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
825 messages, Last post on Nov 29, 2009 at 6:52 PM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
Replying to: biscuit_xls (May 09, 2008 5:40 pm) It may not have felt as powerful but the XT will show the RAV4 it's tailights. And it has slightly better EPA fuel economy. Additionally, the XT at 6.6 seconds is the fastest of the other vehicles mentioned, RDX, CX-7 and Outlander.
|
|
|
Replying to: dodo2 (May 09, 2008 1:32 pm) I'll cut you some slack, because you did say "IIRC", but.... I got 35" with my tape measure and the cargo liner in place. You removed the liner and got 35.5". So both measures were correct.  My beef isn't with a half an inch, though, it's that an Outlander fan boy stated the Mitsu had a SEVEN INCH cargo height advantage, which turned out to be more like 1-3 inches, depending on where you measure. cars101 got 34.5" for the Forester, my measure was actually less perhaps due to the moonroof on the one I took my tape measure to. I think I got 32.something. How's that for honest? I could have used the cars101 number but shared my lower number instead. An Outlander owner claimed it was 30". LOL So clearly I am not the one trying to skew the numbers. 
|
|
|
Replying to: phdhusky (May 10, 2008 5:25 pm) My wife ordered a Forester. Due to high demand we could not find a blue LL Bean model in DC/MD/VA (closest one was in NJ), so she'll have to wait 6-8 weeks or so. Blue, PZEV, Limited model (which replaces the LL Bean).
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (May 10, 2008 5:30 pm) I have a friend with a RAV4 V6, I'll bet dinner that it will beat the 2.5XT from a standing start to 60. PM if you have a 2.5XT in socal, I'll video tape it and post it on Youtube.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 10, 2008 7:13 pm) You keep distorting the information provided. I told you I measures WITH the cargo mat in place and I also DID NOT count few 1/8" in order to make sure you don't touch the ceiling. Basically I rounded up the measurement to the 0.5". Also, the measurement taken in the same place as the one shown on the cars101.com for the Forester, is 36.5" for the Outlander. With the cargo mat removed and measuring strictly cargo floor to roof is 37" or very close. I just provided the numbers so you can do your comparison. If someone is shopping and they're not sure whether or not they trust Mitsubishi, then asking about what problems have crept up for people and if/how they were resolved is indeed relevant. To me, it's essential actually, because I don't. I guess that's the bottom line. No, the bottom line is that there is an Outlander forum on Edmunds.com that has all the information about the Oulander. Go there an read the discussions and you'll find everything about the car. There are also other dedicated forums about the Outlander that contain a wealth of information from owners from all over the world. The "Forester vs. Outlander" thread is not the place to learn about the Outlander specific issues. Why is so hard to understand? In fact, this thread does not really contain any information that would help someone interested in learning about the Outlander. These senseless discussions about "my car is better than yours" don't really help too much IMO. |
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 10, 2008 5:20 pm) Wow ... these are real advantages.  "Twin exhaust" - really? Everyone would tell you that those two pipes you see are just a split from the muffler which doesn't do anything other than .. well ... impress some people.
|
|
|
Replying to: biscuit_xls (May 10, 2008 9:26 pm) It's not the hp advantage it's the torque curve. The XTs torque will come on-line much faster giving it the advantage. Did you ever wonder why the STI can manage a 4.8 sprint to 60 with the same 2.5 liter engine? Or why with an ECU flash it can deliver 430 ft/lbs of torque? I don't think that 6.6 second number is accurate for the US Forester 2.5XT automatic. It felt like around 8 seconds and the horsepower/weight numbers back that up. The torque curve also backs up the 6.6 number. Did you look it up on the internet? How can your butt really tell the difference? Did you actually floor it? I'm not doing your research. Do a web search for: 2009 Forester xt 0 to 60 and see what you get. Do the same search for: 2008 RAV4 V6 0 to 60. Car and Drive got 5.9 to 60 with the 5 speed 2007 XT. click here. With the 5 speed manual coming in 2010 I wouldn't be surprise to see times like this. Notice the RAV4 is nowhere to be found in this list.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (May 11, 2008 4:46 am) Show me this magical Subaru torque curve. The RAV4 V6 has 246 lb.-ft. of peak torque at 4,700 RPM. You can't take a spec from a completely different vehicle with a completely different transmission and expect the new Forester to be similar. There is only one number for the Forester 2.5XT published on the internet, 6.6 seconds, and after driving the vehicle I don't believe that is an accurate number.
|
|
|
Replying to: biscuit_xls (May 11, 2008 6:47 am) Have you personally and impartially timed both vehicles at the track? Show me this magical Subaru torque curve. Here ya' go! :shades Click here. I really think people can be less lazy about finding things, instead of expecting people to do their research. You can't take a spec from a completely different vehicle with a completely different transmission and expect the new Forester to be similar. Yes you can, it's the same motor with some tweaks. Not only that in 2010 the V6 RAV4 will be up against the same motor with a manual transmission. Note the 5.3 seconds to 60. There is only one number for the Forester 2.5XT published on the internet, 6.6 seconds, and after driving the vehicle I don't believe that is an accurate number. You can believe what you want, Unless you come up with something more credible, it is what it is. Forester rules!
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (May 11, 2008 8:14 am) Those dyno charts don't impress me. I see a relatively stock one with 190HP and 218 torque at the wheels, but the curve spikes early and then goes down quickly. Maybe you can tweek it with mods and make more power, but is that what we're comparing? I wasn't. I stand by my bet, a stock RAV4 V6 will smoke a stock 2009 Forester 2.5XT.
|
|
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
