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
658 messages, Last post on Nov 09, 2009 at 3:03 PM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
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.
|
|
|
Replying to: dodo2 (May 12, 2008 9:58 am) kdshapiro is, and for him the Forester XT (or RAV4 V6) would be the top two choices. Remember, I drove the Outlander 2.4l CVT and felt it performed OK.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: dodo2 (May 12, 2008 10:12 am) |
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 12, 2008 11:20 am)
|
|
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
