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
826 messages, Last post on Nov 30, 2009 at 7:21 AM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
|
|---|---|
|
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 What really kills it for the Forester is the outdated 4 speed auto transmission, this shouldn't be even available in a 2009 car.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.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 12, 2008 12:27 pm) Well, if Subaru is not using Mitsu turbos then I don't think thats actually a good thing. To put in in perspective even BMW came to realization that Mitsu makes one of the best in the world and guess which manufacturers turbo you will find inside a 335 or X6? As far as transmissions goe, the Outlanders 6 speed auto tranny so far hasn't been problematic which is a very good sign considering its an all new unit, usually if there is a defect in a part such as a transmission, you would hear about it within few months of Outlanders release. Also, if car companies would settle on what only works, we would still be driving cars with a 1940s technology. Technology has to evolve in order to get better/more efficient with each new generation. First year releases are prone to problems but Subaru will have to release a more modern transmission sooner or later anyway. Better sooner to just get all the kinks out. |
|
|
|
|
The RAV4 w/ V6 has advantage of intake and exhaust valve timing .vs. the Subie XT's intake only valve timing. RAV4's highway mileage is better (26 .vs. 24) while city mileage is same as Forester. However, the Toyota burns regular, while the Subie needs premium. Still, given how much gas costs now, that difference between fuel grades is about 5% - not huge, but an expense Subie owners pick up. The Toyota has torque steer and feels very heavy at front end when driving (my experience, anyway - Edmunds found it too). Subie has no torque steer. The Subies' 4 speed trans seems to work better with turbo engine .vs. natural one, perhaps because the turbo torqueband is broader and covers the gear spread more effectively. |
|
|
Replying to: blitzkrieg79 (May 12, 2008 1:12 pm) I don't really know what this means, but my impression was that he implied that the tranny is too high-tech for them to attempt to repair at the shop. Just a word from the street..... The good thing is the tranny has 10 years/160km warranty on it and it's been trouble free so far. |
|
|
Replying to: blitzkrieg79 (May 12, 2008 1:12 pm) If anything, dynamically, the handling actually compensates somewhat for the significant power deficit. I bet the Forester XT would be the quicker since it would accelerate out of the turns a whole lot faster than the base Forester would. Hopefully MT takes the time to do a full test of the turbo - they really only mentioned the 0-60 time as far as specs go. Any how, doesn't matter, as the base Forester performs just fine in the real world. You speak very condescendingly of the Subaru automatic, so let me remind you that the XT performs better, period. Flip those paddle shifters all day long, and it won't matter, the XT will still outrun you. Plus a CVT is on the way. Subaru has a 5 speed auto but wanted to wait to sort out the CVT instead. We decided not to wait - the 4EAT is proven reliable, handles 300hp in modified WRXs, and performs smoothly. The SportShift actually works very well - shifts are completed in a split second. I'd actually rate the transmission highly. Honestly? Mitsubishi should have taken another year or two to sort out its own CVT. Between those two I'd pick the 4EAT by a wide margin. A CVT has an infinite number of gears, yet by all indications the 6 speed auto is a whole lot better. If I race my 21 speed bicycle against Lance Armstrong and his bike only has 3 speeds, he'd still win. You have to look at the entire powertrain, not just the number of gears. Plus you don't want to see me in biking shorts. 
|
|
|
Replying to: dodo2 (May 12, 2008 11:57 am) You accept 8.5 seconds and 8.0 seconds, which means a margin of error of 0.5 seconds is acceptable. If that's the case the 8.9 and 9.0 second results fall within the same margin of error. It's pretty convenient to just ignore the two slowest 0-60 results, though. 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 12, 2008 4:56 pm) As far as CVT goes, Nissan has the most experience with this as they really started doing CVTs in affordable passenger cars and already have a second generation CVT in their cars. Mitsu is on their first. What makes you think Subaru will get it all right on the first try, I highly doubt it, the first batch of cars will be guinea pigs, thats the way it is with all-new tech. But when CVT is done right it optimizes the engine to its best performance/efficiency at all the speeds. Again, to me Outlander is simply a better bargain, right now you can get a new 2007 Outlander XLS for $21500 if you shop around. Price plays an important role, especially in todays tight economy. In reality Forester and Outlander are fairly similar cars, its not like either blows other one away in any category. One may be attractive in this category and the other is more attractive in another. It all comes down to tastes and personal interest as well as final price. Both brands don't have a high brand perception in US hence their relatively low sales numbers.
|
|
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
