Last post on May 10, 2010 at 6:35 AM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander
What is this discussion about?
Mitsubishi Outlander, Subaru Forester, Car Comparisons, SUV
#1370 of 1581 Consumer Guide Ratings
Mar 23, 2010 (6:57 am)
They updated their review for the 2010 Outlander:
It scores 55/110, one point up from the 54 that the 4 cylinder models score. A bit below class average. Just 17.1mpg for their GT. Ouch.
Forester XT Limited scores a 71, and earns their Recommended stamp. X Premium gets 70, X Limited 69 points. Class average is 58 so all models do well.
Interestingly, the turbo got 22.4mpg, nearly matching the non-turbo, likely due to the taller gearing. Plus the turbo makes torque way down low, so no need for high revs.
Also, Outlander scores actually dropped a little compared to their 2008 model ratings, while Forester scores improved significantly.
Note: Consumer Guide is not related to Consumer Reports. CG partners with howstuffworks.com and is owned by Publications International. CR is owned by Consumers Union.
#1371 of 1581 Re: The Worst Small SUV Money Pits [authurdent]
Mar 23, 2010 (2:37 pm)
I did a review of my Outlander at least 2 or 3 weeks ago and it has yet to be published.
#1372 of 1581 Re: Consumer Guide Ratings [ateixeira]
Mar 23, 2010 (3:27 pm)
I don't know what the heck they did to get 17MPG; I get 20 pretty much regardless of how I drive - leadfoot or light. Maybe 17 is in stop-n-go traffic. I look forward to seeing what it will get on the highway once the engine is full broken in (IMO after about 5K miles; I'm at 2400 now) and we're off winter-blend gas.
Anyway, I find some of the comments odd, like not having anything negative to say about 2nd row seating (and neglecting to mention it slides for/aft and reclines) yet apparently dinging it for the 3rd row design when many competitors don't offer one at all. Seems disingenuous.
The "raucous engine" is probably limited to the 4 cyl model. I've not experienced that. The 6 does have some growl under heavy acceleration but under normal or light it's muted as well as anything this side of a Lexus. And the growl is just what you want to hear; it isn't thrashy like the Ford Vulcan V6.
They didn't get the memo that the leather on the dash is fake.
The touchscreen is hard to use for 2 or 3 things, like entering playlist titles, but for everyday things like switching channels/input sources and the like, I find it to be quite intuitive. For instance, Mode - FM - Preset Button gets you to your favorite FM channel. Mode - MusicServer - Playlist takes you to your list of playlists. Without dedicated buttons for each mode it literally can't get simpler. Well, it is a tad simpler; when you change modes it picks up where you left off with your last station setting or song playing from the CD/HD.
Their specs are wrong if you go to the compare function. They list the GT at 17/23 MPG v. the official 18/24. They lose credibility in my book if they can't even cut-n-paste properly. Makes me wonder if their data & review are a mix of '09 and '10 models.
Also, while lots of cars have automatic headlights nowadays, they neglect to mention the Outlander's are load-levling. They also skipped the rain-sensing wipers, a safety/control feature that few vehicles in this class have. I'm not even sure if any competitors offer it.
Interesting that the CR-V and Tiguan are their Best Buys. Literally everyone I know who has ever bought a VW swears they'll never buy one again. And the CR-V fails the test when it comes to max towing capacity, ground clearance , turning diameter, V6 or Turbo availability, 3rd row availability, and other measures. Yeah, I know Honda sells scads of 'em but I just don't see the appeal either in person or on paper.
#1374 of 1581 Re: Consumer Guide Ratings [fushigi]
Mar 23, 2010 (6:07 pm)
I've never considered Consumer Guide a reliable source, mainly due to poorly written reviews. Consumer Reports is only a bit better, but they also tend to be dry & boring, and not very timely. Edmunds used to be more adventurous and earnest. They still do a decent job, although they can tend to fall-in-line with the prevailing market.
I find it best to balance a decently written review against consumer findings. Edmunds has a reasonable number of consumer reviews, but their timeliness has REALLY fallen off. Maybe they need to hire more staff!
Another knock against CG is VW. VW is pathetic for reliability. I have also known WAY too may owners that have sold their VWs in disgust. Honda is fine, but not very interesting. A Honda is basically an appliance.
As for Subarus, I don't care much for the cars, but the owner loyalty borders on fanatical, which is somewhat appealing.
#1375 of 1581 Re: The Worst Small SUV Money Pits [fushigi]
Mar 23, 2010 (8:09 pm)
It's been taken care of.
SUVs and Smart Shopper
#1376 of 1581 Re: The Worst Small SUV Money Pits [chelentano]
Mar 23, 2010 (9:05 pm)
"The fuel economy difference is small considering the GT is quicker and it is using real deal AWD system."
Fuel economy difference is significant. I think you are comparing a 2009 Santa Fe with a 2010 Outie GT. Not a valid comparison. 2010 Santa Fe has a 3.5 L 275 HP engine giving 20/26 in AWD configuration better than Outie which gives 18/24 that too on premium and only produces 230 HP. Both have a 6 speed AT. I wonder how would Outie fair if it did not have a 6 speed AT. Fuel economy will suffer even more. I consider fuel economy and power as an important factor especially in economy vehicles, but some may disagree.
"Outlander beats Santa Fe according to Edmunds InsideLine tests:
0-60: GT 7.9 sec vs. SF 8.7 "
Again you are comparing a 2010 Outie with a 2009 Santa Fe
#1377 of 1581 Re: The Worst Small SUV Money Pits [suvsearcher1]
Mar 24, 2010 (5:50 am)
Re: Premium. I can't tell a difference between premium & regular. It may be there but it doesn't impact day-to-day driving. Maybe after I've got 5K miles on it I'll run a month of premium followed by a month of regular to see if a difference crops up. I'm betting premium will net 0.5MPG better economy but there won't be anything noticeable WRT performance. I just don't floor it frequently; I'm not that kind of driver and Chicagoland traffic rarely allows for it.
I wonder how would Outie fair if it did not have a 6 speed AT.
Personally, I wouldn't waste time on such thoughts. It has one, so why worry about it? Similarly, the SF has a less sophisticated AWD system that only does 95% FWD or up to 50% to the rear; I'd have preferred something better but it is what it is.
The GT's power is plenty for a vehicle in it's class. Others have more, but it doesn't seem to buy you much; for instance the SF can't tow more. The SF has more power but is heavier by 340 pounds (SE V6 AWD 4120 pounds v. GT AWD 3780). The Outlander reaches peak torque 1250 RPM (3750RPM) lower than the SF (5000RPM), which I'm sure helps it's performance since it's really torque that helps when doing 0-60.
HP is more for passing power and even there, while I haven't had enough highway miles/opportunities to try it again and again, a few 60-80 punches have satisfied me. Can others beat it? Possibly, but why should I care? It's a highway, not a race track.
We drove the SF last summer. Now, this was an 09 so it's not a truly fair comparison but while the drivetrain was smooth and powerful enough it also just came across as boring. Much like the rest of the car; it checked off everything on the list and was competent but there was no emotional response, no passion for the vehicle.
Out of curiosity, is there a review of the 10 SF SE V6 that includes acceleration times? I checked Edmunds, MT, C&D, and Autoblog but couldn't find anything. Anything less than around 8.5-9 seconds is plenty fast for every situation bar racing so as long as it meets that criteria I'd be satisfied. Seriously, even when it comes to acceleration for collision avoidance the driver's response time, situational awareness, and skill are much more important than raw power to the wheels.
Lest you think I'm bashing, I'm not. The SF is a fine vehicle but it just doesn't stir my soul. And while I have the Outlander, my wife drives and loves her 01 Elantra so I'm already in the Hyundai family.
#1378 of 1581 Re: Consumer Guide Ratings [fushigi]
Mar 24, 2010 (7:19 am)
FWIW C&D liked the Tiguan and CR-V as well.
Honda boosted power and made improvements on the interior. I haven't seen the new one in person. I don't like the underbite on the front grille, plus it has blind spots.
I agree about VW, friend who have owned them either love them or hate them. The ones that hate 'em swear they will never buy another again.
#1379 of 1581 Re: Motor Trend March 2010 Comparo [fushigi]
Mar 24, 2010 (7:25 am)
MT wasn't really fair, the Forester they tested was $10 grand less than the Terrain, yet look at the rankings:
#2 in torque
#1 in ground clearance
#1 in turning circle
best weight distribution
best passing (tie)
most grip (keep in mind the ground clearance)
best overall performance (figure 8)
best fuel economy
The figure 8 was excellent, it tied the performance for your Outlander GT!
Remember, that was not a turbo XT model.