* Server response code: 500
We've had a minor breakdown.
We've had a minor breakdown.
The page you were looking for didn't load. Try refreshing the page, or check out our
Mitsubishi Outlander vs. Subaru Forester
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
#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.
#373 of 1581 Re: Test drove the Forester 2.5XT today [kdshapiro]
May 13, 2008 (7:11 am)
Hmmmmm, so tell me how car magazines calculate the ski pad number? They drive in a straight line??? Reality is that because of Forester rather high ground clearance, even with a "better" AWD I have a feeling this car is more prone to body roll than the Outlander, those are simple laws of physics, you can't do much about it except maybe make the car wider (heavier) which would mean losing some of driving dynamics. Reality is that Mitsubishi has as much experience in making AWD systems as Subaru, take a look at Evo X or Montero/Pajero, you may perceive them worse than Subarus technology but various reviews/tests suggest otherwise. So anyway, I still think there isn't a whole lot of difference between Outlander and new Forester to say either one is so much better than the other.
Engine is not really superior, its a turboed engine, for people who like to floor it constantly I bet the gas mileage is really bad just like in Mazda CX-7, thats the nature of small displacement turbo engines in 3500lbs cars. And whats the point of high ground clearance if you don't have lock differential, low range transfer case, or short overhangs, while Forester would probably be a bit better offroad then the Outlander (which I really doubt as they are equal) it's still not a real offroader.
Drivetrain is definitely not any better than the Outlanders, actually Outlander has a more modern transmission. Large cargo room is the whole point of an SUV/CUV. If you don't have it then where is the UTILITY? Again, you sound like a guy who should rather drive an STI or Evo which is also a better car
#374 of 1581 Re: Test drove the Forester 2.5XT today [blitzkrieg79]
May 13, 2008 (7:49 am)
I have a feeling this car is more prone to body roll than the Outlander, those are simple laws of physics, you can't do much about it except maybe make the car wider (heavier) which would mean losing some of driving dynamics.
The symmetrical AWD and boxer engine makes the center of gravity in the Forester lower. The reality is AWD/4WD have been around for about 100 years, but Subaru includes AWD with every vehicle.
Engine is not really superior, its a turboed engine, for people who like to floor it constantly I bet the gas mileage is really bad just like in Mazda CX-7,
I agree about the gas mileage, but the engine being a horizontally opposed is naturally balanced compared to a V6, and that would make it smoother. If you drive with the Outlander's gas pedal to the metal, what will the gas mileage be?
Drivetrain is definitely not any better than the Outlanders, actually Outlander has a more modern transmission.
More gears is not necessarily better. The Forester XT manages better EPA mileage, better acceleration, better handling (at least the Foresters' handling is not called fragile) with a "supposedly" outdated transmission.
Again, you sound like a guy who should rather drive an STI or Evo which is also a better car
Nobody is saying this is a sports car, but I can stuff the car to the gills and then drive around in a vehicle, that pretends not to be a CUV. The only vehicle in this segment close is the RAV4 V6, but the Forester handles much better. (IMO)