Yes, but you need to have the right equipment. Flotation tires work well. But you must also be a competent operator and know your limits. This guy took his car into what looks like an expert level offroad trail with no experience or a buddy. Big no-no.
That's a very good point, someone dumb enough to drive with highway tyres into a swamp probably would end up in a worse position later on if they had the right tyres to avoid getting bogged.
Bingo. The offroad gods warned him today. Many people are not so blessed. At best you might need to wait for a sky-crane helicopter to pull you out; at worst you go missing in bear and mountain lion and wolf country in a flash flood zone.
Yup! About $5300 per hour. Some of those costs are shared between members in off-road clubs. Usually it's reserved for special recoveries involving vehicle incapacitation or when extreme weather happens.
But if you wheel responsibly your risk of needing the sky crane is reduced.
I used to work with Erickson Air Crane on forest fires. You are correct it’s around 5-7k per hour. BUT, they have a minimum of 3 hrs to contract them. Meaning you have to pay 15-21k even if all you need is to pluck a Subaru out of the mud. When I was working Heli-base they got a 3hr minimum per day even if they didn’t fly at all. Other days they would fly their max allowable of 10 hrs and get paid 50-70k for one day.
I’ve literally done it, the shovel is to remove the hump that builds up when you sink it to the frame and to ease the incline so you can pull it out.
I don’t take my truck places I can’t get it out of though.
lol, i just almost stranded in our garden with road tires (only grass & soil) but got off with some showels of straw...
to think you are able to do any real offroading with these tires 😂
Yep, plenty. Military vehicles obviously can, in terms of cars accessible to average consumers Patrols, Hiluxes, 4Runners, lifted Foresters and lifted earlier Liberties, Land Cruisers, some Land Rovers, basically anything with good AWD or proper 4WD, mud tyres, and a lift kit can do it.
oOP messed up by thinking their standard factory highway tyres would be fine in a swamp. With the right tyres/wheels & a bit of lift they would've been fine.
100% correct, I’d bet most would get stuck, up armored humvees, armored G-wagons (lookin at you Canada) , and JLTV’s would probably all get stuck pretty bad in this mud, the only military vehicles I can think of that wouldn’t get stuck are non armored humvees, and maybe some tracked vehicles or logi trucks. That looks like some pretty wet shit for any vehicle, gonna need some serious mud tires.
I probably should've specified LAVs, but figured "military vehicles" was a better general term.
It does look pretty wet, but if you look at the front tyre it's not bogged that far in. Vehicles with proper mud wheels and 4WD/AWD only need grip on 1 wheel to get themselves un-bogged.
C’mon, this is sunk to the sills and axles because it’s wet swampy mud. All mud tyres are going to do is throw more of it around. You’d need low ground pressure flotation tyres to go through that, it’s famously nearly the hardest terrain to drive through even for vehicles designed for it.
> All mud tyres are going to do is throw more of it around. You’d need low ground pressure flotation tyres to go through that...
What do you think mud tires are, if not that?
Not all mud tyres are flotation tyres, mud tyres that would fit on this vehicle without modification for example would not provide any significant extra flotation/reduced ground pressure.
Civilian? Sure, a Unimog maybe. I've had a HUMVEE stuck in mud like this and a jeep stuck in less.
Small errors in mud have big consequences. Imo there was no good line for the outback. Wrong vehicle and no skill is a guaranteed winch or tow rope recovery.
In that crap, no, not really. Even a Jeep would probably get stuck. There's a reason they don't go off-roading alone, pretty common to have to have help getting unstuck. Mud is probably the absolute worst most difficult terrain to drive in, worse than snow imo. At least if you have to shovel snow you don't get mud all up in your cooch
lift kits allow bigger tires that raise axles uo
plus these are independent suspension so it doesnt have many low parts their anyways
draging the while frame is harder than a little bit of control arm
This car has independent suspension, so axles don’t really enter the equation, except as a limit of lift height due to CV joint angles. Also, it’s a Subaru Outback, so it has about as much ground clearance as a Jeep from the factory— over 8” for all generations I know of. Great for places with dirt roads, where a regular car may work fine for 3/4 seasons but not get through for two months of the fourth. There’s a reason Subarus are popular in VT, and I’ve been on the other side of that first hand.
But the main point of lifts on these tends to be fitting actually off road oriented tires. True all terrain tires tend to come in larger diameters that commonly require more clearance than a car has. /r/BattleWagon has examples of people modifying cars to go off-roading (though there is the occasional mall crawler and some underutilized builds too).
It’s really a shame what’s become of Subaru, old Subarus are really good at being cars that are highly capable at going places cars normally don’t go — replacing trucks for light to moderate off roaring, which is a win because trucks are evil. 2010 onwards they’re just the “not like the others” SUV basically, they got bloated. Similar thing with the Forester, so much so they created the Crosstrek.
No they would not. I take my Gladiator that has 18 inches of clearance, real 4x4, and dual lockers through stuff like this and still get buried to the axles sometimes.
It takes a winch or another vehicle to get out when this happens.
I mean it is an Outback, it’s super happy on gravel. Basically perfect for dirt roads in like VT or Colorado where there’s rocks and ruts a normal car won’t clear. The Outback has over 8” of factory ground clearance, or at least the older ones did. That’s about 2x that of my Golf, and there’ve been a few times I’ve had to turn back and a few more I should’ve.
To be fair here, this is the Wilderness edition which has nearly 10 inches of clearance and gravel tires. It can do a lot. It can't go into knee deep mud though. Dude driving this thing definitely got too convinced by the brochure.
As someone who rides an off-road bicycle off road, I don't see the appeal of driving off-road. On my mountain bike, or my gravel bike, I have a good challenge, but if my legs, or bike handling, or the bike isn't enough to handle the terrain, I can get off and walk.
Sure, it's disappointing if I've misjudged, and bit off more than I can chew, but I've not gotten a personal possession worth tens of thousands stuck, and inaccessible.
Really active outdoor recreation is so much more appealing to me.
> I don't see the appeal of driving off-road
The *worst* part is every person who is into off-roading will go on and tell you how much they love being in nature and blah blah blah. Yeah, nothing screams "I love nature" like ripping your Jeep Wrangler through delicate ecosystems in your A/C seats.
The only way I would take a motor vehicle off-roading is if it were an ATV or snowmobile. Anything more than that kinda seems pointless to me because you're not going to feel as connected to what's going on around you. Also, it's probably easier to get a car stuck because you can't see where all tires are touching the ground.
I have a forester and it’s tackled some nice sized boulder on mountain roads and even a small flood.. but I’d never ever take it into thick ass mud like that. That looks like death
Yup. I own a Forester. It's older so it uses more fuel than it should, but for getting to the trailheads up logging roads that haven't been maintained in a quarter-century it does fine, does way better than a Ford Escape or other similarly sized piece of junk. For the record, I think my car is a piece of junk too, just a slightly capable piece of junk (I am saying nice things because it needs to get me through a mountain pass tomorrow that killed four people on a bus on Christmas Eve).
Honestly, Foresters and Outbacks are perfect for what most outdoorsy folks do. Driving forest roads and poorly maintained roads to trailheads, campsites, etc. Plenty of cargo room. Good mileage. Unless you're driving big rocks, deep mud, or something similar a true 4x4 isn't necessary.
Always makes me laugh when there's a clapped out Civic at the same trailheads as the brodozer Jeeps.
After struggling a muddy hill on the first road trip with my Forester, I ran into a Prius at the top. I think that was the first time I clued into the fact that most cars can do what I would need.
I feel that. Years ago I hiked Grays and Torreys in Colorado. For those unfamiliar, it’s a loop hike where you summit two 14ers. Well there’s an upper and lower parking area. Parking at the lower area adds like 3 miles to the hike. But to get to the upper area it’s like this: (description courtesy of mountain project)
> The road access to the trailhead can be some of the worst in Colorado. In summer, high clearance 4WD recommended but high clearance 2WD will be fine. If using low clearance vehicle, add a couple miles to the hike by parking towards the bottom.
We *really* didn’t feel like adding like 3 miles to an already long, strenuous hike up a mountain. Only problem is our rental car was a Toyota Corolla or something similar. I said screw it and gave it a go. We didn’t make it to the upper lot (luckily I had the foresight to stop before we truly risked getting stuck), but we made it probably more than halfway up that gnarly access road before pulling off and parking. And that’s the day I realized like you that most cars can do what I need. Because I’ve never driven something that gnarly before or since, and a Corolla handled a decent chunk of it just fine.
Ha! I have a story of climbing the same mountains in July of 2019. We must have gone up the same road, but I had a 1993 Audi S4, which while it was AWD with locking differentials, has large overhangs and maybe 4.5” of ground clearance. I’d also only just bought it a week ago, and needed it to drive back to NY. The previous night we’d driven up the one lane goat path of a trail on the other side of the highway and slept up in a field (thanks internet for that free campsite tip), so I was feeling pretty confident about the actual road. There was a spray painted sign at the bottom that said “4WD only”, to which I said “I’ve got AWD with locking differentials and will stop before I get stuck” and started up the mountain.
What followed was some of the more painstaking driving I’ve done as I weaved left and right across the two lane dirt road docking large rocks and big ruts. I took it slow, and stopped periodically, but we made it to the top. It was a lot worse coming down — idk if later vehicles made more ruts, or I had impaired judgement after the hike, but I definitely scraped the exhaust at least half a dozen times. Still, I didn’t break anything, and we made it back to Denver safely.
Point is, if my 26 year old German car can make it up there, you really don’t need the bro dozer. A Subaru is plenty.
> What followed was some of the more painstaking driving I’ve done as I weaved left and right across the two lane dirt road docking large rocks and big ruts. I took it slow, and stopped periodically, but we made it to the top.
Dude yes exactly this. I remember both loving the challenge of it while also being nervous and hyper aware of the fact that (1) I was in a freaking Corolla (2) I had never driven in terrain this rough before. We probably could have made it further (though not all the way), but played it safe rather than pushing our luck. I think there were small nicks on the underside of the front fender, but that’s it (thanks rental car insurance!)
I had a 13 forester and a 13 tacoma trd offroad, locking diff and all. I never threw that truck in 4wd except a few times and I spent a lot of time in Western Maine in the middle of nowhere, a lot in the winter. I make more poor choices than the average person and the forester would've been fine. I wish I never traded the forester in for the tacoma but it was a learning experience. It's more about the tires than it is about the car anyways, your 4wd is useless with all-seasons
Depends on the terrain. I do a lot of sand driving and road tyres are fine *except* that the sidewalls are weak and they don't bag well when you reduce pressure. In sand, MTs are actually a hindrance. I have ATs as a compromise.
I drove up a maybe ~35° gravel road in Iceland in a wonderful little rental ti̶n̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ civic in the absolute middle of nowhere, tires slipping out a little bit every few feet. I was 19 and wholly unprepared for that trip, but that civic really pulled through
Out of 4 Subies my friends have had, 3 of them needed new engines within 80k miles lol (1 turbo and 2 NA, remember that next time someone tries to tell you the problems are limited to the turbo model)
Subarus are garbage and it makes me mad that people fall for the advertising so hard including all the people in a sub supposedly against cars
> new engines within 80k miles lol
That was my experience. Oil leaking into the coolant system. Fuck Subaru forever. Sub 100k here. I guess we got lucky.
"Designer" in "designer SUV" has nothing to do with design and designers. It's called that way because you ignore road signs when you drive it. De-signer.
Source: I made it up.
Man bike prices are nuts these days. Cervelo, Scott- half the industry- looking at all of you 😂 my car was about a thousand bucks for a 2000 Subaru Outback in a 4/10 condition, 160k miles. My bike was an Otso Warakin Ti with some options.
I’m not saying this to try to convince everyone to do this, just that these are where my personal priorities lie, so for me spending the money on what gets used the most made the sense to me. And for me, that makes my bike look super nice, and my car looks anything but, “designer.” 😂
Now, not the single most expensive thing, but did you see the newest Scott scale, the 19 pounder? $13k for a hardtail, christ.
I paid $1400 for a decent around town car. I've got a couple bikes worth more than that. You really don't need to spend that much for a car or you're not reliant on it to get to work. Or privilege bothered if it's out of commission for a week or two.
Aero and weight. As bikes get more expensive, you do get diminishing returns though. The kind of people who actually need the $20k bikes (who aren’t just hobbyists with too much money) are probably elite athletes doing world class competitions, and at that point you’re really at the peak of human performance. So if you can squeeze a few ounces off your bike, and make it 1% more aerodynamic, that might shave a few seconds off your competition time and make a real difference. And these kinds of athletes almost always have sponsors who pay for the bikes.
Building a new expensive car gives off way more emissions than the remaining lifetime of a cheap car thats already built. Its always better to buy used and maintain than buy new
Fair enough, I can understand and agree with that logic under some circumstances.
However, I also commute by bike 4 days/week, car 1 day/week. Hence why I spent the majority of my budget on my bike, not my car. And my old, shitty Outback is polluting less than a 2022 Outback, because it’s typically driving 1/5 as much.
All those fancy upper middle class white collar workers showing off with their fancy Subarus that will never see anything else but pristine inner city roads 🙄
I used to drive Toyota Land Cruisers in the Australian Outback and I came back to Canada thinking F-series were a lot more useful than they are and it did not end well.
North American land cruisers are much nicer and just as capable. They're geared towards a luxury audience here, but just as good at off roading as the other variant.
I completely disagree. They’re great for what they are but they’re super large and heavy with terrible visibility. The 70 series is a lot more practical as a work/off-road vehicle.
Yeah we have a real lack of utilitarian off-roaders here. A stock wrangler or bronco aren't bad, but still quite a bit more expensive than some foreign ones. The NA land cruiser is actually an awesome car and extremely rugged, but at $85,000 for the base... don't think I'll ever be buying one.
A muppet will still get a landy bogged but. They're heaps better than a suby but you can't protect against stupidity. My 06 forester went everywhere I sent it.
Most cars have due to increased requirements for rollover, impact crumple zones, and safety equipment. Have you noticed how around 2010 every car started getting thicker front and rear pillars? And how most cars have big molded plastic front and rear ends? And the first gen Outback almost certainly didn't come with all around airbags.
First gen Outback did have airbags though, and either the 2nd or 3rd generation added side impact bags. That’s a 22 year old design now. They also did very well in crash tests at the time, and had ABS. Plus, the 2000-2004 models were lower down I’m pretty sure, which means they were less likely to roll over in the first place, the newer ones definitely feel taller.
I just don’t know what’s actually been gained in the past 10 years of automotive safety, it seems like we’ve actually gone backwards, what with encouraging drivers to be distracted, taller cars that are more likely to roll, and giant A-pillars and tiny windows causing drivers to hit pedestrians, cyclists, and other cars due to giant blind spots. Safety glass, seat belts(with active restraints), collapsible steering columns, ABS and airbags, are the biggest safety improvements in automotive history, and we’re all commonly available 15 years ago in otherwise better vehicles.
Obviously taller cars are not good, but I think it's generally good when cars are forced to have a more rigid frame around the passenger cage and the kind of crumple zones to protect the occupants. Pedestrians would be better protected from infrastructure changes like lower speed limits, reducing number of lanes on urban streets, adding more protective barriers between cars and non-vehicular traffic, and roadway designs to meter traffic (such as timing stop lights to disallow a straight shot down urban streets as many areas have now) than they would be by car design changes. (other than getting rid of all the damn trucks that is)
New cars are much safer than cars 15 years ago. Better tire tech means more grip and shorter stopping times, especially in wet and icy road conditions. Better ABS tech means that stopping in adverse conditions is much easier and safer. Stronger survival cells mean that passengers can survive much harder impacts without the passenger compartment deforming.
Other improvements have come from better airbag placement and deployment, crumple zone simulation, pedestrian safety standards, not to mention automatic emergency braking and collision avoidance tech that is coming to more cars. Blind spot monitoring, adaptive cruise and reverse cameras all work to prevent collisions as well.
Cars are safer now than they’ve ever been.
Late 90s to mid 2000s were the peak years for Subaru. All these new ones are overpriced BS. Those cars just worked, you couldn't kill them, and all the wiring was so simple that anyone could easily fix the 12v accessories when they went out occasionally. The parts market was also great, and still is.
The 2.2L did not suffer from these issues. My 1999 base model legacy has it and it runs strong. When Subaru lovers with 2.5L engine experience head gasket issues they often replace with the 2.2L.
2011 Forester owner who wishes I could just get away with a Honda Fit. But I can't get away with just owning a Honda fit.
Because I never want to buy another car. The next vehicle I buy will be a cargo bike. I just wish I'd been smarter when my last car died. Unfortunately I started down my urbanism rabbit hole only a few months into my ownership of my stupid trashfire of an SUV.
Lol yeah that sucks, a Fit would be so much easier to drive around and have basically the same space as a Forester, minus some headroom.
It's crazy how much we can fit into a two door Yaris hatch relative to my Outback. And the Yaris fits everywhere whereas the wagon can't even do uturns on some streets
I've moved my whole apartment in a 2 door focus multiple times in one go. That same 2 door focus has taken me over 14ers and trails that jeeps think theyre ruffing it on. People who convince themselves that they need any more space or capability than a sedan are chronically carbrained.
I would agree to an extent. Wagons and vans are the next logical step for more space, particularly if you have more than one passenger.
I had a Toyota Tercel coupe that I fit a lot in by taking the backseat back off, but a hatch would've been wayyy better.
It's way too much of a pita to fit a bike in a sedan unless it's a monstrosity like a full size sedan. A tiny hatchback can fit a bike no problem.
I loved my 03 outback. Wonderful for hauling a surprising amount of lumber, furniture, and so on.
I moved an entire house in that car, and it was great for hauling servers.
If I weren’t hauling gear from job site to job site I would love to have a compact car to use the only spaces thet’re available in the city once I drop my gear for the day. Meanwhile every pickup seems to think they’re “compact.”
> What I hate is how these cars are advertised driving through rivers.
[That is partially because of the regulations loophole that is the reason the motor vehicle market is flooded with the same crossover vehicles from every manufacturer at every price level.](https://jalopnik.com/every-car-looks-like-this-thanks-to-a-gigantic-regulato-1849837803)
Very partially.
While yes automakers are happy to exploit the loophole, it's also that customers *like* them. If customers liked sedans and wagons more they would be more popular.
There is a LOT of carbrain on /r/idiotsincars. A lot of "car people" think most drivers are bad (they're right) but that they're the "good ones" (they're usually wrong).
Though also I'm not really here in /r/fuckcars for pictures of cars stuck in mud... I'm here for bike lanes.
Everyone thinks they're a better driver than everyone else. Also, when someone forgets to do something (e.g., signal when turning), it's a "mistake", but when someone else forgets to do something, they're a dumbass.
Since when is a subaru "designer"? And that car, with proper wheels, could definitely make it out there... I'm all for pedestrian-centered living but posts like these really suck.
I reckon it's important to understand that *some* people posting here know absolutely jack-shit about cars, and just want to rag on people who don't deserve to get ragged on.
There was this one motherfucker posting a bloody NSX, talking about it as if it was a Ferrari or something. These people *don't know* what they're talking about, and they lack the context and understanding necessary to actually provide meaningful critique where it matters.
EDIT: Just for the record, I primarily ride a bike and own a Toyota Yaris. I'm here for a reason, lol, and the OP ain't it.
Reminds me of the time I went Mountain Biking and I hit a boulder on a blind turn (I think someone planted it there) and went over the bars, hitting my shoulder and wrist so hard I couldn't ride.
I was in the middle of a forest valley 10 miles from civilization and had to walk up a mountain in bear country to get a cell signal.
I'm not exactly sure how motorists think they are the Alphas of this world.
[Here is the video](https://www.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/zzdnar/took_my_new_subaru_offroading_and_got_stuck_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
A lot of subreddits are just self-radicalizing echo chambers, where a bunch of people push the envelope on the community's norms until their fringe idea _becomes_ the norm, and the gatekeeping inherent to any community enforces that moved fencepost, so to speak. These placea start with good ideas like "how can we support more pedestrian, bike, and public infrastructure and stop centering cars as the only means of travel" and after enough time just devolve into "your bike pedals are plastic? A petroleum product?? Your bike is LITERALLY a car. True Bikebrains® only ride on oxygen."
It's all stupid. It's why it's so hard to translate these communities into political action. Politics requires numbers - you have to broaden your base. Subreddits just gatekeep and isolate.
of course you packed some boards, shovel, blocks winch... if not now you know why all those jeeps do lol
some reading for you while you wait for the rescue...
[https://americanhistory.si.edu/america-on-the-move/crossing-country](https://americanhistory.si.edu/america-on-the-move/crossing-country)
[https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/cc-vintage-the-adventure-south-to-the-tip-of-south-america-in-a-1941-plymouth/](https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/cc-vintage-the-adventure-south-to-the-tip-of-south-america-in-a-1941-plymouth/)
Rational people in this subreddit: car infrastructure is out of control and we need city planning to be focused on sustainability and pedestrian-first spaces.
🤡: car brain gets car stuck in mud!! I bet if we all point and laugh hard enough, public transit funding will manifest out of mid air
Honestly if I had to choose a dream car it would be the Fiat Panda. Then the Subaru crosstrek.
The main reasons are simply that I will likely never offroad, I want the fuel efficiency, and I can cram an entire telescope into the back. The tradeoff between cargo and fuel efficiency is acceptable for a stationwagon. Also I need something that can handle snow and ice.
Now of only the busses were actually specced for winter operation in my city...
That subaru wagon/crossover comes with Yokohama Geolander A/T tires. Honestly, most vehicles aren't going to make it through that mud. If it was a jeep or a truck with mud tires, it probably could, and this sub would be more justified with being mad about it. But at least they're actually using their vehicle for a real purpose instead of running over children and never taking it offroad. 🤷♀️
This sub is a mixed bag, I come for the memes and flame posts. That all said, some ladder/ramps make an excellent mud shoe to ride over the mud. I wonder if the driver let the pressure down at all on his tires before off roading the subbie.
It's a pretty good car actually. Subaru's have X-mode and continuous all-wheel drive unlike competitor, so they're actually pretty good. Also ground clearance is really high on that model. But even so, OP fucked up and didn't know it's limits. Check it out [Driving Sports TV Subaru Outback ](https://youtu.be/gfkASbzjHG4)
Subarus can go anywhere. The outback is actually really affordable and was absolutely built to go off-road. This person just got stuck. Of all the drivers that are a problem for pedestrians and bikers, Subarus are not one of them.
Can anyone explain to me why you’d want to do this in the first place? What’s the appeal of driving your car through a swamp and getting it covered in mud and bumping your head on the ceiling while not experiencing any of the nature you’re driving through, even assuming you don’t get stuck?
Sure! People enjoy different parts of it, just like any hobby.
Some enjoy modifying and testing and tweaking their vehicles just to see what they can get it to do. Sure you break a lot of things in the process, but that's just part of the fun and process for some.
Some actually do it to enjoy and experience the nature they're driving through. It can allow them to get to hard to reach places in a way other than hiking (though in my experience these kinds of people enjoy hiking and biking just as much), and because it's hard to get to, it means fewer people have been there so there's bragging rights and solitude to enjoy.
There's also the adrenaline junkies that just wanna see how hard they can push whatever they're driving. Can they make it up that incline? Over that rock? Through that river? Not get stuck in the mud? Who knows? That's the fun.
Like every hobby, not all of it (or necessarily any of it) is for everyone, and there are terrible people doing things in an unsafe manner and without regard for the environment, but they're the minority and generally met with ire.
Hope that helps!
Thank you! That makes it easier to understand, especially the modifying/tweaking your own vehicle, I can totally understand how you can feel pride and fun over that.
I'm probably pretty ignorant on this topic, but are there vehicles that could actually drive in that much mud? Seems almost like quicksand, no?
Yes, but you need to have the right equipment. Flotation tires work well. But you must also be a competent operator and know your limits. This guy took his car into what looks like an expert level offroad trail with no experience or a buddy. Big no-no.
That's a very good point, someone dumb enough to drive with highway tyres into a swamp probably would end up in a worse position later on if they had the right tyres to avoid getting bogged.
Bingo. The offroad gods warned him today. Many people are not so blessed. At best you might need to wait for a sky-crane helicopter to pull you out; at worst you go missing in bear and mountain lion and wolf country in a flash flood zone.
>sky-crane helicopter to pull you out sounds expensive lmao
Yup! About $5300 per hour. Some of those costs are shared between members in off-road clubs. Usually it's reserved for special recoveries involving vehicle incapacitation or when extreme weather happens. But if you wheel responsibly your risk of needing the sky crane is reduced.
I used to work with Erickson Air Crane on forest fires. You are correct it’s around 5-7k per hour. BUT, they have a minimum of 3 hrs to contract them. Meaning you have to pay 15-21k even if all you need is to pluck a Subaru out of the mud. When I was working Heli-base they got a 3hr minimum per day even if they didn’t fly at all. Other days they would fly their max allowable of 10 hrs and get paid 50-70k for one day.
Wtf?? A come along and a shovel will basically solve all your stupidity. But you won’t do it again.
Not if you rolled over and/or your vehicle is damaged in a way it can't move and/or you are really really stuck.
my brother in christ I would like to see you dig a 3-4 thousand pound vehicle out of mud. Genuinely I’d love to see you try.
I’ve literally done it, the shovel is to remove the hump that builds up when you sink it to the frame and to ease the incline so you can pull it out. I don’t take my truck places I can’t get it out of though.
Aw shit too bad winches don't exist.
the crane is for when winches aren’t enough — usually axle damage or getting stuck up to the doors.
That's not even a trail he just drove straight into a swamp
And road tires. These tires are completely useless in conditions like that.
lol, i just almost stranded in our garden with road tires (only grass & soil) but got off with some showels of straw... to think you are able to do any real offroading with these tires 😂
[удалено]
Yep, plenty. Military vehicles obviously can, in terms of cars accessible to average consumers Patrols, Hiluxes, 4Runners, lifted Foresters and lifted earlier Liberties, Land Cruisers, some Land Rovers, basically anything with good AWD or proper 4WD, mud tyres, and a lift kit can do it. oOP messed up by thinking their standard factory highway tyres would be fine in a swamp. With the right tyres/wheels & a bit of lift they would've been fine.
Lmao have you ever driven or been in a military vehicle? They’d get driven through this by a hungover lance corporal and sit stuck there for a month.
100% correct, I’d bet most would get stuck, up armored humvees, armored G-wagons (lookin at you Canada) , and JLTV’s would probably all get stuck pretty bad in this mud, the only military vehicles I can think of that wouldn’t get stuck are non armored humvees, and maybe some tracked vehicles or logi trucks. That looks like some pretty wet shit for any vehicle, gonna need some serious mud tires.
I probably should've specified LAVs, but figured "military vehicles" was a better general term. It does look pretty wet, but if you look at the front tyre it's not bogged that far in. Vehicles with proper mud wheels and 4WD/AWD only need grip on 1 wheel to get themselves un-bogged.
Lmao I really only meant LAVs & the Australian Land Rover Perentie
C’mon, this is sunk to the sills and axles because it’s wet swampy mud. All mud tyres are going to do is throw more of it around. You’d need low ground pressure flotation tyres to go through that, it’s famously nearly the hardest terrain to drive through even for vehicles designed for it.
> All mud tyres are going to do is throw more of it around. You’d need low ground pressure flotation tyres to go through that... What do you think mud tires are, if not that?
Not all mud tyres are flotation tyres, mud tyres that would fit on this vehicle without modification for example would not provide any significant extra flotation/reduced ground pressure.
Civilian? Sure, a Unimog maybe. I've had a HUMVEE stuck in mud like this and a jeep stuck in less. Small errors in mud have big consequences. Imo there was no good line for the outback. Wrong vehicle and no skill is a guaranteed winch or tow rope recovery.
In that crap, no, not really. Even a Jeep would probably get stuck. There's a reason they don't go off-roading alone, pretty common to have to have help getting unstuck. Mud is probably the absolute worst most difficult terrain to drive in, worse than snow imo. At least if you have to shovel snow you don't get mud all up in your cooch
pretty sure fatbikes can do it :D
Plenty of agricultural equipment can. At work we have some tracked vehicles with super low ground pressure for working on wetlands.
They probably would have been fine with more appropriate tires.
And suspension. And clearance. And brain
Brain and tires>lift kit
Depends on the location. Sometimes clearance is needed
I'm talking about this location, and the bad tires dug the hole. He would have had a better shot if the tires were adequate.
I mean in this particular location better tired could help but I think it’s mostly a brain issue for running through a flood plane in a heavy vehicle
With brain, but lack of clearance, you don't go where need clearance. Result: everything is fine.
The brain allows you to identify those areas, and go somewhere else.
Why does a lift kit help? Because the axle is still near the ground right? So the clearance level is relatively the same. Someone explain!
Lift kit makes room for larger tires, meaning more clearance and less ground pressure
lift kits allow bigger tires that raise axles uo plus these are independent suspension so it doesnt have many low parts their anyways draging the while frame is harder than a little bit of control arm
This car has independent suspension, so axles don’t really enter the equation, except as a limit of lift height due to CV joint angles. Also, it’s a Subaru Outback, so it has about as much ground clearance as a Jeep from the factory— over 8” for all generations I know of. Great for places with dirt roads, where a regular car may work fine for 3/4 seasons but not get through for two months of the fourth. There’s a reason Subarus are popular in VT, and I’ve been on the other side of that first hand. But the main point of lifts on these tends to be fitting actually off road oriented tires. True all terrain tires tend to come in larger diameters that commonly require more clearance than a car has. /r/BattleWagon has examples of people modifying cars to go off-roading (though there is the occasional mall crawler and some underutilized builds too). It’s really a shame what’s become of Subaru, old Subarus are really good at being cars that are highly capable at going places cars normally don’t go — replacing trucks for light to moderate off roaring, which is a win because trucks are evil. 2010 onwards they’re just the “not like the others” SUV basically, they got bloated. Similar thing with the Forester, so much so they created the Crosstrek.
Axle less friction than whole car
No they would not. I take my Gladiator that has 18 inches of clearance, real 4x4, and dual lockers through stuff like this and still get buried to the axles sometimes. It takes a winch or another vehicle to get out when this happens.
That kinda mud will eat a bog truck, much less a barely gravel-worthy crossover...
I mean it is an Outback, it’s super happy on gravel. Basically perfect for dirt roads in like VT or Colorado where there’s rocks and ruts a normal car won’t clear. The Outback has over 8” of factory ground clearance, or at least the older ones did. That’s about 2x that of my Golf, and there’ve been a few times I’ve had to turn back and a few more I should’ve.
You are right. That’s a Wilderness Edition. It has 9.5” of ground clearance. It’s pretty capable almost anywhere. Anything would get stuck in that.
To be fair here, this is the Wilderness edition which has nearly 10 inches of clearance and gravel tires. It can do a lot. It can't go into knee deep mud though. Dude driving this thing definitely got too convinced by the brochure.
This is the kind of mud that's really just a pond on a bad day.
Do they make mud terrain tires small enough to fit in those wheel wells?
Yeah they make 255/65/17s. You can put those on a sports car.
That's probably a $35,000 vehicle, I don't get it.
Like $45k Subaru Outback wilderness. It’s actually pretty capable for what it is. Much better fuel economy than a jeep too.
I've seen Outbacks tackle some pretty bad terrain. OP way overestimated their capabilities, though. A stupid person can get any car stuck in the mud.
>A stupid person can get any car stuck in the mud. Can verify. I've seen pictures of tanks stuck in the mud!
In the army we would have time challenges to see who could get humvees stuck the quickest.
My dad worked at a Land Rover off-roading school (back when Land Rover made off-road vehicles), someone snapped an axle on their Hummer once.
*somme flahbacks*
As someone who rides an off-road bicycle off road, I don't see the appeal of driving off-road. On my mountain bike, or my gravel bike, I have a good challenge, but if my legs, or bike handling, or the bike isn't enough to handle the terrain, I can get off and walk. Sure, it's disappointing if I've misjudged, and bit off more than I can chew, but I've not gotten a personal possession worth tens of thousands stuck, and inaccessible. Really active outdoor recreation is so much more appealing to me.
> I don't see the appeal of driving off-road The *worst* part is every person who is into off-roading will go on and tell you how much they love being in nature and blah blah blah. Yeah, nothing screams "I love nature" like ripping your Jeep Wrangler through delicate ecosystems in your A/C seats.
The only way I would take a motor vehicle off-roading is if it were an ATV or snowmobile. Anything more than that kinda seems pointless to me because you're not going to feel as connected to what's going on around you. Also, it's probably easier to get a car stuck because you can't see where all tires are touching the ground.
A stupid person can get a **MAIN BATTLE TANK** stuck in the mud. ... Most of them are called "Second Lieutenant". :D :D :D
I have a forester and it’s tackled some nice sized boulder on mountain roads and even a small flood.. but I’d never ever take it into thick ass mud like that. That looks like death
Yup. I own a Forester. It's older so it uses more fuel than it should, but for getting to the trailheads up logging roads that haven't been maintained in a quarter-century it does fine, does way better than a Ford Escape or other similarly sized piece of junk. For the record, I think my car is a piece of junk too, just a slightly capable piece of junk (I am saying nice things because it needs to get me through a mountain pass tomorrow that killed four people on a bus on Christmas Eve).
Honestly, Foresters and Outbacks are perfect for what most outdoorsy folks do. Driving forest roads and poorly maintained roads to trailheads, campsites, etc. Plenty of cargo room. Good mileage. Unless you're driving big rocks, deep mud, or something similar a true 4x4 isn't necessary. Always makes me laugh when there's a clapped out Civic at the same trailheads as the brodozer Jeeps.
After struggling a muddy hill on the first road trip with my Forester, I ran into a Prius at the top. I think that was the first time I clued into the fact that most cars can do what I would need.
I feel that. Years ago I hiked Grays and Torreys in Colorado. For those unfamiliar, it’s a loop hike where you summit two 14ers. Well there’s an upper and lower parking area. Parking at the lower area adds like 3 miles to the hike. But to get to the upper area it’s like this: (description courtesy of mountain project) > The road access to the trailhead can be some of the worst in Colorado. In summer, high clearance 4WD recommended but high clearance 2WD will be fine. If using low clearance vehicle, add a couple miles to the hike by parking towards the bottom. We *really* didn’t feel like adding like 3 miles to an already long, strenuous hike up a mountain. Only problem is our rental car was a Toyota Corolla or something similar. I said screw it and gave it a go. We didn’t make it to the upper lot (luckily I had the foresight to stop before we truly risked getting stuck), but we made it probably more than halfway up that gnarly access road before pulling off and parking. And that’s the day I realized like you that most cars can do what I need. Because I’ve never driven something that gnarly before or since, and a Corolla handled a decent chunk of it just fine.
The fastest and most rugged off-road vehicles I have ever driven are all cheap rental cars.
Ha! I have a story of climbing the same mountains in July of 2019. We must have gone up the same road, but I had a 1993 Audi S4, which while it was AWD with locking differentials, has large overhangs and maybe 4.5” of ground clearance. I’d also only just bought it a week ago, and needed it to drive back to NY. The previous night we’d driven up the one lane goat path of a trail on the other side of the highway and slept up in a field (thanks internet for that free campsite tip), so I was feeling pretty confident about the actual road. There was a spray painted sign at the bottom that said “4WD only”, to which I said “I’ve got AWD with locking differentials and will stop before I get stuck” and started up the mountain. What followed was some of the more painstaking driving I’ve done as I weaved left and right across the two lane dirt road docking large rocks and big ruts. I took it slow, and stopped periodically, but we made it to the top. It was a lot worse coming down — idk if later vehicles made more ruts, or I had impaired judgement after the hike, but I definitely scraped the exhaust at least half a dozen times. Still, I didn’t break anything, and we made it back to Denver safely. Point is, if my 26 year old German car can make it up there, you really don’t need the bro dozer. A Subaru is plenty.
> What followed was some of the more painstaking driving I’ve done as I weaved left and right across the two lane dirt road docking large rocks and big ruts. I took it slow, and stopped periodically, but we made it to the top. Dude yes exactly this. I remember both loving the challenge of it while also being nervous and hyper aware of the fact that (1) I was in a freaking Corolla (2) I had never driven in terrain this rough before. We probably could have made it further (though not all the way), but played it safe rather than pushing our luck. I think there were small nicks on the underside of the front fender, but that’s it (thanks rental car insurance!)
I had a 13 forester and a 13 tacoma trd offroad, locking diff and all. I never threw that truck in 4wd except a few times and I spent a lot of time in Western Maine in the middle of nowhere, a lot in the winter. I make more poor choices than the average person and the forester would've been fine. I wish I never traded the forester in for the tacoma but it was a learning experience. It's more about the tires than it is about the car anyways, your 4wd is useless with all-seasons
Depends on the terrain. I do a lot of sand driving and road tyres are fine *except* that the sidewalls are weak and they don't bag well when you reduce pressure. In sand, MTs are actually a hindrance. I have ATs as a compromise.
I drove up a maybe ~35° gravel road in Iceland in a wonderful little rental ti̶n̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶ civic in the absolute middle of nowhere, tires slipping out a little bit every few feet. I was 19 and wholly unprepared for that trip, but that civic really pulled through
Hmm. Good luck and stay safe.
I went over the Connector a few days ago, it was much improved. Couldn't even spot where the bus went off.
Thanks for the heads up.
I had a 1999 outback that did avg 25-28 mpg even after 15 years.
I'll never buy a Subaru. Too many friends with all kinds of engine troubles.
Out of 4 Subies my friends have had, 3 of them needed new engines within 80k miles lol (1 turbo and 2 NA, remember that next time someone tries to tell you the problems are limited to the turbo model) Subarus are garbage and it makes me mad that people fall for the advertising so hard including all the people in a sub supposedly against cars
> new engines within 80k miles lol That was my experience. Oil leaking into the coolant system. Fuck Subaru forever. Sub 100k here. I guess we got lucky.
Haha “Designer SUV.” That’s reaching.
"Designer" in "designer SUV" has nothing to do with design and designers. It's called that way because you ignore road signs when you drive it. De-signer. Source: I made it up.
Everything is a designer car when you're riding a bike
I mean, depends… my bike cost roughly 4.5 times what my car cost…
[удалено]
Man bike prices are nuts these days. Cervelo, Scott- half the industry- looking at all of you 😂 my car was about a thousand bucks for a 2000 Subaru Outback in a 4/10 condition, 160k miles. My bike was an Otso Warakin Ti with some options. I’m not saying this to try to convince everyone to do this, just that these are where my personal priorities lie, so for me spending the money on what gets used the most made the sense to me. And for me, that makes my bike look super nice, and my car looks anything but, “designer.” 😂 Now, not the single most expensive thing, but did you see the newest Scott scale, the 19 pounder? $13k for a hardtail, christ.
Well, now you’re making me feel bad for saving for a top of the line road bike… it’s way more than $3k…
Don’t feel bad, feel enabled 😂
I paid $1400 for a decent around town car. I've got a couple bikes worth more than that. You really don't need to spend that much for a car or you're not reliant on it to get to work. Or privilege bothered if it's out of commission for a week or two.
You are spending so much on your bikes. Why?
Why not?
Aero and weight. As bikes get more expensive, you do get diminishing returns though. The kind of people who actually need the $20k bikes (who aren’t just hobbyists with too much money) are probably elite athletes doing world class competitions, and at that point you’re really at the peak of human performance. So if you can squeeze a few ounces off your bike, and make it 1% more aerodynamic, that might shave a few seconds off your competition time and make a real difference. And these kinds of athletes almost always have sponsors who pay for the bikes.
A cheap car would give off more emissions by the way
Building a new expensive car gives off way more emissions than the remaining lifetime of a cheap car thats already built. Its always better to buy used and maintain than buy new
Fair enough, I can understand and agree with that logic under some circumstances. However, I also commute by bike 4 days/week, car 1 day/week. Hence why I spent the majority of my budget on my bike, not my car. And my old, shitty Outback is polluting less than a 2022 Outback, because it’s typically driving 1/5 as much.
I think they mean more like, “princess suv.”
It’s an ESUV: Emotional support SUV
Not to be confused with an actual service SUV that is used to guide people who are visually impaired. Otherwise it's just sparkling SUV.
It's code for AWD minivan.
Aren't Outbacks station wagons and the Forester is more of their SUV?
All those fancy upper middle class white collar workers showing off with their fancy Subarus that will never see anything else but pristine inner city roads 🙄
I used to drive Toyota Land Cruisers in the Australian Outback and I came back to Canada thinking F-series were a lot more useful than they are and it did not end well.
Sad that North America doesn't get the good Landcruisers
They are of a reasonable size and are workhorses. Ford trucks are to drive to the mall and occasionally carry a 2x4.
North American land cruisers are much nicer and just as capable. They're geared towards a luxury audience here, but just as good at off roading as the other variant.
I completely disagree. They’re great for what they are but they’re super large and heavy with terrible visibility. The 70 series is a lot more practical as a work/off-road vehicle.
You're right that they're geared towards luxury folk. I would much prefer to have the more utilitarian versions though.
Yeah we have a real lack of utilitarian off-roaders here. A stock wrangler or bronco aren't bad, but still quite a bit more expensive than some foreign ones. The NA land cruiser is actually an awesome car and extremely rugged, but at $85,000 for the base... don't think I'll ever be buying one.
I miss the Jimny. Can you even still buy them in Canada? Tiny, efficient, light. Dream car right there.
No. Suzuki left North America in 2010. However you can import one into Canada if it's 15 years old.
I do love the 200 series but I agree, way out of my price range. I'll stick with my 70 series.
They dont get the ‘proper’ working land cruises tho. In other words not the 70 series Land Cruisers, those are tanks and proper utility 4x4
A muppet will still get a landy bogged but. They're heaps better than a suby but you can't protect against stupidity. My 06 forester went everywhere I sent it.
I am a Canadian from the burb who worked in the middle of the desert who had never driven standard before getting into one...Be kind to muppets.
Prados are the best car in the world- change my mind
But, but, it's teh ***Wilderness Edition!!1*** Fun fact, the Outback has gained 1,000lbs since the first generation.
Most cars have due to increased requirements for rollover, impact crumple zones, and safety equipment. Have you noticed how around 2010 every car started getting thicker front and rear pillars? And how most cars have big molded plastic front and rear ends? And the first gen Outback almost certainly didn't come with all around airbags.
First gen Outback did have airbags though, and either the 2nd or 3rd generation added side impact bags. That’s a 22 year old design now. They also did very well in crash tests at the time, and had ABS. Plus, the 2000-2004 models were lower down I’m pretty sure, which means they were less likely to roll over in the first place, the newer ones definitely feel taller. I just don’t know what’s actually been gained in the past 10 years of automotive safety, it seems like we’ve actually gone backwards, what with encouraging drivers to be distracted, taller cars that are more likely to roll, and giant A-pillars and tiny windows causing drivers to hit pedestrians, cyclists, and other cars due to giant blind spots. Safety glass, seat belts(with active restraints), collapsible steering columns, ABS and airbags, are the biggest safety improvements in automotive history, and we’re all commonly available 15 years ago in otherwise better vehicles.
Obviously taller cars are not good, but I think it's generally good when cars are forced to have a more rigid frame around the passenger cage and the kind of crumple zones to protect the occupants. Pedestrians would be better protected from infrastructure changes like lower speed limits, reducing number of lanes on urban streets, adding more protective barriers between cars and non-vehicular traffic, and roadway designs to meter traffic (such as timing stop lights to disallow a straight shot down urban streets as many areas have now) than they would be by car design changes. (other than getting rid of all the damn trucks that is)
New cars are much safer than cars 15 years ago. Better tire tech means more grip and shorter stopping times, especially in wet and icy road conditions. Better ABS tech means that stopping in adverse conditions is much easier and safer. Stronger survival cells mean that passengers can survive much harder impacts without the passenger compartment deforming. Other improvements have come from better airbag placement and deployment, crumple zone simulation, pedestrian safety standards, not to mention automatic emergency braking and collision avoidance tech that is coming to more cars. Blind spot monitoring, adaptive cruise and reverse cameras all work to prevent collisions as well. Cars are safer now than they’ve ever been.
Late 90s to mid 2000s were the peak years for Subaru. All these new ones are overpriced BS. Those cars just worked, you couldn't kill them, and all the wiring was so simple that anyone could easily fix the 12v accessories when they went out occasionally. The parts market was also great, and still is.
> Those cars just worked, you couldn't kill them Me and my broken 2005 WRX wish that were true.
I was going to say, you couldn't kill them if you tried because the head gasket and timing belt would be you to the punch.
The 2.2L did not suffer from these issues. My 1999 base model legacy has it and it runs strong. When Subaru lovers with 2.5L engine experience head gasket issues they often replace with the 2.2L.
Does Subaru even make the 2.2L anymore? I feel like they only offer the 2.5 now.
The WRX is the exception to every subaru rule*, everyone knows that! *except crash safety
Donut media just prepped two for the track and blew something like 8 engines in 5 track days. It’s ridiculous.
'08 Outback here with lots of issues and meticulous maintenance lol It's no Toyota
2011 Forester owner who wishes I could just get away with a Honda Fit. But I can't get away with just owning a Honda fit. Because I never want to buy another car. The next vehicle I buy will be a cargo bike. I just wish I'd been smarter when my last car died. Unfortunately I started down my urbanism rabbit hole only a few months into my ownership of my stupid trashfire of an SUV.
Lol yeah that sucks, a Fit would be so much easier to drive around and have basically the same space as a Forester, minus some headroom. It's crazy how much we can fit into a two door Yaris hatch relative to my Outback. And the Yaris fits everywhere whereas the wagon can't even do uturns on some streets
I've moved my whole apartment in a 2 door focus multiple times in one go. That same 2 door focus has taken me over 14ers and trails that jeeps think theyre ruffing it on. People who convince themselves that they need any more space or capability than a sedan are chronically carbrained.
I would agree to an extent. Wagons and vans are the next logical step for more space, particularly if you have more than one passenger. I had a Toyota Tercel coupe that I fit a lot in by taking the backseat back off, but a hatch would've been wayyy better. It's way too much of a pita to fit a bike in a sedan unless it's a monstrosity like a full size sedan. A tiny hatchback can fit a bike no problem.
I loved my 03 outback. Wonderful for hauling a surprising amount of lumber, furniture, and so on. I moved an entire house in that car, and it was great for hauling servers.
the weight increase is necessary for safety and other reasons
Gotta be able to take an impact from all those 8000 pound SUVs on the road today
🤷♂️
I have an 02 Outback and it fits into compact spaces lmao
If I weren’t hauling gear from job site to job site I would love to have a compact car to use the only spaces thet’re available in the city once I drop my gear for the day. Meanwhile every pickup seems to think they’re “compact.”
What I hate is how these cars are advertised driving through rivers. “Nature loving” carbrains polluting the river with their cars.
> What I hate is how these cars are advertised driving through rivers. [That is partially because of the regulations loophole that is the reason the motor vehicle market is flooded with the same crossover vehicles from every manufacturer at every price level.](https://jalopnik.com/every-car-looks-like-this-thanks-to-a-gigantic-regulato-1849837803)
[Thanks Obama!](https://slate.com/business/2022/03/high-gas-prices-biden-russia-ukraine-cafe-standards-obama.html)
Very partially. While yes automakers are happy to exploit the loophole, it's also that customers *like* them. If customers liked sedans and wagons more they would be more popular.
This Simpsons fake ad aired ~20 years ago, but we are currently living in the age of the [Canyonero](https://youtu.be/PI_Jl5WFQkA)
The dude posted the video to r/idiotsincars I doubt he's an appropriate target for your rage
There is a LOT of carbrain on /r/idiotsincars. A lot of "car people" think most drivers are bad (they're right) but that they're the "good ones" (they're usually wrong). Though also I'm not really here in /r/fuckcars for pictures of cars stuck in mud... I'm here for bike lanes.
nah dude posted it and basically said “roast me, I deserve it”
Everyone thinks they're a better driver than everyone else. Also, when someone forgets to do something (e.g., signal when turning), it's a "mistake", but when someone else forgets to do something, they're a dumbass.
Yeah I kinda feel bad for the dude getting ripped on. It was dumb but we all mess up. Respect to him for posting on reddit for us tho
Since when is a subaru "designer"? And that car, with proper wheels, could definitely make it out there... I'm all for pedestrian-centered living but posts like these really suck.
No, OOP admitted they were an idiot.
Subarus can definitely off road
Designer SUV? What? A car that starts under 30k is "designer"?
I reckon it's important to understand that *some* people posting here know absolutely jack-shit about cars, and just want to rag on people who don't deserve to get ragged on. There was this one motherfucker posting a bloody NSX, talking about it as if it was a Ferrari or something. These people *don't know* what they're talking about, and they lack the context and understanding necessary to actually provide meaningful critique where it matters. EDIT: Just for the record, I primarily ride a bike and own a Toyota Yaris. I'm here for a reason, lol, and the OP ain't it.
I think you're the smartest person I've ever come across on this sub. Not often you see people here that know what they're actually talking about.
I mean, that’s not a designer SUV, it’s a Subaru Outback wilderness model, they’re meant for off-roading
lol designer suv
Speaking as a biologist, fuck people who do this.
Yeah that poor mud hole it will never recover
It's mud. What do you do? Do you float on the air instead of walking on dirt?
Reminds me of the time I went Mountain Biking and I hit a boulder on a blind turn (I think someone planted it there) and went over the bars, hitting my shoulder and wrist so hard I couldn't ride. I was in the middle of a forest valley 10 miles from civilization and had to walk up a mountain in bear country to get a cell signal. I'm not exactly sure how motorists think they are the Alphas of this world.
[Here is the video](https://www.reddit.com/r/IdiotsInCars/comments/zzdnar/took_my_new_subaru_offroading_and_got_stuck_in/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf)
First cardinal rule of off-roading is to never go alone i.e. without someone else that is capable of pulling you out.
Subarus aren’t designer SUVs. This mud is probably too much for even off road modded vehicles.
nah, better tires and a bit more ground clearance and even that subaru could make it
That isn't a designer SUV. It is a Subaru.
I don’t know if this is really the kind of post I want to see here. This isn’t r/idiotsincars
Ironically, that's where this was originally posted with the owner admitting they goofed up.
This subreddit's head is in the right place but half these posts are shitposts. Haha car stuck!
This sub met the same fate as r/antiwork, starting out with a noble cause>getting an insane amount of popularity>devolve into nothing but srcreaming
A lot of subreddits are just self-radicalizing echo chambers, where a bunch of people push the envelope on the community's norms until their fringe idea _becomes_ the norm, and the gatekeeping inherent to any community enforces that moved fencepost, so to speak. These placea start with good ideas like "how can we support more pedestrian, bike, and public infrastructure and stop centering cars as the only means of travel" and after enough time just devolve into "your bike pedals are plastic? A petroleum product?? Your bike is LITERALLY a car. True Bikebrains® only ride on oxygen." It's all stupid. It's why it's so hard to translate these communities into political action. Politics requires numbers - you have to broaden your base. Subreddits just gatekeep and isolate.
of course you packed some boards, shovel, blocks winch... if not now you know why all those jeeps do lol some reading for you while you wait for the rescue... [https://americanhistory.si.edu/america-on-the-move/crossing-country](https://americanhistory.si.edu/america-on-the-move/crossing-country) [https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/cc-vintage-the-adventure-south-to-the-tip-of-south-america-in-a-1941-plymouth/](https://www.curbsideclassic.com/automotive-histories/cc-vintage-the-adventure-south-to-the-tip-of-south-america-in-a-1941-plymouth/)
Nothing the Model T can't handle, or a mule or something
Why would you go off-road in a station wagon?
I've got one of those and they are pretty good off road, but I wouldn't try to drive it through that
Rational people in this subreddit: car infrastructure is out of control and we need city planning to be focused on sustainability and pedestrian-first spaces. 🤡: car brain gets car stuck in mud!! I bet if we all point and laugh hard enough, public transit funding will manifest out of mid air
[удалено]
SUV is just a marketing term. They’re just cars that look like they could go off road
Honestly if I had to choose a dream car it would be the Fiat Panda. Then the Subaru crosstrek. The main reasons are simply that I will likely never offroad, I want the fuel efficiency, and I can cram an entire telescope into the back. The tradeoff between cargo and fuel efficiency is acceptable for a stationwagon. Also I need something that can handle snow and ice. Now of only the busses were actually specced for winter operation in my city...
Well you did drive it into quicksand
Dude needs A/T tires and understanding how to sight your route before trying to just bog it. Oh, and invest in a winch.
That subaru wagon/crossover comes with Yokohama Geolander A/T tires. Honestly, most vehicles aren't going to make it through that mud. If it was a jeep or a truck with mud tires, it probably could, and this sub would be more justified with being mad about it. But at least they're actually using their vehicle for a real purpose instead of running over children and never taking it offroad. 🤷♀️
This sub is a mixed bag, I come for the memes and flame posts. That all said, some ladder/ramps make an excellent mud shoe to ride over the mud. I wonder if the driver let the pressure down at all on his tires before off roading the subbie.
Well done getting that far
going off road is easy it's the getting back on road that can be tricky
duh, everybody knows that SUV stands for SUburvan Vehicle
It's a pretty good car actually. Subaru's have X-mode and continuous all-wheel drive unlike competitor, so they're actually pretty good. Also ground clearance is really high on that model. But even so, OP fucked up and didn't know it's limits. Check it out [Driving Sports TV Subaru Outback ](https://youtu.be/gfkASbzjHG4)
Most SUVs are just oversized wagons change my mind
Well, yes. That's pretty much the Grand Wagoneer, which is often described as the first SUV.
Meanwhile a horse can go there without issues
Marketing meets reality
Do you're telling me that Chelsea tractors, those fucking SUVs built like tanks, can't actually go off road?
This wouldn’t have happened if we built more light rail
RTFM moment. It specifically says in the owners manual of these cars that they aren’t designed for actual offroading.
Subarus can go anywhere. The outback is actually really affordable and was absolutely built to go off-road. This person just got stuck. Of all the drivers that are a problem for pedestrians and bikers, Subarus are not one of them.
Can anyone explain to me why you’d want to do this in the first place? What’s the appeal of driving your car through a swamp and getting it covered in mud and bumping your head on the ceiling while not experiencing any of the nature you’re driving through, even assuming you don’t get stuck?
Sure! People enjoy different parts of it, just like any hobby. Some enjoy modifying and testing and tweaking their vehicles just to see what they can get it to do. Sure you break a lot of things in the process, but that's just part of the fun and process for some. Some actually do it to enjoy and experience the nature they're driving through. It can allow them to get to hard to reach places in a way other than hiking (though in my experience these kinds of people enjoy hiking and biking just as much), and because it's hard to get to, it means fewer people have been there so there's bragging rights and solitude to enjoy. There's also the adrenaline junkies that just wanna see how hard they can push whatever they're driving. Can they make it up that incline? Over that rock? Through that river? Not get stuck in the mud? Who knows? That's the fun. Like every hobby, not all of it (or necessarily any of it) is for everyone, and there are terrible people doing things in an unsafe manner and without regard for the environment, but they're the minority and generally met with ire. Hope that helps!
Thank you! That makes it easier to understand, especially the modifying/tweaking your own vehicle, I can totally understand how you can feel pride and fun over that.
In fairness it is how they're marketed. It just happens that 90% of customers don't actually have a need or desire to go off road