This thread is a perfect example of why we need to reign in marketing and its insistence on misleading people.
Because and only because i’ve been lingering in the off-roading community for a few years i personally understand why the NPS end goals are not only reasonable but probably necessary. but i feel terrible for the sheer number of people who have been intentionally duped by marketers.
i’ve seen it repeatedly, someone buys an “all wheel drive” truck or suv, and from the initial first commercial they see all the way through to the salestrash, they were misled.
over and over they end up justifiably frustrated finding out they’ve spent tens of thousands of dollars being misled on their vehicle’s capabilities only to learn their “off-road AWD” vehicle really really shouldn’t leave the suburban pavement. and that the misleading was all a ploy by marketers and their insistence on muddying the waters.
this is far from limited to auto manufacturers, we see this misleading trash across the entire board.
we desperately need to get back closer towards something resembling honesty in marketing.
As someone who has spent a lot of time building and racing cars… yeah the marketing is nuts.
A few years ago Porsche came out with the Taycan. One of their big marketing pushes was that it was better on track than a Tesla model S, because on paper it was worse in many ways (more expensive, less range, less power, worse charging network, etc). The sad thing was all the magazines and journalists seemed to be happy to parrot this position. Porsche bragged about their ring time. Internet commentators agreed. The Taycan Turbo S was a track weapon!
The reality? The car is heavy, it’ll eat tires. I’ve seen guys in cars like that (noobs mind you) cord a set of tires in 1 session. Tracks eat fuel like crazy, I normally brought 4-5 5gallon fuel cans, and a full tank. I could do half a tank in like 8 laps. Electric? What track has super chargers?
And the ring time? $200k+ Taycan turbo s matched the $38k civic type R.
But marketing. And the journalists who really do know better were happy to play the game. Every car seems to be marketed on track now. For most cars, even seemingly performance oriented cars, tracking the car voids the warranty.
Really the brands know that they are selling a fantasy, and very few people will actually even try that stuff. They just want the aura of it. Especially Americans want to buy 120% of the car they need. Need to take a freeway on ramp? Good thing this car has a ring time of X! Should be no problem! Thinking about getting a boat? Better buy an F-250, just to be safe!
There sure are a lot of actual 4WD trucks without lockers when they are sold. I have to wonder what the difference is between a Tacoma sport and an AWD vehicle, I think it’s 2WD mode and maybe clearance. I think there are even jeep gladiators without lockers… is that a jeep or like a cool looking suburban pavement car?
“Off-roading” is a big thing that means different things. I live in Colorado, in the front range area (Boulder) and the popular guides sort of divide trails in to three: green easy, blue moderate and red hard. Most of the blue trails you can do in a bone stock 4WD road truck, probably most AWDs with clearance. You’d want to take it easy and think through a couple sections but it’s doable. We’ve gone to multiple 10th mountain division huts in Subarus, made it with no scraping or problems. This is most trails. Now there are the reds and the hard reds, you basically need a modified vehicle for them. There are some “trail ready” trucks coming from the factory now, I’m under the impression that the “off-roading community” usually feels that even those need modification. Modifying the vehicle and the technical trail challenge is the idea for them.
The difference is driving on technical obstacles for that specific challenge, the driving and the building of the vehicle versus driving on rougher terrain to get to a location. NPS probably also frowns on rock stacking and other “recovery” techniques when a vehicle cannot clear an object.
> I have to wonder what the difference is between a Tacoma sport and an AWD vehicle, I think it’s 2WD mode and maybe clearance
As a long-time AWD driver who entertains the idea of getting an offroad vehicle at one point, this is my current understanding:
AWD: If one wheel slips and starts spinning, all other wheels stop turning. You are stuck. Clever electronics applying the brakes on the spinning wheel can help to redistribute the torque to other wheels, you might get unstuck.
4WD: If one wheel starts spinning, only the other wheel on the same axle stops turning. The transfer case is locked, and the other axle still receives torque. If both axles have one spinning wheel, you are stuck.
4WD with one locker: If one wheel on the axle with a locker starts spinning, the other wheel on the same axle still receives torque. If both axles each have one spinning wheel, you can still move the vehicle with one wheel still receiving torque.
4WD with locker on both axles: If you manage to get stuck with all 4 wheels spinning you should reflect on how the heck you ended up in that situation.
The problem with reducing AWD to all open Diffs. Subuaru, Mitishbishi, Honda (Acura), Toyato have all sold AWD system with various levels of limited slip and/or locking diffs which are much more complicated than just applying brakes.
The first step is to stop pretending AWD and 4WD can sensibly mean different things… unless your number of wheels differ from 4. The naming is truly idiotic.
Instead, be clear about any locking or torque split requirements, so you don’t take your sports SUV with no locking diffs and a 70/30 Torsen center differential on the trail. E.g., “this is an advanced trail that requires three locking differentials or equivalent”, and for lighter trails “this trail requires at least limited slip differentials”.
How about the AWD Teslas? They have independent front and rear motors, but I don't know if the rear and/or front diffs limit slip. Even if they don't, the ABS could hold a caliper to prevent wheelslip (Some Mercedes 4WD or AWD had an open differential and used independent brake control to limit slip, it was excellent for mud and sand, I don't know about other conditions).
I took my Tesla model 3 places that made people's heads spin. The clearance is bad, and I had to replace the bottom coverings a few times (until I installed skid plates), and I scraped more times than I can count, but it always kept going.
The only time I got stuck was on a sand dune. I had been through rivers, up rocky mountains, middle of deserts, icy cliffs, but sand managed to stop me. A huge lifted truck saw me and got me out with a tow strap around my front tire.
No one would believe or understand the places I went with that car, but I know. Electric drive is just superior, end of story.
I will be waiting for someone to make a rugged, utilitarian all-electric truck or jeep-like offroad vehicle. No touch screens, no extras. Just 4 independent motors with adjustable high-low clearance (4 independent hydraulic lifts would be sweet) and at least 500 miles of range -- or more.
As much range as possible. This lets you use the battery for other purposes -- running power tools, running climate control all night, even cooking with electricity.
My dream is a fully electric off/on road vehicle that can go anywhere, with a foldable 10kw+ solar array for silent charging, totally independent of traditional energy infrastructure.
> No one would believe or understand the places I went with that car, but I know. Electric drive is just superior, end of story.
Yes, I've taken my Model 3 to some real stupid places. I've always been impressed. Electric drive has 100% torque at 0 RPM and instant throttle response - makes getting unstuck far too easy.
electric drive for off road is definitely superior. I run a ev conversion company, and started with converting an old 4x4. The amount of fidelity of throttle control is insian, not to mention regen makes for great hill decent.
Ev rock crawling is superior in my experience. the aerodynamic factors are not in play so your range is much better as your just doing fine wheel control and regen all day long. It’s really quite something
I have also been overtaken by old front wheel drive microcars at river crossing. Plenty of lucky idiots out there - it’s all fun and games until it’s not.
On and off-road capability are always at odds with each other, because “agile” also means “unstable”. It’s a matter of compromise and expectations.
Yeah that’s what I said - lucky idiots can get far with the wrong equipment, but it’s just gambling. If you’re lucky, you’re making it into a Matt’s Off-road Recovery video or losing your car entirely, if you’re unlucky the state has to recover a corpse as your car has no roll-cage.
It’s not my taxes going to the clean-up, so you do you. But “lucky idiot” is the correct term whenever a stock model 3 is within a 10 kilometer radius of a trail.
Try going 80mph in the middle of a Wyoming winter with total control, think about what that means a little bit, then tell me what you learned about what a low, multi-thousand lbs center of gravity with independent electric motors means.
Until then, enjoy the fictional world you've created of "right" and "wrong" equipment with rigid definitions. I'll be out in a jungle swinging on a hammock writing code from "impossible" places instead.
Electronic Stability Control can sort of mimic a limited slip differential, but I doubt it will work well for rock crawling without at least having been tuned explicitly for it.
Even limited slip differentials are not normally suited for this - the engagement of a viscous LSD is proportional to the current slippage, meaning that you only get a notable lock once the other wheels are spinning aggressively. That’s not usable when you want to go slow and steady. In rock-crawling, you want all wheels to spin at the same steady speed regardless of traction, allowing them all to remain in static friction to ensure all wheels provide all available traction regardless of conditions.
But, “or equivalent” is important - independent wheel motor setups are superior to lockers - assuming it’s tuned right - so it should be allowed.
I was going to say - my Volvo T8 is technically "AWD" but the rear and front axles are completely independent with two different power sources - so there is no need for a locking diff in between them(in fact one isn't possible as there is no driveshaft linking them). Ditto for electric vehicles with modern slip control where one wheel can be locked at any time on any axle.
Assuming at least one of the axles is driven by an electric motor, you can lock them in software. That's also what you'd need to do for rock crawling - you don't just want to avoid losing power to a lifted wheel, you want all wheels to rotate with the same steady velocity regardless of conditions so that all wheels remain in static friction (zero slip, which is not possible with e.g. brake-driven soft locking).
An electric vehicle with a motor per wheel can do this. Your vehicle would need lockers on front and rear diff, and appropriate software to soft-lock front and rear.
One of the terminologies for this is 'ediff', although this is also used for "diff which has its internal clutches electronically controlled'.
In "super cheap e-diff with an open diff', only in place to save money, the results are horrid. There are issues where people with an incline cannot get out of their driveway, as the e-diff jockies back and forth, left to right, braking each wheel as it spins.
You may say "so?", but with an actual limited slip diff there is no braking, spin happens, and even if it is jockeying left/right, the freakin' car isn't braking whilst you're trying to get out of that driveay. Instead it's shifting power, and wheels are still working at it. You get out.
There are many conditions where slip is perfectly normal, and where braking to stop that slip is bonkers. Snow is another example. A great way to have your car spin out of control, is to suddenly auto-brake because it slipped the tiniest bit. Now, that tiny slip has become massive slip. The same holds for ice. ediff tech literally makes cars less safe, less driveable, less stable in snow and ice.
This holds true to all current stability and traction control I have tested on gravel, on pavement in rain, on snow, and on ice. I grew up driving on frozen lakes, and can use braking methods to steer, I can drive on snow and then when I turn on traction control?
And the result is the worst thing being done at the worst time.
Stepping back, we see forums replete with people complaining about auto-drive madness. I've seen people unable to exit their driveway with reverse-impact protection on, because their driveway is angled down to the road, and it detects the road as an object (it isn't... as the car drives down it angles up, but the radar just sees "object"). People complain about their car wildly veering into some turnoffs because it thinks that's how the road goes. People complain about brakes slamming on, when it's a tight turn and there are guardrails, which the radar thinks is an object.
The only true answer here is to disable ABS, thus preventing a large aspect of drive control. This is the only safe way to drive. And you make think "WHAT! ABS reduces braking distances!", yet this is misinformation, and absolutely not true.
ABS extends braking distances. Its only goal is to allow one to steer while braking hard. That's it. And while in absolutely perfect, and absolutely optimal braking conditions (dry pavement, cool day, lots of grip) ABS is almost as good as a human at distance-to-stop, when it comes to literally every other circumstance ABS is horrid.
Most directly, as an example, gravel or deep snow.
With gravel you want to lock the brakes up (to a certain degree). With many types of gravel roads, this results in you literally "digging in". Gravel starts to build up in front of the wheel. Braking distances are immensely reduced as a result.
Meanwhile, ABS prevents this condition, thus extending braking distances by 2x or even 3x. No, I'm not joking or exaggerating.
With deep snow the issue is just as stark. If you're driving in 6" of snow, and you brake hard enough to "dig in", snow just builds up more and more in front of the wheel. And another "trick" to snow driving is to brake VERY HARD, turn the wheel, then release -- and even on ice you often shoot off in the current direction of the wheel.
You cannot do either of these things with ABS.
Most of the reason for all of this, is that we do not have AGI. Nor do we have AI that is "a good driver". Instead, we have a bunch of algorithmic if/then statements, which do not even remotely match the wildly varying conditions that a drive will reach outside of a lab.
One of the worst situations I see with current autodrive, is that California, specifically SV, is one of the most temperate, perfect climates to drive in. Sunny almost all the time, with occasional rain. Developing AI systems, or even just simple driving algos / if+then statements in such conditions is as if driving in a lab.
No snow. No ice. You can see the paint on the road (there is no visible paint on roads in the winter in northern climates). Often, in snow storms you cannot even see the road vs the shoulder in a way a car can discern.
Yet here we have auto-drive tech being developed in Arizona, California, and sometimes Texas. And it's still wildly imperfect! Not even remotely ready for prime time, and it's only being deployed in absolutely perfect driving conditions!
I expect it will be 50+ years before we have autodrive capability that will approach true human driving capability in, for example, a snow storm.
Which leads back to using ABS for a diff?
It's just auto manufacturers reducing safety to save a few bucks.
Your specialized scenarios with gravel and snow are… interesting, but very misleading. A few inches of loose snow pushed up in front of your wheel does does nothing measurable to stop the car over staying within static friction, and if you aren’t already sinking into the snow, chances are that it’s packed too hard for this trick anyway. A thick layer of shifting gravel on the other hand stops you even without brakes, which is why we use it for emergency runaway truck ramps. I’d need to see some data to support if fully blocked wheels make a difference there - and even then, it would be a vehicle weight and tread-specific edge-case.
> ABS extends braking distances.
This is a very common and dangerous misunderstanding based on comparing the wrong datapoints. If your edge cases was true, it would still be wrong the majority of the time.
The best brake distance is always achieved by riding the brake a hair before any wheel locks up. ABS does not affect this - it might try to stop you from increasing brake pressure further past the limit of lock up, but it will not release pressure.
Locked wheels on the other hand always give you the worst possible braking distance short of forgetting to press the brake.
ABS shortens the brake distance from disaster to reasonable by managing wheel lockup when you did not, managing each wheel independently which you cannot, at speeds that a brake pedal does not allow, and using full-vehicle data you do not have available.
The mistake is to compare a perfectly modulated brake maneuver with a panic brake maneuver. What you need to compare is “perfect vs perfect” and “panic vs panic”.
> The best brake distance is always achieved by riding the brake a hair before any wheel locks up
The only way to know where that limit is, is to exceed it, cut back to rolling, then ease back in. I used to do this in my old Mustangs and Thunderbirds. Then when I got an ABS Continental, I was completely unable to brake effectively without engaging the ABS. And with ABS you can not just back of enough to get the wheels rolling again.
The worst was a Ford Focus with rear drum brakes and single channel ABS. One of the rear drums would lock up during normal stops (even with the wife driving, don't just assume that I'm an aggressive braker) and this would engage all four wheels ABS. This was on a brand new 2008 model and the dealership garage considered it to be normal behavior.
That said, my last ICE car was an Impreza with very good brakes and decent ABS.
On dry pavement, ABS is modulating the brakes to keep the tire rolling, it's mechanically doing threshold breaking. Did the Continental have a relatively high curb weight and relatively small tires?
In conditions with reduced friction it doesn't work as well as good manual braking (but you maintain steering).
The Continental was much heavier than a Mustang and heavier than a Thunderbird too. It was also front wheel drive, which may have had an effect. In normal driving I never had a problem with the Continental, but I like to test the limits of my cars in the rain and that Continental was certainly harder to brake in the wet past its limits than were the Mustangs or Thunderbirds. I don't remember all the details, we're talking decades ago, but for anything other than straight line breaking I preferred cars without ABS at the time. Even if ABS ostensibly helps you steer.
Most of the locking diffs now are automatic locking diffs based on differential wheel spin, like the G80. I can confirm that if you're using traction control, it seems impossible to cause enough slip to lock the diff. Then you can end up in a situation where you're on a icy/snowy hill and the car is applying the brakes due to excessive wheel spin before the diff will lock.
But is the lingo really misleading? There's nothing incorrect about "all-wheel drive", "four-wheel drive", or "4x4". The engine is turning all four wheels.
The behavior of open differentials is somewhat counterintuitive, but that applies to 2WD cars too. People get one wheel buried or up in the air and can't comprehend why the car is not moving. Is that a failure of marketing or consumer education? Probably the latter.
For what it's worth, I've seen quite a few "real" 4WD cars with locking differentials getting stuck in silly ways, often because the driver simply had no idea how to lock the diff, or didn't turn off traction control, or just kept flooring it and making the situation worse.
To me, the only potential dishonesty isn't the naming, it's the imagery of SUVs traversing rugged terrains. But that's not strictly a lie, more of a missing footnote: "don't try anything more rugged than that".
"often because the driver simply had no idea how to lock the diff,"
Most of the locking diffs out there are automatic, like the G80. They're basically a locking limited slip diff. It uses slip between the wheels to throw a cog (for lack of a better term) that locks the diff. It then unlocks (drops the cog) after the torque is unapproved. This is very different to use from the older way of locking diffs via the hubs or the high end electronic switches that enthusiasts use.
>vehicle really really shouldn’t leave the suburban pavement
This is also nonsense.
I'm an avid fisherman and (former) hunter. I grew up in Northern Ontario.
I had an Subaru Forrester and took it everywhere. Yes, there's a big difference between AWD and 4WD. Yes, you can get in trouble without a locking diff. Yes, ground clearance will be an issue.
But the idea that these vehicles can't leave the pavement is simply not true. They are surprisingly capable. And as someone who now owns a half ton pickup for the same usage, their small stature on the trail is an advantage.
>we see this misleading trash across the entire board.
Where are all of these misleading ads? Maybe I'm out of the loop, but where are these cars being advertised as "off-road"?
Subarus are probably the most capable awd vehicles. Imagine a cr-v or even worse the bronco “sport” which is pretty terrible compare to the non-“sport” version.
>Subarus are probably the most capable awd vehicles
They are.
I guess I take offense to the "don't leave the pavement" bit. 90% of trails around the world are not technical in any way. Why discourage some adventure? I think some people would be surprised by how capable their vehicle is, even 2WD.
Maybe that's it? Most people are over or under confident, and reality is in the middle (as it often is).
As the owner of both a Subaru and a Bronco Sport Badlands I feel compelled to defend the latter! They both have very capable AWD systems.
If anyone wants a deep-dive on how the different types of 4WD and AWD systems actually work and their different pros and cons, this video from Alex on Autos is worth your 20 minutes- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD4dNv-jBOY
Should you take either vehicle on roads where the NPS says not to? Of course not! But there's a wide range of conditions between "gravel road" and "rock crawling in Moab", and a properly-equipped AWD vehicle will handle most of them. Know your vehicle, know your skill level, know the conditions you're going into, bring appropriate supplies in case you run into trouble, travel with a group and/or have a reliable way to call for help, etc.
I should clarify. Ford advertises the non-sport version capabilities pretty heavily and then lists the sport side by side with it when capability-wise they are very different vehicles.
There's certainly a big gap between suburban pavement and serious rock-hoppng that many vehicles and drivers can navigate up to some point even without AWD. Certainly many reasonably-maintained gravel roads are not an issue.
That said, SUV and truck manufacturers do tend to picture their vehicles in wilderness settings and the like so there is a certain go anywhere/do anything implication even if it's not explicitly stated.
You can drive a Ford Fiesta down a dirt road if it isn't all torn up (and probably if it is torn up, as long as there's not anything that exceeds the clearance), a gravel road that sees something resembling annual maintenance should be passable in nearly any vehicle.
In general we should put a stop on marketing claims unless they are proven.
Walk into a store and read the ridiculous claims left and right. Why is it allowed to print something on a label that you can just make up? Water is sold as if it has some kind of magical properties. It's just water.
It disgusts me.
And when you buy a car you literally sign a piece of paper stating that you cannot derive any value off the claims that the sales person made to you.
Sketching out the game theory, in markets with repeated interactions there's a great reward to honesty. A local baker wouldn't do well by giving customers food poisoning by slacking on hygiene. Even absent regulation customers would stop visiting for daily lunches after a while.
However in single trade markets, there's a great temptation to be dishonest. A big city realtor selling to overseas buyers has a potentially incredible reward for being dishonest about the value of a property. And absent regulation (and enforcement) it can be very lucrative to be a liar.
> A local baker wouldn't do well by giving customers food poisoning by slacking on hygiene. Even absent regulation customers would stop visiting for daily lunches after a while.
Historically this wasn't really the case, as I understand things.
Obviously if your hygiene standards were so low that every customer got ill immediately every time, that would be easily detected.
But if you just overlook the occasional rat droppings in the flour sack, or put the occasional handful of sawdust to bulk out the sausage filling? So one or two customers get sick per month? And they were sickly people anyway, people in good health can shrug such things off? And every food vendor is similarly bad, so it's always plausible something else got them sick?
It would be pretty hard for that to get traced back to you.
Yeah there're a few embedded assumptions in my example in addition to regular custom.
It needs to be clear to the consumer that the baker was the source of the food poising, the baker needs to get enough revenue from regular customers to offset the temptation of cheating occasional customers by making the kitchen low hygiene, and the cost of making the place hygienic needs to be reasonable.
> Historically this wasn't really the case, as I understand things
A modern counterexample is the street food vendors in New Dehli, where regulatory enforcement is lax and food poising is frequent. I suspect this is because big cities have more occasional customers but other factors probably come into play as well.
Okay, but what happens when you inevitably end up with a conglomerate monopoly or duopoly on the majority of consumer goods in a given sector? That's the natural outcome of an unregulated market, at which point honesty fully goes out the window.
Monopolies with repeated consumer interaction still want people to maintain high levels of consumption in their products.
For example a tobacco monopoly wouldn't make cigarettes that are immediately sickening to their consumers because of bad filters. They'd prefer for consumers to happily buy cigarettes for a decade or two before getting unwell so they can have more sales.
This only works IF you work under the assumption consumers know, or even have the ability to know, if they're being lied to.
Well... they don't. Cars are incredibly complex machines, 99% of consumers do not have the knowledge to properly understand how a car works. They have jobs, they have a family, they have better things to do.
So they rely on the car manufacturer to be honest. You'll never see a consumer pop the hood and count the pistons to make sure their V6 is actually a V6. They just believe the manufacturer.
Your poisoning example only works because it's obvious. Imagine another food analogy. Imagine there is no FDA. How do you know what goes into the food you eat? Could you even find out? If you strived to find out the ingredients and nutritional content of your average grocery haul, how long will it take?
A few tens of thousands hours, perhaps. Right after you work like a dog to buy the equipment to burn the food. And then hire private investigators to stake out the factory. And then fly to Mexico to view what pesticides they use.
This notion of regulation is just the desire to offload your duties as a responsible and intelligent market participant to a third party.
It’s intellectually lazy, and it should be blindingly obvious that, in a universe with more than one mind in it, the principle of caveat emptor will always be needed regardless of economic system. In fact, you need caveat emptor for daily life, not just economic decisions.
Here’s why: who does the regulating?
The government?
Neither politics nor the civil service rewards honesty. These occupations have feedback loops that stem from popularity with the public or with one’s union and are thus not reality-based.
In fact capitalism comes closest to rewarding honesty in that consumers go on forums such as this one and then make informed choices.
For example, I once bought an AWD car knowing full well it’s not 4WD. It’s still 100x better than 2WD on snow and gravel. I liked my AWD car - money well spent.
If I put a gun to your head and gave you 1 year to find out what, exactly, goes into a bag of Doritos and what the nutritional content is, you couldn't do it.
People have lives. We don't have the time, knowledge, or expertise to assess our goods. Not anymore, that stopped a good couple hundred years ago.
If we had the expertise we'd simply do it ourselves, which is what people did. But we stopped doing that, because the goods became too complex.
> AWD car knowing full well it’s not 4WD. It’s still 100x better than 2WD on snow and gravel. I liked my AWD car - money well spent
Sure, but keep in mind you understand, maybe, a fraction of a fraction of 1% of your car. If you wanted to understand it more deeply that is a lifetime commitment. And, that's for one singular good. Extrapolate that and suddenly you'll need to be immortal to be an "intelligent market participant"
> If I put a gun to your head and gave you 1 year to find out what, exactly, goes into a bag of Doritos and what the nutritional content is, you couldn't do it.
> Sure, but keep in mind you understand, maybe, a fraction of a fraction of 1% of your car. If you wanted to understand it more deeply that is a lifetime commitment. And, that's for one singular good. Extrapolate that and suddenly you'll need to be immortal to be an "intelligent market participant"
That's only true for a crazy definition of "understanding" and "intelligent market participant". You don't need a Grand Unifying Theory of understanding every subatomic particle in your car or Doritos from first principles.
People abstract away almost all of the complexity until they have a concept that fits in their head and can still deliver what they're looking for. This is good and right and is how all cognition works.
To the average car buyer like me, a car is a box with a couch that goes from A to B. In my case, I wanted the box to also handle snow on the way. From that point of view, my understanding of the a-to-b-couch-box-with-AWD is not a fraction of 1%, but exactly 100%.
To a Dorito buyer, the requirement is that it tastes good without immediately killing them. Not one Dorito buyer cares what strain of corn plant was used.
For almost every consumer product, you can try multiple different products at low cost and with ~no physical danger. So a large mass of buyers and sellers experimenting interactively will quickly arrive at near-optimal solutions.
The exception is things that can kill you on the first try, such as unsafe cars, airplanes, or medicine. For these products the optimal solution is the least possible amount of regulation combined with as much free market as possible.
> To a Dorito buyer, the requirement is that it tastes good without immediately killing them.
To the FDA, the requirement is that it's safe for human consumption, has a serving that is normal for a healthy adult, and does not lie about its contents.
See, YOUR requirements and what the government is able to give you are different.
Yes, buyer's DO care about this stuff. Maybe you've never read a nutritional label in your entire life, I don't know. But I know I care. And everyone I know cares.
>you can try multiple different products at low cost and with ~no physical danger.
Multiple obvious problems here.
First, trying multiple products costs money and time. Again, people have jobs, families, what have you. Consumers don't have the will for this.
Second, the "no physical harm" part is BECAUSE of regulations.
Did we all just collectively forget why these regulations were instituted and why we are now a high-trust society?
Companies used to just lie, and people used to drop like flies. We stopped that.
In my opinion, people's understanding of a free market is not only not in line with reality, but it also hasn't been in over 100 years. Moreover, nobody actually wants a free market. They just think they do, until they consider it more and realize it would actually be pretty terrible.
Point being - NO, companies shouldn't be allowed to lie.
> Here’s why: who does the regulating? The government?
The people.
Politics is also a market. New regulations arise when there is sufficient demand for them, as determined by the way the society is governed. If businesses don't want more regulations, they can always act in ways that don't create demand for regulations. But they often don't, because the market can reward defection better than cooperation.
The market just works the way it works, and regulations are one of the consequences.
If The People are qualified to regulate matters pertaining to 4WD vs AWD, then they are capable of figuring out which one to buy.
For what it’s worth, I believe some regulations are low effort and high return, and those ones are worth it. But to believe that regulation can solve everything is a simple mistake in logic, as shown above.
> If The People are qualified to regulate matters pertaining to 4WD vs AWD, then they are capable of figuring out which one to buy.
Buddy, if every American agreed with that sentiment then crystal meth would be legal nationwide. Sometimes the long arm of the law does have to supersede your freedom of choice to disable harmful options from being availible. This is actually pretty common in the automotive and agricultural sectors of not just the United States but most of the free world.
The average American knows the value of a seatbelt, but that's no excuse to give customers an option to buy a car without safety measures. It borders on homicidal insanity to suggest otherwise.
2. Read my last paragraph, I agree that low-cost and low-effort regulation like outlawing meth and enforcing seatbelts can have a big ROI.
Note though that the source of these regulations is The People, the same folks who vote for and ultimately decide on regulations are also the ones who make purchasing decisions.
People elect representatives, and very often they aren't even given a practical choice between conservative or liberal candidates. The control the average US citizen wields over regulation borders on non-existent, not even remotely comparable to your purchasing power at K-Mart or the Ford Dealership.
The point is that people generally don't know what they want for themselves. In certain industries like aviation and medicine, products do not legally exist until they are fundamentally scrutinized for harm to humans. This idea that the average American is an informed shopper is as illusory as the average citizen not voting a straight-ticket ballot. Advertising is just about the only thing that they are proven to understand, which is why that too is regulated carefully.
Companies make their offers and people are free to choose.
I’m saying the people should have more power to choose, more options to choose from, more disposable resources to choose with. This will lead to better outcomes than if the regulators try to create a situation with more limited but better-in-their-eyes options.
It's good that amongst the know-it-all Reddit responses typical to these kinds of education threads, the OP learned something about his or her car, and came out of the thread with a better knowledge of the differences between 4WD and AWD. One of the Redditors summed up the stupidity of these marketing terms:
All Wheel Drive? Cool. There are four wheels. All of them means four.
I'm sure many people's knowledge of their car ends there. The terms 4WD and AWD are as misleading as USB Full Speed vs. USB High Speed (quick, tell me which one is faster without looking it up?)
I certainly had no idea until this very thread that there might be any sort of difference. Like that Reddit user, I (quite reasonably) concluded that AWD and 4WD were the same thing since a car has four wheels.
My dad drove a three-wheeler Reliant Robin while he was learning to drive a car, because they are legal to drive on a motorbike licence. I accidentally wrenched the gear stick out of it once. Thankfully I was going at v low speed on private land.
> USB Full Speed vs. USB High Speed (quick, tell me which one is faster without looking it up?)
I'm implementing USB protocol right now and those terms are PITA for me, I always mess them up. And next protocol I think called USB Super Speed, and next is Enhanced Super Speed. Those people in USB committee are really making fun of their work.
AWD means that all the wheels receive power from the power train. Most AWD will stop providing power to a wheel if it loses traction (spins). This is because they have an unlocked differential. 4WD typically means all four wheels can receive power from the power train and can be locked so that that will not lose power if they spin.
If a wheel spins on an axle with an open differential, mechanically speaking, it receives all the power, being that it is the path of least resistance. That's a problem because the remaining wheels are the only useful ones for propelling the vehicle, but they stop receiving power. The reason power may be cut is a traction control system response to this slipping, not the mechanical drivetrain configuration itself. Depending on the vehicle, this may be done by cutting power at the engine, or by braking the individual wheel that is spinning, or both.
A locking differential distributes the power evenly between both sides, all of the time.
Limited-slip differentials do something in between the above two, depending on the type.
Since the original citation was for a Subaru, it made me wonder how Subaru's X-Mode actually works. It says, among other things:
X-MODE in Subaru vehicles is specifically engineered to push through tough conditions like snow and mud. By adjusting the throttle response and controlling the transmission, it ensures that power is distributed effectively to the wheels, reducing slip and enhancing grip.
> Often our instinct is to apply more power to the accelerator when we are stuck in ice, snow, or mud. Unfortunately, this can deliver too much torque at once, resulting in the throttle opening up too quickly and creating rapid wheelspin with no traction. With X-MODE activated, the engine will deliver torque gradually
Translation: If you punch the throttle and it's slippery, the throttle is going to ignore you just a little bit.
> Subaru vehicles improve on the already outstanding AWD system by increasing the front/rear coupling force, splitting power more evenly between the front and rear sets of tires.
Translation: limited slip center differential. It'll mechanically send power more-or-less evenly to the front and the back of the car.
> With X-MODE in use, the Vehicle Dynamics Control (VDC) system provides enhanced Limited-Slip Differential (LSD) control. This means that braking is applied much faster and only to the wheels that need it most because they are slipping or spinning without traction.
Translation: For slippage from left-to-right, the traction control system will brake the wheel that is spinning, thus encouraging the power to be used at the wheel that is gripping the road, rather than being wasted spinning a tire.
>> consumer products don't disclose the basics of how they work to their customers
> Yes they do. User manuals just don't make for very good marketing.
user manuals tell you how to do something, not how it works. E.G. a motherboard user manual tells you how to enter BIOS Setup, not how secure boot works; where to set USB power output in system power states, not what the power states are and how they transition.
We need to go back to the 1960s/1970s, where Tektronix oscilloscopes and other such equipment came with user manuals that had detailed explanations of how the electronics worked.
As an example, check out the user manual (not the repair manual, though that's available on this site too) for the popular Tektronix 465, and scroll down to the "Circuit Description" section:
I'm sympathetic to the reason why: Most people don't read. It's wasted work to write elaborate manuals.
Also, many people are busy. Very busy. Even if someone wanted to read, he's way too tired to immerse in new knowledge. Source: Me. I simply have neither the time nor the energy to bother with learning anymore unless there's a very good reason to.
cars are a comparatively rare purchases, that costs a ton of money, and that has life-ending safety risks. Read the book.
If you don't read the microwave's instructions and don't understand how 50% defrost power works chances are it's not going to permanently cripple you, or lead to $10k's in liability and repairs.
>cars are a comparatively rare purchases, that costs a ton of money, and that has life-ending safety risks. Read the book.
No. Ain't nobody got the time.
Operating a car safely doesn't require reading through a 2 inch thick tome every time you buy a car.
I thought I did when I was still a sweet summer child, reading every manual within reach and being told "How do you know that????" by every adult around me. That felt good.
I'm an adult now. Ain't nobody got the time. I know nothing; as in the third stage, not the first stage. I will ask the nearest kid "How do you know that????" and save myself the time and energy if I must learn.
The very first car you buy? Okay, sure, read through the tome since you have nothing to build on. But second car onwards? Ain't nobody got the time.
What? You're trying to tell me I don't know what the fuck Subaru X-Mode is? You're bold to assume I would even use Subaru X-Mode. That button isn't getting pressed for the life of the car ownership; users by and large do not change defaults and hate having dials and buttons to mess with, and I am slowly but surely becoming one of them.
Ain't nobody got the time.
But at least I don't suffer from a bad case of acne anymore.
My hours are mostly spent eating (cooking), working (making a living), maintaining (mostly laundry and cleaning), and sleeping (because I'm exhausted).
Precious few hours are left for recreation.
As such, no, I sincerely do not have the time to go read tomes I have no need or interest in. As an adult with responsibilities I literally can't afford the time to be irresponsible. I certainly wish I could, the sheer amount of time I had as a kid was amazing.
I mean, they'll take the time to write flowery marking BS like "our transmission delivers power intelligently right where it's needed for the smoothest ride, optimizing your comfort and blah blah blah use dirt mode for pushing your adventure to the extreme and sport mode when it's time to shine blah blah" but they won't say "The system can apply the brakes to an individual wheel if the tire loses traction."
And then they'll sell several different models which all have equivalent but different marking BS and no way to tell what the actual difference between the products is. Give me a damn table of specifications.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited-slip_differential is the general answer, I believe. Interesting reading whether it's the correct answer or not. The section labelled "electronic" is probably more applicable to the Subaru.
The funny thing is, I think (nearly) all cars, with minor changes to the ABS unit, could have the hardware necessary for brake based torque vectoring within the ABS unit.
But, due to the ABS unit software being contracted out to a different company, it only is used for ABS and cannot act to make the car have a virtual diff lock, unless the car manufacturer wants to pay Bosch the extra $$$ for different software.
It’s not that simple. “Naive” torque vectoring will shatter CV axles if the drivetrain isn’t designed for it. Consider the scenario when three wheels are completely stuck in mud/sand and one is spinning. If the load is transferred from the free wheel and the others don’t gain traction, something will give.
Software would presumably be programmed with those limits to not break stuff.
During normal operation, every gear in a differential holds the whole drive torque anyway. So really the only issue is sudden changes in wheel vectoring which could end up using engine/driveshaft momentum to smash gears. You'd just program the software to not do that.
> AWD means that all the wheels receive power from the power train.
I used to think that, until my car (Dodge Charger) with AWD had its tail swing out on ice. Basically, AWD for that vehicle meant "Rear Wheel Drive until it slips," at which point the front wheels would receive power.
Same with my Toyota Prius, though it was FWD until it slipped, then the rear wheels kicked in. Even my AWD EV with dedicated motors doesn't have them all active all the time.
The Subaru is the only AWD vehicle I've owned which was full time 4 wheel drive.
You’re a bit confused here. A Subaru is AWD, and essentially has 3 diffs. Centre, front and rear. A Tacoma has 2 diffs. And a transfer case in the middle. A transfer case acts like a locked centre diff when engaged in 4wd, otherwise only sends power to the rear diff. When 4x4 people talk about locking diffs they mean a locking front and or rear diff.
Something like a wrangler rubicon or a G-class would have a locking front and rear from factory which is rare. Transfer case and locking rear isn’t particularly unusual in an offroad vehicle.
The rules regulating this clearly defined what was considered an appropriate vehicle and explicitly called out that AWD vehicles are not considered 4WD.
I will admit, the rule was not obviously posted, but knowing the rules is part of adventuring in public land like this.
Yes, and even some of the responses to your comment are wrong (or rather, they are right only for certain brands). Which probably means that enforcement is going to be... hilarious.
What we can decipher is what the NPS is angling for. Many cars labeled "AWD" provide power to all four wheels, but if one of the wheels is not making contact with the ground, the remaining ones get little or no power. This is because the axles incorporate differentials - and if you have uneven traction, the torque delivered to the differential follows the path of least resistance. The end result is that it's deceptively easy to get stuck on uneven terrain, in mud, or in snow.
But then, some "AWD" cars actually provide good workarounds. In the simplest variant, the car automatically applies brakes to the free-spinning wheel, forcing the differential to power the other wheel. Less wasteful and more responsive solutions that mechanically sense torque imbalance also exist.
And then, some "4WD" cars work roughly the same way! For example, some models of RAM 3500 are labeled as four-wheel drive (4x4), but rely on torque-sensing ("Torsen") limited-slip differentials. Other 4x4 cars might have a button to physically lock the differentials. This is widely regarded as the best option, except it's dangerous on paved roads (and makes turning hard).
4WD mechanically interlocks the front and rear wheels (setting aside the front and rear differentials). You cannot use 4WD on clean pavement because of this; the front and rear may need to turn at different rates which 4WD doesn’t allow. It’s ok off road because the wheels can slip a little in the dirt.
AWD generally does not mechanically 1:1 interlock anything, instead using things like torque converters. This allows it to be used on clean pavement. It isn’t as robust as 4WD, and has to respond to wheel slip instead of simply being 1:1 all the time.
> The most consequential distinction between AWD systems and more capable 4WD systems is that most vehicles equipped with 4WD have one or more locking differentials that massively aid in off-road traction. While AWD systems are great for increasing driver confidence on slippery road surfaces and in light off-roading, they are easily flummoxed in more challenging off-road terrain, especially low-speed and low-traction situations.
Pretty sure the Subaru Crosstrek mentioned in the article doesn't have one, but a WRX STI (also marketed as "AWD") has a lockable center diff.
I agree with the other comment: if the Parks Service wants locking diffs (or ride height or whatever else) they should say so, not rely on inconsistent marketing terms.
Numerous sources saying this is wrong. 4WD is not just AWD with locking diffs. Park service should call for cars that only have locking diffs if that's what they mean.
The cars are equipped with a differential that distributes power differently between the wheels. This is particularly useful for preventing the wheels from squealing when cornering. In a bend, the four wheels do not turn at the same speed between the inside and outside of the bend.
This gives you better grip, a smoother ride, etc. It's really essential.
- When you have two wheel drive you only have one differential between the two wheels.
- When you have four-wheel drive you have three differentials, one between the front wheels, one between the rear wheels and one between the front and rear.
So far so simple.
Now one of the problems with differentials is that if one of the wheels loses traction, it gets all the power back and spins in a vacuum.
Finding yourself with a wheel in the sand, in the air, on the snow, etc. is very common when driving off-road or in the mountains. This problem has been solved with the differential lock, which can be manual or automatic. When locked, the differential is locked and power is transmitted equally to the wheels.
So you can get out of your sandy or snowy hole. That's what we call a 4x4.
A All-wheel-drive has no differential locking system.So if one wheel loses its grip, the vehicle is stuck. There's nothing you can do - all the power will go to the wheel with the least grip.
So AWD is particularly unsuitable for off-road use and shouldn't be sold as such.
Some off-road vehicles do not have a differential, such as quad bikes or buggies. Perfect for mud, not so great on the road.
There are exceptions. I believe the Kia Telluride SUV is sold as AWD and it has a locking differential system (or at least it’s an option). There are probably others as well.
The Kia Telluride does not have a locking differential in the same sense as conventional 4x4 vehicles. In fact, the Kia Telluride comes with a multi-plate center clutch that allows for distribution of power between the front and rear wheels. When the clutch is fully engaged, in most cases there should be no slippage which means that power is distributed evenly (50/50) between the front and rear. However, there's always the possibility that the clutch can slip given enough of a torque differential between the front and the back. It can offer improved traction in poor road conditions.
A proper locking differential found in most traditional 4x4 vehicles/trucks, when engaged, physically locks the axles together which means they cannot spin at different rates. This is essential for many more rigorous off-road applications when you may have to rely on traction from a single wheel to get you unstuck.
This is exactly the type of misleading marketing that is described in many other comments. A clutch pack cannot physically lock axles together in the same way as a locking diff.
I've covered the basics, so I'll leave it to you to explain the 25 thousand different systems that try to compensate for the lack of a differential lock.
The simple answer is that you can detect wheel slip, then you lock slipping wheels with the brakes.
There are a few other systems (not 25k), using a clutch or independent motors, but it doesn't matter: the claimed deficiencies of some AWD only needs to be debunked and corrected.
Watch the linked YouTube video for more details on Subaru's system, the same system cited by the National Park.
Bottom line, a lot of modern AWD systems are perfectly adequate and in some cases superior to 4 wheel drive systems.
Up until not long ago, you could get away with this test: "Do I, as the driver, have to stop, think, and make some choice to command the car to change some setting that governs whether or not I get across this patch of terrain?" The 'stop' step is important; certain classical 4WD shifts require the vehicle to be stationary. The automatic-ness of the AWD systems -- no pesky second shifter -- was the differentiator.
Now that we have knobs for different "driving modes," the the ability to slam it into whatever position whenever we want while an ECU figures out how to keep a gearbox from exploding, it's genuinely hard. Still, the presentation of a setting like "lock/unlock" and "two/four" and "high/low" is the standard I still go by (right or wrong).
>I'm still as confused as I was before reading the comments.
I agree, and I know a bit about this!
The reality is very few vehicles on the market are legit "off-road" capable. But, the other side of that is not every trail is legit "off-road", either. Just because there's no pavement, doesn't mean it's "off-road".
There's an entire spectrum of vehicles and trails where normal people can get off the beaten path.
A transfer case is something BMW calls the thing that attaches to the side of your transmission to provide power to front wheel shafts, this does not mean the car is 4WD. Yes, still confusing.
Not sure about this park, but elsewhere the NPS has made this distinction clear.
Death Valley's map makes clear that a high clearance crossover, high clearance 2WD or high clearance AWD vehicle is one class, and 4WD vehicles are another. See page 2:
The Death Valley one seems reasonable--if a bit conservative, which is appropriate. And high clearance seems an appropriate distinction--which the rangers will make as well. It's probably also worth noting that for places like the Racetrack having appropriate tires (and full-size spares) is important as well. I wouldn't have an issue driving there on my own but I wouldn't probably do it in a random rental.
4WD is poorly defined, and the NPS shouldn't be using it, especially by trying to classify an AWD system as something of lesser capability. The SAE even recommends using the term AWD along with 8 different subclasses, none of which use the term 4WD. Jalopnik can hand-wave all they want about what the NPS "means" but the definition should be from a recognized standard if legal action is going to be taken.
I'm lost that people keep discussing the terms in terms of vague capabilities (not suitable for low speed muddy, etc) and not focusing on the actual mechanical difference. Is it the locking differentials or not? Is that the only distinction that matters in this case? I have no clue. Would a AWD not have it by definition? Do all 4wd have it?
Really you want five things if you're doing hard off road.
1. Locking differentials so all 4 tires spin in sync.
2. Extra low gears so you can crawl at a walking pace or less.
3. Clearance so you don't high side.
4. Strong suspension that won't get beat to death.
5. Tires that can take the abuse.
Typical AWD's don't have 1, 2 and 4. Lack of #1 means if one tire spins you lose traction. Lack of #2 in a manual transmission means you burn out your clutch. Lack of #4 means breakdowns and helping the guy that owns your auto shop put his kid through college.
You can lift AWD and put good tires on them.
Tip I've heard from people that live in places like rural Nevada having a 4WD gives you the opportunity to get stuck farther in.
> 4WD gives you the opportunity to get stuck farther in.
Fine advice I was given as a new jeep owner was, 2WD to get in, 4WD to get out. I don't have lockers, but 4lo has been sufficient for farm mud and snow so far.
what I have learned is the desire for a jeep is better served by a pickup and an atv. I am happy with the JK and will keep it, but the actual communities for most rural activities use one or the other, where the jeep is a compromise that means relatively mediocre utility and offroad capability in comparison.
It's the absolute best convertible 6cyl stick runabout dog carrier with a short wheelbase and gardening-trailer hitch for weekenders that is just constant fun, and I will maintain mine for another decade if I can, but rurally and for the money, get a used truck, atv, and maybe a dirt bike instead.
While there are rare situations where locking differentials are meaningful, having been in many hair raising off-road situations, including a real life or death one, I'd much rather have AWD and clearance, than 4WD and no clearance.
That is to say, I'm not convinced by the article's hypothesis about locking diffs. It's extremely rare to need to deploy those: beached, or slow starts up vertical surfaces like boulders. An AWD vehicle with good tires and good clearance is really quite good. Bonus points if you don't care about wrecking it.
I think I've only really seen this as a Honda Element - otherwise I'm not sure it meaningfully exists. The reality with most AWD cars is that their important guts are hanging lower compared to 4WD trucks even when the paper ground clearance is similar.
My previous car was AWD and I have a 4WD SUV now largely for off road performance, and there's no question 4WD (particularly 4LO) is much better at getting unstuck in trail conditions. The AWD is definitely superior for icy pavement in the cold months though.
> Bonus points if you don't care about wrecking it
This was actually what mainly pushed me over to the 4WD side instead of something like the Forester. The crossovers can actually get you to a lot of places but they do get thrashed if you do it enough. They are still more geared for pavement use but, if you're wrecking your suspension off road, the on road performance isn't gonna be great either.
> I think I've only really seen this as a Honda Element - otherwise I'm not sure it meaningfully exists.
Maybe it's not meaningful, but vans in the 80s and 90s were often offered with optional 4x4, sometimes with a locking differential. An unmodified Astro or Aerostar doesn't have a whole lot of ground clearance, but could fit the definition of 4wd if properly optioned and probably wouldn't be suitable for these trails unless it gets some aftermarket help.
Of course, few of these are running anymore. 4x4 kei vans can get pretty serious too, but not a lot running on US national park fire roads.
I'm working from memory here, but I believe early 90s Audi "quattro"s (like the 100) had the feature. That said, I think we are very much in "the exception that proves the rule" territory.
Most stock pickups, actually. You'd be surprised how low the clearance is on a stock f150 without the various off-road packages. I.e. you can easily have a pickup with basic 4wd but only 8 inches of ground clearance. That's technically "high clearance", but not by much, and the poor approach, departure, and break over angles make it tough too.
Depending on your definition of "good," probably most of them. While I have been guilty of taking questionable AWD rentals on questionable roads in places like Death Valley when younger, you really want properly-equipped Jeep Rubicons and the like that you're not going to get from the average car rental place.
> That is to say, I'm not convinced by the article's hypothesis about locking diffs.
I'm not an offroader, but I did own a vehicle without a locking diff, that I later upgraded to having a locking diff (slapped a G80 on the rear of an 80's GMC Sierra) and that made a huge difference even on pavement in inclement weather. Granted, that was a RWD pickup with very little weight (typically) over the drive wheels. I'd honestly be shocked if the impact was minimal in truly offroad conditions. Granted, that's RWD which is even less than AWD or 4WD, so by no means apples to apples comparison there, just my 2 cents.
That said, this isn't a binary thing (locking vs open). There's a wide variety of AWD technology out there, and I could nerd out on the specifics, but at the end of the day, some are very limited in their ability to send power to one set of wheels vs the other, and may not have locking/limited slip diffs at all, and just use brakes to prevent wheel spin. I will say, Subaru (especially the higher/sportier trims like WRX/STi) can often hang and even shame some 4WD vehicles in some conditions. There's no shortage of videos of Subarus helping a 4WD out of a jam, or completing a course they could not, but how much of that is a function of their specific AWD tech and limited slip diffs vs proper tires and lighter weight and any number of things is a matter of debate that I'm not qualified to weigh in on. Again, am a gearhead, but not an offroader.
So I suspect it's not so much the Park saying "Subaru/AWD can't cut it" but rather, keeping track of which years, brands, models, trims, and/or potential optional equipment does cut it is a much more massive headache to keep track of and verify than just saying "4WD yes, everything else no", and I can't really fault them for that.
I am not an off-roader by any stretch of imagination, but I figure the AWD works like single axle drive with a simple diff on each axle i.e. if one wheel has no traction then all torque goes to that wheel and zero goes to the opposite one. I once got stuck on pretty solid pavement in a RWD car when one rear wheel hanged off a curb and lost traction, after that the car could not move as the only wheel getting torque was the one hanging off the ground. I figure the other axle would still get torque on an AWD as they usually have some kind of limited slip mid diff effect from whatever scheme they use to distribute torque between axles, but if you hanged out a wheel on each axle then an AWD vehicle would become stuck too?
Many will do what you’re describing—getting a front and rear wheel off the ground at the same time will leave it stranded. A limited slip center differential will ensure if one axle loses traction the power goes to the other, but many vehicles cheap out and have open differentials on each axle, meaning when one on each axle loses traction it’s just spinning wheels.
Some vehicles have limited slip front/rear/front+rear differentials that avoid this issue. Many newer vehicles simply use the traction control and brakes to avoid it—if a wheel is spinning, it applies the brakes to provide resistance and redirect some torque back to the other wheel.
Like many others are saying, “AWD” is such a broad term as to be basically meaningless.
As pretty much anyone who offroads knows, AWD vehicles absolutely tear up the trails vs a proper 4wd with lockers, since AWD relies on detecting tirespin (ie, destroying trail) to determine when it needs to activate.
AWD can theoretically work far better than a 4WD with diff locks, because it can simulate, based on the steering wheel angle, the exact speed each wheel should turn, and 'lock' each wheel to that speed giving zero slippage.
Just a shame that the sensor -> computer -> actuator feedback loop seems to be 200 milliseconds or more, so AWD vehicles just end up having different wheels slip semi-at-random till that wheel gets the brakes activated 200ms later.
It’s not just sensors. It’s mainly to avoid it falsely applying itself. In my opinion, that is far more dangerous because it’s wildly unpredictable when it will work as expected vs when it toque vector.
I can get the torque vectoring to do some weird things, kind the right conditions on my car. It’s okay because I’m intentionally pushing the limits, but I absolutely would not want the vectoring to kick in when I’m not expecting it. Towing on packed snow/ice is not the place you want to learn your wheels suddenly decided to react dramatically differently.
Most AWD systems do not have the ability to vector torque like that. They're usually based on mechanical limited-slip differentials that require some amount of slip before they partially lock, and sometimes the limited slip is only between front and rear, not left and right. There are different types, with some requiring a lot of slip before they lock up and others requiring little.
Limited slip differentials cost more than open differentials. Limited-slip differentials that lock up quickly cost more than those that allow a lot of wheelspin. Electronically-controlled torque-vectoring differentials cost yet more.
The system you describe seems to meet the NPS definition of 4WD someone linked elsewhere: "a means to mechanically power both front and rear wheels at the same time", though I wonder if there might be some more technical regulation with specific requirements. I agree that sort of thing could work well for off-road use.
NPS defines 4WD specifically as part time four wheel drive with a transfer case and low range, FWIW. Low range is a big part of it. And yes, their definition technically excludes higher end "full time 4WD" systems in some cases, though I suspect everyone would look the other way at those.
A quick web search didn't find a formal definition, only information pages for specific parks with descriptions. I agree it's likely park rangers would use common sense in practice such that a vehicle with an extremely low first couple of gears, lockable differentials, appropriate clearance, and suitable tires wouldn't get cited as "not 4WD" because it doesn't have a selectable 2WD mode.
Incidentally, I once owned a Subaru from the 1980s which had a lockable center differential and separate high/low gearshift, which was synchronized and could be shifted in motion. It was not designed for serious off-road use, illustrating the folly of relying on criteria like these.
> A Jeep, sport utility vehicle (SUV), or truck type with at least 15-inch tire rims and at least eight inches of clearance from the lowest point of the frame, body, suspension, or differential to the ground. Four wheel drive vehicles have a driveshaft that can directly power each wheel at the same time and a transfer case that can shift between powering two wheel or four wheels in low or high gear. All wheel drive (AWD) vehicles do not meet this definition.
I completely agree they'll use their discretion, but either way, that definition is specifically a part time 4WD system with low range.
AWD has come a long way in that regard in the last few years. It's still highly variable from manufacturer to manufacturer, but systems that use internal clutches alongside brakes (and not only brakes) to control wheel movement + tight feedback loops can really do a great job of minimizing wheel spin.
They get a lot of hate, but the bronco sport has the best AWD system I've driven to date in that regard.
And with that said, it is still the type of thing the Park Service would rightfully cite as not a proper 4wd. 9ish inches of clearance is not much, and the lack of a low range will bite you. I've taken mine on plenty of milder 4wd only trails in parks (e.g. black gap in big bend plus tons and tons of forest service roads), but I'm certainly not going to do elephant hill in canyonlands with it. That's what the dedicated off-road rig is for.
There are "4wd only" trails in national parks that high clearance AWD is fine on. The rangers will tell you which ones those are.
Canyonlands is a different beast than most national parks. Canyonlands has some very gnarly trails open if you have a permit. Lookup dollhouse sometime. Beautiful, but insanely technical. Elephant hill is better known and a bit milder.
From their report of "the little three-, two- and (very occasionally) one-wheel-yeet maneuver", it sounds like the lack of suspension travel was the main issue. The details of your AWD or 4WD system don't matter as much if you can keep your wheels on the ground.
Still, just because they were fine doesn't mean someone else would have been. The main risk seems like doing a somewhat technical, off-the-beaten-path trail alone regardless of your vehicle's capabilities.
Yeah, I came across that earlier. Definitely impressive!!
I completely agree with your general point (articulation matters a ton!) but I have to take a bit of issue with:
> "The details of your AWD or 4WD system don't matter as much if you can keep your wheels on the ground."
That's where the details of the system matter the most. Getting torque to a single tire is the hard part and the reason folks focus on it so much. A _very good_ AWD system can get enough torque to move the vehicle uphill / out of a tough system to a _single wheel_. Most can't. Most traditional part-time 4WD systems can't either. Open front and rear diffs are the norm in "true 4wd". Locking rear diffs are starting to become commonplace, but only a few stock vehicles come "triple locked" from the factory.
I grew up wheeling an old mid 80's S10 Blazer. Fun, small, fit down trails well, had the "holy grail" 100" wheelbase. Solid rear axle + IFS. Manual transmission. Good (enough) articulation. Plenty of clearance. Big enough tires. Crap horsepower. Worse gas milage. "True" part time 4wd with a transfer case (i.e. would 100% meet the NPS's definition in this case). But open front and rear diffs. I got stuck every time I got a tire off the ground.
I've taken the little bronco sport plenty of places I tried but could never make it in the Blazer. (And to be fair, vice versa... Big muddy ruts are not something I want to put the sport through for clearance reasons, and that's kinda what the Blazer did best.) At any rate, good modern AWD can often beat traditional part time 4wd with open front/rear diffs when wheel lift comes into play. On the flip side, independent suspension all around means it's going to lift tires _all the time_, so it _has_ to be good at it. Most AWD systems unfortunately aren't, even though some are these days.
Locking differentials are very useful in particularly challenging terrain. Think step rough rock climbs or soft sand. For punting along an average fire trail or dirt road, though, it’s clearance, strong tyres and suspension travel that’s more important.
A Subaru has none of the above. They make great cars, but they’re not an off road vehicle.
I say this as a Jeep owner; it's ridiculous to claim that Subarus are not appropriate for punting along fire trails. The average obstacle on fire trails in the PNW is mud or large potholes, both of which a Subaru is perfectly appropriate for. A Crosstrek has 8.7in of ground clearance which is plenty compared to say, a Prius.
That being said, the trail from the linked article is not an average fire road. They have genuine rock hazards, steep slick rock climbs and descents, and deep sand. I'm sure the national park service is extremely tired of people getting stuck and setting off their emergency beacons because they drove inappropriate vehicles into the park.
the previous poster didn't say that subarus are not appropriate for fire trails, it's saying that Subaru's are not off road vehicles for "particularly challenging terrain", as in "Think step rough rock climbs or soft sand."
What it does say is that for fire trails, "clearance, strong tyres and suspension travel" are more important, which the Subaru does quality for.
You correctly interpreted my meaning with "none of the above". An older gen Forester with a good set of tyres fitted can fit the bill, for sure. The Subaru Brumby is an outback legend and you still see plenty of them rolling around, going more places than you'd imagine possible.
A Subaru Crosstrek wearing it's original HT tyres, though? It's not intended as an off-road vehicle. That's not what it was built for. Low clearance, insufficient travel, weak tyres.
Can confirm the Brumby behavior, If there is one vehicle you will see driving like a maniac on the the CREB / Bloomfield track in North Queensland it's a brumby driver usually with a ZZ Top length beard.
But "clearance, strong tyres and suspension travel" have NOTHING to do with 4WD vs AWD, which as far as I can tell is kind of a silly distinction since nowadays cars have sophisticated enough drivetrains that they can use brake-based torque vectoring to force up to half the engine torque into one wheel.
They clearly could do that, since ABS systems allow for independent braking on each wheel.
But I'm unaware of any production AWD vehicle which allows that as a "hack" to emulate a sort-of locked differential when your hardware is an open differential.
It's probably used as part of computer controlled traction control on some vehicles, but those systems are usually too smart for their own good in off-road and similarly challenging conditions.
Actually independent wheel braking as part of an electronic traction control system is pretty common and _can be_ excellent. The Land Rover Discovery looks to have gotten a bit soft in the latest iteration, but they've used that system for years. Coupled with the coil suspension all round with good articulation, they're well regarded off road. Not long-term durable on high speed rough roads, mind you, but brilliant at climbing a snotty hill.
For serious or regular off road work, a mechanical locking diff is the way to go. Yes, most electronic systems will completely freak out and stop you going anywhere in soft sand until you remember to turn them off. They do have their place though.
If you've driven the trail before, know what the weather has been like recently, and have some info to suggest that the trail remains in good condition then absolutely!
Thing is, there are great fire trails and awful fire trails. They don't consistently stay one or the other, either. Some of the trails near me have just been re-done and I'd happily drive in a Subaru BRZ. Others I wouldn't go down in our Isuzu FTS-800.
I drove a Toyota Prius into some really ridiculous terrain. It was all I had and I really wanted to see some places that weren’t accessible by paved roads.
Here’s what I Learned about driving a 2WD car into questionable situations:
- driving up particularly steeps roads isn’t going to happen because the gearing doesn’t go low enough on the car, and the car won’t have enough power to struggle up the steep grade
- the biggest challenge on any road is ground clearance, so it’s hard to drive over big rocks, rises/drips in elevation, and generally uneven surfaces
- good luck driving through significant mud and water
So if you’re driving along a fire road when it isn’t raining, as long is it’s not too steep, raining, and the rocks aren’t too big, and car with decent tires can probably do it, especially a Subaru.
I have say I’ve needed to use difflock on the Defender (another solid axle vehicle excellent at maintaining ground clearance) more times for mud than for ditch traversal.
No, this is only true with equal traction at each wheel, which quite often isn't the case (mud, snow, ice, etc.). Locking diffs are very useful offroad.
Audi's with Torsens only lock front-to-back (but then so do a lot of 4WD vehicles). They use brakes to stop slipping wheels so the other side will get torque. A long time ago, they had lockers for the rear for low speed use.
My friend has a subaru that he regularly takes on stuff that always impresses the truck and jeep riders. This includes soft sand on dunes, straight up the sides of leaf covered hills, through high rivers with rock bottoms. I think he has lifted it slightly but just about an inch or so with new performance shocks.
I still dont understand the difference between 4wd and awd, but the article spends more or less the entire time talking about locking and limited slip differentials and how AWD generally don’t have them which is “why they’re not allowed”, while also acknowledging that just being 4wd doesn’t mean there’s any kind of diff lock either.
If the actual reason ia the difference in how the diff is locked, then access should be restricted on the basis of that, not on the mechanism the wheels are driven.
I assume that the actual reason for the 4wd only rule is because there is a real difference in how they work?
Serious offroad vehicles traditionally don't have a center diff and instead let you lock the axles together by putting the transfer case into 4hi or 4lo (for extra torque multiplication) which means that you need to lift at least a front and a rear wheel off the ground before getting stuck. Front/rear locking diffs further reduce the odds of getting stuck. Crossovers typically have a FWD drivetrain with an appendage that sends power to a rear axle that contains an electromechanically actuated or viscous coupling which is very similar. The coupling is actually in a way similar to a transfer case but takes wheelspin to kick in which sucks offroad. Then some trucks and sporty cars use an electromechanically actuated transfer case that sends power forward. The Mercedes G-class and Humvee have a center diff so are technically full time AWD but then they also have a reduction gear as well. Basically it's hard to classify vehicles' offroad capability so the copout is using 4WD to mean real offroad and AWD to mean "get you unstuck from a couple inches of snow".
Quick note from a place with feet of snow to say that AWD vehicles work well here. People either drive trucks or Subarus and I don't see more of one kind stuck in snow than the other. Obviously winter tires required.
Yeah, I have pretty good experiences with AWD vehicles like xDrive BMWs or a Nissan Qashqai in snow. The Qashqai even performs pretty well in deep snow if you use the differential lock.
The primary reason there's a 4WD vs AWD distinction is the ability to lock the differentials, and that determines the mechanisms that the wheels are driven by.
And that's why they use those terms in a prescriptive law context.
to simplify:
AWD -> power gets to all wheels (driven wheels) but wheels are usually allowed to spin at different speeds to facilitate pavement driving and turning.
4WD -> power gets to all wheels, but there is a locking mechanism that locks all wheels so they all turn at the same speed - if you know the physics of turning objects, it means turning while underway is either impossible or damaging to the drivetrain. This is however, useful in mud or rock, or challenging terrain. When on mud or rock or whatnot, you turn, move a bit, stop, check, turn a bit, move, stop, check, turn a bit, movie, stop, etc. So the fact that all wheels turn at the same time is an advantage.
The reason some 4WD don't have a "differential lock" is that it's fused by bare metal - it doesn't need a lock because it's welded together, so no lock needed!
The car and driver article gives an easy test: if the car manual tells you "this is bad for road driving" - that's 4WD.
you might think "well 4WD is terribly useless for regular driving" and you would be entirely correct. That's why most 4WD cars incorporate both modes of driving mechanisms so they can switch.
You can tell apart a permanent 4WD / full time rock climber by the owner needing to use a trailer to move the vehicle instead of driving it over the highway, usually they use a pickup truck or SUV with a regular drivetrain to haul gear and pull the trailer with the 4WD vehicle to the trailhead, unload, then go into places like Death Valley Back Country or Moab with the 4WD vehicle.
I’d add that from the park service’s perspective this is pretty simple. They don’t want to have people getting stuck in the backcountry or damaging trails, and as an agency with limited staffing, millions of visitors, and huge territory to protect it’s understandable that they do not want some complicated argument with every wannabe rules lawyer who thinks they can drive like they saw in the commercial. “Only 4WD” is a policy that doesn’t require training thousands of rangers around the country about which models are considered acceptable.
> but wheels are usually allowed to spin at different speeds to facilitate pavement driving and turning
To drive home why NPS cares about this, the way the car detects how fast the wheel should spin is by detecting slippage. But every time that happens, you're shredding up the road. That turns AWD vehicles into pothole machines.
I drive a Subaru and I drive it off road. I would feel comfortable driving it in most off-road conditions, from a safety perspective, but I won't because I'm fucking up the trail.
> 4WD -> power gets to all wheels, but there is a locking mechanism that locks all wheels so they all turn at the same speed - if you know the physics of turning objects, it means turning while underway is either impossible or damaging to the drivetrain.
Is my understanding of your usage of "underway" right if you're saying that the only recommended and safe way to use the steering wheel on a 4WD is when at standstill? That you can't/shouldn't turn at all when in motion?
On pavement, yes, turning while moving (on pavement) by definition damages a 4WD engaged / locked differential drivetrain and tires, because the system is forced to move all wheels at the same speed, thus either the drivetrain takes the force, or more commonly, the wheels skid (shedding tire material), which leads to unsafe driving conditions on the road (imagine turning the wheel and your whole car starts skidding).
The benefit of 4WD is when there are loose surfaces (like on gravel) and you actually want all wheels engaged like if 2 or even 3 wheels are off the ground.
during 4WD rock crawling the tires do get ripped to shreds very quickly, but you get the advantages of being able to climb almost vertical rockfaces and drive through rough terrain.
Through all this drivetrain talk, I hope you understand why Park Services would want to enforce 4WD - because AWD and 4WD are fundamentally set up to do entirely different things. And it's not right to say "4wd and awd are the same"
4WD drive means all tires spin at the exact same speed, no matter what. AWD drive means each tire can rotate at a different speed. Tires with less grip will spin faster. Notably, if a tire on an AWD car is in the air, only that tire will spin. You won’t move anywhere because all of the force is expelled through the free wheeling tire.
4WD solves this issue by essentially locking everything together. Great for unsticking yourself, but terrible for every day driving. Things like turning into a parking spot can cause binding since wheels on the outside of the turn need to travel a longer distance than those on the inside of a turn
This works in a controlled test. Unfortunately what you’ll find if you own one of these is that with a real obstacle you’d encounter off-road it’s not able to move enough torque to get you unstuck. These systems are good at maintaining some momentum if you have it in my experience. This is where a mechanical LSD or locking differentials make all the difference.
And yet a Subaru was the car cited in the article as not being compliant with their regulations... it's just clear that the National Park Service doesn't understand how cars work.
I'm not sure there's anything wrong with the rule. It's easy to understand by everyone and doesn't require any additional level of testing of certification.
Realistically, people who regularly drive on these types of trails want a proper 4WD system. Not just for the "locking diff", but for the other capabilities that tend to come with a "proper" 4WD car.
Beyond "hard" capabilities, AWD torque vectoring tears roads up. The torque vectoring essentially requires the tires to spin before it will kick in. That doesn't happen in a "locked" 4wd system.
Please just stop. Where are you getting your information?
Maybe some crappy AWD systems have damaged roads at some point, I will give you the benefit of the doubt, but most do not. I've honestly never even heard of this.
4WD absolutely loses traction on roads if you leave the differential locked, and I'm sure if you amortized the extra weight and clueless drivers, 4WD does more damage then AWD.
I got rid of my 4WD truck for an AWD system specifically because the performance was better. It wasn't even close. Trucks suck compared to a Subaru in traction, and off roading for obvious reasons:
1. Trucks have no weight in the back most of the time.
2. Trucks have poor clearance.
3. Subaru's AWD is pretty danged good.
(I really didn't want to like Subarus, trust me, I looked at all the data though, and test drove everything)
Of course, none these vehicles compare to purpose built and custom off-road vehicles, but that's not what we are talking about here...
And yes, I have seen people fix the deficiencies of a truck, and have a nice cargo vehicle that climb cliffs, it's bad ass, but expensive and rare. Those trucks cost as much as a Ferrari.
And again, advanced AWD systems are more advanced and better than 4WD in every single way, and there is even more room for improvement with AWD systems. Why waste sending power down a shaft that has no traction?
Why wouldn't you want more control over more control surfaces of your vehicle?
4WD will bind and hop, but it will not cause the spinning that happens with AWD. The binding and hopping really only occurs at extreme turning angles and is extremely minor.
Torque vectoring is very good, but it’s not perfect. It require slip to detect and react. The problem is you cannot detect slippage when a wheel is completely stopped, so you have to let it spin at least a little bit. This is what causes excessive single wheel rutting.
It can also create unpredictably since you need to wait for a wheel to spin before it can kick in. Notable, if you need a lot of power, this can cause and extremely harsh jerk that does not happen in a 4WD system.
I've done Toyota Landcruiser, Toyota Tundra, Subaru Ascent, Subaru Outback, Subaru Crosstrek, Chevy Silverado.
I don't do crazy cliff stuff on them, I take my dirt bikes and quads on gnarly terrain.
The Ascent has impressed the hell out of me. Two wheels off the ground at 30% grade (40% on one corner) getting up a winding switchback in the Smokey Mountains.
If I got a citation from the National Park Service, I'd be pretty danged annoyed, and lose a lot of respect for the sensibility of the organization.
The whole conversation is a bit tough because there are a LOT of blurred lines. Some 4WD systems can act like AWD systems. Some AWD systems can act like 4WD systems.
The cited regulation[1] defines a "high clearance four-wheel-drive vehicle" as
A Jeep, sport utility vehicle (SUV), or truck type with at least 15-inch tire rims and at least eight inches of clearance from the lowest point of the frame, body, suspension, or differential to the ground. Four wheel drive vehicles have a driveshaft that can directly power each wheel at the same time and a transfer case that can shift between powering two wheel or four wheels in low or high gear. All wheel drive (AWD) vehicles do not meet this definition.
First, note that all recent Crosstrek models have 17" wheels and minimum ground clearance of 8.7" or more, so the only potential issue is "all wheel drive".
The last sentence is at best non-normative, so the actual requirements appear to be:
1. The ability to power all four wheels at once.
2. A drivetrain that includes a transfer case capable of switching between two- and four-wheel drive and, in four-wheel-drive mode, between two distinct gear ratios.
In particular, the regulation says nothing about differential locks.
Obviously the Crosstrek has (1), but not (2), so the citation is valid.
OTOH, (2) not only excludes Subaru-style all-wheel-drive systems and AFAIK all electric vehicles, but also several full-time four-wheel drive vehicles clearly designed for off-road use, including the Toyota Land Cruiser[2] and the military-issue AM General HMMVW[3], for no other reason than the lack of a two-wheel drive mode.
Definitions are hard. By that wording, any Land Cruiser outside the 70 series is forbidden because they're a full time 4WD. Nobody will argue that an 80, 100 or 200 series cruiser isn't a very capable 4WD.
I don't begrudge the parks people that wrote the regulation, though. Fundamentally what they're trying to say is just "Don't be dumb, only drive the trails in a vehicle that you know is capable, and if you don't have the experience to know that you have your answer".
The job of the regulation is to give them the ability to deliver an enforcement action where it's warranted. The job of the rangers is to use their judgement in a given situation, and either pull someone up or just wave hello. That's what's happened here, the system works.
I begrudge them. The law can simply say what you paraphrased and not try to get into nitty gritty, and leave it at good ol common sense. It's funny how when we interpret laws, they stop at what THEY consider common sense and not at the level that EVERYONE considers common sense. What I mean by that is, say you try to argue (for whatever reason) that your vehicle DOES meet the definition that was oh-so-difficult to write (Won't someone think of the law clerks?), they clearly have a conclusion already in their mind that they are so benevolently protecting us from, and YOU VIOLATED IT, YOU FIEND. But say you get up on the stand and try to argue the exact circumstances of your vehicle, you had a record of every bump and balance point, an IMS log, and a log PROVING the wheels never once slipped, even though you "DIDN'T HAVE 4WD". You could go as far as you want proving them wrong. In the end they'll just tell you to stop trying to be so pedantic and proclaim you guilty.
When I was younger we made a joke about how there was 'the commission' that made everything suck more. Just to fuck with us. For instance making sure hot dogs come per 8, but buns per 6. Or the '3 person portion' with 4 equal size pieces. Or making the plastic on top of packaging so thin the 'open here' tabs will never work.
Anyway, I've since learned this is actually called 'marketing departments' and that commission that makes everything suck is just emergent behavior. Probably anyway ;)
The biggest missing piece in these definitions? The tires. Most cars these days come with a very highway biased tire. These tires will fail very quickly in most conditions found on off road trails, especially those that are designated as 4x4 required. Failure can be as innocuous as limited traction or complete such as a flat tire from a puncture. If you are in a situation where a tire is punctured from lack of durability how do you think that space saver spare (or can of fix-a-flat) is going to help you get out?
The second major issue with AWD systems is often the clutch based systems that are engaged to transfer power ‘from the wheels that slip to the wheels that grip’. When used in demanding conditions these systems can overheat and shutdown. This also applies to brake biasing systems as well (brakes applied to spinning wheels to transfer torque to other wheels). It can be especially challenging for brakes as there is generally not sufficient air flow over the brakes to cool them during slower speed off-road travel.
"Some", which is what, just Rivian? I wouldn't take our dual-motor Hyundai Ioniq 5 down anything more technical than a forest road, if only because of its (IIRC) 7 inches of ground clearance. And I imagine the AWD software is tuned to icy suburban streets, not something like this trail. Best I can tell, the AWD is supposed to get you to the ski slopes, not down the Rubicon.
No, off-roading is about having the right equipment that doesn’t cause other people problems or problems that you regret. If I’m on a well-graded gravel road, it should be fine to take a Ferrari on it without stupid rules getting in the way.
These rules are not applied to "well-graded gravel roads." There are specific routes that require the specific equipment, and none of the requirements are unreasonable given the demands of the terrain.
As someone who recently purchased a 4x4 vehicle after getting stuck in an “all-wheel drive” vehicle…
I can’t fault the NPS for these actions.
Every manufacturer seems to have a different definition of 4WD, with the line between AWD getting blurrier and blurrier.
Sure, some AWD systems are pretty capable with automatic electronic braking to drive power to different wheels (mine wasn’t).
Even my new 4x4 vehicle also has this (A-trac) and I rarely need to lock my diffs, it’s great!
But when push comes to shove, road conditions are unpredictable and having a high-clearance vehicle that you can manually override which wheels are getting power is a lifesaver (literally).
I’ve seen YouTube videos of stock Subarus handling tough trials in Moab and elsewhere. This type of distinction seems too simplistic and isn’t something that should result in threats to confiscate the vehicle or jail time.
Agreed. There needs to be serious statistics to back up the claim that it is SO COMMON the case where one wheel off the ground and thus you're stuck -- it's SO COMMON and the effects SO CATASTROPHIC that the punishment is potentially 6 months incarceration (aka ruining most people's lives permanently). I've seen plenty of 4wd vehicles stuck for myriad reasons. How about adding vehicle weight, tire pressure, tire diameter, tire width, tread depth, tread pattern, passenger count, mandatory shovels, mandatory boards, mandatory jacks, to the law??
And to think the rangers WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY to install secret trail cams and then pour over the footage or set up some CV software to auto send such damning letters to those who dare enjoy the national park!
This blows my mind. And these rangers should be ashamed of themselves.
So I have a 2015 Mitsubishi Outlander Sport, which says it has 4WD (not AWD) but from what I can tell the technology is equivalent to what Subaru et al calls AWD.
People that think the government is correct here need to watch the video of a Subaru Forster casually summiting a huge sand dune while many “proper off road vehicles” fail to do so.
Whats the difference between AWD and 4WD? Luxury SUVS are AWD and have transfer cases with locking diffs. G Wagons, Range rovers, Cayennes. The luxury crossovers have limited slip diffs and brake torque vectoring.
Edit: Not sure why i am getting downvoted. Here are the specs to a G Wagon. AWD with front and rear diff locks.
G wagon is a proper 4WD vehicle. It might be able to drive in AWD modes, but it has proper diffs to do it.
There are loads of exceptions, but generally AWD vehicles have weaker or non-existent locking diffs. For example, I believe my AWD vehicle simulates locking diffs with clutch plates. Those clutches can and do slip. They’re effective at keeping the wheels “mostly locked” but not true 4WD.
Further, most of the brake based torque vectoring required “slip detection” that’s only possible when a wheel spins. These systems aren’t really perfect in actually locking out motion on a free wheel. They kind of have to let them slip from time to time to check condition. These systems also tend to allow a lot of spin before they kick in - that years up roads.
I have a new Tiguan. It’s supposed to be AWD. In reality though, even when in off-road mode, it’s basically front-wheel-drive as evidenced by the fronts spinning when you accelerate hard into a gap in traffic. Most cars that use a Haldex oem for their awd act similarly.
The neat thing about the Haldex is that with just a software tune you can substantially improve the performance of it. The hardware is actually far more capable than you'd ever know with the enormous amount of slack that's programmed into it from the manufacturers. Obviously this voids your warranty, but it's a fairly low-risk modification.
I only spent a few minutes on Google so you'd have to do your own research since I am not familiar with the Tiguan although I know the MQB platform it's built on. Anyway for the Tiguan you might have to actually order a part, there might not be enough interest in that model specifically. If you google "tiguan haldex tune" it will take you in the right direction. This tune is somewhat common for the performance cars on the MQB platform, like the Golf R and RS3. I can't think of any reason it would cause trouble for the Tiguan but it's mostly track junkies doing these modifications, not offroad enthusiasts.
When I put my car into sport mode, it does nearly 50/50 power application. When it’s in normal or eco, it will put 80% of the load on the front tires, then only increase rear tire load as needed.
Recovering a car from a remote area can be a big job. Not only do you need a vehicle capable of getting into and out of the spot where the first car got stuck, it might need to do so while also carrying the first car.
Dragging the first car to where you can get it on to the recovery vehicle can cause significant damage to the trail. Repairing that can be a big job when you can't just drive a tip truck full of sand/gravel/rocks to the spot. It's not at all outlandish for the consequences of a stuck Subaru to pretty quickly run to "We need to contract a high lift capacity helicopter for a few days to fly in a half tonne of gravel and a repair crew".
And then there's the fact that to some degree, you're endangering the people who need to come get you.
> And then there's the fact that to some degree, you're endangering the people who need to come get you.
This is especially true because the same kind of people who will drive somewhere out of their league are more likely to also be doing so in bad conditions with inadequate preparation so the rescue team might be rushing at night, in adverse weather, etc. A couple of people I knew who went hiking or mountain biking in the BLM land east of San Diego had stories about sharing food and water with people who’d only packed driving treats and forgot that SUVs can get stuck pretty easily no matter what the ads showed.
The trail in the picture clearly doesn't have gravel and doesn't seem like it's maintained at all. If it was a maintained gravel road, people wouldn't get stuck in the first place. It also doesn't seem like a life threatening kind of place. You can probably just have another car drag yours a few meters to get you unstuck.
Won't somebody think of the trails!? We should all stay home to preserve the trails so that some unknown generation at some unknown point in the future can ... also stay home to preserve the trails.
Creating less work for park rangers. If people drive unsuitable vehicles and get stuck, they will call emergency. That's independent of whether they abandon their cars.
PSA: Regarding the National Park system, it is now gate-kept by Booz Allen Hamilton (of McLean, VA, spooky). Yes that Booz Allen Hamilton. They made millions creating a database that keeps track of where everyone recreates[1] and make more millions auctioning off access to the parks.
You thought your lottery fee on that permit you didn't get at least went to a good cause? lol. Nope. It went to Snowden's old employer.
It's also convenient that the park system (and others) are conveniently NOT ACCEPTING CASH whenever it's inconvenient for them to do so.
It further creeps me out that the OP never saw a single soul yet got a CCP-esque letter. This means they've also installed secret cameras, and that the Recreation.gov database perhaps has some extra tables to attach "incidents" such as this.
With reference to previous absurd but technically correct interpretations of US national park rules[1] I'd like to suggest a way to comply with the rule in question [2], which states:
High clearance four-wheel drive
is required on motor vehicles
travelling on [...]
Take a 2WD vehicle, then bolt an extra set of wheels onto the drive axle (the tires are apparently optional).
The vehicle would still need to be high-clearance.
Or, if you're feeling really adventurous, just glue a set of LEGO wheels to the center of the hub. Those wheels would demonstrably have a high clearance, and comply with the rule as written.
> A Jeep, sport utility vehicle (SUV), or truck type with at least 15-inch tire rims and at least eight inches of clearance from the lowest point of the frame, body, suspension, or differential to the ground. Four wheel drive vehicles have a driveshaft that can directly power each wheel at the same time and a transfer case that can shift between powering two wheel or four wheels in low or high gear. All wheel drive (AWD) vehicles do not meet this definition.
Just in case it's unclear, I'm not being serious here.
Still, it seems to me that the wording still allows for some rules lawyering.
When they say "directly power each wheel" they clearly mean the four wheels attached to the OEM axles.
But I think their wording is open to arguing that it's any four "wheels" of your choosing, and now that your drive axle has two wheels on each side...
The rest of the wording allows you to flip between arguing on the basis of your now-four wheel drive axle and the stock axle. After all, they're not saying "those two wheel or four wheels". Different sets of four wheels on your now six wheel car should satisfy all the criteria.
However, the mention of a transfer case is a showstopper. I shouldn't have mentioned 2WD.
But given the above contortions e.g. a BMW X5 with 216mm (8.7 inches) of clearance should qualify.
The manufacturer obstinately insists that it's not an AWD, but "xDrive". The gear ratio of the AT even is so low that you can idle at a standstill while in gear!
Because and only because i’ve been lingering in the off-roading community for a few years i personally understand why the NPS end goals are not only reasonable but probably necessary. but i feel terrible for the sheer number of people who have been intentionally duped by marketers.
i’ve seen it repeatedly, someone buys an “all wheel drive” truck or suv, and from the initial first commercial they see all the way through to the salestrash, they were misled.
over and over they end up justifiably frustrated finding out they’ve spent tens of thousands of dollars being misled on their vehicle’s capabilities only to learn their “off-road AWD” vehicle really really shouldn’t leave the suburban pavement. and that the misleading was all a ploy by marketers and their insistence on muddying the waters.
this is far from limited to auto manufacturers, we see this misleading trash across the entire board.
we desperately need to get back closer towards something resembling honesty in marketing.