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
799 messages, Last post on Nov 23, 2009 at 1:52 PM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
Replying to: blitzkrieg79 (May 13, 2008 9:17 am) 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (May 13, 2008 6:49 am) 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! 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (May 13, 2008 9:59 am) |
|
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 13, 2008 11:54 am) 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. |
|
|
Replying to: biscuit_xls (May 13, 2008 11:23 am) The reality is that the Forester probably isn't all that fast, but the XT is the fastest of the bunch.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 13, 2008 12:06 pm) 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (May 13, 2008 12:37 pm) Go drive the RAV4 V6 and Forester 2.5XT back-to-back and you'll see that the quickest vehicle is the RAV4.
|
|
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
