Last post on May 10, 2010 at 5:35 AM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander
What is this discussion about?
Mitsubishi Outlander, Subaru Forester, Car Comparisons, SUV
#1310 of 1581 Re: poor Mitsu [authurdent]
Mar 03, 2010 (7:57 am)
The volume models are old - Galant and Eclipse.
I agree with you about it being foolish to depend on sport coupes - they suffer from "flavor of the month" syndrome. They're hot when they are brand new, but sales drop off quickly as new competitors arrive. So you only get decent volume for a short period.
Galant is how old now? I think it came out in 2004.
Remember when model cycles were 4 years? Now 5 years is par for the course, but the 2010 Galant is in its 7th model year. That's ancient. I doubt they'll have a new one for 2011 so that'll be 8 years.
Endeavor also came out in 2004. It's been ignored as well.
Volume models generate showroom traffic. If dad buys a Galant, he sees a Lancer for his son, an Eclipse for his daughter, and maybe an Endeavor or Outlander for his wife.
Few feel motivated to enter a Mitsubishi dealer to check out an 8 year old sedan, especially when the competition has had one (often 2) full model updates.
VW made the same mistake. Remember when the Golf V came out in Europe, and they kept selling the Golf IV here? The new model was several years late. VW lost touch - they were trying to market the luxury Phaeton and forgot their bread-and-butter volume model.
Since then, the Golf VI arrived and the USA is getting the new model right away this time.
VW sales up 33% in February, and up 36% for the year.
People are flocking to VW dealers to check out the new Golf. And who knows? They may end up buying something else.
Interesting new volume models = showroom traffic = sales.
The Outlander's biggest problem? The Galant.
#1311 of 1581 Re: poor Mitsu [fushigi]
Mar 03, 2010 (9:27 am)
I know in Europe Mitsu OEMs the Outlander to Citroen; perhaps with partnerships, cross-selling, and other options they can grow their presence (if not their brand).
And Peugoet as well, all of PSA.
Who wouldn't want to see this replace the Eclipse?
It's just a concept but it will inspire the new Peugoet 407. And it looks H-O-T!
#1312 of 1581 The Worst Small SUV Money Pits
Mar 14, 2010 (2:02 pm)
US News & World Report rated the worst small SUVs according to thier Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). Unfortunately, the Outlander led the pack (definitely not a category you want to be #1 in):
The Outlander has a bold new look, with a snarling, outsized grille and angrily canted headlights. It looks mad. It looks poised to eat the car in front of it. It looks cool. It’s also sporty, with sharp handling. And with one of the longest warranties in its class, it seems like a good deal -- until you run the numbers.
IntelliChoice gives the Outlander a value rating of “Poor.” Its TCO ranges from $38,938 to $39, 545 -- that’s nearly double the car’s base sticker price. Heavy depreciation and high insurance costs are the culprit – and there’s nothing you can do about those.
In comparison, the Forester was recommended as a Better Buy (than a Kia Sportage):
Better Buy: Last year’s Motor Trend “Sport Utility of the Year,” the Subaru Forester is more expensive than the Sportage, but in the long run, will cost less. Its TCO starts at just $30,818, and earns the Subaru an “Above Average” rating from IntelliChoice. Yet the Forester offers more cargo space, sportier handling, and when it comes time to replace it, much higher resale value than the Sportage.
Read the full article here
#1313 of 1581 Re: The Worst Small SUV Money Pits [p0926]
Mar 14, 2010 (3:18 pm)
Interesting. They're essentially saying a GM SUV won't depreciate like a rock. Don't all GM vehicles depreciate like crazy? The Terrain runs about $3K more than the Outlander so even if it doesn't depreciate as fast, you're paying more for that privilege. The Terrain gets better economy but it will take years and years for that to cancel out the higher up-front costs. And with a shorter warranty, the Terrain has the potential to be costlier to maintain, especially after 5 years.
My Outlander GT, the highest trim available, costs under $900 a year to insure with comprehensive that well exceeds state minimums. I can't see the GMC being significantly cheaper such that it would really matter to long-term ownership costs.
Anyway, not to argue the point but Intellichoice's data must differ from other sources. The sidebar on that article links to "Best affordable small SUVs", an article where the Outlander, while behind the Terrain, ranks #6 of 22. The Forester was #7.
Mar 14, 2010 (3:27 pm)
While I'm not crazy about USNews rankings, their's is an aggregate of many review sources, and yes, the aggregate ranks the Outlander a bit higher than the Forester.
I don't care about depreciation, since we keep cars for around 10 years.
As for insurance, it costs us HALF as much to insure the Outlander than it would have cost to insure a Mazda3, and just a bit higher (PA rates) than the figure cited above.
#1315 of 1581 Re: The Worst Small SUV Money Pits [p0926]
Mar 14, 2010 (10:21 pm)
>> IntelliChoice gives the Outlander a value rating of “Poor.” Its TCO ranges from $38,938 to $39, 545 -- that’s nearly double the car’s base sticker price. Heavy depreciation and high insurance costs are the culprit.
It appears IntelliChoice contradicts itself. According to IntelliChoice and this chart Outlander insurance cost less vs. Forester. Overall 5-year cost of ownership difference is only $118. In any case note that Outlander is much better equipped, so you get more car for the money.
If we look beyond 5 years, Outlander will cost less to own due to lower repair costs: much longer 10 year p.t. warranty and better reliability. Forester powertrain warranty ends after 5 years while it is less reliable vs. Outlander according to the USNews data you promote. In fact Outlander is the second most reliable in that 22-car comparo.
#1316 of 1581 Re: The Worst Small SUV Money Pits [chelentano]
Mar 15, 2010 (5:49 am)
Insurance is less, because the Mitsuibishi is a slug compared to the XT. Maintenance will be somewhat higher with turbo. So you get a faster more agile car vs a car with more doo-dads. You pick it.
#1318 of 1581 Re: The Worst Small SUV Money Pits [kdshapiro]
Mar 15, 2010 (6:55 am)
He also compared the wrong models.
We should compare the XLS to the less expensive XT Premium.
You have to add packages to the XLS to get all the doo-dads you mention.
Edit: TCO for the 2010 XT Premium is $41,593, so a few grand less.
For reference, a 4 cylinder 2009 Outlander SE 4WD has a TCO of $42,207, and that's not even a V6, no options either. And I bet a 2010 is higher.
source: autos.yahoo.com (linked from the article)
#1319 of 1581 Re: The Worst Small SUV Money Pits [chelentano]
Mar 15, 2010 (12:56 pm)
"It appears IntelliChoice contradicts itself. According to IntelliChoice and this chart Outlander insurance cost less vs. Forester."
First off, I think I made it quite clear that the article didn't directly compare the Forester to the Outlander. If you don't think the Outlander should headline the "Worst Small SUV Money Pit" category, then you should take it up with US News and Intellichoice.
Secondly, the statement that the "Outlander is much better equipped, so you get more car for the money" is totally subjective and dependent on what factors a buyer considers a priority.