Imagine you’re heading into a national park. You’re behind the wheel of your chunky Subaru Crosstrek with lots of body cladding and all-wheel-drive. You head out on the trail, enjoy your adventure, and head home. Then a letter shows up in the mail. The National Park Service (NPS) is mad at you, because your Subaru isn’t hardcore enough for their trails!
This might sound fanciful, but that’s exactly what happened to Greatbigdog69 on Reddit. They got a letter from the NPS stating they had breached regulations by driving their Subaru Crosstrek on trails restricted to “high clearance four-wheel-drive” vehicles. The Crosstrek and its all-wheel-drive system isn’t up to snuff, they were told. Even better, they were threatened with a $5,000 fine or six-month prison sentence if they did it again.
Modern automotive marketing has created a great deal of confusion about four-wheel-drive, all-wheel-drive, and just which vehicles are really suited to proper off-roading. Given that prison time is on the line, let’s see if we can clear this up for you. Dive in for a deep explainer on what these terms mean, and what the National Park Service actually wants.
PSA: All wheel drive vehicles are not considered four wheel drive by the US Park Service
byu/Greatbigdog69 inNationalPark
AWD vs. 4WD: How It Was
The difference between four-wheel-drive and all-wheel-drive has always been kind of a mess. Initially, some automakers used the terms interchangeably. After all, if you have four wheels, and you’re driving all of them… you’ve got all-wheel-drive, right? Eventually, though, popular usage differentiated the two terms when applied to typical ICE-powered vehicles.
For a time, four-wheel-drive came to refer to “part-time” systems for off-road use only. This involved the engine driving a transfer case, which sent power to the front and rear differentials. The transfer case could be shifted between different modes. It could drive just the rear wheels, which was useful for on-road use. This was normally denoted “2H” or “2HI” in off-road capable vehicles. Alternatively, the transfer case could be shifted into “4H” or “4HI” to drive all four wheels. “4L” or “4LO” would do the same, while also gearing down the output for more torque and less speed.
In the four-wheel-drive modes, the transfer case shafts leading to the front and rear differentials would spin in sync. This caused a potential problem called “drivetrain windup.” When driving, the front wheels and rear wheels tend to travel different distances, particularly when going around corners. This creates a problem if you drive in four-wheel-drive mode on a sealed road. As you drive along, the wheels on one axle will end up travelling farther than the others. But the transfer case output shafts going to each differential are locked together. How can one rotate more than the other? Well, they can’t. This creates a huge “wind up” as the front and rear differentials try to twist the transfer case shafts by varying amounts. Eventually, something will snap.
This isn’t a problem off-road. Dirt roads and other surfaces let the wheels slip enough to release any drivetrain windup before it causes problems. But when you were on proper sealed roads, you had to drive traditional four-wheel-drive systems in 2WD mode to avoid this problem. That would disconnect the front wheels from the transfer case so there would be no windup.
Eventually, though, automakers wanted to bring four-wheel-drive to road vehicles. To get around the windup problem, they figured out a simple solution that would allow driving both axles all the time, even on the road. What if there was a center differential in between the front and rear differentials? This would allow the front and rear axles to travel different distances without causing any drivetrain windup or wheel slip.
Systems with a center differential eventually became known as all-wheel-drive, and were popularized by manufacturers like Subaru and Audi. These systems were typically designed for maximizing traction in slippery on-road conditions, like rain and snow. They were applied to road-going vehicles, and weren’t really designed for off-road use.
A wide variety of designs exist, particularly varying as to whether they’re based around longitudinal rear-drive platforms or transverse front-wheel-drive platforms. Either way the basic elements are the same. An engine, a transmission, and a center, front, and rear diff. These systems don’t really have a traditional “transfer case” with high and low range as they’re not for off-road use.
Indeed, this design has a drawback if you’re trying to use it off-road. The simplest examples used an open center differential, along with open diffs front and rear. If, say, the rear left tire began to slip, the rear right tire would not provide much propulsion. That’s because an open differential can only deliver the same torque to both output shafts. Whatever torque is going to the rear left wheel will also go to the rear right. If the rear left wheel is spinning in the air, it’s not accepting much torque. So the same minimal torque will go to the rear right as well. The same is then true of the center differential. Whatever minimal torque is going to the rear axle will also go to the front, and progress will be minimal.
Thus, four-wheel-drive with a transfer case is good off-road, and all-wheel-drive with an open center diff is bad off-road, right? Well, the world has gotten a lot more complex since then.
AWD vs. 4WD: How It Is
We used to have cars, trucks, and off-road four-wheel-drives. Now we have cars, kinda weird cars that are lifted a bit, crossovers, SUVs, hardcore four-wheel-drives, and about fifty kinds of pickup truck. They’ve also all got different drivetrains that have forever blurred the line between four-wheel-drive and all-wheel-drive.
Take the Toyota Land Cruiser. That’s a four-wheel-drive right? Well, uhhhh, I don’t know about that, Cotton! Sure, grab a classic 70 Series Land Cruiser, and you’ll get a part-time four-wheel-drive with the shiftable transfer case. Simple enough. But if you buy a modern 300 Series Land Cruiser, that’s not the case. You’ll notice it’s slathered in “FULL TIME 4WD” stickers. So what’s that about?
Toyota, along with many other automakers, realized people would get sick of shifting their transfer cases. People wanted four-wheel-drive all the time. So what did they do? They figured out how to shove a center differential into the transfer case. You still got low-range and all that, but you also got to leave four-wheel-drive on all the time.
As for the slippage problem, the solution was easy. Allow the center differential to be locked so it would act like a traditional transfer case. That gave you a four-wheel-drive system that was always on, but didn’t compromise its ability to put power down on soft surfaces.
You can argue all day whether the modern Land Cruiser has an “all-wheel-drive” or “four-wheel-drive” system. Ultimately, though, it’s largely treated as the latter. That’s because it was bred for proper off-road use, it’s tough, and it has a locking center differential.
Other cars and SUVs with all-wheel-drive systems have come a long way, too. Automakers have developed all kinds of fancy clutches and limited-slip differentials to improve their performance. The general idea is that having some degree of locking or limited slip in the center diff allows you to improve the ability to put power down in the poorest conditions. Audi and Subaru have explored various systems along these lines, particularly the DCCD system in the Subaru WRX STI. Still, no matter how sophisticated, these systems are all still typically called “all-wheel-drive” since they’re designed for use on the road, not on off-road trails.
There is also the magical Haldex AWD system, found in all kinds of Volkswagen Auto Group Products. Imagine a front-wheel-drive car, but tack on a transfer case that sends a driveshaft to the rear wheels. Then imagine the rear driveshaft has a clutch pack halfway along it that can slip to varying degrees. It’s normally left open so that just the front wheels are driven. But if the front wheels start to slip, that clutch pack locks up and sends some drive to the rear. It’s a pretty cost-effective way to do all-wheel-drive on a front-wheel-drive platform. You can also do what Lamborghini did and flip the whole thing around for a mid-engined, all-wheel-drive platform like the Aventador.
Oh, and we haven’t even discussed modern hybrids and EVs. For example, a Toyota Prius Prime drives the rear wheels with an electric motor, and the front wheels with a motor and an ICE engine. Meanwhile, other EVs have dual-motor and tri-motor systems to drive all their wheels, with varying degrees off-road capability. Few to none use a single motor driving all the wheels via a transfer case or traditional AWD setup.
How To Avoid Prison
Okay, so we’ve established that the line between AWD and 4WD is blurry at best. So when the National Park Service says you need a 4WD, what do they actually mean? And why isn’t a Subaru Crosstrek good enough? Let’s look at what the NPS actually says:
What is the difference between a 4×4 and All Wheel Drive (AWD) vehicle?
True 4×4 vehicles have a ‘transfer case’ in the drivetrain that puts full engine power to the front wheels. All Wheel Drive, common on vehicles like crossover SUVs, relies on a ‘differential’ to send variable power to each wheel. AWD is good on level roadbeds in low traction conditions like snow. It is not designed to fully power the front tires in off-pavement rugged situations. For example, if the road goes up a steep hill and there is a lot of loose rock in the road, fully powered front wheels are needed to rotate strongly and pull the vehicle up the slope. AWD cannot do that very well and may fail.
Honestly, that’s kind of confusing. The line about “fully-powered front wheels” makes it sound like the average Toyota Corolla could do the job, but we know that’s not the case.
Really, what they want is for you to bring a proper off-road vehicle when you’re tackling the “4WD Only” trails. Think a Toyota Land Cruiser, or a Jeep Wrangler. Or, say, a truck like the Ford F-150 with 4WD. If your truck has low-range, that’s a good clue that it’s properly equipped for off-road duties. Don’t forget to use your center diff lock when the going gets rough.
Similarly, the NPS defines certain areas as only suitable for “High Clearance” vehicles. That has a more straightforward definition:
You Will Need A High Clearance Four-Wheel-Drive (4WD) Vehicle
A high clearance 4WD vehicle is defined as a SUV or truck type vehicle, with at least 15 inch tire rims or more, with a low gear transfer case, designed for heavier type use than a standard passenger vehicle, with at least 8 inches of clearance or more from the lowest point of the frame, body, suspension, or differential, to the ground, also including a means to mechanically power both, front and real wheels at the same time.
Easy enough, right? Check your ground clearance, make sure you’ve got a proper drivetrain with a locking center diff, and you’re good to go.
Indeed, it appears this rule is what Greatbigdog69 fell afoul of. As per their letter from the NPS, “High clearance four-wheel-drive is required on motor vehicles travelling on the following roads: Elephant Hill, Salt Creek, Horse Canyon, Lavendar Canyon, Lockhart Canyon, and Colorado Overlook road.” Their orange Subaru Crosstrek was deemed an “all-wheel-drive vehicle,” and this put our Reddit poster in violation of regulation 36 CFR §1.5 (f): Closures and Public Use Limits.
Ultimately, Subaru Crosstrek models have had well over 8 inches of ground clearance since the first-gen models dropped in 2013. Between that and the wording of the letter, we can assume it was targeted for its “all-wheel-drive” status. That’s understandable to a degree, given that a Crosstrek certainly isn’t up to the hardcore standards of something like a Land Rover Defender or Toyota Tundra. Still, it’s easy to see how someone could fall victim to this confusion.
You don’t want to fall afoul of these restrictions. The NPS letter notes that “future violations may incur a collateral forfeiture, a fine up to $5,000, up to six months imprisonment, and/or other penalties.” Imagine going to prison for driving the wrong SUV down a trail. Sure, it’s probably unlikely, but they wouldn’t put it in the letter if it wasn’t true.
Given the blurry definition of all-wheel-drive and four-wheel-drive, I’ve written to the National Park Service for clarification. Is the NPS simply relying on whether a vehicle has “4WD” or “AWD” plastered on the back, or does it rule based on the presence of low range, a transfer case, or a locking center diff?
The fine people at the NPS wrote back to us and directed us to the superintendent’s determination, which is fairly straightforward. The NPS explains the requirements and its reasoning:
A four wheel drive vehicle is defined as a sport utility vehicle (SUV) or truck with at least 15-inch tire rims and at least eight inches of clearance from the lowest point of the frame, body, suspension, or differential to the ground. Four wheel drive vehicles have a transfer case between the front and rear axles that locks the front and rear drive shafts together when four wheel drive is engaged. All wheel drive (AWD) vehicles do not meet this definition.
Many of the backcountry roads in the SEUG are affected by flooding, snow, ice, quicksand, deep sand, ledges and rock fall. Road conditions and obstacles can be permanent, occur regularly, and/or change unexpectedly, especially during the winter and summer monsoon seasons.
Four wheel drive vehicles provide the minimum necessary mechanical advantage to negotiate these types of road conditions and obstacles.
Speaking to The Autopian, NPS Acting Public Affairs Specialist Karen Garthwait also highlighted the value of proper low-range, too:
In summary, a true “4-LOW” gear that drivers can access deliberately affords an additional level of vehicular control that may be necessary to safely negotiate sections of Canyonlands’ backcountry roads, particularly after a rockfall, heavy rain event, or other situation that temporarily or permanently degrades the road’s condition. The presence or absence of a 4-LOW gear, locking differentials, and the minimum clearance required are the primary ways Canyonlands’ rangers determine whether a vehicle meets the requirement for a use on designated 4WD roads in the park.
Image credits: NPS, Subaru, Toyota, Lewin Day
Has my curious about my AWD Astro. I am running the NV136 transfer case, which is RWD all the time, but if it slips, it will shoot power to the front wheels as well. I also installed a locking rear diff (Factory option G80 on build sheet) for additional performance.
Now, lots of Astro owners swap in the NV236 4wd transfer case from a blazer/s10 to get low range, but I’m primarily interested in the instant on/off 4wd from the 136 becuase of snowy conditions on mountain passes.
I wonder if I would get tickets, because I sneak around on 4wd only trails whenever i want.
Astros have 8″ of ground clearance?
Yeah, around that stock. The rear diff is what hangs down the most, like any other truck. I’m running 30s too.
I’ve often taken inappropriate vehicles down sketchy trails, and I get it. With overhangs and passenger car tires, many soft-roaders struggle in more difficult terrain. Experience and judicious driving lines will get you through a lot of obstacles, but, when it doesn’t, you need a winch and/or a buddy along to get you out. Modern traction-control inspires confidence, and the marketing suggests you can climb mountains, so it’s easy to see how an inexperienced driver could get firmly stuck quite far down a trail. The NPS is trying to set guidelines as they don’t have the personnel to control access.
This particular trail is not appropriate for AWD vehicles. Without high clearance, steel skidplates, and a low range, it is an invitation to disaster. Photos don’t capture it – it will tear out the bottom of any Subaru I have ever seen and likely overheat the transmission.
If anybody wants to better understand the reasoning here, I suggest heading to YouTube and watching some videos from Matt’s Off Road Recovery. These kinds of vehicles get stuck ALL THE TIME, and people like Matt have to go haul them out.
I was also going to suggest MORR. I’m honestly curious if Matt is going to make a video regarding this issue or not. I know he’s mentioned many times that some trails should be restricted to vehicles with solid front axles.
But at the same time, MORR has pulled out trucks with lifts, lockers, and low range simply because the owners had no clue what they were doing.
I totally get the National Park Service strongly discouraging people taking their CR-Vs down trails intended for rock crawlers, but screening hardware doesn’t screen intelligence.
I like using gate-keeping obstacles to limit access to trails: if there’s a trail that requires articulation, 40″ tires, and lockers, put a pile of boulders at the entrance that scares off the Subarus in the first place, then it’s never an issue.
I will say also as a former Subaru owner, they can be remarkably capable off road depending on the transmission. I had an older Outback with the 5-speed automatic, before the CVTs took over. It had a permanent 45/55 F/R torque split that could vary 90% one way or the other as needed and had a limited slip rear diff. By the NPS metric of locking power to both axles, it had that. Couple that with lift small lift kit I put on it, off-road tires, and aluminum skid plates down the entire bottom, and had well over 8″ of clearance with the armor to skid over obstacles where the break-over angle failed. The main issue was the front overhang (a problem with all Subarus since the engine is fully forward of the front wheels). All the trails in my area have gate-keepers, so if my bumper dug in at the start, I knew I couldn’t make it, and skipped that trail.
My stock Jeep is obviously far more capable offroad than my modified Subaru could have ever hoped to be, but I knew its limits as the driver and never got it stuck anywhere, the NPS wouldn’t.
I blame Bluey.
Not seriously. (Bluey‘s a great show.) But it shows how deeply this confusion has worked its way into the popular imagination.
So, just to be clear, the NPS and especially the Needles district is VERY clear about its requirements on the website.
https://www.nps.gov/cany/planyourvisit/needlesroads.htm
“All of these roads require high-clearance, low range four-wheel-drive vehicles.”
There is no ambiguity about what is required.
High clearanceFour-wheel-driveLow range”If you plan to explore The Needles’ four-wheel-drive roads, remember:
You must have a high-clearance, low range four-wheel-drive vehicle for all Needles backcountry roads.”The problem, as I see it, is this middle ground the NPS is trying to straddle between enforcing a policy and leaving it “at your own risk”. They COULD simply state that all roads are “travel at your own risk” and contract with a service to remove vehicles at owners expense. Or they could ensure people are being properly informed and not left wondering whether they meet the definition or not until later. They can do this by contracting with a software developer to have a tool available on the website where you put in your make/model/year and it gives you a thumbs up or thumbs down. Or, more practically, include this route in the day use permitting process that works for the other trails in the park.
They are free, easy and put you in direct communication with a ranger to facilitate conversations about vehicle suitability and risk. You would give them your year/make/model and they would be present to make a case for special situations like a rare 4-low variant that might not show up on a database. The ranger can then explain the risks, warnings and conditions of the permit for this trail.
This is literally how it works for every other route in the park. And Needles isn’t like Yellowstone, it is VERY remote and has relatively few visitors, it would not be a resource nightmare.
Yeah, this is pretty lame. I go on off road trails quite often with my 2WD VW Vanagon. There have been multiple times I made it through sections where other drivers in 4WD got stuck. It is very much about choosing your line properly and occasionally taking advantage of momentum to get the driving wheels back onto the ground. It seems pretty silly and snobby that the parks will fine me for successfully traversing their trails. I’m a tax payer too and these parks are for recreation. I stay off of motorcycle single track and only do the black diamond trails if I am familiar with them and am with a group of other drivers that could help with recovery if I get stuck.
The sorts of trails that you’re taking on wouldn’t be subject to these restrictions. This stuff only applies to a handful of trails.
Makes sense to me, I’ve been on multiple NPS and BLM trails with a 4WD required and never needed to leave 2Hi.
Maybe it’s in case it rains or snows? In that case they should change the rules for some roads that are easy in fair weather and not punish competent drivers like you.
Small FWD shitboxes can get down a lot of trails that ‘proper’ 4×4’s struggle with, as long as you drive with the right mixture of caution and “I don’t care if this gets scratched”.
cough; Ski-Klasse; cough.
“[T]hey were threatened with a $5,000 fine or six-month prison sentence”
Geez, not much of a law if the rich can simply avoid jail time or otherwise suffering any penalties by just whipping out their checkbooks (or platinum AmEx cards.)
The rich don’t drive Subarus. They drive G-Wagons.
A lot of really rich folk drive Subarus. See The Millionaire Next Door.
I’ve been lucky to meet those people and from my experience, they aren’t in a rush to go on anything harder than gravel roads. Maybe a graded two track to the apple grove.
They don’t take them out there – what if it got a scratch?
LOL! Truth.
I imagine that the fine is there in part as a deterrent, but also as compensation for the efforts of the Park Service to come rescue dummies from their own poor decisions. This also isn’t just a simple misdemeanor or traffic violation where rich folks can just work the fine into the cost of their trip – it’s a federal felony, which has a bunch of other implications beyond the fine. I doubt anyone’s going to want to rack up felony convictions instead of bringing the approved vehicle.
This seems to have implications for the new breed of electric off roaders.
It will be interesting to see how it would apply. A GMC Hummer EV would technically be ineligible for these trails on two accounts. No locking 4wd. No low range.
Beat me to it. The current crop of Rivians could fail since the fronts and rears aren’t mechanically coupled. Yes they’re electronically coupled. They also don’t technically have a low range because the electric motors don’t need one. All the torque at zero rpm or something.
Yeah, was thinking Rivians and the Hummer EV, despite being better offroad than all of those mall-crawler pickups, fail this criteria. Though I think this is the sort of thing where the NPS is just trying to sound like proper Fed-Bois, in an actual trial they would not win against any competent defense attorney.
The mechanical and technical differences are all well and good, but what the hell is with sending a letter after the fact? Shouldn’t the NPS rangers perform their job and enforce the rule as such at the trail head or along the trail if they felt a vehicle isn’t allowed? Sending a threatening letter after the fact seems wrong when they didn’t inform you on the spot and you didn’t get stuck.
If you think the NPS has the budget and staffing to put a ranger at every trailhead you are living in a fantasy world. If you think you know more than the NPS about which kind of vehicles regularly get stuck on their roads, that’s a similar fantasy. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
If you think NPS should be as underfunded and understaffed as you allege then why bother with the agency in the first place?
It’s not ignorance if there’s no education on the difference between the required drive train and or clearance requirements.
Many cars meet the ground clearance requirements if it’s only considered 8″ as high clearance, and if it was only certain trails then they certainly can station rangers at the trail head in a toll booth type gate to enact blanket enforcement, or they can ignore anything until someone is stuck and then fine them versus harassing everyone else after the fact.
Uh – no. This is the outdoors – there are no ranger kiosks.
I don’t know, it seemed pretty reasonable to me. They posted information about the law and, even after the driver violated the law, they only sent a warning letter saying: “hey, you drove on a restricted road in an inappropriate vehicle, don’t do it again.” On the scale of government nonsense, I’d say this is pretty mild.
I suppose AWD people might be confused, but 4WD wouldn’t shut up about how theirs is the superior offroader. We can use that.
Put a gate on the trail with a voice activated password, and a recording saying “Hey, nice AWD you got there”.
The password is “Actually”. Problem solved.
Public land and personal responsibility. If people do dumb stuff and something bad happens, said people need to pay for it. It sounds like this Subaru owner got in and out without a problem.
That being said I’ve tested over 100 vehicles (never a Crosstrek), and the Outback was one that really struggled on my test hill. A BMW X6 managed it pretty easily.
Also 4wd vs AWD is difficult. The Wrangler Rubicon 4xe has a clutch based center “diff”. It does have low range, but do the clutches make it AWD? I’ve also overheated a couple of clutch based diffs in “off-road” pickup trucks with low range transfer cases on the hardest lines of my test hill, so maybe the NPS should consider them to be AWD.
There are a couple of AWD crossovers badged “4WD”. The 2011-2019 and 2020-present Ford Explorer and 2003-2008 Honda Pilot come to mind. What would the NPS think of those?
The NPS has a list of criteria including having a low range transfer case so it’s more defined in a way independent of marketing but it’s going to get weird in cases of current GM full-size pickups and the outgoing Cherokee since low range is technically optional in both and “lock” may just be a clutch like a crossover.
As an avid offroader, I can certainly see where the National Parks Service is coming from. I spend a fair amount of time in the mountains doing trails where going into the trail it is pretty obvious that I likely won’t make it back out without my front and rear lockers engaged. Yet time and time again I’ll find a stuck Subaru or RAV4 somewhere on a trail where they had no business, simply because the inexperienced driver had no clue of their vehicle’s limitations. In fact, I always carry extra recovery gear in case I need to pull out one of these vehicles.
Off-roading is much like racing on a track – a good car can make a bad driver quick, just the same as a good driver can make a bad car quick, but a bad car with a bad driver can ruin everyone’s day. I think what the NPS is trying to do is trying to reduce the probability of a bad car and bad driver on the trails, but since they can’t really control the driver, they are trying to control the car. I have no doubt that there are some good drivers of AWD crossovers, but I would wager the vast majority are not experienced off-roaders.
Let talk about my old 84 Audi 4000 quattro with locking center and rear diff’s. One wheel could not spin unless they all spun. And she literally climbed mountains.
Pretty car, but she ain’t making it up Elephant Hill. She may have gone up dirt roads on mountains, but that definitely ain’t climbing mountains.
To be fair, the mountain I climbed was a ski slope. Ground clearance was less of an issue there. But a mountain we did climb. Down was actually worse. Stupid moguls…
Let’s just go stupidly simple with this. If your vehicle can’t do the Rubicon Run in stock configuration, you should expect a stern letter from the NPS at the minimum.
No, I don’t like it but that’s the safest bet.
That sounds like you’re endorsing one particular manufacturer by the name of that event, which sounds like a conflict of interest [I know you’re not but I don’t think that’s a good criteria either]
It may seem that way, but many manufacturers have tested their vehicles there. Toyota, Chevrolet, Hummer, Jeep. I even suspect Ford did it with their Bronco.
I’m not an expert by any means but something about this really bugs me. Also makes me mildly less excited for my planned future lifted late 90s outback build. Hopefully this isn’t the rule for tons of trails.
I know someone who put a JDM, ow range transfer case into a 90s outback, then you can show them that you fully meet all the technical points, although I’m guessing it’s not a simple thing to source.
This sounds not just arbitrary, but that they change the rules as they go.
Parks: “You need 4WD.”
AWD: “Got it”
Parks: “No, that doesn’t count”
AWD: “Why not?”
Parks: “Cuz you ain’t got four wheel drive”
AWD: “But I do”
Parks: “Well, you ain’t got a transfer case, then”
AWD: “That’s not in the rules”
Parks: “It’s new one”
AWD: “What about that Land Cruiser over there?”
Parks: “Now, look here, we’re arresting you, not them”
Yeah, what about a Jeep Compass? They’ve got FOUR wheel drive! (first 105 seconds)
My state won’t give beach access plates to Baja Bugs or dune buggies, because of how terrible we all know VWs are on sand, but a bone stock Jeep Patriot is fine for surf fishing
Seems silly and abritrary. I’ve seen and driven Subarus that did very well offroad. If the guy got in and out with no issues, I don’t see the problem. Fine the people who get themselves stuck. The Subaru is probably better on those trails than a long bed crew cab F350, but the F350 dually has a transfer case and low range, so it’s legal? We used to have a Lexus GX aka Land Cruiser Prado, that was excellent off road, but was marketed as AWD not 4WD.
Good. A Subaru, despite what their marketing people would like you to believe, is not an off-road vehicle. Back when I lived in the PNW, I’d always see folks with lifted Crosstreks and shit, and while it might perform better off-road than a stock Crosstrek, it’s still not suitable for much more than fire roads or something like that.
I’ve owned a couple of Subarus, an Audi (with Quattro), a Jeep Grand Cherokee with “full time 4WD”, as well as a couple of AWD Hondas, and while they’re pretty good in the snow with the right tires, none of them come close to my 4Runners when it comes to actual off-road stuff.
Breakin’ the law, breakin’ the law (duh duh)
Breakin’ the law, breakin’ the law
https://www.instagram.com/p/CO_2cO2lGcx/
We saw the sign, chuckled and continued on that one. I guess it helps to have a two-wheel-drive vintage VW where no one knows what it is. It did the entirety of Old Ore Road like a champ (except for that part where it fouled its plugs mid-way and we had to scrape them clean with sandstone to keep going). Clearance-wise, though, it’s fine. Its approach angle is butt because it’s a Nasenbär, but it can also slide on the bottom of the tire-hole like it’s a skidplate if you really have to.
I can see why the NPS would be touchy, though. There’s a lot of goofs even with 4WD who probably didn’t wheel with a buddy, look up trail videos and conditions beforehand and/or do any planning whatsoever before heading down a trail that isn’t suited to their car or skills at all. The more heavily visited trails are probably a magnet for dingdongs. Still, with AWD as good as it is now and with lifted Subarus now farting around some of the off-road parks alongside harder-core Jeeps and stuff, you’d think they’d allow some leeway there.
My very old but very functional Unimog is having a fit of the giggles.
I am extremely jealous of this very old but very functional Unimog. Those are awesome!
It is sort of one of those things, It sits doing nothing most of the time. Until a thing happens and the brain says ‘ the Unimog could come in handy here’ and it just does it’s thing, slowly but almost annoyingly well.
https://www.nps.gov/places/colorado-river-overlook.htm
For those wondering. I also think there’s a sign somewhere.
Also, per the Reddit thread, the originator of this letter claims not to have seen anyone else on the trail. NPS will do the grief letters a lot if you’re driving your rental car or other unsuitable vehicle down high-clearance trails and slowing traffic (particularly during monsoon season, where getting stuck/taking too long can occasionally end up with expensive helicopter recoveries of cars downstream because they couldn’t get out in time during flash flood events). And to be fair, NPS deals, a lot, with inexperienced people out in the Maze where a recovery quote can be 3k+, so many people just abandon stuck vehicles that are blocking the road.
All that said, it seems dumb to grief somebody who got into the terrain and then got back out. That particular flavor of Subie is just as competent as many lighter trucks (in many cases better, as the shorter wheelbase and narrower track width lend itself to that sort of trail).
Kinda find it hard to believe that if they did not see anyone else on the trail, that NPS would have their information like that. Always two sides to a story. If in fact they got through without issue and it was just someone complaining that a Subaru was showing up someone in their Wrangler, yeah that is downright petty and silly. But if there is more to this story on the other side, maybe the response was appropriate. Speculation can abound.
Google “trail camera”
Does the NPS use such devices to track everyone out on trails for these such purposes? Would surprise me if they used any resources to proactively look for such issues unless this type of issue (breaking down on trail in an underspec’d rig) is just so common.
I can understand the rational of fining someone who got stuck because of an inappropriate vehicle, but if they got in and out with no issues it makes no sense. Also, do they fine people with “proper” 4WD vehicles that get stuck? As always, operator skill can make as much of a difference as equipment.
It is important to note here that no fine was actually issued here, just a warning. I suspect that fine would have come in to play only if they ACTUALLY got stuck.
Hot DANG. That’s beautiful.
Its a nice overlook, there is a better one off the elephant hill trail, but a Subaru would wet its viscous coupling just looking at the entrance.
Chicken Corner still takes points for me for best remote overlook.
Was there on a weekend and, while the traffic on the Chicken Corner trail was moderate (a lot of 4Runners, two or three Jeeps), the actual end of the trail (where camping is legal and which offers a fantastic view of the Colorado) was completely empty.
Good place if you’re ever out West to cut your teeth on some basic offroading.
Chatting with a “Jeep guy” at work, who’s rather keen on solid front axles for some reason, acknowledged that they’ve had quite a few Subaru Crosstreks do surprisingly well on a lot of really bad trails.
Wait, was that a Dodgeball reference?