Ask the Car People.SM


Mitsubishi Outlander vs. Subaru Forester

1581 messages,  Last post on May 10, 2010 at 6:35 AM

You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum.

What is this discussion about? Mitsubishi Outlander, Subaru Forester, Car Comparisons, SUV

Messages Page 130 of 159

#1285 of 1581 Re: Subaru Forester CR's Top Pick again [piast] by p0926

Feb 24, 2010 (6:58 am)

Replying to: piast (Feb 23, 2010 8:09 pm)
4TH PLACE: SUBARU FORESTER 2.5X PREMIUM PZEV
 
Interesting. There's no doubt that Subaru isn't winning any points by sticking to a 4-speed auto but picking on its 170hp seems a bit much since it is still competitive (albeit no longer near the front of the pack). However, it's odd that while they did point out that the 2009 SUOTY was a turbo equipped Forester XT, they still felt compelled to judge the Forester X against it, which of course seems less impressive in comparison.
 
By comparing the 2008 and 2010 reviews, you can tell how quickly the bloom falls off the rose:
 
2008 - "It rides like a La-Z-Boy" (framed as a compliment)
2010 - "The Forester seems softly sprung. It bounces up and and down, wallowing over road undulations, and at times feels like a decade-old Buick" (clearly not a compliment)
 
Ironic how the same ride came be interpreted so differently
 
And while the avg. fuel economy in the long term tester of 21.8 mpg may not be that great for 4 cyl version (depending on how and where it's driven), the Forester still had the best fuel economy of the group tested
 
-Frank

#1286 of 1581 Automotive News Video by ateixeira

Feb 24, 2010 (7:51 am)

Quoting them:
 
Consumer Reports has named Honda and Subaru as class leaders for building the best all-around vehicles.
 
That previews their April issue.

#1287 of 1581 MT Comparo Results by ateixeira

Feb 24, 2010 (8:24 am)

(I changed the subject to start a new thread for the MT comparo only)
 
I will focus on the objective results/specs from their tests. The Forester ranked:
 
#1 power-to-weight
#2 in torque
#1 in ground clearance
#1 in turning circle
#1 for lightest weight
#1 for best weight distribution
#1 for most towing
#1 for best passing (tie)
#1 for best brakes
#1 for most grip (keep in mind the ground clearance)
#1 for best overall performance (figure 8)
#1 for best fuel economy
 
Best fuel economy is "not that great"? Hello? McFly? I guess the others were really bad, then?
 
They say "softly sprung" as if that's a bad thing, yet it also managed the most grip. I see that as great ride and handling, quite a feat.
 
Did you also notice it has the lowest price? $9,876 less than the GMC Terrain. You call that fair? That is TEN GRAND less.
 
They could easily have tested the turbo XT model and the price still would not have been the highest.
 
More to the point, be honest now, do you really think a 2.4l CVT Outlander would have placed higher? With 168hp?
 
We can compare the results from the GT:
 
0-60 7.4
60-0 136 ft
Gs 0.76
MT figure eight: 28.4s 0.58g
 
Forester accelerated in 9.3s, slower as you would expect when you compare a V6 to a base 4 banger. Remember the XT turbo took 6.6 seconds.
 
But let's give the Outlander the V6 edge, for fun. 1-0 Mitsubishi.
 
Braking was 114 feet, nothing short of amazing. Best in test, and 22 feet shorter than the Outlander GT. That's well over one car length. In an emergency stop, if the Forester had a near miss stopping at a red light, the Outlander would get in a pretty serious accident.
 
1-1 tie.
 
Lateral grip. Surprise, the "softly sprung" Forester holds at 0.81g. Fasten your seat belts. The GT managed only 0.76g on that same exact skid pad. Not even close.
 
Forester 2-1.
 
So it comes down to their signature test - the figure 8. This combines acceleration, braking, handling, transitions, and gives one all-around result. Guess what? Exactly tied. 28.4 seconds, 0.58g average. Both figures tied.
 
Overall: Forester 2-1 plus a couple of ties.
 
So as you can see, when you look at the subjective scores and measures, the Forester more than holds it own, even in an unfair fight.

#1288 of 1581 Re: MT Comparo Results [ateixeira] by imaginary

Feb 24, 2010 (2:23 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (Feb 24, 2010 8:24 am)
Thank you for the insight.

#1289 of 1581 Re: MT Comparo Results [imaginary] by ateixeira

Feb 24, 2010 (3:10 pm)

Replying to: imaginary (Feb 24, 2010 2:23 pm)
Was I thorough enough for ya?

#1290 of 1581 Re: MT Comparo Results [ateixeira] by imaginary

Feb 24, 2010 (3:25 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (Feb 24, 2010 3:10 pm)
Yes, very thorough. I was not aware that the Subaru Forester had the best turning circle (out of the entire CUV segment?)

#1291 of 1581 Re: MT Comparo Results [imaginary] by ateixeira

Feb 24, 2010 (3:24 pm)

Replying to: imaginary (Feb 24, 2010 3:25 pm)
Not sure but it's a very tight radius. Great for U-turns.
 
In the new C&D David E. Davis reveals he bought a Forester for personal use. Can't get a better endoresement from a long-time motor scribe than spending his own hard earned money on one.
 
Hasn't he always liked Mercedes and Subarus?

#1292 of 1581 Re: MT Comparo Results [ateixeira] by comem47

Feb 25, 2010 (1:01 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (Feb 24, 2010 3:24 pm)
The Forester beats the Outlander by 4" in turning radius(34'4" vs 34''8"). Either way they are pretty tight. (My previous vehicles felt like I was turning around an aircraft carrier by comparison, having to make a 3 point turn or also being a pain when lining up for tight parking spaces.) Sometime ago I made a U-turn in the road and had to wait for my wife following me to make a 3 point turn in her Malibu with a circle about 3' wider. (she keeps telling me I'm not going to make it when riding with me when I've done U-turns)

#1293 of 1581 Re: MT Comparo Results [comem47] by ateixeira

Feb 25, 2010 (1:47 pm)

Replying to: comem47 (Feb 25, 2010 1:01 pm)
Agreed, both are quite good.
 
My old Forester (1998) had a very wide turning radius - a lot of times I could not squeeze in a U-turn. The neat thing is that the new one manages a tighter radius despite a longer wheelbase.
 
Good packaging.

#1294 of 1581 Re: MT Comparo Results [ateixeira] by comem47

Feb 25, 2010 (3:45 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (Feb 25, 2010 1:47 pm)
Oops, make that turning circle diameter, not radius at 34 feet and inches

Messages Page 130 of 159

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement