4WS Translation Completed!

[jscorse]

Now I feel much better about my "rear end". I tell you I felt something there and I was right. The first time I took the car out I noticed a different feel than my straight rear axled car. The rear does move and now I have proof.

Eddy can diagree on semantics (def....3. connotative interpretation), but the fact is, the rear wheels turn in direct relation to the car in a turn and I FEEL IT!! WoHooo!

I'm NOT loosing my mind and my car IS wonderful dammit!

This is why I love this forum SO much.

Great discussion and information. Thanks especially to aredub for the documented facts.

- Jeff

[eddycat2000]

Originally posted by jscorse
The rear does move and now I have proof.

Thanks especially to aredub for the documented facts.

- Jeff

No one said that the rear end doesn't move, what's at issue is whether it is AWS or not. It's not.

I recall seeing a very good description of the rear suspension and an article from R&T, but I'm uncertain as to the whether it constitutes documented facts.

Yes, they are wonderful cars. But your Forester should feel the same way to you, the rear suspension is darn near identical. (The way it's set up, it does use the cheesy impreza style wheel brgs though).

[jscorse]

Eddy,
Do you really think my Forest feels anything like my SVX? Have you driven a Forester? It's an SUV (well...sorta). Ya, it handles much better than my old GM beaters but it sure doesn't feel like my SVX.

All I can say is that the SVX corners great and I love that feeling. The Forester gets my groceries and is a blast in the dirt but corning....I don't think so.

I admittedly "don't know squat" about suspensions, but I'm learning more. And now I'm forced to go look under my Forester's rear end to see if looks like my SVX's rear-end.

Why can't you get over the fact that the rear wheels in my SVX do turn in a turn. Does my Forester do that? I don't know. I sure can't feel it like I do in my SVX.

I noticed this feeling BEFORE anybody told me that the SVX has some sort of passive rear turning abilities. I'm not imagining this.

It's sorta like flying. The first time I took an off-ramp with my SVX I was looking for the rudder pedals because I felt the back-end move.

[eddycat2000]

Originally posted by jscorse
Eddy,
Do you really think my Forest feels anything like my SVX? Have you driven a Forester? It's an SUV (well...sorta). Ya, it handles much better than my old GM beaters but it sure doesn't feel like my SVX.

All I can say is that the SVX corners great and I love that feeling. The Forester gets my groceries and is a blast in the dirt but corning....I don't think so.

I admittedly "don't know squat" about suspensions, but I'm learning more. And now I'm forced to go look under my Forester's rear end to see if looks like my SVX's rear-end.

Why can't you get over the fact that the rear wheels in my SVX do turn in a turn. Does my Forester do that? I don't know. I sure can't feel it like I do in my SVX.

I noticed this feeling BEFORE anybody told me that the SVX has some sort of passive rear turning abilities. I'm not imagining this.

You are completely right! I have never driven a forester, I have never worked on a subaru, I'm a brochure toting tot that don't know sh!t from applebutter. Is that what you want to hear?

Guess what, the debate isn't whether the wheels move when turning, it's whether the fact that they do is *steering*. I'm truly sorry that some idiot wrote an article saying "passive steering". It has confused the issue beyond my comprehension. YOU DO NOT HAVE AWS PERIOD!

Go to your dealer and tell them your AWS is inop, they'll first get a puzzled look on their face and then politely tell you that they have no clue as to what you are talking about.

I'm done! I cannot understand this need for you guys to think you have AWS, but if you do, great!

[jscorse]

I knew that would get your dander up. Now don't get upset. I KNOW your a Subaru mechanic and you DO know your sh!t. Don't take it so personally, please.

Ok, no AWS. Fine. Now, can I ask, as I'm sure you know, we've established that the rear wheels 'turn' on the SVX when the car is in a hard turn. Call it what you like, but can we agree on that?

I need to push here, because I'm trying to understand my vehicles better.

Does the SAME system exist in my Forester? How is it different?

- Jeff

[eddycat2000]

Originally posted by jscorse
I knew that would get your dander up. Now don't get upset. I KNOW your a Subaru mechanic and you DO know your sh!t. Don't take it so personally, please.

Ok, no AWS. Fine. Now, can I ask, as I'm sure you know, we've established that the rear wheels 'turn' on the SVX when the car is in a hard turn. Call it what you like, but can we agree on that?

I need to push here, because I'm trying to understand my vehicles better.

Does the SAME system exist in my Forester? How is it different?

- Jeff

No Jeff it is personal. (And you better believe I'm a tad upset!) I have been told here that I do not know how the suspension works on Subaru's. I will not answer anymore questions on this thread other than to dispute the fact that the wheels "turn". The rear suspension *reacts* to different weight, roll, and degree of turn. But that in no way constitutes *steering*.

Besides, I have a hard day ahead...I'm gonna go out and buy me a copy of Road and Track, and then I am gonna go to some site where people who know what they are talking about get told they are wrong and I'm gonna chime right in!

You guys don't seem to want my knowledge on this subject, why should I bother then? You *know* you have "passive AWS". Here's an anology for you, early SVX's had an active seat belt right, (motorized)? And later ones had passive belts, right? They do *nothing* until I physically tug on them.....but the fact that I am doing the pulling does not turn them into an active system. I *cannot* believe I am having this conversation with fully grown people that are probably gurus in their own fields! I *really, REALLY* am shocked and amazed!

[Aredubjay]

<< #1 *steer*..."1. Orig., to direct the course of (a vessel) by means of a rudder; hence, to direct the course of by mechanical means; as to *steer* an automobile. 2. Hence, to guide; control; direct.

This comes from my handy dandy dictionary which is at my side always.

#2 Guess what, the debate isn't whether the wheels move when turning, it's whether the fact that they do is *steering*.Guess what, the debate isn't whether the wheels move when turning, it's whether the fact that they do is *steering*.>>

Okay, now, I'm really confused. If the wheels do move in the way described (toe-in, toe-out), laterally, thus pointing in a different direction than "straight on" wouldn't the object riding on those wheels tend to follow the direction in which they were pointed, thereby being guided, controlled and directed by the angle of the wheels? Just wondering.

[jscorse]

Just an observation, all, but I'm not accusing anybody of ignorance besides myself. I'm just trying to learn. Eddy, can you not teach without feeling accused?

Anyway, I see now that we are STILL arguing semantics, which is a waste of all of our time.

On to the next thread and I guess I will walk away somewhat enlightened.

[eddycat2000]

Originally posted by Aredubjay
<< #1 *steer*..."1. Orig., to direct the course of (a vessel) by means of a rudder; hence, to direct the course of by mechanical means; as to *steer* an automobile. 2. Hence, to guide; control; direct.

This comes from my handy dandy dictionary which is at my side always.

#2 Guess what, the debate isn't whether the wheels move when turning, it's whether the fact that they do is *steering*.Guess what, the debate isn't whether the wheels move when turning, it's whether the fact that they do is *steering*.>>

Okay, now, I'm really confused. If the wheels do move in the way described (toe-in, toe-out), laterally, thus pointing in a different direction than "straight on" wouldn't the object riding on those wheels tend to follow the direction in which they were pointed, thereby being guided, controlled and directed by the angle of the wheels? Just wondering.

As you know already, I have zero knowledge about SVX suspension. So I cannot in all honesty answer your question properly. And even if by some unique chance I had that knowledge, I would still be contradicted by someone here. I stand by my last post saying that I will not answer anymore questions concerning this thread. You fellas are sure you have "passive AWS", it's a done deal. You're happy, I'm angry and we can all go on with our lives.

A gas pedal by any other name? What's in a name? Hey, I'm just crazy enough to join this discussion. In a carbureted engine when you press on the "gas" pedal you are not giving the engine more gas you are giving it more *air*. The air in turn draws more gas into the mix. But we still call it the "gas" pedal right? So in the SVX we make a move from straight and level and it causes the rear wheels to move away from thier alignment to the centerline of the car right? Well when we steer the front wheels don't we deflect them from the centerline of the car? So in effect we indicrectly steer the rear wheels much the same as we use the "gas" pedal. (I'm sure I'll hear about all this)

The Forester does behave in similar fashion to the SVX rear suspension action. However, the car is lighter, higher and runs on narrower tires which all affects the loads imposed on the suspensions. Plus the elevation of you head changes your percieved (there's THAT word again, I just don't learn do I?) movement. The geometry gets complicated but the car behaves similar but probably not to the same extent.

The bushings in the outer connections on the rear suspension lateral links are not "standard" busings. They are designed to rotate similar to a ball joint along their axis. This allows them to not only pivot but also swing (for lack of better descriptives). I recently replaced one (fun job) and found them to be interesting pieces of engineering (and not cheap). The inner bushings, on the other hand, are standard issue (and less expensive).

[Aredubjay]

<<You're happy, I'm angry and we can all go on with our lives.>>

Ah, another standard day at the "Network." I'm REALLY beginning to like this place.

[svxistentialist]

This has been one fun thread to read. You boys in the back all take a bow!

Phil in the UK has a 4 wheel steer car. When his tranny went [as they do!] the guy who winched him on the transporter off the motorway managed to total one of the steering arms. It cost an arm and a leg to fix.
{I couldn't resist that}

Maybe he would post photos of it for us. Paddlesnz also says they should be avoided like the plague, and are unloved in Japan because of complexity. I noticed the same reluctance in the trade here to the Honda Integra 2.0i back about 1990, nobody felt the driving advantage was worth the trouble at later miles.

Hey Eddycat stay buddy. I agree with your view, I would consider it active stability geometry, which does turn the rear wheels a bit. Passive steering is a bit OTT as a description.

Joe

Keep up the entertainment

<<active stability geometry>>

How's about we just say the damn cars handle very nicely and leave it at that shall we?

"So you like my car huh?" the SVX owner says to the pretty girl, "did you know it has 'active stability rear geometry' and I bet you do to, baby". She gives him that little smile that says, "If his teeth were on fire I wouldn't even offer to _______ on them (fill in the blank as your tolerance allows) ".

So far it steers okay and, hopefully, will stay that way.

[Aredubjay]

http://www.subaru.co.nz/diff_content.html

[SVXphile]

Aredub,
Is this article trying to say that ALL Subarus have this passive steering feature? Maybe just Subarus sold in New Zealand? SOME Subarus sold in New Zealand?
Actually all this "steering" stuff is making me feel kinda sheepish.

(Are the Kiwis trying to pull the wool over our eyes? It's got me mutton to myself..."Just the facts lamb....just the facts!")
Don