Bushwalkers Wheels

[stry]

Has anyone checked out the new Toyota RAV 4 as an alternative to the long time favourite of the Subaru Forester ?.

To me, Subaru have well and truly lost the plot with the current Forester package. Manual only available with poverty pack and 2 litre engine. Brainless and pointless auto stop/start.

Thoughts ??

[GPSGuided]

I was looking at the RAV4 just the other day and was shocked by how big it is now. It has come a long way since its camel packing days.

[Bluegum Mic]

Id be interested to hear peoples thoughts. Ive driven the previous model a few times and found it totally gutless. Mind you Im not in the market as Im currently selling my beloved xtrail as we just updated the wheels for the expanded family. Not a bushwalkers mobile (mind you perfectly capable with soft duties) as such but I can highly recommend the new diesel santa fe

[forest]

What's the big deal about the CVT in the 2.5 engine ??
My 2006 forester is auto and I much prefer it over the manual I had prior to that.
Its not like these are a full blown heavy duty 4x4s, even if they were I still don't have an issue with autos off road.

Not to sure about the auto engine on off. I hold judgement on that until we start getting them at work and put it to some use.

[GPSGuided]

Not to sure about the auto engine on off. I hold judgement on that until we start getting them at work and put it to some use.

Auto on-off is now becoming a standard in new cars. It took me a good few months to get used to it in my current car. At the beginning, I used to get freights each time it stops at lights. Now I'm much more relaxed about it and found the little foot touches to manipulate its activation or deactivation.

[Strider]

What's the big deal about the CVT in the 2.5 engine ??
My 2006 forester is auto and I much prefer it over the manual I had prior to that.
Its not like these are a full blown heavy duty 4x4s, even if they were I still don't have an issue with autos off road.

Not to sure about the auto engine on off. I hold judgement on that until we start getting them at work and put it to some use.

It is well known that autos are better off road.

Don't Foresters only have low-range in the manual versions?

[simonm]

It is well known that autos are better off road.

Care to explain that one Strider? My manual Defender seems to go ok

Auto's have certainly closed the gap in recent years I guess. In sand auto's can be great but I can't think of any other situations where I would prefer one.

[photohiker]

Auto start/stop is brilliant. Such a waste having the engine in the car consuming fossil fuel while stationary! Agree that it is disconcerting when you first experience it, especially if you were not aware that your hire car has it

With 4WD, the big advantage of autos is when climbing sandhills. The torque converter allows gearchanges without removing drive from the wheels. In soft sand even momentary loss of power can mean hours of digging... All considered, I still prefer a manual though.

[sthughes]

I'd go a manual, diesel Forester
Rav looks good to, and they have finally upped the tow rating, from the miserable 500kg when released.
Also find the SsangYong Korando diesel interesting at nearly 10k less $$.

[Strider]

It is well known that autos are better off road.

Care to explain that one Strider? My manual Defender seems to go ok

Auto's have certainly closed the gap in recent years I guess. In sand auto's can be great but I can't think of any other situations where I would prefer one.

Sand driving autos can can issues with transmissions overheating and they are clearly no good with steep descents. Otherwise they provide much better throttle control, as no juggling the clutch to take off or needing to change gears mid-obstacle.

[simonm]

It is well known that autos are better off road.

Care to explain that one Strider? My manual Defender seems to go ok

Auto's have certainly closed the gap in recent years I guess. In sand auto's can be great but I can't think of any other situations where I would prefer one.

Sand driving autos can can issues with transmissions overheating and they are clearly no good with steep descents. Otherwise they provide much better throttle control, as no juggling the clutch to take off or needing to change gears mid-obstacle.

No worries mate, was just taking the *&^%$#! a bit, I know they have their advantages, just not sure it is well known they are better . It all comes down to personal preference. Either one will get you out there.

[GPSGuided]

Auto start/stop is brilliant. Such a waste having the engine in the car consuming fossil fuel while stationary!

Yes and no based on personal experience.

Given that starting an engine, even if it's warm, will use additional fuel. So for auto start/stop to truly work to the benefit of greening the environment, the stop should at least 20s or more (give and take amongst many other variables). So when used in the city stop start traffic, it can at times use more fuel, along with a tiny delay in the flow of traffic. Fortunately, there's a kill switch on my car. I would deactivate the system under certain busy city traffic situations but generally leave it active. My point here is, this is a relatively dumb technology at present and we as the driver need to learn to use it intelligently to optimise the benefits.

[stry]

Auto start/stop is brilliant. Such a waste having the engine in the car consuming fossil fuel while stationary!

This is the touted benefit of stop/start, and clearly the marketing departments are running with it.
My scepticism is related to the unmentioned corresponding steep increase in use, and therefore wear, of the starting hardware.
We save a miniscule amount of fossil fuel with stop/start, but how much energy is consumed in the resultant increased manufacture of starting hardware ?
Consumption of starting hardware, of course, usually increases profit and is good for employment.

Maybe stop/start is a negative in the big picture of energy and resources ? Maybe it's zero sum game ? Maybe it's a plus, but I am unconvinced.

[Spartan]

Auto start/stop is brilliant. Such a waste having the engine in the car consuming fossil fuel while stationary!

This is the touted benefit of stop/start, and clearly the marketing departments are running with it.
My scepticism is related to the unmentioned corresponding steep increase in use, and therefore wear, of the starting hardware.
We save a miniscule amount of fossil fuel with stop/start, but how much energy is consumed in the resultant increased manufacture of starting hardware ?
Consumption of starting hardware, of course, usually increases profit and is good for employment.

Maybe stop/start is a negative in the big picture of energy and resources ? Maybe it's zero sum game ? Maybe it's a plus, but I am unconvinced.

My understanding is the 'start-stop' function on (non-automatic) Subarus kicks in when the gear shift is placed in neutral, the clutch is released, and the brake is depressed. If the car is kept in first gear, clutch depressed, brake depressed (if one doesn't like the hill-start feature); the engine should keep running.

All the best.

[photohiker]

Cars I've driven with Start Stop in EU all behaved the same way. If you pull up, take the car out of gear and release the clutch the engine cuts out.

This is something you probably wouldn't do if the delay was a few seconds.

I also noticed that the start procedure was ultra quick and automated. ie: immediate running. I suspect the whole system saves significant resources for both start wear and consumption and trip fuel usage as it is clearly optimised compared to a non start/stop car. The argument regarding part obsolescence applies to all vehicles regardless of their start hardware.

[GPSGuided]

This is the touted benefit of stop/start, and clearly the marketing departments are running with it.
My scepticism is related to the unmentioned corresponding steep increase in use, and therefore wear, of the starting hardware.
We save a miniscule amount of fossil fuel with stop/start, but how much energy is consumed in the resultant increased manufacture of starting hardware ?
Consumption of starting hardware, of course, usually increases profit and is good for employment.

Maybe stop/start is a negative in the big picture of energy and resources ? Maybe it's zero sum game ? Maybe it's a plus, but I am unconvinced.

That would be a very unfortunate perception on the auto stop-start technology. A few considerations.

1) A warm start of the engine will not have the same fuel demand and wear of a cold start.
2) Wear on the engine from repeated starts can and is engineered out. For one thing, the battery typically is of a higher capacity to support the demands.
3) Fuel saving is not minuscule, especially when considered at the population level. On global warming and the environment, every bit counts.

My present experience is that the technology can still be improved ie. Even smarter. With the existing hard and softwares, us drivers can already make it smarter. For traffic stops that's likely to be short, I can stay more gentle on the brake and not trigger the stop. If I am in a nasty repeated short stop traffic situation, then I can switch the system off. But overall, the system saves fuel and one should welcome it. At least the auto makers are not using their R&D dollars on making bigger and more power engines.

[stry]

I'm not the least concerned about engine wear.

Unless there are changes that I am not up to speed on (possible ) every start engages the starter motor and the ring gear. These things are going to need to be replaced and manufactured at a much greater rate hence increase consumption. How many times do you engage these things in normal use ? I suggest that their use under the circumstances succingtly described by Spartan will be exponentially greater.

I stick to my statement that fuel savings are miniscule. If we can believe those dinky on board computers, a modern engine is using around 1 litre per hour or less at idle. To me that is miniscule. Dunno how it compares with the consumption of resources etc that arises from para 2, but there will definitely be an offset of some degree.

Regardless of much or how little the sytem is used, or how many vehicles are fitted with it, there will be a linear relationship between the fuel saved and the offsets that I have referred to.

[GPSGuided]

I'm not the least concerned about engine wear.

Unless there are changes that I am not up to speed on (possible ) every start engages the starter motor and the ring gear. These things are going to need to be replaced and manufactured at a much greater rate hence increase consumption. How many times do you engage these things in normal use ? I suggest that their use under the circumstances succingtly described by Spartan will be exponentially greater.

I stick to my statement that fuel savings are miniscule. If we can believe those dinky on board computers, a modern engine is using around 1 litre per hour or less at idle. To me that is miniscule. Dunno how it compares with the consumption of resources etc that arises from para 2, but there will definitely be an offset of some degree.

Regardless of much or how little the sytem is used, or how many vehicles are fitted with it, there will be a linear relationship between the fuel saved and the offsets that I have referred to.

If you consider the starter motor/ring gear in the same light as your first paragraph, then there's no more concerns. There are engineering solutions to all these. When it comes to volume production to but replace a less durable starter motor, the cost and energy excess is truly irrelevant. as for the fuel saving, 5-10% has been flagged around. Of course, that depends on the particular driving environment.

At the end of the day, you and I have no choice. The specialist engineers have scientifically determined its benefits and will be a part of the standard equipment of more and more cars sold.

[photohiker]

I'm not the least concerned about engine wear.

Unless there are changes that I am not up to speed on (possible ) every start engages the starter motor and the ring gear. These things are going to need to be replaced and manufactured at a much greater rate hence increase consumption. How many times do you engage these things in normal use ? I suggest that their use under the circumstances succingtly described by Spartan will be exponentially greater.

I stick to my statement that fuel savings are miniscule. If we can believe those dinky on board computers, a modern engine is using around 1 litre per hour or less at idle. To me that is miniscule. Dunno how it compares with the consumption of resources etc that arises from para 2, but there will definitely be an offset of some degree.

Regardless of much or how little the sytem is used, or how many vehicles are fitted with it, there will be a linear relationship between the fuel saved and the offsets that I have referred to.

Have you driven a vehicle with start/stop? It sure _sounds_ like you haven't.

Firstly, the re-start is almost instantaneous, and you do not hear the starter crank - the car just kicks over and runs. I put this down to the engineers doing some trickery: Stopping the engine at a point in the cycle where it is ready to start; Optimising the starter hardware; Optimising the start process with software. I have driven Toyota, Ford and VW vehicles with start/stop in EU, the system quickly becomes intuitive and I wonder why we hardly see it in Australia.

The life of starter motors and ring gears etc is well understood and we don't hear much about failures these days unless a vehicle has done a lot of distance. I'm sure the engineers at Toyota, Ford, VW and all the other firms that offer this system overseas will have investigated the effect of start/stop on vehicle components and made adjustments to metallurgy and electrical systems to compensate for the change in duty cycles involved. If they didn't there would be a queue at the warranty desk. VW has been offering start/stop in the EU for decades.

The efficiency gains for city traffic are obvious. As you rightly suggest my car also runs about 1L/hr at idle. like you I'd suspect that would be in the ballpark for many cars. You suggest that this is miniscule. We need to think on a larger scale than the ~17ml per minute per vehicle this represents. If you think of a line of cars pulled up at the lights for 5 minutes, it would take just 13 start/stop cars to save a litre of fossil fuel. Per Stop. Even here in little old Adelaide there can easily be 50-60 cars pulled up at a single intersection. Multiply that by the number of intersections on well trafficked roads multiplied by the number of traffic light cycles during busy times multiplied by the length of the stop and it's not hard to realise that a stop/start system could save thousands upon thousands of litres of fuel per day. Multiply by the nation and you are talking about tanker loads.

You're going to have to dream up massive offsets to counter those savings. I respectfully suggest that this is a relatively mature technology in the EU and it would have been kicked by now if the costs anywhere near equalled or exceeded the benefit.

[stry]

Photohiker,

I am aware of all that you mention, and certainly agree with you in terms of sophistication, user friendliness, worldwide potential etc. etc. I am certainly not backward in embracing technology which provides a benefit to me. Perhaps the established technology for engaging a starter motor and cranking an engine has been superceded or improved on - I don't know. The near instantaneous startup of modern engines is not, I believe related to stop start - rather it is a characteristic that enables stop/start to be made so user friendly.

The tankerloads of fuel (or shiploads or oilfields full) saved still have a linear relationship to the offsets, whatever they may be.

My still unanswered question is whether or not there is a net gain when we look at the big picture. It is certainly tempting believe that there is a net gain. Perhaps only the researchers in the car companies have a definitive answer? I am curious, but like most things automotive there is a dearth of technical information, just glossy pap.

Various bits of automotive technology have come and gone over the years for reasons frequently more aligned with marketing than need and any real benefit. I'm happy to be shown facts either way.

I don't wish to introduce a divergence, but my concerns are not dissimilar to the electric car picture, where the green house savings are mentioned, but the cost (not just $ cost) of providing the electricity is not. Obviously the two situations differ, but the overlooking of a potential cost of the particular benefit remains.

If we can duck the mental stimulation for while, has anyone had any experience with the new RAV 4, as distinct from its bloated predecessor ?

[Clusterpod]

We've just settled on an older Suburu Outback for our trip from WA to Tasmania

[stry]

Depending on what is "older" clusterpod, I think you will be very happy.

I have spent time in earlier Outbacks and found them to be a more "together" package than the Forester of the time. Others will feel differently, according to their needs and allegiances.

[stry]

At the end of the day, you and I have no choice. The specialist engineers have scientifically determined its benefits and will be a part of the standard equipment of more and more cars sold.[/quote]

GPSGuided that's probably the bit that sticks in my non-conformist craw No doubt, as you say, I will get over it without any loss of sleep.

[Clusterpod]

Its a 2006. Low kilometreage. I plan to pull out the back seats, put in a false floor with sliding storage underneath, bed and gear storage on top, and electronics for two solar panels. Pull-out awning and thule box on the roofrack.

Should make a fairly decent honeymoon machine.

[GPSGuided]

Should make a fairly decent honeymoon machine.

You just got a Sandman of old!

[Clusterpod]

You know I have always wanted a Sandman.

The future missus? Not so keen.

[stry]

You blokes are hijacking my thread Ahh what the hell; it was dead anyway

Sounds like a ripper setup Clusterpod. Not only that, your Suby might have a better chance of doing what you want than the mythical Sandman (Flame suit on)

Just watch the weight with the add ons. Things like draws can end up being awfully heavy, even empty. The humble cardboard carton can still be a very handy and super light load tidier upper.

[Clusterpod]

You blokes are hijacking my thread Ahh what the hell; it was dead anyway

Sounds like a ripper setup Clusterpod. Not only that, your Suby might have a better chance of doing what you want than the mythical Sandman (Flame suit on)

Just watch the weight with the add ons. Things like draws can end up being awfully heavy, even empty. The humble cardboard carton can still be a very handy and super light load tidier upper.

Thanks and sorry for the hijack, I wanted to brag about my first ever vehicle (im going on 40), but it was sorta on topic, if you only take in the thread title and not first post

Draws and floor will be ply, sturdy and heavy, yes, but I know how to work with it and have a ready supply on hand. Unlike money.

Cardboard just won't have three months of use. I wanted to set it up and not worry about accidental destruction.

[Grabeach]

There are probably bigger decisions for the environmentally minded car buyer than whether a car has stop/start technology or not. Years ago I read article on the positive and negative affects on the environment of buying a new car. From memory there were two conclusions reached:-
1. It is environmentally sound to replace an unaerodynamic, leaded fuel, carburettored gas guzzler with a new vehicle.
2. It is NOT environmentally sound to replace later (eg. now 10 years old) unleaded, computerised fuel injected vehicles, because the environmental cost of producing the new vehicle outweigh the operating savings. This of course was not great news for the vehicle manufacturing industry!

[stry]

Yeah trying to sleep on cardboard boxes wouldn't be much fun . What I had in mind is that sometimes they can be just the ticket in odd spots under your main platform.

Ply is very commonly used for these projects, and for good reason. The problem is that so many people over engineer these things with a big increase in weight, which then starts to negate the benefits of using a Suby instead of a big and heavy vehicle.

A suggestion : approach your project as if you were preparing for a walk. Cut the weight to the bare bones.

12mm ply is often used for these platforms. I have used 9mm with complete satisfaction. It might even be possible to go to 6mm in some places, depending on how it is supported and what it has to hold up. Check out the weights of these things - ply is heavy !!!!. 9mm is 25% lighter than 12mm If you have a like minded friend with the appropriate tools and skills, think about a LIGHT steel frame. Using something like 20mm(or less ?) steel tube with a very thin wall (1.6mm- I cant remember) will often make your frame lighter than wood, stiffer and less bulky.

If you're good at working with ply. there will be a temptation to make something with lots of bells and whistles. Succumbing to this temptation will bump up the weight.

Let us know how you go.