Outback vs. Honda Cr-V

[Squatchout]

Last time I was in a Suby Brats were brand new. So I can't comment on them.

But we have had a '99 CRV since new and it has been an amazing vehicle. Probably the most trouble free vehicle we've ever owned. We've had several Honda's. It doesn't get off-roaded more than just snow and some gravel roads. We have real 4x4's for that. 170,000 miles and counting and no plans on it leaving till the junk man doesn't even want it! It has done everything we've ever asked of it and much more. Including light towing.

I prefer the 1st gen CRV's to the new ones. Like most vehicles these days they've become too Fat and moved away from the original idea and price range. Kinda crazy with gas rising like a hot air balloon. But still very nice vehicles.

I feel that if you are worried about ultimate traction and off road handling in this class of vehicle then you are probably looking at the wrong vehicle for the intended purpose. I've over used (abused) many a vehicle and can say that pushing a very light duty vehicle outside the designed usage can be fun but often results in breakage at very inopportune times and a drastically reduced lifespan of the vehicle. Something to keep in mind. Just my .02

 

[4x4abc]

finally some wise words!

 

[life_w_vagabonds]

Scooby has the CRV beat in towing. My 02 Forester is rated at 2000 lbs. We used to pull a pop up with ours. I think the Honda rated the CRV at 1000lbs if I remember. Thats what swayed us to the Forester.

Also the CRV looked a little spindly from underneath to me.

 

[Squatchout]

Scooby has the CRV beat in towing. My 02 Forester is rated at 2000 lbs. We used to pull a pop up with ours. I think the Honda rated the CRV at 1000lbs if I remember. Thats what swayed us to the Forester.

Also the CRV looked a little spindly from underneath to me.

Being a truck person It looks pretty spindly to me too, But it's held up well when used for what it was meant for. It's a beefed up Civic with a spacious boxy body! It's not a 4x4. It's an AWD car. All the vehicles in the videos are. It goes back to what I said previously about the original design idea. Each fills a niche. Our CRV tows a jon boat or a couple of canoes on a light trailer just fine. I wouldn't ask it to do more it's not a truck. All of these machines are fine vehicles. They are different flavors for different tastes. Pick a flavor you like and enjoy it to the fullest.

I was just reading that there was no defined formula in the industry until just this year for standardized tow ratings. SAE has just written a voluntary strict uniform testing standard. I believe Toyota is one of the 1st to begin using this. Now we will can have a apples to apples comparison for trucks at least. Until now each manufacturer has set their own standards for tow testing.

 

[4x4abc]

Any axle with an open differential drives one wheel and the other is pretty much just and anchor for traction.

Here we go again - one wheel drive!
That's like 10 year old kids talking about sex - lotsa rumors, no knowledge

 

[4x4abc]

so, how does torque bias on an open diff work? All textbooks state that toque is equal on both sides with an open diff.

 

[Squatchout]

so, how does torque bias on an open diff work? All textbooks state that toque is equal on both sides with an open diff.

I have deleted the posts that led to this. Mainly because my rant on your commercials was not relevent to the OP's original question. I'm not trying to take this thread off to a direction that I'm sure has been debated on this forum many times. It's a discussion for a diferent thread. The debate is more about terminology than anything else. Not about understanding how the system works.

 

[Flagster]

Another suby OB fan here.

We have an 09 with the 4 speed auto tranny and a 2010 with the new CVT tranny. AFAIK, both cars use the same 2.5l motor.

To my surprise, I much prefer the 2010. It is a more comfortable and feature rich design than the 09, and the CVT tranny drives very well. Very smooth and solid. Interestingly, the 2010 gets noticeably better MPG too, probably due to how the CVT manages RPMs. I average about 26mpg and have gotten well above 30mpg cruising at highway speeds.

R

I will cheerfully disagree...My girlfriend owns a 2010 legacy outback wagon with the CVT...it is a slushbox++++...I would rather have a regular automatic over this. Unfortunately when she bought the car (cash for clunkers) there were no manuals on the lot...The CVT gets great mileage (30+ on highway 65-70mph) but it just feels horrible the constant change in RPMs...JMO...

 

[bigreen505]

I feel like a broken record, but if it doesn't have low range it isn't an expedition vehicle. Mild graded dirt roads and even a little washboard are fine in an Outback, but as soon as it the road goes up, the car doesn't have the gearing to get up the hill. Throw in some rocks or minor obstacles and it's game over.

That said, not every trip requires low range, and for those that don't I will happily take the Subie. Don't let the ground clearance fool you, that is not the deal breaker. Also, the underside is somewhat vulnerable.

I have no personal experience with the CR-V.

 

[LRNAD90]

I vote Subaru as well..

(the Volvo has the same auto AWD systems as the CRV):

No It doesn't..

 

[4x4abc]

explain please

 

[helcaraxe]

Neither of these vehicles (CR-V or Subaru) are "true" expedition vehicles, because they're basically AWD with no low end (CRV is called RT-4WD, but it's the same basic idea). They would work fine as Daily Drivers though, and they are both very capable on all "road" conditions, particularly in snow. They will also do fine on light dirt road applications, but would not be good as "off road" vehicles at all in my experience, without SERIOUS modification.

I know they're not pretty, but if you're considering a CR-V, the Honda Element is built on the same exact platform as the OBS Honda CR-V and allows easy interior camping (and RT-4WD) with all the extra room... Just sayin'...

 

[nemoaz]

I have a 99 CRV. I live WAY up north now and its a great snowmobile. I'd have no reservations tooling all over Mexico or the southwest in it. My camping trips were never after running the rubicon trail. You'll find that most of the people below the border don't have high end 4wds. They manage to get around in beatup Dodge cars, so you'll get by with an AWD vice a true specialized offroad vehicle. Heck, my "expedition vehicle" used to a be an old VW bus. I found that even having slightly more clearance than a car and good traction got me to those hidden camping spots.

However, my experience with my 99 CRV mirrors that youtube video. I once had it high centered (snow) but with both rear tires on solid but slippery ground. I could hear the center diff kicking in and sending power to the rear but it didn't send ENOUGH power to move me (or spin the wheels). I had to dig to get the front on the ground. I too view the CRV as little more than a glorified FWD, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. A good FWD will take you almost anywhere you need to go, especially with a little more ground clearance.

Those old Honda Civic 4wd wagons, with the low range and the stick to select 4wd, were surefooted mules. The CRV is more civilized and less capable. However, I do get very good mpg, better than my friend's Forester or my BIL's Outback. It does struggle if you insist on running 75+ mph. Mileage does drop. I don't much like the length of the OB, but I'd buy a Forester no problem. I just found that the the interior space of the CRV was preferable. I accept it's limitations.

I believe that both Subaru and the Hondas have some tranny issues. I wouldn't touch a CVT on a bet. I tend to buy used so I'd be more swayed by the condition of the vehicle and my perception of the deal. I either a Scuby or a CRV would be a an acceptable vehicle.

 

[fnjeep314]

I have an 05 Outback XT and I really enjoy it. I have taken it down some sketchy roads in CA without and issues. I could really use some skid plates, then I could be worry free. I get about 23-24mpg on the highway and 19-20 in the city. I can pack my wife, 2 75lb dogs and put a roof box on and have plenty of room, and can go pretty much wherever I want to go.

To reference the gentleman above, in AU the Outbacks actually do come with a low range gear. So in his definition, the Outback is an expedition vehicle(in the AU).

 

[Dogteam]

Interesting thread. I'm looking at making the same type of decision (for the same reasons - just can't drive a true 4x4 to work and back and still have money left over at the end of the day). I'm leaning to the Rav4, but from what I'm hearing I should be looking at the Subarus. I know the old wagons were bulletproof.

For the record, I've had several of the old Toyota 4x4 Tercel Wagons, and they were the best thing since sliced bread. They all made it past 500000 km, and would go...well, not anywhere...but I've taken them down trails where Land Rovers sank into mudholes and come out unscathed. It's a mystery to me that they didn't become more popular.

I think that the thing that determines "what is an expedition vehicle" lies more with the driver than the vehicle itself. :26_7_2: