Mitsubishi Outlander vs. Subaru Forester

803 messages, Last post on Nov 25, 2009 at 8:34 AM

You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester

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

Outline

Messages Page 4 of 81: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 7; ...; 81; Prev; Next; Last

#31 of 803: Re: Features and Specs [comem47] by ateixeira; Apr 08, 2008 (9:30 am)

Replying to: comem47 (Apr 08, 2008 7:38 am)

Getting less mileage on the same amount of fuel, though.

The lesser mileage offsets any savings from buying a lower octane.

More importantly, you lose range. 15.8 gallons times 17mpg city equals just 267 miles. You'll be getting gas pretty often.

The Forester XT gets 19 city with a 16.9 gallon tank, so you'll enjoy 321 miles of range. That's more than a 20% advantage.

Mitsu should really consider a much bigger gas tank, at least, 20 gallons plus. Subaru made the same mistake with the Tribeca.

comem47 (Apr 08, 2008 1:53 pm)
- ateixeira (Apr 09, 2008 6:10 am)
  - xwesx (Apr 09, 2008 3:36 pm)

#32 of 803: Re: Features and Specs [ateixeira] by comem47; Apr 08, 2008 (1:53 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (Apr 08, 2008 9:30 am)

Well I do better than the 2008 ratings on my 2007 LS V6 AWD. I've gotten 27 mpg hwy last fall (last weekend 25.5 mpg on a trip and and we're not on summer fuel yet) 23 mpg is mixed average with city being 19mpg-20 mpg ). So the fuel is so close but I'm burning regular and last time I checked premium is in excess of 10C a gallon more. To each their own but I wouldn't want a premium diet. (but whatever floats your boat).
It would have been easier to go for a Subaru, dealer wise (largest dealer in US is just 3 miles away and they have an excellent reputation, but I liked the larger size of the Outlander over Forrester and Forrester was more, let alone Tribeca (I'm glad they at least got rid of that horse collar grill) Let's call it personal taste. As I mentioned before If it wasn't the Outlander it was going to be a Hyundai Santa Fe for this size vehicle with warranty and price. My LS AWD with Sun and sound package (Rockford Fosgate 650 W with power Sunroof )listed for a hair over $25K
(I believe the 2007/8 Forrester is at least $2K more and I paid less with incentives and got more for my trade in than elsewhere. (also the warranty is far superior on the Outlander and I keep my vehicles for several years).

ateixeira (Apr 09, 2008 6:10 am)
- xwesx (Apr 09, 2008 3:36 pm)

#33 of 803: Re: Features and Specs [comem47] by ateixeira; Apr 09, 2008 (6:10 am)

Replying to: comem47 (Apr 08, 2008 1:53 pm)

I'm glad you do better than the EPA numbers, but so could anyone. My minivan gets better mileage than you are reporting, with 266hp and 8 full-size seats, plus a 21 gallon gas tank for a ton more range.

Honestly, the mileage isn't too bad, it's the tiny little gas tank. Mitsu should put in a 20+ gallon tank to give you some better range. 15.8 gallons for a V6 model?

Outlander is bigger, but to me it's too small to compete in the mid-size arena, yet too big to be as efficient as the best compacts. Call it an inbetween-er.

Also, I took a tape measure to the auto show, and the cargo area was something like 37" wide, the narrowest of all the compact crossovers I measured. Perhaps they had to make room for those 18"s, or the suspension just isn't very compact. Length and height were good, but you may have to stack things up.

Sante Fe is a great value but it doesn't meet my fuel economy targets. FWIW, I would shop the 4 cylinder Outlander CVT, the normally aspirated Forester, not the V6 or the turbo.

I checked again in CR, both vehicles are "Recommended", and both have "Much Better than Average" reliability. Kudos to both.

Outlander does "Average" on ownership cost and owner satisfaction. Forester does "Much Better than Average" on ownership cost and "Better than Average" on owner satisfaction.

Honestly though if you love one more than the other I think you should pay more to get what you want.

xwesx (Apr 09, 2008 3:36 pm)

#34 of 803: Re: Features and Specs [ateixeira] by xwesx; Apr 09, 2008 (3:36 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (Apr 09, 2008 6:10 am)

Honestly though if you love one more than the other I think you should pay more to get what you want.

Or, just pay to get what you want, regardless of whether it is more.

#35 of 803: Re: from another thread [ateixeira] by chelentano; Apr 09, 2008 (7:52 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (Apr 08, 2008 5:56 am)

>> You would have to add a moonroof, leather, and 6CD to the Outlander to get to the equipment level that is standard on the Forester XT Limited. That's more than $3000 in options by my math, enough to reverse that ranking.

That’s wrong. 6-CD changer is standard on Outlander.
.

>> '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.

Take a look: Outlander XLS with 3 packages TMV $29,414 (it's actually less: Mitsu dealer usually does not charge destination), which includes leather, sunroof, nav, premium stereo, Xenons. The Forester with all main packages TMV $31,882. The Forester costs more yet this higher price does not include paddle shifters, Bluetooth, FAST Key, keyless start, music server, 18” wheels, Xenons, 650-watt amplifier, LED, Skid Plates – everything the Outlander has got. In addition Subaru has less capable transmission and AWD. So with Outlander for less money you get much better equipped car.

In addition to the purchasing costs, the Forester has higher maintenance costs due to more expensive premium gas and shorter warranty.

>> 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.

The Forester is only technically a full-time AWD car: the car is front axle biased with 90/10 front/rear torque split under normal driving conditions. It would pass more torque to the rear only when a slippage occurs: it’s reactive, but not a proactive system. The Outlander would pass 40% to the rear under normal driving conditions and it will pass more when the slippage occurs. In addition the Outlander owner has a choice of 2WD mode, but the Forester’s owner does not.

kdshapiro (Apr 10, 2008 12:44 pm)
- ateixeira (Apr 11, 2008 8:42 am)

#36 of 803: Re: Features and Specs [ateixeira] by chelentano; Apr 09, 2008 (8:09 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (Apr 08, 2008 6:37 am)

>> Not your fault, though you didn't cite a source for us to try to contact them to correct all their mistakes.

No, it’s my fault, if there is inaccuracy.


>> 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

You are right. I will fix it.
.

>>* 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
>>* it overlooks the SportShift trans on the Subaru (this is a matter of preference)

It overlooks all these features on both cars. The chart attempts do display only unique reasonably substantial features which differ among both cars. Otherwise chart would get too long.
.

>>* trailer wiring exists for the Forester, that chart implies it does not

This trailer info posted according to Edmunds.com. Post your link, if otherwise.
.

>>* Bluetooth is indeed offered on the Forester, that chart says its not

Yes, it just became available for the Forester as dealer installed kit, I will correct it. Note, that factory installed bluetooth is standard on the Outlander.
.

>>* the chart says no DVD player, also wrong, Forester will play DVDs on the NAV screen

Edmunds.com says “DVD player is not available”. Post a link, then I will fix the chart. Note, that on Outlander you can get the second rear DVD.
.

>>Also, there are a few things the Forester has that the Mitsu does not:
* dual exhaust outlets (vs. single)

That’s wrong. The Outlander has dual. Not a big deal though.
.

>> * hood struts (vs. a cheap prop rod)
>> * perforated leather standard on the models compared
>> * more power
>> * more torque
>> * mention the option of a manual transmission, for those who prefer it over a slushbox.

These are insignificant. Outlander could counter these with odor absorbing interior, standard leather shifter, aluminum roof, faster hard drive navigation, GPS Diamond Lane Guidance system, speed adjusted radio volume, second rear DVD player, optional multicolor HID lights, dual stage turn signal, digital multi-info display, etc.
.

>>* extra power and torque still yields better city gas mileage, +2mpg

You forgetting the weight difference and practically part-time AWD on Forester.
.

>>* better visibility (especially around the D-pillar)

Subjective and insignificant. I would counter it with better handling and styling on Outlander
.

>>* seat heaters standard
>>* Manual transmission Foresters have a unique Hill Start Assist feature.
>>* bigger gas tank for better cruising range

True. I will make the update these. Hill assist is not unique: it's on RAV4 and others, and will be on 2009 Outlander model with twin clutch tranny.
.

>>* moonroof standard, and also 3 times the size of Mitsu's optional one

Not 3 times. May be 50% larger, but I will make the update
.

>>* 10 way power driver's seat standard (pkg on Mitsu)

The chart already says that it's standard on Forstr. Double check please.


>>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.

You better make sure

h2k2f2 (Apr 11, 2008 1:27 pm)
- chelentano (Apr 11, 2008 8:09 pm)
  - h2k2f2 (Apr 12, 2008 5:32 am) and 15 more...

#37 of 803: 2009 vs. 2008 by ateixeira; Apr 10, 2008 (5:48 am)

You compared an 2008 model with a brand-new 2009 that doesn't have incentives yet. Of course the price will be higher. 2008 Forester XTs are still available, if you wanted to compare same year models.

When you go to sell them a 2009 will be worth more than a 2008.

You also dismiss the extras that the Forester has (how convenient). The hood struts are very cool, pop the hood and it raises itself. I do my own maintenance and this important to me. The cheap prop rod clip on my Miata has broken twice, a real nuisance.

You dismiss SportShift but your chart lists paddle shifters, so it should list the tap shift feature on the Forester. Some prefer them on the steering wheel, others prefer them on the shifter itself. Personal preference. But if the chart lists one, it should list the other, if you want to be fair.

Subaru does recommend premium fuel but it doesn't require it, plus remember the EPA city is 2 mpg better, so you'll likely use less fuel. You will not see any cost advantage. The Forester does enjoy more range, though.

Subaur's AWD is proactive, it adjust constantly even before there is slip. In fact in 1st and 2nd gears it defaults to 50/50. Only when cruising does it default to 90/10.

How do I know about trailer wiring. See photo below. The harness is there, just plug and play.

The NAV system will play DVDs, but I have yet to see any technical spec on it. In fact I'm looking for those because we are considering getting that option. My main concern is that these built-in units have a safe mode where it does not let you enter a destination while on the go. You have to pull over and put the vehicle in Park.

So let me ask, how does the Outlander's GPS system work? Will it let you enter an address while moving?

Most don't. To me this is a deal-killer. If you can't use it while on the go, even when a passenger occupies the seat next to you and can enter it, well, that just stinks.

A few more things...

You mention the Outlander's standard air filtration but the Forester has that too.

According to my Consumer's Guide (not the same as CR, by the way) Auto 2008, the Outlander only has a tilt wheel. The Forester XT's tilts and telescopes.

Also according to that same book, heated mirrors and wiper de-icers are standard on the Forester XT. It makes no mention of those on the Outlander, that's why I asked you to make sure, since you own the car and should know.

The rear seats on the Forester can also recline. They even make a bed with the front seats.

You mention the leather steering wheel and shifter on the Outlander but the Forester has those, too.

comem47 (Apr 10, 2008 6:40 am)
- ateixeira (Apr 10, 2008 6:46 am)
chelentano (Apr 11, 2008 7:26 pm)
- steve_ (Apr 11, 2008 8:19 pm)
  - chelentano (Apr 11, 2008 8:49 pm) and 3 more...
- ateixeira (Apr 14, 2008 6:33 am)
  - chelentano (Apr 14, 2008 9:22 pm) and 28 more...
chelentano (Apr 11, 2008 10:24 pm)

MVC-012S.JPG
640x480 (35kb)

#38 of 803: Re: 2009 vs. 2008 [ateixeira] by comem47; Apr 10, 2008 (6:40 am)

Replying to: ateixeira (Apr 10, 2008 5:48 am)

Well nobody is going to convince the other on personal preference. In my case I needed an 4WD/AWD vehicle to tow my snowmobile trailer in winter. None of the very high end features were a must for me (leather. etc) and I wanted to keep it under $25K The pre-2009 Forresters I feel were a smaller station wagon vs a Crossover SUV. (and I bought in fall 2007) I also feel they should be doing a bit better on MPG considering the size/weight and being 4 cyl. We already discussed why I wouldn't want the turbo (premium fuel) and the Outlander can tow 3500 lbs with the V6.(some of the econobox AWD cars I looksd at were limited to 1000 lbs)

The newer 2009 Forrester is something I might have looked at were it available at the time (looking more like an Outlander!

,but Subarus, Hondas and Toyotas all are riding on past reputation and refusing to deal on price/warranty. I feel I got a better value for my $(with quite a few features standard) but everyone will have their personal preferences, price aside.

ateixeira (Apr 10, 2008 6:46 am)

#39 of 803: Re: 2009 vs. 2008 [comem47] by ateixeira; Apr 10, 2008 (6:46 am)

Replying to: comem47 (Apr 10, 2008 6:40 am)

That's fine. I was just correcting that chart, which was very one-sided.

I'm sure Subaru has a similar chart, somewhere, just as biased, listing things from their perspective.

The Mitsu warranty is great, but then you have to ask yourself if you trust the company behind it. I simply don't.

#40 of 803: Re: from another thread [chelentano] by kdshapiro; Apr 10, 2008 (12:44 pm)

Replying to: chelentano (Apr 09, 2008 7:52 pm)

My 2005 XT has a RWD bias upon acceleration where nearly all of the torque gets transfered to the rear. My owners manual says torque is constantly varied between front and rear depending on acceleration, although I don't doubt when cruising there is a FWD bias.