keeping the front and rear propshafts rotating at a similar speed.
you need to explain that better in the context of how these systems actually work?torque split is meaningless in the context of a locked centre diff (or closed clutch in this case).
if the two output shafts are locked together, there is no torque split function, torque is available to whichever axle can use it.
talk of torque splits is only relevant when the shafts can rotate at different speeds, ie, an open conventional diff will always be 50/50, if one axle loses grip then it's still 50/50 split, just that the total torque is bugger all.
Old Range Rovers had centre diffs with a mechanical lock, so they either ran 50/50 split or locked, later ones changed to a fixed drive to the rear axle, and a clutch drive to the front, thus they run anything from RWD to locked up 4WD depending on clutch engagement, and have no centre diff (the clutch has to slip to allow this).
then you get cars with centre diffs and some kind of LSD in them, from VC based ones (Subaru of old), to Audi's Torsen's, to clutch packs (later Subaru's) etc.
So, back to you talking torque split's what are you getting at?
durbster said:
I'm surprised there isn't some official classification for 4WD but perhaps the fact that most people don't even notice makes it unnecessary.
As a Forester owner just about to take it out into the snow for the first time, I shall reserve any smugness until I get back safely.
Be a bit heartbreaking to slag Honda off then go and find I can't get out of my street
Smugness intact. Forester was faultless and has a lovely tendency for power-on oversteer As a Forester owner just about to take it out into the snow for the first time, I shall reserve any smugness until I get back safely.
Be a bit heartbreaking to slag Honda off then go and find I can't get out of my street
I went a specific route to test it on a steep hill and by coincidence a Honda CRV turned up behind me. I stopped and did a hill start on the snow with no fuss at all, then eagerly checked my rear view to see how the Honda got on so I could report back here
Annoyingly the driver chose to pull out in front of somebody rather than stop on the hill, so the test was inconclusive. Boo.
Scuffers said:
later ones changed to a fixed drive to the rear axle, and a clutch drive to the front, thus they run anything from RWD to locked up 4WD depending on clutch engagement, and have no centre diff (the clutch has to slip to allow this)
No. Completely incorrect.The torque split is nominally 50/50, irrelevant of the locking operation of centre diff. Until the recent availability of the Torsen centre diff in certain Sports and Discoveries with no low range, all Range Rovers and Discoveries had a 50/50 split - i.e. in normal operation the front axle is driven by 50% of the torque (whether it is spun away via an open centre or axle diff or not). There is a torque-biasing ability in the centre diffs but there is always torque being sent to the front axle.
Edit - should qualify the Torsen comment by saying that the pre-6 speed L322 also had a Torsen-style centre diff in its transfer box (which didn't completely lock).
Edited by NomduJour on Saturday 27th December 12:14
hora said:
rovermorris999 said:
Should have bought a Forester.
I did With the right tyres they're nigh-on unstoppable; especially in 2.5ltr XT form...In many ways it's a little unfair to compare the CRV, CashCow town dwelling type SUV's with a Forester, and Subaru's symmetrical AWD, as they're designed and promoted by the marketing folk who are selling a lifestlye product as opposed to an effective working machine; same with the BMW's and Audi's. I pulled a Q5 out of a snow banked ditch in the Alpes a few years ago...heavy snowfalls north of La Clusaz, the A5 had winter tyres on but was pretty ineffective...me? I was driving a two year old VW Golf Estate with winters and deep diamond chains on. The French family inside the Q5 were amazed that a small estate car could do such a thing and were eternally grateful.
Have never heard a bad thing said about the Volvo Cross Country cars when they have the right tyres on. Some 'shooting' friends swear by them. And the ubiquitous Land Rover will always win for its superb ground clearance in deep mud and snow. But, again, it's all down to the right car with the right tyres for the specific conditions.
For a bit of fun I'll leave you with this bit of entertainment for some Festive Forester Fun...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMsSzQJacPw
A.J.M said:
Lozw86 said:
Surely no one buys these to go off road anyway
No. But people would be expecting them to have some degree of getting about in wintery conditions.If you had spent a large amount on what you expect to be a 4x4, and it sat there looking stupid with wheels spinning. You would be rather annoyed.
Yes, winter tyres, blah blah, driver training, blah blah, i can get through 20ft drifts of snow with a 1 series with 1.7mm of tread, blah blah.
The great unwashed will not do the above, so no point trying to talk down that route.
I would imagine that most people who buy these types of cars would be delighted with their winter performance and if they did struggle then it's time to stay at home anyway!
Mention of 50/50 torque splits in the context of LR products & open centre diffs, someone is getting confused. It's only 50/50 driving in a straight line, it could also be 100/0 or 0/100 or anywhere in between without the CD locked.
A torque split is only applicable when there is control over where the torque goes otherwise its just an open diff.
A torque split is only applicable when there is control over where the torque goes otherwise its just an open diff.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff