The AUSubaru.com.au Forums

So I've read in many places the rear suspension on the gen 3 liberty's is no where near as good as on the gen 2. And as this just came up again in a topic in this forum I thought I'd finally ask the question.

What is it about the rear suspension that is no good? Can anyone describe or show me pictures of the differences?

Cheers,

I'd like to know this as well.

Outback bloke wrote: Custom Struts - Liberty and Forester
The rear suspension/strut assembly is different. I have often thought about trying to fit a gen 2 rear to my car. There is a lot that has to be changed though. The Gen 3/4 set up is basically shit.

Shit as in, is a bad design and makes the vehicle bad at cornering ect?

or

Shit as in, makes it hard to design custom length struts for?

Heard that as above... I reckon my gen 2 suspensions are in good nick!

On Gen 3 noticed they're soft and can sag as well.

Possibly go for after market struts and coils?
Cheers
AP

Well in the absence of an informed response, I'll chip in. From what I've read, the Gen 3s got an extra transverse link, which limits funny geometry changes during high-speed on-road cornering, but also severely limits wheel travel, which we want in the bush. Foresters went the same way for the 2003ish models.

Dane.

lol gen3 suspension is awesome for on-road. Maybe its just my driving but i have stock suspension and i can outhandle a rex and just about anycar on the road with ease.

Ditto with my old mans 3.0RB with bilsteins, handles like an absolute brick shithouse.

alex

All Liberty/Outback (from MY99), Impreza (from MY09) Forester (from MY08 ), Tribeca (from MY06) and Exiga (from MY09) use basically the same style rear suspension now too, so it must be shit...

As someone said, maybe not the best for off road, but are any new Subaru's actually made for decent off roading anyways?

I wouldn't think so .

I doubt the earlier style suspension was really designed to be long travel which a serious off roader needs to keep its feet on the ground .

What later suspension aims to do is have better geometry over more of the suspensions total travel . It is difficult to have good geometry over a wide range and thats why raising these SUV type vehicles up does diabolical things to their handling/braking . The fact that they use reasonably short road car length suspension links means there is heaps of geometry change over the full length of suspension travel .

Like I said before serious off roaders have live axles because they are strong and easier to have long travel if the links and springs are done properly .

You can see how Roos developed from the MY to the L and early Lib and beyond . Todays people won't wear the average ride and handling of an MY or L so it had to improve through the Lib/Imp models to keep up with other manufacturers road vehicles . Later suspensions are more complex and expensive to use but lack of sales hurts if buyers look elsewhere .
You have to remember that sales of new and expensive SUV's are not to young lets go camping with the mates type people and so are aimed at the we believe we have capability because we drive a better equipt vehicle cashed up crowd . So they have to be quiet and smooth and ride well primarily . FHI isn't interested in what happens when you raise their product 3" because they don't do it

More ground clearance doesn't necessarily a good off roader make .

A .

discopotato03 wrote:Like I said before serious off roaders have live axles because they are strong and easier to have long travel if the links and springs are done properly .
A .

So the latest Range Rover, Landcruiser, Hilux, Prado, Pajero aren't serious off roaders? What about the H1 Hummer or Humvee?

I just assume people who buy Subaru's don't want "serious offroaders". They want a car which can go well on dirt roads and on the sand as well as ride much nicer then "live axles". And I also assume people who lift their Subaru's (without the intent of just looks) want to be able to do mild offroad work and play without having to drive a freakin truck everywhere and with reasonable road economy and ride comfort.
Giving a Subaru more traction and better suspension travel doesn't mean its going to be a "serious offroader", it just means it can do the mild work without damaging stuff so much. Less hammering over stuff you can do the better. So if I find a hole I wish my wheel would travel to the buttom of to keep traction and it doesn't, then I would have to drive fast over that and speed is what kills parts.

discopotato03 wrote:blah blah blah

driven a lifted subaru yet?

essay not required. later style rear suspension behaves better onroad at the cost of wheel travel. Earlier suspension has more travel.

Thats it Fizz , more an all road vehicle than an ATV . I'm 99% sure that's what they tell you in the factory hand book .

Brumbyrunner no they are not either . Serious off road people don't take those luxobarges bush either . Have a look at military spec trucks big and small . Hummers are are too big and heavy to get a lot of places even if you can afford to feed one .

IRS/IFS is about ride quality not strength or travel in an SUV .
The serious gear feels like a truck mainly because to have adequate strength means lots of unsprung mass and solid axle housings . It also transmits shock loads across the whole length of the axle housing so into the body through more location points . IRS/IFS only deals with the loads through each individual wheel so less mass to control .

A .

Phizinza wrote:I just assume people who buy Subaru's don't want "serious offroaders". They want a car which can go well on dirt roads and on the sand as well as ride much nicer then "live axles". And I also assume people who lift their Subaru's (without the intent of just looks) want to be able to do mild offroad work and play without having to drive a freakin truck everywhere and with reasonable road economy and ride comfort.
Giving a Subaru more traction and better suspension travel doesn't mean its going to be a "serious offroader", it just means it can do the mild work without damaging stuff so much. Less hammering over stuff you can do the better. So if I find a hole I wish my wheel would travel to the buttom of to keep traction and it doesn't, then I would have to drive fast over that and speed is what kills parts.

Nailed it in the head phiz!!!!

Thats it Fizz , more an all road vehicle than an ATV . I'm 99% sure that's what they tell you in the factory hand book .

Brumbyrunner no they are not either . Serious off road people don't take those luxobarges bush either . Have a look at military spec trucks big and small . Hummers are are too big and heavy to get a lot of places even if you can afford to feed one .

IRS/IFS is about ride quality not strength or travel in an SUV .
The serious gear feels like a truck mainly because to have adequate strength means lots of unsprung mass and solid axle housings . It also transmits shock loads across the whole length of the axle housing so into the body through more location points . IRS/IFS only deals with the loads through each individual wheel so less mass to control .

A .

Mate we a not talking armt spec stuff, nor 4X4 truck, try driving around australia and doing offroading in a old landy compared to a IRS/IFS or the like then tell us which one you like better!!!!! and there is no reason why they arent any stronger or weaker than solid axel 4x4's.