AFAIK never having worked on one, they're similar to most other systems in that
they're all electronically controlled. Most AWD systems use a viscous coupling
between the front and rear ends.
Its not my opinion that the components are not robust, Subaru of course does
very well in Rally racing. My worry is that when something inevitably fails,
because it will, because everything fails sometime, that it'll be hideously
expensive to fix. I prefer to have to just have fewer components to fail. Thats
why I sort of wish Hammie had manual windows. At least if a manual window
breaks you KNOW the problem is in the door. With electric windows, is it the
switch, the wiring or in the door?
-Curt
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 17:02:28 -0400
From: Mitch Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [MBZ] preferred $5000 car? (kinda OT)
To: Mercedes mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Curt Raymond wrote:
> AWD is just something else to break and from all accounts is a
serious PITA to fix.
What's the modern Subaru system like?
My old 1977 wagon differed from the 2WD in:
1. not having fifth gear, the fifth gear shift fork was hooked up to
a separate gearshift lever and engaged a driveshaft for the rear
wheels.
2. Datsun (Nissan now) 280Z diff in the back, with an extra set of
halfshafts.
So, the added complexity in that case was three driveshafts and one
diff,
all rated for far more power than my 1.6L boxermotor ever dreamed of
producing,
and one extra shift lever. That car was much abused before I got
suckered into
buying it, and suffered many failures in the three months I drove it,
but none
involving the drivetrain, and no evidence that it had ever been
touched.
---------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
