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
911 messages, Last post on Dec 07, 2009 at 8:47 AM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
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small displacement engines inside a 3500lbs CUV are not a good idea in my opinion, that right there along with the outdated 4 speed auto tranny kills the sale for me...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.
|
|
|
Replying to: dodo2 (May 13, 2008 7:09 pm) I do, especially if you put the crappiest tires on the Evo. The .05 difference (see here) between the two represents engineering. But if you cripple the Evo with lousy tires that .05 advantage will vaporize. So just to sum up. I'm in favor of small displacement turbo engines over larger displacement n/a engines. (case in point STI vs IS350, both vehicles use the same engines as the Forester and RAV4). Turbo engines are lighter making for a vehicle lighter on it's feet, more online torque earlier in the curve and performance and same performance at higher altitudes. To me off the line punch is more important than punch at 70 mph. Those who assert the RAV4 may be more potent starting at 70 may be right, but to me it's a non-issue because mashing the gas at zero is what is important. I believe overall EPA F/E goes to the Forester XT for 2009 model.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (May 14, 2008 4:07 am) Well again, different strokes for different folks, in real world driving the 0-60 time is only important on the ramps with a stop sign cuz even with a yield sign in front of you, you are already on a roll and that would favor the Outlander (remember that in V6 Outlander 80% of torque is available at 2000 rpm). Also, to me passing acceleration (again on the roll) is more important than 0-60 standstill time. Thats why there are so many car companies, each car company optimizes cars differently for different purposes, one for gas mileage, one for 0-60 acceleration, one for low end torque, one for passing power etc etc. It's really hard to optimize one engine to be all that. Also, one more thing, I don't know how the mileage of the Forester XT is in real life but I know for a fact that Mazda CX-7 is rated at 16/22 but 14/15 is what we get here in NJ in everyday driving conditions (mixed city/highway driving). I am just using CX-7 as an example of a small displacement turbo engine inside a CUV, I know Outlander Turbo (available in Europe) also had rather crappy mileage compared to estimates. So I am willing to bet that Forester XT may get better mileage than CX-7 just because its a lighter vehicle but unless you will be driving it like a grandma you will probably get much closer to the minimum of EPA ratings rather than maximum. Outlander with V6 engine gets about 22/23MPG in everyday driving conditions according to my experience.
|
|
|
Replying to: blitzkrieg79 (May 14, 2008 5:51 am) Different strokes for different folks as you say. Also, one more thing, I don't know how the mileage of the Forester XT is in real life Define real life. :confuse Only the EPA can perform standardized tests and that is the basis for comparison. Someone might claim they are getting 30mpg in their 2009 Forester, but fails to mention they keep 0 to 60 at more than 15 seconds. Similiarly someone else might claim they get 14 mpg from their 2208 Outlander but fail to mention each and every start is a full throttle acceleration. This is real life and why the EPA tests are probably the best measurement of real world f/e. |
|
|
Replying to: dodo2 (May 13, 2008 6:10 pm) It's a fact (no I don't have any links) that a turbo engine will perform better than an "equivalent" N/A engine in the mountains (real mountains, not foothills). A N/A develops "asthma" at elevation, but a turbo, having forced induction, will happily go about it's business.
|
|
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
