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
909 messages, Last post on Dec 05, 2009 at 5:20 AM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
|
|---|---|
|
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. |
|
|
Replying to: dodo2 (May 13, 2008 6:10 pm) Like the old saying goes, "there is no replacement for displacement". See my comment on the GT-R. 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (May 13, 2008 6:15 pm) As far as I know Bugatti Veyron is the fastest production car ever built (don't bring the Nurgburgring laps please). But anyway, why do you bring up supercars in SUV/CUV category??? What makes GT-R a better track car is not as much the engine (but it is a very powerful beast) but the ATTESA AWD system which helps GT-R to stick to the ground like glue, power to weight ratio favors Corvette and while GTRs engine power is underrated, its AWD system is the game changer. Besides, Corvettes larger displacement engine is actually LIGHTER than the Nissans 3.8l twin turbo. Corvette loses a lot of ground because of rather inferior handling to GT-R. 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 and weight distribution. Well then, you are saying that Chevy Aveo outfitted with Evo X tires will have the same skidpad result as Evo X????? Like I said, good tires do improve skidpad numbers but they are far from everything. Skidpad gives an approximation of cars handling abilities. Your "butt dynometer" is not a real substitute for real measurements. Again, power to weight ratio favors RAV4, car performance has a lot of science in it. It really isn't difficult to predict potential numbers. And again, small displacement engines inside a 3500lbs CUV are not a good idea in my opinion, that right there along with the outdated 4 speed auto tranny kills the sale for me...
|
|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (May 13, 2008 6:15 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (May 13, 2008 6:15 pm) Different type of cars for different applications. |
|
|
Replying to: blitzkrieg79 (May 13, 2008 6:31 pm) You made a point about the turbo, and I was refuting your assertion with a specific example of large displacement 6.2 supercharged engine vs the 3.8 in the GT-R. And yes there are other factors as well. Well then, you are saying that Chevy Aveo outfitted with Evo X tires will have the same skidpad result as Evo X????? No, I'm saying an EVO X fitted with crappy Chevy Aveo tires against an EVO X fitted with sticky high performance tires will lose. The tires are the biggest factor with vehicles of a similiar class. Again, power to weight ratio favors RAV4, car performance has a lot of science in it But the fact the Forester XT develops most of the torque, low in the power band favors off-the-line accleration and enables the Forester to keep the lead. The Foresters red-line is fairly high as well at 7K. By the time both cars hit 130 they may be even, but I have no desire to drive either of these vehicles at that speed. The XT develops max torque at about 3500 or so until redline. This should give the XT the advantage up to a point where one doesn't (except for those with a death wish)care to go any faster.
|
|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (May 13, 2008 6:48 pm) The tires are a big factor when comparing two identical cars. However, they are only one of many factors when comparing different cars, from the same class. Take for example the Evo and STi (still Mitsubishi vs. Subaru). Do you think that by putting the best performance tires on the STi vs. the crapiest performance tires on the Evo, the STi will fully compensate for 0.10g difference on the skidpad? I don't think so.
|
|
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
