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
660 messages, Last post on Nov 10, 2009 at 4:33 AM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
Replying to: dodo2 (May 09, 2008 11:20 am) http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f185114/76 You're right, it was both rear doors, not the bumper. That would actually be harder to respray. It's easier to remove a bumper vs. 2 doors with all the trim and stuff.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 09, 2008 10:37 am) It's not at all. The R&D or OEM contracts don't go away with the stock sale. The engines, 2.0L and 2.4L, have been developed by Chrysler, Mitsubishi and Hyundai n partnership and they show up in various models from these manufacturers. However, each company has it own touch on the engines - e.g. MIVEC on Mitsubishi, so in the end they may perform quite differently.
|
|
|
Replying to: dodo2 (May 09, 2008 11:30 am) Subaru was part owned by GM but they never really developed any synergies. The closest we saw was the Saab 9-2x, but it was basically a re-badge. GM also sold a Chevy Forester in India for a while. It was funny to see a bow tie on the front like that. Toyota bought those shares, so let's see what happens next. They've announced a light RWD coupe, perhaps a Celica replacement, based on the WRX. Subaru will get a version too. Getting back on topic, I guess I would not mind it if Subaru started getting things like HVAC and stereo/GPS/entertainment system from Toyota, but hopefully they keep the drivetrains seperate. I want my next GPS to have traffic capability and with oil at $125 a barrel it would be nice to have access to gas prices, too. I may get a high-end Nuvi soon.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 09, 2008 11:29 am) Well, if you go back and check this post (#77), you’ll see that “tracy01” received quick responses from myself (#80) and “Rcpax” (#87) with two solutions to the problem as well as where to find more information (Outlander vs. Forester thread wasn’t really the best place to post about that issue, especially when there are few threads on the Outlander forum opened on this issue, with pictures and information). I still fail to see how “Tracy01” was pushed around, ignored or anything of this sort. No need to give “Tracy01” Mitsu’s 1-800 number as you suggested either as the number is in the Owner’s Manual, Mitsu’s web site and most likely on a windshield sticker. A good practice would be to check your information before you post… or state a disclaimer….
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 09, 2008 11:37 am) |
|
|
Replying to: dodo2 (May 09, 2008 12:02 pm) Also search for the "Amen" response I got and "you get what you pay for". I want to know what sort of problems creep up, what to expect. I can overlook problems as long as I feel like I understand what they are and trust the issues that arise will be taken care of. Am I skeptical? Absolutely. I complained that the cargo area is narrow and the knee-jerk response was that it's wider than the Forester's, even though it's about 3-4" more narrow.  You may recall the whole 7" cargo height advantage myth, too. The "leather" arm rests. Can you blame me for being skeptical? |
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 09, 2008 12:55 pm) I referred Tracy01 to the appropriate thread AFTER I gave her/him a summary of my solution to the problem. I did that because the dedicated threads already have more information on the issue - other owners experience with the issue, pictures of body cladding, extended mudguards, door side garnish, sources where to get them from, prices, etc. Now that you brought this up, there is nothing about "gag order", but in order to keep these forums organized, the posts should be made in the appropriate place. Maybe one of the moderators could explain it to you better if you are not familiar with the concept (I'm trying to avoid the situation where you interpret my explanation as an unfriendly Outlander owner behavior  ). BTW: We are off-topic already. Remember, this thread is about "Outlander vs. Forester". I want to know what sort of problems creep up, what to expect. I can overlook problems as long as I feel like I understand what they are and trust the issues that arise will be taken care of. This is the reason to read the Outlander forum. There is a ton of information there. If you are truly interested in learning about the Outlander and his history form its launch, I can give you the links to few other Outlander forums. For the time being, we are in a shared thread visible from both Forester and Outlander forums so we should stick with talking about how these two cars compare.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 09, 2008 12:55 pm)
|
|
|
|
|
I decided to get some first-hand knowledge of the Forester 2.5XT so I went to check it out and take a test drive. The Forester exterior styling looks good, very similar to the Outlander. The interior of the Forester is OK, mid-level quality and completely expected for this price range. I personally prefer the modern/industrial look of my Outlander's dash, but that's just me. The cargo area of the Forester is a little higher because the seats fold flat rather than flip forward, I like the low floor on the Outlander and the flip down tailgate better. The Forester holds 5 people, my Outlander can hold 7 in a pinch, I like that. The Forester sunroof is about twice the size of mine, kinda nice. I'd give the Forester a slight advantage in speed over my Outlander, but it didn't feel as powerful as the V6 RAV4. The turbo 4 felt a lot like the Mazda CX-7 and Acura RDX, smooth power without a lot of turbo lag. I don't drag race my CUV, so in everyday driving I don't think the difference is going to mean very much, they both have enough power to get the job done. Handling, ride and quietness were about the same. The Forester 2.5XT that I drove stickered at just over $31,000, my loaded Outlander had a sticker of $30,615 and I paid $29,085. I'd say my Outlander has the edge in terms of features at a similar price... missing from the Forester were 18" wheels, Bluetooth, HID headlights, 6-speed, paddle shifters, 10 year warranty, roadside assistance (?), subwoofer, DVD player, music hard drive, regular fuel capability etc. Things I liked on the Forester: rear visibility was a little better, huge sunroof, telescoping steering wheel, cupholder in rear seat. So there it is, the Forester is a good vehicle that will get the job done if you are looking for a CUV. Drive them all and make a decision that fits for you.
|
|
|
Replying to: dodo2 (May 09, 2008 1:16 pm) I guess that's the bottom line. |
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs Mitsubishi Outlander Mitsubishi Outlander vs. Subaru Forester
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2009 Mitsubishi Outlander
2010 Subaru Forester
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
