97OBW Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 well this sunday im gonna take my parents car roadin. my buds got a stock 98' explorer and has been bashing my 97obw all week saying that theres no way it would keep up in the mud, hill climbs, and some trenches. I know it prob. wouldent outperform it, but how well would i keep up?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterD Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 well i whent wheelin with my friends 91 explorer and it was alright.. much more comfoartable off road than my little subaru. althouth this huge puddle stope him dean in his tracks.. the front diff got hung up as the tires sunk in the deep ruts.. my subaru made it thought... bairly, serioulsy i lucked out. personaly i would say a bone stock ouback will not keep up with the exporer. its low range, and power would edge it out.. unless you drive your outback like a mad man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andyjo Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 perfer the madman approch to odd-roading subarus... yeah you break more ************, but you can impress the crap outta' people Just be careful of your clearance... it'd very easy to drop down and crush your pinch seam (this is why i have almost none left...). Your tires might also be an issue... i always try to keep momentum to my advantage, i hit things a little faster if i don't think i have enough low range to get through, or up.... but don't break to much stuff... The only major problems i've ever had offroading w/ my 97 OBS are: -Large rock stuck in stearing mechanism -Bashed in Gas tank -Broken Lights of all sorts -Knocked the allignment around (oops ) pretty much, don't be stupid with it, it'll keep up pretty well, as for real off roading, you might have trouble keeping up, but if you get on a dirt road, they'd better be wearing dust masks oh yeah, not sure where you're going off-roading, but watch out for thick ice... it'll slash your tires good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoahDL88 Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 shouldn't have much trouble keeping up, the AWD is pretty good, at least better than i had anticipated in some hairy spots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torxxx Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 You should do fine. I went farther than a 94 bronco with 33x12.5x16 inch tires with my lifted EA82 wagon. It just depends on where you are going and who is driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zyewdall Posted December 9, 2005 Share Posted December 9, 2005 Serious off roading, maybe the explorer is better (an older one at least, the latest ones are to soft sprung and heavy). An old Toyota truck would beat either of them just from ground clearance and lo range. But on slick dirt roads, the Outback is best. I had a friend who took his '95 explorer, and a '01 outback wagon on a road trip on little dirt/snow covered roads through wyoming and norther colorado. His wife was driving the explorer and just couldn't keep up with the outback he was driving. So they switched. And he couldn't keep up with the outback either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
n16ht5 Posted December 10, 2005 Share Posted December 10, 2005 seems to me in pretty much anything stock, unless it has a locker, its all about the driver! so hammer down theres a lot to know about 4wd driving i have a 98 OBS and a broncoII on 35s, locked. stock,. my broncoII could barely outdo the subaru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
97OBW Posted December 16, 2005 Author Share Posted December 16, 2005 just to post a update on this my 97obw beat the crap out of his explorer!!, he got hung up on some minor looking mud, i crawled right over:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kostamojen Posted December 16, 2005 Share Posted December 16, 2005 just to post a update on this my 97obw beat the crap out of his explorer!!, he got hung up on some minor looking mud, i crawled right over:D Rockin :D Explorers are nothing special. I've seen dozens of them strewn across the sierra's during winter in pits, upsidedown, sideways, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subie94 Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 just to post a update on this my 97obw beat the crap out of his explorer!!, he got hung up on some minor looking mud, i crawled right over:D we knew it would. only off-roading i'd do with an explorer,would be just a plain old dirt road. not very exploreable the explorer is,now is it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoodsWagon Posted December 17, 2005 Share Posted December 17, 2005 Having worked on ford explorers and driven one offroad once, I can say that they suck. The IFS in the front burns up way too much ground clearance, and I just have something against pressed in Ball joints. The way the seats and cab are set up make you bounce all over the place when your going through rough stuff. Without wide tires, the weight of them just sinks them in anything. My 2wd F150 smoked a exploder in the woods. Partly because my driving style uses the trees for improved cornering, but also because the indestructable twin I beam front IFS and 8lug 16" wheels keep everything up out of the mud. With the exploder, it's like dragging a plow though when you try to go in the mud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobyclimbs Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 Why do ya think they call them Exploders?! I've pulled out two : one explorer out in a foot of snow when I was stock! I also pulled out a a Mercury mountaineer in the sand buried to the rear axle!!! I gotta say the suby is a more capable car... the rear lsd helps alot vs the open diff of the explorer. With my AT tires I'm almost unstoppable! I'll take on any explorer! I do drive like mad max on/offroad!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet82 Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 Give me an Explorer and I'll loose any Outback in no time. They are just two different vehicles. Not even in the same ball park. Comparing them is not realistic. However given a choice for a daily driver... I'd take the Outback with out a second thought! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrap487 Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 Give me an Explorer and I'll loose any Outback in no time. They are just two different vehicles. Not even in the same ball park. Comparing them is not realistic. However given a choice for a daily driver... I'd take the Outback with out a second thought! yup... my thoughts exactly, also mostly depends on the driver... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoodsWagon Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 I have to disagree. An Exploder and an Outback are very much in the same class for capability. Similar ground clearance, turning radius, and the only advantage is that the exploder has a slightly beter approach angle in the front. Now, exploders may have a beter aftermarket, so it would be easier to build one up to be insane, but stock they are no great shakes. Try taking a 1998 edie bour edition 5.0l with running boards and absolute carp AWD system trailriding. Yeah, it spun more than the legacy, but that was because it had more power. In the Exploder, bouncing on a rough trail means your head is smacking the side windows. We had more fun in a sport with the 4L V6, because that had real 4WD, but they still are no better. Suv's dont have better capability just because they have frames. My loyale stock outdid a honda passport/Izuzu trooperish Amigo 4door suv. He got hung up on a stump in the middle of the trail that I had never even noticed before. We had to stack rocks (sin of all sins) to get him over it. In review, ground clearance is key, and most suv's have lost it these days. Next time your in a parking lot, take a tape measure and go to the lowest point on an SUV. They aint got nothin over a Subie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
operose Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 In review, ground clearance is key, and most suv's have lost it these days. Next time your in a parking lot, take a tape measure and go to the lowest point on an SUV. They aint got nothin over a Subie. could not agree more. ford escape, jeep cherokee, grand cherokee... all new SUV's seem to have utter CRAP ground clearance, except the nissan xterra. bigger tires on my legacy with no lift would put me higher at lowest point than coworker's '99 jeep cherokee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teppichkopf Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 According to cars101.com (http://www.cars101.com/outback_archive95-97.html) my Gen 1 OBW has a clearance of 7.3 inches versus 6.7 for similar model year Explorer. In fact, the Explorer is the only SUV listed with less than 7 inches clearance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrap487 Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 could not agree more. ford escape, jeep cherokee, grand cherokee... all new SUV's seem to have utter CRAP ground clearance, except the nissan xterra. bigger tires on my legacy with no lift would put me higher at lowest point than coworker's '99 jeep cherokee that is a total load of BS, aside from they stopped making jeep cherokees after 2001, jeep cherokees have live axles front and rear, and having owned a jeep cherokee both stock and modified, there is NO WAY a stock subaru could keep up with a stock cherokee, regardless of whoever is driving the subaru. subarus are better in the snow/ice, loose dirt/gravel and on the road, but on the trail, they cant hold a candle to a jeep cherokee in stock form. it doesnt matter if something hangs lower, what matters is the length and width of the wheel base, aproach angle, BREAKOVER ANGLE and departure angle. Also, grand cherokees, especially the newer ones are total wimps compared to the cherokees, especially cause they are bigger with a ************tier engine, but stock subarus dont compare off of the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scrap487 Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 also as far as ground clearance, dont compare live axles to independant suspension. live axled vehicles are always gonna have a lower hanging differantial than something that has an independant setup. it doesnt meant a live axled vehicle is gonna get hung up on a differantal, because the suspension behaves differantly and the differantial is NOT in a fixed location relative to the rest of the body Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
operose Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 that is a total load of BS, aside from they stopped making jeep cherokees after 2001, jeep cherokees have live axles front and rear, and having owned a jeep cherokee both stock and modified, there is NO WAY a stock subaru could keep up with a stock cherokee, regardless of whoever is driving the subaru. subarus are better in the snow/ice, loose dirt/gravel and on the road, but on the trail, they cant hold a candle to a jeep cherokee in stock form. it doesnt matter if something hangs lower, what matters is the length and width of the wheel base, aproach angle, BREAKOVER ANGLE and departure angle. Also, grand cherokees, especially the newer ones are total wimps compared to the cherokees, especially cause they are bigger with a ************tier engine, but stock subarus dont compare off of the road. you took that a little too personally buddy, but to clarify, if you look at my above post, you will see that I was replying to a post about, what, now, GROUND CLEARANCE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoodsWagon Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 Don't even think of turning this into a bonfire of a flame war untill I get measurments. \O / \ O/ Apr and breakover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoodsWagon Posted December 23, 2005 Share Posted December 23, 2005 Concerning live axel suspension, yes, the diferential hangs lower in the middle, and yes it will hit things. Just because it lifts when a wheel lifts doesn't mean it wont hit when a rock is in the middle of the trail and your wheels are in ruts. Mabe the trails where you live have lots of space to maneuver, but in my area it's either straddle or hit a tree. I have an F150 with a live rear and I have dragged that diff across more rocks/ stumps. The front is IFS and has seemed to hold up well to the abuse. It also doesn't hit on the same things that the rear does. Earlier cherokees are not half bad. I think you will have to admit that they are a lot better than exploders of the same age. Jeep was one of the last to ditch live axel in the front, which lead to rugged vehicles. But, with an exploder to an outback, we are comparing IFS TO IFS. Jeep GRAND cherokes are too wide to fit down most trails in my area. My F150 is too wide and too long, but the body has been reduced to fit. We are also comparing newer vehicles. A 1968 CJ5 will whup your cherokees arse, and so your mid 90's cherokee will whup a 2005 liberty's arse. So this supports my statement that newer SUV's are losing capability and ground clearance. SUV's are becoming more carlike while Subaru's are becoming more SUV like. So that makes them be in the same comparason class. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobyclimbs Posted December 26, 2005 Share Posted December 26, 2005 that is a total load of BS, aside from they stopped making jeep cherokees after 2001, jeep cherokees have live axles front and rear, and having owned a jeep cherokee both stock and modified, there is NO WAY a stock subaru could keep up with a stock cherokee, regardless of whoever is driving the subaru. subarus are better in the snow/ice, loose dirt/gravel and on the road, but on the trail, they cant hold a candle to a jeep cherokee in stock form. it doesnt matter if something hangs lower, what matters is the length and width of the wheel base, aproach angle, BREAKOVER ANGLE and departure angle. Also, grand cherokees, especially the newer ones are total wimps compared to the cherokees, especially cause they are bigger with a ************tier engine, but stock subarus dont compare off of the road. I don't think an explorer would fit on this ATV trail , let alone squeaze through the trees like I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezapar Posted December 26, 2005 Share Posted December 26, 2005 I don't think an explorer would fit on this ATV trail , let alone squeaze through the trees like I did. And it's settled. I'm locking this, you guys get way too upset about two vehicles that are hardly worth taking off road. I actually got into a fist fight with a guy over me saying my gen one wagon could out 4X his buddy's baha bug. He got a black eye, we never did find out which car would do better. In the end, 6.7 and 7.3 inches aren't much to brag about. Approach angle has everything to do with success offroading. This was a A&B conversation, Heeps can C their way out of it. And one last thing. but on the trail, they cant hold a candle to a jeep cherokee in stock form. it doesnt matter if something hangs lower, what matters is the length and width of the wheel base, aproach angle, BREAKOVER ANGLE and departure angle. Also, grand cherokees, especially the newer ones are total wimps compared to the cherokees, especially cause they are bigger with a ************tier engine, but stock subarus dont compare off of the road. Here's one of each, stuck next to eachother in the mud. Neither worth squat without tires. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts