Do those with experience with both rear and mid engine trucks think that the rear engine trucks perform better in mud and off road?? I would think with the trucks being so light, having rear wheel drive that the weight would be more evenly distributed and help them gain traction a little better??
As a rule, yes. When driving unloaded there is a better weight distribution for straight-ahead driving. But more importantly, the rear-engined trucks have independent suspensions in the rear so they smooth out the bumps markedly over the mid-engine straight-axle trucks. The rear-engine vehicles are heavier in the tail (sorry for stating the obvious) which means in an extreme descent with a front impact (i.e. dropping down an arroyo wall) they would tend to flip over with the inertia of the rear engine coming over top. They could have more of propensity to "ground loop" or have the rear end come around on you on slippery surfaces in 2WD. Both these situations are almost a non-issue but if you get into extreme circumstances they warrant mention. The mid-engined trucks with mass located closer to the center of gravity would be more forgiving in these unusual conditions. In 2WD the rear-engined models tend to have better traction. Since 99% of mini trucks of all makes are 4WD (or AWD in case of Honda) all their off-road traction is very good and only in extreme approach/departure conditions could one configuration be advantageous to the other (i.e. mid engine trucks when needing front traction with a rear tire in the air cresting a steep hill, rear engine trucks in same circumstance with a front tire in the air). One for each circumstance so they pretty much cancel each other out. Remember that the rear-engine models were also the last configurations to get lift kits. This is because of the difficulty in lifting the rear ends of their transaxle configuration and the missing convenience of rear spring shackles. The resulting lifts are generally a body lift instead of a suspension lift. I am not a proponent of lift kits at this point so it's all a mute point to me. The Subarus have very good clearance at stock height out of the box anyhow. In the case of serious "mudding" all these trucks have their engines down low and the ignition and intake systems could be susceptible to water damage. There is one more point that deserves consideration. I have yet to see a rear-engine truck with locking differentials (though I think I saw a Subaru advertised this way one time). So conceivably, and here again for hard-core off-roading, the rear-engine advantage could be equaled or eliminated by a locking differential mid-engine model. In my experience (including lots of desert sand and dry creek bed driving) the rear-engine models will get you through without hesitation with a smoother ride than 90's mid engine models (and more leg room in the case of the Sambar). I tend to grab a Subaru for heading to the sand hills even though a Daihatsu Climber might have better traction with front/rear lockers. I know, like the great little Daihatsu, I won't get the Sambar stuck and will be more comfortable in the process.
the rear-engine models will get you through without hesitation with a smoother ride than rear-engine models Wow, what a comparison!!!!!
Okie dokie. I went back and fixed the typo. Not trying to hijack the thread here but it's really amazing how similar all the makes of mini trucks are to each other. With legislated design criteria and the Japanese expertise of copying good ideas from each other it's no wonder so many details are the same. Every time I drive a different kind I think it's the one I like better than the last. The differences are so minute I'd be happy with any any make. Just the fact they exist and we can get our hands on them is fantastic. I can't see ever buying another domestically-available UTV-type vehicle again.
