New to offroading, how does the H3 compare with an Jeep Rubicon?

[PARAGON]

This brings up a good point and a place where I'll jump in. The idea that flex is the end all answer to wheeling is backwards thinking. That technology and thought process has been around for 30 years and has been tweaked to the point that it is at it's peak of capability.

Taking a solid axle and being able to force a wheel ,that otherwise might be in the air, to the ground in an effort to gain traction is just not the noblest way to look at it. A vehicle has X,XXX of force to apply to gain friction and therefore keep the tires sticking. To keep things simple, if only one tire has enough downward force applied to it and enough torque applied to it via the drivetrain then at that point the vehicle with move, again putting it simply. In that same situation, if the suspension is forcing the spread of that downward force that friction coefficient is not going to be as high.

So just because you have heard all of your life that SA are the way to go and IS is crappy. Don't believe it. Even mighty solid axle king Jeep has put IFS in theirs and look at the Hurricane concept with it's unique fully independent suspension that Jeep says is unstoppable.

With the traction control systems of both the H2 and the H3, if you get a wheel in the air you can ride your brake and stop the loose wheel and apply all of the torque to the wheel with traction instead of splitting that torque to a wheel that doesn't have as much traction.

A vehicle is a sum of its parts. To debate the singular components of one over the other is moot unless you tie it to how it all operates as a whole.

[FormerJeeper]

The other thing to bear in mind here is that the pictures of the TJs are more than likely with the front swaybar disconnected.

IFS owners can do the same for a lot more flex.
Interested parties should look at the solutions available for IFS "wheeled" rigs like Toyotas.

http://www.4x4spot.com/swaybar.htm

-C

[fuentex]

The grey one (mine) that I posted has the swaybars connected, it's dead stock.

I'm sure the second one I posted has them disconnected though.

I'd be really interested to see an H3 with swaybar discos if someone has a pic. I'd like to see the difference.

[fuentex]

Yeah, I mentioned that it was lifted and not stock when I posted the picture.

[FormerJeeper]

So fox,

You r the offroading Hummer guy...

Is it common to disco the swaybars on H2 offroad?
I used to disco my highly lifted TJ front and rear.
Others used to leave the rear connected and use some form of "Anti-rock" up front.

-C

[FormerJeeper]

BTW, the TJ doesn't have coilovers - look more closely

-C

[PARAGON]

I failed to mention something in my earlier post. Both the H2/H3 have traction control and will divert torque to the wheel with the highest resistance. While on the trail you can let this happen dynamically or in some cases use the 2 foot technique I described earlier.

I also failed to point out that many consider the H1/HMMWV to be virtually unstoppable sans it's width issues. Simply considering it's ability. And it utilizes a fully independent suspension system but the entire vehicle was designed around that drivetrain/suspension. Again, sum of the parts.

The point I guess I am trying to make is that the idea that the H3 doesn't "unlock" the swaybars might not be an issue because of the overall design of the vehicle. It might be that the engineers feel that in most situations that the traction control/rear locker will be enough to pull it through most obstacles. The truck does not have to have all 4 tires on the ground to move. All it needs is one with just enough traction and enough torque from the drivetrain.

[fuentex]

Coils.... coilovers.... what's the difference?

[PARAGON]

Let's use that last picture as an example. Do you really thing that Jeep is gaining extra traction with the PS front tire? It is not being "forced" to the ground.

Actually, along those lines I have wanted to see someone put some scales under the PS front tire that's on the ground on the Articulation Rack to see just how much force is being applied to the ground from that tire.

I have seen many of them, and quite honestly the only point of the articulation in those situations is to keep the vehicle from flipping, not gaining extra traction.

[FELNTPSY]

Woops, I'm the friend that started this whole deal. Picked up my wife's H3 last Monday. Fuentex and I will be going wheel'n with in the next couple of months to test the H3 out. I think that both parties have valid points...the Hummer v. Jeep debate will be like the Ford v. Chevy debate....mostly brand loyalty and neither party will total accept the other...just a fact. What should be said and somewhat has been said, is that each vehicle is capable in its own way and in the way that it was designed. The hinderance of most Hummers on our trails here in the east is the large size of the vehicle when compared to the narrower width of a jeep. However as a jeep owner and a Hummer owner now I will just have to see what happens. I WILL wheel the H3 to see how it does and give an honest opinion. It will be difficult to even begin to compare its performance with my jeep since the Scrambler is far from stock.

As for IFS...my bro's XJ has front coils and runs 38 boggers. I have seen him actually over come some obstacles b/c his stiff arse suspension was able to lift one of the front tires over a hole....I couldn't take the same obstacle because the "Rat" is just too damn flexy. However, I've taken other obstacles that the flex allowed me to walk easily up and he flopped on the side.

Two different types of vehicles, both designed for offroad usage, but different driving styles are needed for each and must be adjusted to the vehicle and terrain. I would not drive a stock Unlimited the same way I drive my CJ8, and will not drive the Hummer the same as the 8. The combination of skill, rig capability, rig engineering, and etc. will ultimatly determine what the vehicle can do. Neither rig Hummer or Rubicon of any flavor are designed to be "point-and-shoot" trail rigs.