Ask the Car People.SM


Mitsubishi Outlander vs. Subaru Forester

1581 messages,  Last post on May 10, 2010 at 6:35 AM

You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum.

What is this discussion about? Mitsubishi Outlander, Subaru Forester, Car Comparisons, SUV

Messages Page 39 of 159

#372 of 1581 Re: Test drove the Forester 2.5XT today [chelentano] by kdshapiro

May 13, 2008 (4:23 am)

Replying to: chelentano (May 12, 2008 10:25 pm)
Handling:
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] by blitzkrieg79

May 13, 2008 (7:11 am)

Replying to: kdshapiro (May 13, 2008 4:23 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] by kdshapiro

May 13, 2008 (7:49 am)

Replying to: blitzkrieg79 (May 13, 2008 7:11 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)

#375 of 1581 Re: Test drove the Forester 2.5XT today [kdshapiro] by blitzkrieg79

May 13, 2008 (10:17 am)

Replying to: kdshapiro (May 13, 2008 7:49 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.
 
We can go back and forth back and forth and so far all the tests show that Outlander has a slightly better ski pad number so I would say handling is about the same. From most of the reviews I have read so far is that the 4WD Outlander handles better than Rav4/CRV and the only car that seems to handle a bit better is a 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?
 
The mileage in the Outlander will definitely suffer but not to the point of small displacement 4 cylinder turbo engine inside a 3500lbs car. In Europe Mitsubishi released a limited run of 2003-2006 Outlanders with a 4G63T engine, while the performance was great, when the car was really pushed, the weight of the car combined with overworking of the 2.0 liter engine resulted in crappy gas mileage. It's just the way it is. Mazda CX-7 suffers the same with its 2.3T engine, when you drive it all nice and slow, gas mileage is good but when you tap the gas pedal a bit harder you can be sure you are not gonna get the claimed 22MPG (more like 14-15MPG). Huge drop in gas mileage.
 
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.
 
First off, Outlander is a stiffer/heavier car so I would expect the MPG to be lower than on Forester. More gears mean a more efficient drive when properly optimized. Second off, again, turbo engines, when you drive them nice and slow you will get the claimed mileage but once you tap the gas pedal forget the EPA numbers. And again, you can call it fragile and I can call it the best handling CUV maybe except the CX-7. Most reviews agree with me. Anyway, those are CUVs, they will never handle like sports cars.
 
Another thing, you talk about Forester XT, for regular Forester money I can get a base 4WD XLS or a 2007 4WD LS with Sun and Sound (both are approximately $21500 when you do the dealing and wheeling). You can't ignore the pricing aspect of cars.

#376 of 1581 Re: Test drove the Forester 2.5XT today [blitzkrieg79] by kdshapiro

May 13, 2008 (10:59 am)

Replying to: blitzkrieg79 (May 13, 2008 10:17 am)
We can go back and forth back and forth and so far all the tests show that Outlander has a slightly better ski pad number so I would say handling is about the same
 
What about the slalom? Skippad is only dependent on tires and that's it. Acceleration? So while the Outlander may have a slight edge in skidpad, the Forester has a huge edge in acclerlation and overall handling. Nobody every called the Foreseter fragile.
 
The mileage in the Outlander will definitely suffer but not to the point of small displacement 4 cylinder turbo engine inside a 3500lbs car
 
Back here in the US, Forester XT f/e is better than Outlander V6 for the latest model years according to the EPA.
 
Another thing, you talk about Forester XT, for regular Forester money I can get a base 4WD XLS or a 2007 4WD LS with Sun and Sound (both are approximately $21500 when you do the dealing and wheeling). You can't ignore the pricing aspect of cars
 
You can't, I can. I don't shop on features/$. A sub-woofer or blue-tooth will not sell me. If you believe you got the better car for your money, I'm very happy for you. We all should be happy with what we drive.

#377 of 1581 Re: Test drove the Forester 2.5XT today [kdshapiro] by comem47

May 13, 2008 (11:47 am)

Replying to: kdshapiro (May 13, 2008 7:49 am)
at least the Foresters' handling is not called fragile
 
isn't fragile (frah-jill-ay) that fancy Italian word printed on the crate containing
the leg lamp in "A Christmas Story?
 
http://www.redriderleglamps.com/
 
That makes it almost Ferrari -like, a good thing!

#378 of 1581 Re: Test drove the Forester 2.5XT today [kdshapiro] by biscuit_xls

May 13, 2008 (12:23 pm)

Replying to: kdshapiro (May 13, 2008 10:59 am)
I've driven the 2009 Forester 2.XT and the Outlander V6 and there is not a huge difference in acceleration. You can bank everything on one published 0-60 time, but the reality is that the Forester isn't that fast. You'll see when more reviews are published.

#379 of 1581 Replying to several by ateixeira

May 13, 2008 (12:54 pm)

blitzkrieg79 wrote:
 
What makes you think Subaru will get it all right on the first try
 
Nothing - that's why we ordered the proven 4 speed auto.
 
I highly doubt it, the first batch of cars will be guinea pigs
 
That's fair, I actually agree. Subaru will probably share Nissan's supplier, though, so I doubt it'll be truly brand new. Let's see.
 
when CVT is done right it optimizes the engine to its best performance/efficiency at all the speeds
 
Agreed 100%. In theory these are optimal. In practice, well, some of them need some work. Or perhaps it's a matter of the customers getting used to how they operate. Probably both.
 
Big discounts are nice, but keep an eye on resale, especially if you buy a leftover 2007. By fall that will be a 2 year old car with low miles.
 
dodo2 wrote:
 
It's a pretty significant difference between the two numbers for the same car. Which one would you go by?
 
Personally I would use all the data available, so I'd list both times.
 
I get what you're trying to say, though. I just think with such a small sample of data, I really wouldn't toss anything out. If Edmunds got one quick one and one not-as-quick, then maybe the quick one was a ringer. I don't think worn tires would slow a vehicle down that much.
 
You can use the benchmark 0-60 results, and that's fine with that as long as you're consistent and use the same for all vehicles being compared.

#380 of 1581 Two comments... by ateixeira

May 13, 2008 (1:06 pm)

You compared handling for the base Forester (not the XT model) to the V6 Outlander for those skidpad results.
 
Like I said before, MT needs to conduct a full test of the XT model. They only quoted 0-60 times. The rest of the data applied to the non-turbo model they tested.
 
Compare apples to apples, base vs. base, and you get 0.78gs for both, a tie. C&D tested the 4 cylinder Outlander in the Feb 08 issue, and they got 0.78g.
 
You compared towing capacity for the model that favors Mitsubishi. Forester has more standard towing capacity, actually.

#381 of 1581 Anyone remember the Justy? by kurtamaxxxguy

May 13, 2008 (1:20 pm)

This was Subaru's first try at a CVT. They had a lot of problems with that trans and discontinued the vehicle after a very short time.
So even if Subaru came out with another, better, CVT, I would not touch it for at least a year to allow them to work out the inevitable bugs.
 
FYI, Saturn's Ion, in 2003, introduced a 5 speed Auto trans from Aisin. That thing never worked right, and after a few years GM gave up on it and went back to a proven 4 speed also used in the Cobalt. The Ion with 4 speed auto got better mileage and performance than before, _despite_ having one less gear in the trans.
 
The problem with Subie's naturally aspirated Forester engine is, though improved for '09, it just doesn't have that broad a torque curve, and that hurts with only 4 gears. The Turbo does much better, which helps the 4-speed work more efficiently.

Messages Page 39 of 159

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement