Last post on May 10, 2010 at 6:35 AM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander
What is this discussion about?
Mitsubishi Outlander, Subaru Forester, Car Comparisons, SUV
#357 of 1581 Re: Test drove the Forester 2.5XT today [blitzkrieg79]
May 12, 2008 (1:27 pm)
The lateral grip is probably due to the low profile tires, but you probably trade-off a bit in terms of ride/impact harshness. I say "probably" because the Outlander I test drove had 16" rims and much taller tires.
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.
#358 of 1581 Re: Test drove the Forester 2.5XT today [ateixeira]
May 12, 2008 (2:12 pm)
Lateral grip gives us an approximation of cars handling, of course things such as tires/size of rims, stiffer/better balanced chassis will all play a part in cars handling characteristics.
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.
May 12, 2008 (2:15 pm)
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.
#360 of 1581 Re: Test drove the Forester 2.5XT today [blitzkrieg79]
May 12, 2008 (2:55 pm)
Speaking of Outlander's 6-speed tranny. I was talking to the tech at my dealership just as he returned from a Mitsu training session on this transmission and he told me that there is only one error code the mechanics at the dealership would deal with. For anything else, they will replace the tranny all together.
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.
#361 of 1581 Re: Test drove the Forester 2.5XT today [blitzkrieg79]
May 12, 2008 (5:56 pm)
I checked on the MT figure 8 and the V6 Outlander was ahead of the base Forester (non-turbo) by half a second (28.3 vs 28.8) which is pretty close given it gives up 50 horsepower to the V6.
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.
#362 of 1581 Re: V6 vs. Turbo [dodo2]
May 12, 2008 (5:59 pm)
It's not really fair to just dismiss both Motorweek and Edmunds.
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.
#363 of 1581 Re: Test drove the Forester 2.5XT today [ateixeira]
May 12, 2008 (6:31 pm)
Well, you have to remember that Forester is also a lighter car than the Outlander. Also, Outlander is pretty much a 2006 model (Japan got it first) release where Forester is a 2009 model release, meaning Outlander is basically at least a 4-5 year old design where Forester is maybe 1-2 years old, so I would expect Subaru to be a better engineered car simply because it's more modern. Thats the way it is in car business. Car companies overlap each other time and time again.
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.
#364 of 1581 Re: V6 vs. Turbo [ateixeira]
May 12, 2008 (6:57 pm)
The slowest result is not relevant, for any car anyway. Anyone can go slow, but not everyone can go fast. Simple common sense. The best result is what shows the actual car's capability.
You seem to accept MT results and use them as a reference for the Forester's performance so let's just go by their numbers. In this case, the Outlander V6 is a 8.1 sec. to 60 mph.
Did you miss my explaination as of why I personally dismiss a specific set of numbers posted by Edmunds? I'll tell you again - they had bold tires on the car. However, when they did the usual Full-Test, they posted 8.2 sec to 60 mph, which is in line with what other magazines have posted. So, no, I don't dismiss Edmunds, just that particular test that was done under unfavorable conditions. It's not the result was not favorable, but the test conditions were. I hope you get what I'm really trying to say.
Again, you can believe what you want and consider whatever numbers you want. It doesn't really matter anyway and it doesn't change the facts.
#365 of 1581 Re: V6 vs. Turbo [ateixeira]
May 12, 2008 (7:52 pm)
It's pretty convenient to just ignore the two slowest 0-60 results, though.
I was trying before to explain you why I don't go by Motorweek for 0-60 mph as they are in general slower than any other publication, so they don't show the full abilities of the car. This time I'll use the 2006/2007 Subaru Forester XT (both 5-speed manual) example so perhaps you'll be more open to my argument.
Car and Driver: 5.9 sec
Motorweek: 6.6 sec.
It's a pretty significant difference between the two numbers for the same car. Which one would you go by?
#366 of 1581 Re: Test drove the Forester 2.5XT today [blitzkrieg79]
May 12, 2008 (8:21 pm)
I looked hard at the Outlander and Forester before I decided on the premium forester vs the SE outlander. Yes the outlander has very nice toys and tech but it felt heavy during driving and I was not impressed by the interior at all. I wanted an 08 outlander as I did not want a V6 07. There are no incentives on the 08 so it was going to be more expensive than the premium 09 Forester. I tried hard to like the outlander because of the tech but I couldn't find other reason to get it over the forester.