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
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Feb 13, 2008 11:30 am) -mike Motorsports and Modifications Host |
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Feb 13, 2008 11:30 am) Bob |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Feb 13, 2008 10:37 am) Yea, right! Bashing other manufacturers for “training” purposes. And then o-o-ps: the “traning” video shows up on youtube and who knows where else? Probably on computers screens of those Subaru sales people so they can show it off to car buyers. . >> I guess I don't see a motive for them to rig the test. Motive of car marketing: selling more cars. It’s that simple. . >> Plus, how would they even do that? I can see how they could use a FWD CR-V for it to fail, but not how the Forester could succeed by cheating - you clearly see the rollers and wheels moving. I don’t even want to go there: they’re so many ways to fix the “test”, especially in a movie. . >> That NY Times chart would be nice if it were accurate, but it's riddled with mistakes. Scary that they even published that. Well, when I see two contradicting opinions: one by the independent New York Times and the other one by biased Subaru enthusiast, which opinion do you think I should trust? The article is one of the best I’ve seen about the AWD systems, the guy definitely knows what he is talking about. In order to dismiss his article, you’d have some credentials. It’s also tough to be wrong for NY Times: they can get sued big Times! |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Feb 13, 2008 11:30 am) That’s what I am saying, not every person really qualified to dismiss expert opinion. I guess you probably just don’t know the complete picture. Even the http://wikicars.org/en/Quattro says about Quattro: “up to 100% of torque can be transferred to either axle”. It says it there twice. So the guy from NY Times is right. . >> Chrysler Group minivans don't even offer AWD. How old is that chart? Mama-mia. This 2002 or 2003 article is still newer then that “proof” of yours, which you posted to me in the other thread, which was dated by year 2000 and hosted on some noname site which even could not afford to buy a domain name. And since we primarily talking about the Subaru, the 2002 Subaru info is almost as good even for the year 2014. According to your own words, Subaru’s AWD system in 1998 was the same, as it’s today. [“I owned VC equipped with 5 speed manual, 1998 model. It still uses the same system today”] Anyway, Subaru is little slow on new technologies and on innovation. The brand new 2009 Forester uses same-old-same-old 4-speed auto tranny, which means they going to sell that car with dated AWD and dated tranny probably at least through the year 2014! Also Subaru is coming up this year first time ever with its first diesel engine: welcome to 21 century! . >> Now, let's specifically look at what they say about Subaru's systems. First they list the 5 speed manual, call it 50/50 default and 0/100 max. The 50/50 part is actually correct. The 0/100 is not. …Next, the Active AWD system, found on the low-price automatic models. They say 90/10 default (which is correct) up to 50/50 max, which is incorrect. If the front axle was getting 50% of the power or more, the front wheels would have spun like crazy on that ramp. Remember it didn't spin at all. So the front axle was getting 0 power. It should be 100/0 to 0/100. The NY Times guy is probably right again. In his other article “Introduction to All Wheel Drive systems” he actually calls this auto transmission Subaru’s AWD system “part time”: “Subaru has for many years been quietly offering radically different AWD systems in the same car, depending on the transmission choice. The manual transmission Legacies and Imprezas use a full time system that is split 50-50 with viscous couplings for limiting slip. In the automatic transmission versions, however, the system is a part time”. I mean really: 10% of rear axel torque you can barely call full-time. Is it really even 10% or he just rounded the number? I’d call that a fake full-time AWD. Again, there is too much marketing from Subaru, too little technology.
|
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Feb 14, 2008 3:16 pm) -mike Motorsports and Modifications Host
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: paisan (Feb 14, 2008 5:04 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Feb 15, 2008 7:38 am)  -mike Motorsports and Modifications Host
|
|
|
Replying to: paisan (Feb 15, 2008 5:08 pm) That's the granddaddy Wikipedia started by individual volunteer contributors Nature is talking about, not the wikicars thing that was started by Internet Brands to tout their own material. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now since the 2009 Forester is available for sale, let's look at the features and specs comparo for both SUVs. Common features are not mentioned. Blue color indicates data for the 4 cylinder Outlander SE (Special Edition), which is mostly identical to XLS, except for engine and transmission. The Outlander SE would be a counterpart to the Forester LL Bean, I guess. Correct me, if something is not accurate, but the Outlander appears to be a much better deal. 
|
|
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
