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
797 messages, Last post on Nov 23, 2009 at 8:29 AM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (May 12, 2008 6:39 am) Anyway, as far as performance cars go, Mitsubishi and Subaru are pretty much neck and neck, the new EVO X is a better car than the new STI, the AWD system is superior in Evo X, the SST tranny is more advanced, in 4x4s, few cars can compete with the drivetrain of Montero/Pajero, basically my point is that if there would be a demand for a performance oriented Outlander, you can be sure it would be competitive with Rav4 and Forester. As far as handling is concerned, Outlander XLS (0.80g) has a slightly higher lateral acceleration score than the 2009 Forester (0.78g), but thats probably due to the higher center of gravity because of the higher ground clearance of Forester, so handling is pretty much a wash. What really kills it for the Forester is the outdated 4 speed auto transmission, this shouldn't be even available in a 2009 car. And as far as Subaru turbos go, I know they are more reliable than Mazda turbos partly because Subaru uses Mitsubishi turbos  Thats where Mitsu shines, in turbo and AWD technology. As far as CX-7 goes, it was just an exaple of a car who gets very good reviews in all the car magazines but as a daily driver the mileage really sux because a 2.3l turbo engine has to haul a over 3900lbs car. On paper the HP and torque look great but in reality it is an inefficient car that doesn't offer the utility of Outlander or CRV. As far as the exterior design goes, just search around various forums in regard to 2009 Forester and Mitsubishi Outlander design cues pop up a lot so I am not the only one to see this. Anyway, to me Outlander is a better car for the money. And if price/incentives are not an issue for you then you should just get a Cayenne What makes the Outlander so attractive this days is the price, you can really knock it down some. You can get a much better equipped car than the Rav4 or CRV for thousands less. Anyway, sports cars as a whole are a niche market at best and sport SUVs/CUVs are a small margin of car sales, just shows that most people care more about the usefulness of the car rather than obscene 0-60 times.
|
|
|
Replying to: blitzkrieg79 (May 12, 2008 12:04 pm) Subaru uses a different turbo now, read the Edmunds review for more details. The old ones did use a Mitsubishi turbo but the turbocharger itself was nothing to write home about. The 4 speed auto is about to be replaced with a CVT next year, I just hope it feels more connected than the other CVTs I've tried. Personally, I'd rather get a proven 4EAT than gamble with a v1.0 of any brand new transmission. For instance, I'm glad my Sienna has the 5 speed auto vs. the new 6 speed auto, because Toyota's 6 speed is more problematic (hunting for gears, slippage, etc). So more ratios is not automatically better. In fact, if you buy a Toyota, the U151E 5 speed is a far better choice than the U660E 6 speed. Consumer Reports went as far as listing some models with the U660E as unreliable. I only found out afterwards, but I was very relieved that my van has the older U151E. The Outlander has been reliable so far, but the 6 speed only came out in 2007, so it hasn't really been tested long-term. Hopefully they remain reliable, we'll see. GM also had problems with their 6 speeds autos in the Lambdas, first year models mostly.
|
|
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
