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 (May 03, 2008 10:12 pm) I can say that the 2008 brochure does not list the SE model, what's up with that? Does it exist? Was it a late model intro, that didn't make the brochure?  I did note the perforations on the sides of the seat, I just wish it covered the whole seating surface. My Miata has leather like that and it doesn't "breathe" well. As for the feel of the arm rests, let's rack that up to personal preference. Personally, I think it's a shame they didn't use the same soft leather from the seats there. The vinyl is shinier and doesn't feel the same to the touch. I prefer the EVO's faux suede, again personal preference. The Forester's headliner looks identical. Maybe before they installed it on the Mitsu they sprinkled some baking soda on there.  Cool that the aftermarket can step in and offer better mirrors. For early models, 98-02, the Forester L had tiny mirrors and the more upscale Forester S has big ones. Thankfully, they standardized on just one size and chose the bigger one. I am spoiled by the enormous mirrors on my minivan. With those and a fish-eye lens stuck on the back window, I can see well out of that big van. Yep, I'm about 6' even, and since it's usually kids in the back seat I don't think the headroom issue is a problem. Plus if it is, just don't get the moonroof. The Forester seemed to have more head room, less leg room. The opposite basically. I sat in the back of the Forester when my wife was test driving it (we had 5 people in the car).
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 04, 2008 4:51 pm) http://media.mitsubishicars.com/detail?mid=MIT2007111569663&mime=ASC Several of these upgrades will be available on the '09 Outlander.
|
|
|
Replying to: psychogun (May 05, 2008 8:50 am) The salesman must have been mistaken. He didn't know how to answer my towing questions, instead referring me to the brochure. He could not find the owners manual, but I doubt he spent much time searching. As is common in the industry he was more of a sales guy than a car guy. I was focused on the vehicle while he kept bringing up money - how much are you looking to spend? What kind of payments? Do you have a trade? etc.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 05, 2008 9:24 am) Then again, auto sales are dipping noticeably and they are under a lot of duress to make the sale... I'm in a similar boat as you, as I'm looking to trade in my Odyssey for a more fuel-efficient vehicle. I'm thinking new Honda Accord... but we'll see. Sorry about the off-topic post.
|
|
|
Replying to: psychogun (May 05, 2008 7:56 pm) Okay since we're off topic... I'm curious, the Odyssey get's pretty good mpg for a vehicle its size and I assume that the reason you got it was because you needed the load carrying capacity (you certainly didn't get it because of the coolness factor  ) so how's an Accord going to work? -Frank
|
|
|
After reading all these glowing reviews from Outlander owners, I figured I ought to give the SUV a once over. (I'd initially not considered Outlanders because Consumer Digest and Edmunds had low real-world MPG averages. If memory serves, Edmunds averaged just over 18 MPG over a 1000 miles. CD was about the same, maybe a little lower.) So I contacted our local Mitsubishi dealer to find out if they had any V6 AWDs in stock. They did, and they offered me a nice price up front an a new '07 LS with sunroof and big, bad stereo. I stopped by and took the vehicle for a spin. I liked the V6 overall. It's not a powerhorse, but it's got enough get up and go for a leisurely driver like myself. The cargo space seemed ample, and I liked the way the vehicle looked from the outside. The brakes and handling were adequate. However, the fit and finish were pretty poor all in all. The dashboard and trim looked low buck to me (even for this class) and the displays washed out in the midday sun. Overall, I can see why people would like this vehicle, especially given the steep discounts available, but given it's questionable gas mileage, Mitsubishi's reputation for dishonesty, cheap interior, and good enough, but forgettable performance, the Outlander is not among my finalists (Forester, Outback, CR-V, and RAV4). |
|
|
Replying to: craigl (May 06, 2008 7:38 am) I'll ask the whole group - has anyone driven the V6 and CVT models back to back? |
|
|
Replying to: craigl (May 06, 2008 7:38 am) As for the rest of your personal preferences, I could argue otherwise, but what's the point? The world would be such a boring place if people have the same preference.
|
|
|
Replying to: craigl (May 06, 2008 7:38 am) Nicely put, good luck not settling for less. your lucky not to have to find out what the Outlanders cheap plastic sounds like in an interior after a few miles on it. forget the discounted price, you get what you pay for. |
|
|
Replying to: busta4 (May 06, 2008 9:44 am) I drive the same vehicle as you do, got it Dec 06, so far no rattling sounds. As for getting what I paid for the price, I'd say I got more bang for the buck. But sounds like your experience is different. forget the discounted price, you get what you pay for. If you are looking for luxury in your interior, BMW or Mercedes might be the right vehicle for you. |
|
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
