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
845 messages, Last post on Dec 01, 2009 at 4:10 PM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (May 13, 2008 3:23 am) 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 
|
|
|
Replying to: blitzkrieg79 (May 13, 2008 6:11 am) 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)
|
|
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
