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
#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.
#367 of 1581 Re: V6 vs. Turbo [dodo2]
by steve_ HOST
May 12, 2008 (9:08 pm)
Anyone can go slow, but not everyone can go fast
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?
#368 of 1581 Re: V6 vs. Turbo [steve_]
May 12, 2008 (9:48 pm)
LOL ... Hang in there Steve. Someone will come here and demonstrate that the Forester is faster than any other SUV even when it stands still and due to its superior AWD it will go up the ramp even when idle.
#369 of 1581 Re: V6 vs. Turbo [dodo2]
May 12, 2008 (9:55 pm)
Business Week editor gets to 0-60 in 7.6 sec for the Outlander, which shows that testing varies.
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
#370 of 1581 Re: Test drove the Forester 2.5XT today [blitzkrieg79]
May 12, 2008 (10:07 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?
That's right. Mitsubishi also has build MIVEC engines for Daimler Smart car and turbocharged 4G15 engine for the Smart Brabus
#371 of 1581 Re: Test drove the Forester 2.5XT today [kdshapiro]
May 12, 2008 (10:25 pm)
>> I am biased toward performance, handling and drivetrain. The performance, handling, utlity, versatility and brand would push the Forester over the Outlander in my purchase decision.
Forester 0.78g vs Outlander 0.80g
Recalled turbo and the 4-speed tranny suppose to be that great?
Outlander has larger EPA volume and higher tow capacity
What that suppose to mean? The Forester is more basic car, basic tranny, basic AWD, missing tons of equipment which otherwise you can find on the Outlander.
#372 of 1581 Re: Test drove the Forester 2.5XT today [chelentano]
May 13, 2008 (4:23 am)
Forester 0.78g vs Outlander 0.80g ..
Where it counts, around curves, and in the straightaway the Forester would dust the Outlander. You keep posting these videos of Foresters circa 2002 and 2003, Need I remind you of how easy the Outlander 2007 gets stuck in the mud. The larger cargo volume and heavier chassis are amenities I don't need. I already have a real SUV vehicle that I can use for that purpose including towing.
The higher ground clearance and superior engine and drivetrain give the Forester XT a versatility the Outlander can only dream of.
The reason you even have vidoes of previous generation Subarus, is that people have faith in the AWD system. You can't find a video of an Outlander getting stuck, because people weren't stupid enough to drive them into those situations. They knew they would never get them out.