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

#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better acceleration, better handling (at least the Foresters' handling is not called fragile) with a "supposedly" outdated transmission.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.

#382 of 1581 Re: Replying to several [ateixeira] by dodo2

May 13, 2008 (1:26 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (May 13, 2008 12:54 pm)
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.
 
Like in any type of racing, the best posted time is the actual indication of the performance. Lower times don't mean anything.
 
And yes, the tires are critical in any type of performance testing.

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

May 13, 2008 (1:37 pm)

Replying to: biscuit_xls (May 13, 2008 12:23 pm)
You can bank everything on one published 0-60 time, but the reality is that the Forester isn't that fast
 
The reality is that the Forester probably isn't all that fast, but the XT is the fastest of the bunch.

#384 of 1581 Re: Two comments... [ateixeira] by dodo2

May 13, 2008 (1:37 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (May 13, 2008 1:06 pm)
You compared towing capacity for the model that favors Mitsubishi. Forester has more standard towing capacity, actually.
 
What about you compare THE MAX towing capacity available for Forester and Outlander (as a product line not specific trim)?
Or another one: I need to tow 2500 lbs. Should I get an Outlander or a Forester (every other criteria being met by both vehicles)?
 
The Forester's "standard" towing capacity is 1000 lbs. vs. 1500 lbs on the Outlander (4-cyl).
If you want to tow more than 1000 lbs with the Forester, you'd better read this discussion:
Forester Towing Capacity
 
Mitsubishi does not require any modifications or trailer brakes to tow 1500 lbs.

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