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
839 messages, Last post on Dec 01, 2009 at 7:48 AM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
|
|---|---|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (May 12, 2008 6:39 am) Subaru performance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tMgWtlxeb8&NR=1 http://youtube.com/watch?v=g6H3IOtE6Q8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guTQWkpPFa4 Handling: Forester 0.78g vs Outlander 0.80g Drivetrain: Recalled turbo and the 4-speed tranny suppose to be that great? Utlity: Outlander has larger EPA volume and higher tow capacity Versatility: 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (May 12, 2008 9:25 pm) 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.
|
|
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
