You are here: Forums SUVs Toyota 4Runner Subaru Outback vs. Toyota 4Runner

Subaru Outback vs. Toyota 4Runner

20 messages,  Last post on Nov 19, 2006 at 12:29 AM

You are in the Toyota 4Runner Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester

What is this discussion about? Subaru XT, Toyota 4Runner, Wagon, SUV

Messages Page 3 of 3 1 2 3 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#14 of 20 Um Wrong by paisan Nov 17, 2006 (3:25 am)
" It's solid rear axle makes it give up some rear cargo room to car based SUVs like Toyota Highlander or Honda Pilot. If cargo space is a major consideration, Highlander or Pilot, while perhaps looking a little smaller than a 4Runner on the outside, have more cargo space. 4Runners are great, but it sounds like you may be considering it for less than ideal reasons."   No offense but SOLID axles give MORE room than independent rear axles. Independent rear axles require more space for the Upper/Lower control arms and the inboard pumpkin giving those vehicles with them a higher rear load floor than a solid rear axle.   -mike Replies to this message: ateixeira (Nov 17, 2006 7:18 am)
#15 of 20 Re: Um Wrong [paisan] by ateixeira Nov 17, 2006 (7:18 am)
Replying to: paisan (Nov 17, 2006 3:25 am) Not sure I agree, mike.   With indy you give up some space on the shock towers, perhaps, but the pumpkin tends to be smaller plus it's in a fixed location.   On a solid axle, you have to leave room for the (usually bigger) pumpkin to move up and down, so you have to leave clearance for that suspension travel.   Obviously, some package it much better than others, but if you compare an Expedition to a Tahoe, the indy Ford does it much better. There is a lot more room in the footwell in the Ford. In the GM, the floor is a lot higher and there's no room for your feet so you sit with your knees in your chest in the 3rd row.   Again, each manufacturer varies, but I compared those because they're so common.   The Armada's very spacious. Nissan seemed to do a good job with packaging.   -juice
#16 of 20 True by paisan Nov 17, 2006 (12:04 pm)
But, I think the floor is still significantly higher on the Indy trucks (the Armada included) than the non-indy. I even read that as well. Those control arms take up a lot of space and need to move, wheras on a solid rear axle there is only the springs that need to move up and down. I guess if it's a "small" vehicle the indy might have more room, but anything that has substancive rear control arms will need space.   One of the things that bugs me about my armada is the high load floor due to the indy suspension. But it's got so much room to begin with it's not really an issue.   -mike Replies to this message: rsholland (Nov 18, 2006 6:48 am) paisan (Nov 18, 2006 10:30 am) rsholland (Nov 18, 2006 3:34 pm)
#17 of 20 Re: True [paisan] by rsholland Nov 18, 2006 (6:48 am)
Replying to: paisan (Nov 17, 2006 12:04 pm) Not sure that I agree with that Mike. I bet your rear load floor is about the same height off the ground as the new Tahoe and Suburban, which don't have fold into-the-floor rear seats or IRS.   Everything I've read suggests that IRS allows for better packaging which allows for fold-into-the-floor rear seating without raising the floor.   Also, look at the rear floor of the new solid-axle Jeep Commander. They had to "raise" the cargo floor in order to have fold into-the-floor rear seats.   http://blogs.edmunds.com/roadtests/.ee931ea   http://blogs.edmunds.com/roadtests/122   Bob Replies to this message: paisan (Nov 18, 2006 10:30 am) rsholland (Nov 18, 2006 3:34 pm)
#18 of 20 Re: True [rsholland] by paisan Nov 18, 2006 (10:30 am)
Replying to: rsholland (Nov 18, 2006 6:48 am) Hmm Maybe you are right, although it doesn't make sense that the IRS would take up less space than SRS.   -mike Replies to this message: rsholland (Nov 18, 2006 3:34 pm)
#19 of 20 Re: True [paisan] by rsholland Nov 18, 2006 (3:34 pm)
Replying to: paisan (Nov 18, 2006 10:30 am) Well, here's my take. With IRS you can bolt the rear differential directly to the frame. By doing so you don't have to allow for vertical travel room of the differential or driveshaft, as you would with a solid rear axle.   Just by doing that allows for engineers to package items differently. That in turn may open up more space for relocating (or re-designing) other items such as the fuel tank, exhaust, etc.   Now I may not be 100% accurate with specifics here, but I think you see my point. The fact of the matter is that all the SUVs and crossovers with IRS seem to have more 3rd-row seating room than those with solid rear axle setups. Now, having said that the Dodge Durango/Chrysler Aspen (not Jeep!) SUVs do pretty well with rear seating and legroom space, with a fold-into-the-floor rear seat, despite having a solid rear axle. If Dodge and Chrysler can do it, I don't understand why GM couldn't do it?   I sat in the rear of a new Tahoe yesterday, and because the rear floor (for my feet) was so high my knees were close to my chin. I doubt that's the case with your Armada. The Armada's rear footwell is lower because there is no room needed for vertical travel of the driveshaft, therefore the footwell can be deeper. That in turn benefits the 3rd-row passengers.   Bob
#20 of 20 Yeah the 3rd row by paisan Nov 19, 2006 (12:29 am)
on the Armada is actually usable by full size paisan adults (2 of em) for up to 1-1.5hr trips.   I'm not sure if that's because the roof is so high or the floor is low though.   -mike

Messages Page 3 of 3 1 2 3 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums SUVs Toyota 4Runner Subaru Outback vs. Toyota 4Runner