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
793 messages, Last post on Nov 22, 2009 at 6:52 PM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (May 11, 2008 11:50 am) Anyway, to me an SUV/CUV is NOT a sports car, I will be perfectly happy with an 8 second 0-60 car, and I think thats plenty quick. Car manufacturers/magazines here in US get caught up in all the 0-60 times but reality is that with low US speed limits whats the point of 0-60 time when most roads have a 45MPH limit. Here in NJ a 6 lane turnpike has a 65MPH limit for gods sake. It's all just an enthusiast/marketing crap. SUV/CUV are supposed to give UTILITY/versatility/capacity first. If you want a sports car buy an STI/Evo/Corvette, no SUV/CUV will ever handle like a real sports car, laws of physics have a lot to do with it. Anyway, back to the Outlander vs Forrester topic, both cars are rather nice in this category but in my opinion Subaru really ripped off Mitsubishi design this time but in my opinion Outlander looks more sporty and elegant, interior wise its a wash, Mitsubishi offers a better warranty and better incentives, you can get an Outlander for $2000 below invoice. Reliability wise they are about the same. And those are the things that would push Outlander over Forrester in my purchase decision. What kills Mitsubishi in US is brand perception, but brand perception and brand reality are two different things. Look at how well Mitsubishi is doing in Europe (in the largest continental car market in the world).
|
|
|
Replying to: blitzkrieg79 (May 12, 2008 5:53 am) |
|
|
Replying to: blitzkrieg79 (May 12, 2008 5:53 am) Regarding reliability, can you point me to any credible source of information, showing Subaru has systemic problems with it's turbos? When you actually drive these cars, differentiating from them driving you, you realize there is a lot of difference in handling capability. I can't compare against Outlander yet, but I can compare against RAV4, there is a wide gap. You may not notice it, but I do. Since the 2009 looks like a much more handsome version of the 2008, I can't see where Subaru ripped off Mitsubishi. Mitsubishi may offer better warranty and incentives, but at the end of the day, I don't drive a warranty and incentives down the NJ turnpike or up the Garden State. The performance, handling, utlity, versatility and brand would push the Forester over the Outlander in my purchase decision.
|
|
|
Replying to: blitzkrieg79 (May 12, 2008 5:53 am) At last. someone the GETS it !!!. the U in CUV/SUV is UTILITY. Otherwise this conversation is like track racing Kenworths and Peterbuilts (people do it, but what's the point?) I would never try to boast the Outlander is the best at any one thing, but I feel it represents great value for the $ ("utility"). I think KDShapiro would be happier in a Subaru WRX with wheels that are 1.252 times nicer looking than the competition (as evidenced on the internet)  .
|
|
|
Replying to: comem47 (May 12, 2008 6:51 am) Your requirements/needs/wants vs mine are different. With the Forester XT I can have my cake and eat it too. I has good handling, good performance, good reliability, great drive train, good gas mileage, and the space to stuff a lot of junk if needed. What I compromise on, if compromise is the right word are the tech toys which I don't care about. All of this talk about how non-important performance and handling are has me laughing. Performance is always important, what happens when you mash the pedal and turn the wheel and/or step on the brakes to me are the single most important aspects of a car. More than bluetooth, sunroof and hard disc drives. |
|
|
I have that same Toyota 2GR V6 in my minivan. It's a very nice engine but it tends to perform best fairly high in the rev range. The turbo in the Forester makes torque much sooner and would be long gone by the time the V6 really got in to its sweet spot. The 2GR is still a wonderful powertrain, FWIW. 0-60 according to Motor Trend for all 3, then: Subaru Forester XT: 6.6 Toyota RAV4 V6: 6.7 Outlander V6: 8.1 And MT's Outlander was quick - Motorweek took 8.9 seconds. Mostly, though, it's funny that to challenge the Forester in acceleration you call in...Toyota! 
|
|
|
You're bustin' my chops for a half inch? Why aren't you giving chelentano a hard time for stating the cargo height advantage was 7"? At the opening it's 2" (36.5" you measured vs. 34.5" from cars101). Inside it's 35.5" to about 32.something, I don't feel like looking it up again. Call it 3". Where is the 7" advantage? I'm not the one making gross exaggerations.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 12, 2008 8:13 am) LOL .... I'm not. I'm just looking for apple-to-apple comparison and using correct numbers and statements. That's all. |
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 12, 2008 8:10 am) For what is worth, Edmunds clocked the Outlander in 8.2 sec in their Full-Test. Any other review I can remember posting 0-60 mph times, was up to 8.3 sec. This, plus my first-hand experience driving this car for more than a year tells me that Motorweek time is an anomaly so I discard it. Oh, and if you are still seeking high acceleration numbers for the Outlander in your quest to prove whatever, let me help you out. Edmunds had posted 9.0 sec. in their CUV comparison they had few months back. However, in that test they used their Long-Term vehicle, which had totally worn tires to the point I wouldn't drive that car on a road with the slightest mist (see the Outlander LT blog where they post a picture of the tires shortly after they posted the article). The other vehicles were supplied by the manufacturers and I think is fair to believe they were in very good condition. As far as I'm concerned, I also discarded that instance from my books as not relevant for the stated reasons. I still use the numbers posted by MT in their 2007 Truck of the Year event as a reference when comparing some of the these SUVs performance numbers (CX7, RAV4 V6, CRV, SantaFe, etc.) since they were obtained in fairly equal testing conditions during the event. Whether you accept it or not, the Outlander V6 is a low 8 sec. car to 60 mph (8.0-8.5 sec). Feel free to attach your own attributes to it (e.g. slow, fast, average, adequate, sloppy, etc.), but this is what it is.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 12, 2008 8:10 am) I think that's because some made claims that the Forester XT would smoke any other SUV, ignoring the RAV4 V6. The V6 in the RAV4 (and other Toyotas ) is an outstanding engine by any means. I'd take it over the Subaru's turbo in Forester application and Outlander's V6 any day. For me, the RAV4's problem is the rest of the package, but this is a different topic.
|
|
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
