buying a scenic rx4

A

AR

New member
Fellow Frogger
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
1
Location
Canberra
have you any apinions to share about them. I own a subaru forester and like the new one but I'm obsessed with the rx4. It's fun, too and the kids like it. I've test driven it twice. things against: body roll, lack of power, towing ability, resale value; things for: fun and little storage areas.

Any thoughts?
 
It is unlikely to be as durable as the Subaru under "allroad" conditions. I'd say if the things that you are against are important to you, especially things like lack of power and towing ability, and if you do a lot of off road work, then the RX4 may not be your sort of car.

Not being a full time 4WD, the RX4 could be caught out in some situations where the full time 4WD of the Subaru will just keep plugging through.

Simon

AR:
have you any apinions to share about them. I own a subaru forester and like the new one but I'm obsessed with the rx4. It's fun, too and the kids like it. I've test driven it twice. things against: body roll, lack of power, towing ability, resale value; things for: fun and little storage areas.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
 
erm...

The RX4 is full time 4wd, and i believe it's ground clearance and approach angle exceed those of a forester.....

the limiting factor of the rx4 and most "softroaders" offroad ability (beyond clearance and part time 4wd "features") is their lack of a low range gearbox
________
Kids Prilosec
 
Last edited:
DTwo:
erm...

The RX4 is full time 4wd, and i believe it's ground clearance and approach angle exceed those of a forester.....

the limiting factor of the rx4 and most "softroaders" offroad ability (beyond clearance and part time 4wd "features") is their lack of a low range gearbox
Click to expand...
Low range is really useful....but if i had just spent that kind of money on a Forester (manuals have low range) or an RX4...would I be putting myself anywhere I would need it?

I use my wife's Brumby a lot and the only places I've ever needed low range are places I wouldn't care to take a new vehicle I might want to maintain in a semi original state.

:cool:
 
Bogmaster I dont believe it but for once I think we have a similar opinion. I would also not be taking it into that situation. :p :p
 
The RX4 is a great car from what I have heard. I spoke to a new person at work that has one and she says that it copes easily in the off road areas, and she couldn't recommed it enough!
Why do people say they lack power? They have a 140bhp 2 litre engine in them. The CR-V is the same size etc and what about the earlier subaru's? I drove a 1992 4WD and it was gutless!! I can't see how it would be any worse than a Forrester in rough terrain.
People really seem to blow subaru's trumpets. Take a look at the interior of a WRX, I don't think I have seen anything more boring. Now take a look at the interior of a R25 or R15. Now that's what I am talking about.

LukeCass
 
AR,

Welcome to Aussiefrogs! Fancy a sticker? If so send me an e-mail or private message with your address and I'll send you one.

One of my cousin's friends (with young family) has had an RX4 for 6-9 months now and they love it.

It does have fulltime 4wd. It is one of the few in the class that does. the Honda CR-V doesn't and I've seen one get bogged in sand (on Fraser Island) because of it.. it spun the front wheels and when they spun the back wheels got power and spun until the vehicle sank to the floor. Not a very clever system if you ask me!!!

I've driven (as you may have read) a normal 2WD Scenic around Ireland and on their weavy windy roads I thought it was brilliant. Sure, it had heaps more body roll than my 306, but hey, it's a tall vehicle. The height gives you a fantastic view, and the RX4'd be better in that respect. The Electronic Stability Control in the Scenic must have some effect too. I assume the RX4 has Stability Control? I had a base-model 2WD Scenic and it had it so I assume they all would.

Happy driving

Derek
 
DTwo:
erm...

The RX4 is full time 4wd, and i believe it's ground clearance and approach angle exceed those of a forester.....

the limiting factor of the rx4 and most "softroaders" offroad ability (beyond clearance and part time 4wd "features") is their lack of a low range gearbox
Click to expand...
I hate to be the giver of duff info (but I'm not perfect either), so I thought I would do some research just to make sure the info I gave was correct.

In "normal" mode, eg where the wheels are not slipping, the RX4 is a front drive vehicle. As soon as one of the front wheels starts to lose grip, the viscous coupling directs drive to the rear wheels. With the Forester, the drive bias is mainly to the rear in normal mode with drive also to the front wheels, therefore all four wheels are driven at the same sime unlike the Scenic where one of the front wheels has to slip before it goes into 4WD, hence my indication that the RX4 is a part-time 4WD.

Simon
 
& Viscous couplings are pretty slow to work too! This is not real "full time 4WD".

Australian Scenics have traction control, I'm not sure whether this is Stability Control (because there is a distinction, it is more sophisticated) - Renault Australia may have just conveniently labelled it that. ESP is very common in Europe.
 
Renault seem pretty vague on this point, their literature simply says "permanent" 4wd

I did find this interesting snippet,
<a href="http://irishcar.com/renaultscenicrx4.htm" target="_blank">Irish car review</a>
"The main technical innovation takes the form of the permanent four-wheel-drive transmission designed in partnership with Austrian specialist Steyr Daimler Puch (who build the M-Class for Mercedes). This comprises a gearbox with twin outputs, a three-section propeller shaft with two intermediate universal joints, a viscous coupling, a rear final drive and two additional drive shafts.

Cleverly, the system continually adjusts the distribution of torque between front and rear wheels, without any action on the part of the driver. Viscous coupling controls the torque distribution to the rear wheels and brings them into play when the front runners struggle or slip. At least twenty per cent of the available torque is directed towards the rear wheels - irrespective of conditions or need"

In this day and age of grey area's regarding "4wd", i think as long as it's providing "some" power/torque to all wheels all the time.....it can safely be called "permanent four wheel drive".....it certainly more "4wd" than a CRV :)

very few "4wd" cars put 50% of their torque to both front and rear without diffs and torque split (is a nissan GTR permanent 4wd by your definition? :) )....otherwise you end up with lada/ early range rover issues of axel wind/twist, when the front or rear wheels travel a greater distance to each other due to tyre pressures or whatever and prematurely wear out gearboxes, uni-joints etc....hence why so many 4wds (old lancruisers/patrols/hiluxes etc) used locking front hubs as a solution to the issue, unless locked they were RWD....hehe, far less "permanent" in some ways (% of time driven) than the RX4 in reality :D

The RX4 is a cop out in the true sense of "permanent" 4wd (being 50/50 100% of the time)......but less so than it's competitors by the looks of it.
________
Vaporite blown reviews
 
Last edited:
Well my Scenic had ESP and Traction Control, both linked to the same 'disable' button.

I have to say when I switched it off I couldn't tell any difference, other than that you could very easily spin the wheels with all that low down torque in the diesel engine. It didn't feel any less stable, but then I wasn't driving it like a race car!

Derek
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top