Last post on Sep 19, 2007 at 8:05 AM
You are in the Subaru B9 Tribeca
What is this discussion about?
Mazda CX-7, Mitsubishi Outlander, Subaru B9 Tribeca, Car Comparisons, SUV
#214 of 263 Re: Rollover ratings issued by NHTSA [aviboy97]
Aug 29, 2007 (12:28 pm)
I really feel that the CX-7 and Outlander are both terrific vehicles.
As a consumer I am delighted to have the kind of diverse and high-caliber choices that we enjoy in this segment.
Given that neither vehicle can really claim significant superiority over the other in ALL aspects, it really does come down to each individuals' needs and preferences.
#215 of 263 Recent Edmunds Comparo
Sep 10, 2007 (8:24 am)
There is a new comparo out that pitted the Outlander, CR-V, RAV-4 and new Nissan Rogue against each other. The Outlander came is last, although is was the enthusiast's choice of the four. The RAV-4 came in first.
On a side note, the CX-7 was pitted against the RAV-4 and Santa Fe earlier this year, and the CX-7 beat all three out. If the CX-7 were in this test, would it mean the CX-7 would come out on top? Who knows.
#217 of 263 Re: Recent Edmunds Comparo [aviboy97]
Sep 10, 2007 (12:00 pm)
Let the buyers decide. I don't really care about what the so called "car experts" say anymore. They made horrible errors in their Outlander long term reviews, so I don't think the Outlander would get a fair review. Just listen to what the OWNERS say. They own the vehicle, and most of the owners are honest to point out what they hate with the Outlander. And we have always been openly criticizing points where the vehicle can improve. But overall, Outlander owners are among the most satisfied of their vehicle purchase. Hundreds of owner reviews over at Yahoo, MSN, and even Edmunds will attest to that.Just do the math on the price and options on these vehicles. A wise buyer will figure which is the best buy. A thinking buyer will go by what his personal test drive experience than listening to people who get their salaries from the big car companies they review.As they say, don't bite the hand that feed you.
The Mitsubishi Outlander is the fairest of the bunch (with shift paddles no less), but what a shameful excuse for a third-row seat, and the sluggish throttle response is a deal-breaker besides.
So the uncomfortable third row seat is reason enough to dump the Outlander? It's an SUV not a minivan. 3rd row seat is meant as an optional space if the need arises to seat 7, that's why it's not a standard feature. And unless Edmund's has not been doing its assignment on getting the vehicle serviced, then they totally missed the point that Mitsubishi has solved the throttle hesitation issue since July. All you need is a reflash.
And why was the Outlander the enthusiast's choice? Go figure that one out. It's last in Edmund's comparo but it's the enthusiast's choice? Something not quite adding up. I put my money on the enthusiasts choice.
#218 of 263 Re: Recent Edmunds Comparo [rcpax]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Sep 10, 2007 (12:08 pm)
Just listen to what the OWNERS say.
You know that Edmunds owns an Outlander right?
#219 of 263 Re: Recent Edmunds Comparo [steve_]
Sep 10, 2007 (12:17 pm)
I do. The special version that Edmund's said has heated second row seats. Yeah I know.
#220 of 263 Re: Recent Edmunds Comparo [steve_]
Sep 10, 2007 (2:45 pm)
You don't have to go any further than the Edmunds's own 2007 Outlander XLS Full-Test review to notice that the performance numbers on this comparo are flawed:
2007 Outlander XLS Full Test
Based on the numbers on this review, the Outlander bests all of them on track performance, except for the 0-60 mph (RAV4) and braking distance (Rogue). In both tests the Outlander is second best though.
0-60 mph in 9.0 sec.; whom are they kidding?
There are editors at Edmunds that repeat themselves like a broken record that the Outlander has torque steer and throttle hesitation, which is not quite true (I think one assessment belongs to the same reviewer that stated that the Outlander has heated rear seats, so not too much credibility there).
Throttle hesitation: TSB available as of July 2007. Vehicles manufactured after this date are not affected.
Torque steer: while in 2WD minor torque steer may be induced, in 4WD Auto mode it's a non-issue. Period. They can claim otherwise as much as they want, I drive an Outlander and I know how it behaves.
Edmunds reviewers fail to mention or consider (or they donít have the knowledge Ė so much for the ďexpertĒ title) that these issues are more severe in the RAV4 V6. However, they donít subtract points for this significant flaw. You cannot really avoid the torque steer under harder acceleration and the 4WD system doesnít help either. I think Toyota finally issued a TSB to alleviate the throttle hesitation issue. One thing that I bet not many people are aware of is that there were reports of accidents due to throttle hesitation and erratic acceleration/braking on the RAV4. It's all here NHTSA, just do a search for 2006/2007 RAV4 under Complaints. It's a long list, just look for the complaints involving a crash. Interesting, isn't it?
If you ask me, Iíll stick with a car that people complain about wind noise and the radio display being washed out in direct light.
#221 of 263 Re: Recent Edmunds Comparo [dodo2]
Sep 10, 2007 (11:21 pm)
>> 0-60 mph in 9.0 sec.; whom are they kidding?
They are kidding. The Motor Trend test of Dec 06 has 8.1 sec. for t Outlander. The Outlander also has better braking and handling test results vs. t RAV:
Outlander XLS AWD
0-60 mph 8.1 sec
Braking, 60-0 mph 128 ft
Lateral acceleration 0.78 g avg
600-foot slalom 62.7 mph avg
MT figure eight 28.3 sec 0.59 g avg
RAV4 V6 Limited AWD
0-60 MPH 6.4 sec
Braking, 60-0 mph 130 ft
Lateral acceleration 0.75 g avg
600-foot slalom 60.6 mph avg
MT figure eight 28.6 sec 0.59 g avg
#222 of 263 Where's the Vue
Sep 11, 2007 (12:13 pm)
I'm just wondering why the new Saturn Vue isn't in that lineup? I guess it didn't come out early enough.
#223 of 263 Re: Recent Edmunds Comparo [chelentano]
Sep 14, 2007 (12:40 pm)
That's a rather large difference in acceleration, though.
The average Joe will test drive these and can't feel the difference of 2 feet in braking from 60. They might be able to tell a handling advantage, but odds are they'll just floor it and fall for the Toyota's engine.
Without the engine, the RAV4 sort of falls flat, but what I'm saying is the engine is probably the thing that will stand out the most on test drives.