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
803 messages, Last post on Nov 25, 2009 at 8:34 AM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (May 13, 2008 12:37 pm) The power to weight ratio favors the V6 RAV4 so I wouldn't be surprised that in real world RAV4 is a faster vehicle and 0-60 time only obviously shows 0-60 acceleration which doesn't mean it would be faster around a lap. I bet the RAV4 would pull away from Forester at higher speeds simply due to larger displacement. Turbo engines are great for quick spurts/0-60 acceleration but at higher speeds I would rather have more displacement. 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. No one called Forester fragile because all I have seen so far are maybe two reviews. Besides, the so called fragile Outlander SE was the 2.4l version, I would never buy such a large car with such a little engine. Skidpad is not only dependent on tires, tires do help but it also depends on the weight distribution, chassis balance/stiffness of the car, and wheel control systems. Also, I wouldn't say that Forester has a better acceleration, from what I know the Outlanders V6 engine is optimized for highway use, once you get the car going it is as fast as the RAV4 which is saying a lot, read MotorTrend or Car And Driver reviews of the V6 Outlander and you will see what I am talking about. From a stand still, Forester XT will have a faster 0-60 time due to the favorable power to weight ratio but from a roll I doubt it would be faster than Outlander especially at speeds above 70MPH. Thats when the extra displacement helps. |
|
|
Replying to: biscuit_xls (May 13, 2008 2:04 pm) Your "butt dynometer" is not a real substitute for real measurements. |
|
|
Replying to: blitzkrieg79 (May 13, 2008 5:47 pm)  Regardless, now you have it: somebody called the Forester fragile. Are you going to get over it and look for more substantial arguments? If you'll ever drive an Outlander, you'll have the chance to see for yourself that the car feels just. Those writers, often use all sort of metaphors that have nothing to do with the reality. Like the old saying goes, "there is no replacement for displacement".  This is even more obvious for this type of vehicle. A 4-cylinder engine, turbo or not just doesn't cut it. Sure, it's fine to go around town, but if you load the car with your family and gear and go up to the mountains or tow something, you'll feel the difference. Your 0-60 mph performance it's not going to help much in those situations.
|
|
|
Replying to: blitzkrieg79 (May 13, 2008 5:47 pm) Tell that to Nissan who built the GT-R, faster than a Vette with much less displacement. The Vette will surely pull away from the GT-R at hyper-extra legal speeds, but the GT-R at this moment is fastest production car built. (Note: not the one with highest speed, though) Skidpad is not only dependent on tires, tires do help but it also depends on the weight distribution, I disagree, skip pad is almost entirely dependent on tire grip and patch contact. By definition, you drive the thing around in a circle until it can't hold the road. A better test is the slalom, which challenges the cars tires, engine, drivetrain and weight distribution. From a stand still, Forester XT will have a faster 0-60 time due to the favorable power to weight ratio but from a roll I doubt it would be faster than Outlander especially at speeds above 70MPH. Thats when the extra displacement helps. See above comment on GT-R vs Vette. |
|
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
