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
798 messages, Last post on Nov 23, 2009 at 11:30 AM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
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.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 12, 2008 4:59 pm) 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 12, 2008 4:59 pm) 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? |
|
|
Replying to: blitzkrieg79 (May 12, 2008 5:31 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: dodo2 (May 12, 2008 5:57 pm) I remember going along for a test drive of some car back in the late 50's/early 60's with my father - I was probably 8 or 10. He got on a side street and idled along without touching the gas. When I asked him what he was doing, he said any car can go fast but not all of them can go slow. When y'all do the ramp test, maybe you can include a "lug the engine" component for my old man? 
|
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (May 12, 2008 8:08 pm) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: dodo2 (May 12, 2008 5:57 pm) He says: "the V6-powered Outlander is surprisingly quick. I clocked it at 7.6 seconds in accelerating from zero to 60 mph, noticeably faster than the sporty Mazda CX-7, which I clocked at about 8.5 seconds. The Outlander isn't as fast as the V6-powered version of the Toyota RAV4, but it isn't far behind." page 2: http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/mar2008/bw20080321_373437.htm |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: blitzkrieg79 (May 12, 2008 1:12 pm) That's right. Mitsubishi also has build MIVEC engines for Daimler Smart car and turbocharged 4G15 engine for the Smart Brabus |
|
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
