Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
SUVs Mitsubishi Outlander Mitsubishi Outlander vs. Subaru Forester
909 messages, Last post on Dec 05, 2009 at 5:20 AM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
Replying to: chelentano (Apr 05, 2008 11:12 pm) This one should really live on the Outlander and Forester boards. That should generate more traffic. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Apr 05, 2008 11:15 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Apr 05, 2008 9:46 pm) That's impressive.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Apr 06, 2008 9:18 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Apr 06, 2008 9:29 am) 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Apr 06, 2008 10:17 am) 
|
|
|
|
|
response to post in the other thread >> FWIW, CR listed the Outlander under their list for highest TCO in its class. Forester was on the list for the lowest TCO. Got a link to this Consumer Reports info? I got mine: according to Edmunds.com True Cost of Ownership for the 2008 Outlander XLS AWD is $47,686. http://www.edmunds.com/new/2008/mitsubishi/outlander/100952924/cto.html?vdp=off&- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - setzip=60610&change=Change TCO for the 2008 Forester XT Lmt is 48,982: http://www.edmunds.com/new/2008/subaru/forester/100887346/cto.html?vdp=off&setzi- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p=60610&change=Change Note the Outlander's low repair costs due to a better warranty, and note its great depreciation. So by going with the Outlander, you get much better equipped car for less money. . >> And yes, folks, chelentano is extremely pro-Mitsubishi, have no doubt. No doubt, folks, extremely pro-Mitsubishi: what a great car! . >> While I'm replying to you - have you found a video to prove the Outlander can climb one of those ramps that simulate driving on ice? I was not looking for any video. That video “test” you are so proud of is made by Subaru on Subaru dealership. That fact and tooo black-and-white results of the “test” make for me no reason to respect the “test“ results. According to the video, Subaru’s AWD is great and everything else is junk. Car salesman is the last person I would trust in respect to a car he sells. Subaru’s AWD systems are not created equal. Some are great, but not the best though. Some are mediocre. The 2009 4-speed auto Forester is practically a part-time AWD car: the car is front axle biased with 90/10 front/rear torque split under normal driving conditions. Subaru had to cheat using this nearly part-time AWD system to deliver some reasonable gas mileage. The Outlander on the other hand has true full-time AWD and it is more balanced with 60/40 torque split.
|
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Apr 07, 2008 6:56 pm) you get much better equipped car Really? No moonroof, no leather, no CD changer, and it's better equipped? It is cheaper, but that's because more things are options rather than standard, as on the Forester XT. CR has the TCO for Outlander at around $42k, so Edmunds numbers seem way high. Forester's numbers are even lower. You have to subscribe to their web site for any link to work. Subaru’s AWD is great and everything else is junk Nobody made that claim. In fact, you did the opposite - you keep saying the Mitsu's AWD system is better. Subaru had to cheat using this nearly part-time AWD I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. It is full time and constantly adjusts the torque split, constantly.
|
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Apr 05, 2008 8:58 pm)  Not your fault, though you didn't cite a source for us to try to contact them to correct all their mistakes. Anyhow, right off the top of my head, here are some of the many, many mistakes that chart makes: * it uses the old EPA number for the Mitsu, 19/26, revised down to 17/24 * it overlooks the SportShift trans on the Subaru (this is a matter of preference) * trailer wiring exists for the Forester, that chart implies it does not * Bluetooth is indeed offered on the Forester, that chart says its not * the chart says no DVD player, also wrong, Forester will play DVDs on the NAV screen * no mention of Forester's Sirius satellite radio capability * no mention of ability to play MP3 and WMA files * no mention of ability to play CD-Rs So basically it looks like that list was made by a Mitsubishi dealer who has never even seen a Forester, much less driven one.  Also, there are a few things the Forester has that the Mitsu does not: * dual exhaust outlets (vs. single) * hood struts (vs. a cheap prop rod) * better visibility (especially around the D-pillar) * perforated leather standard on the models compared * moonroof standard, and also 3 times the size of Mitsu's optional one * seat heaters standard * 10 way power driver's seat standard (pkg on Mitsu) * more power * more torque * extra power and torque still yields better city gas mileage, +2mpg * bigger gas tank for better cruising range I'm not sure if the Outlander XLS also includes heated mirrors and wiper de-icers but those are also standard on the Forester XT. Manual transmission Foresters have a unique Hill Start Assist feature. Not to mention the option of a manual transmission, for those who prefer it over a slushbox. Honestly, toss that chart in the trash. They got more things wrong than they got right.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Apr 08, 2008 6:37 am) (pun intended) I'll take the 6 cyl, 6 speed, that runs on regular thanks.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs Mitsubishi Outlander Mitsubishi Outlander vs. Subaru Forester
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Mitsubishi Outlander
2010 Subaru Forester
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
