Ask the Car People.SM


Mitsubishi Outlander vs. Subaru Forester

1581 messages,  Last post on May 10, 2010 at 6:35 AM

You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum.

What is this discussion about? Mitsubishi Outlander, Subaru Forester, Car Comparisons, SUV

Messages Page 43 of 159

#413 of 1581 Re: Angles of approach/departure [ateixeira] by blitzkrieg79

May 14, 2008 (10:25 am)

Replying to: ateixeira (May 14, 2008 9:18 am)
I looked these up for the AWD/4WD thread, but they are relevant since we seem to be comparing everything under the sun:
  
Angle of approach: Forester 24.8 degrees, Outlander 21 degrees
Angle of departure: Forester 24.8 degrees, Outlander 18 degrees
  
The concern here would be the Outlander's angle of departure. You may get the front bumper past an obstacle, but it might get hung up on the rear bumper.
 
As I mentioned in my earlier post, I would expect the 2009 Forester to be a better engineered car simply because it's a 3 years younger design than the Outlander which came out in Japan in 2006. If Subaru wouldn't balance the car to the newest standards then they would have a big problem. I also expect the 2012/2013 Outlander to be a better balanced car than 2009 Forester, thats the nature of business.
 
As far as Approach/Departure angles are concerned, it's meaningless. Those are not real offroaders. 24.8 degree approach/departure angle is pretty much below average for an offroader anyway, cars such as Mitsubishi Montero, Jeep Wrangler, or Land Rover LR3 have approach angles of 35-40 degrees, where Hummer H1 has over 60 degrees. Outlander and Forester are good to drive by some small stream (not too deep river), drive on the beach, or play around in some mud, but I would never dare to go rock climbing or drive into some real steep angles with either two.
 
Reality is that Forester and Outlander are two rather evenly matched cars and it all comes down to brand perception, aesthetic/ergonomic preferences, and price.

#414 of 1581 Re: Two comments... [rcpax] by rsholland

May 14, 2008 (10:34 am)

Replying to: rcpax (May 14, 2008 9:41 am)
That's good to know—and I am surprised. Thanks.
 
On another note... and going by that image posted, the Forester can carry either 165 or 175 pounds on the roof (I think it's been increased to 175 for the '09 Forester), whereas the Outlander can only carry 110 pounds. So, you can continue with this silly "mine-is-better-than-yours" discussion.
 
Bob

#415 of 1581 Re: Two comments... [rsholland] by ateixeira

May 14, 2008 (10:45 am)

Replying to: rsholland (May 14, 2008 10:34 am)
I guess with that 2500 lbs trailer I'll take 100 lbs out of it and load it on the roof, then.
 
This discussion should be renamed "V6 Outlander vs. Forester XT", though, because those are the models everyone seems to refer to.
 
Has anyone besides me even driven a 4 cylinder CVT Outlander?
 
Seriously.
 
I was shopping the base 4 bangers. Maybe I need my own thread: "Outlander vs. Forester for people who are aware of the price of oil".

#416 of 1581 Re: Two comments... [dodo2] by ateixeira

May 14, 2008 (10:54 am)

Replying to: dodo2 (May 13, 2008 1:37 pm)
OK, I read up on that thread about the guy trying to find trailer brakes.
 
You'd have the same problem with your 2500 lb trailer, though. So what's your point?
 
The Forester is pre-wired for towing, but the factory harness uses a 4-pin connector. Does the Outlander have a 7-pin connector?
 
This is what I mean:
 

 
If so it would be a little bit easier, but he would still need electric trailer brakes, a controller inside the car, etc.

#417 of 1581 Re: Angles of approach/departure [blitzkrieg79] by kdshapiro

May 14, 2008 (10:59 am)

Replying to: blitzkrieg79 (May 14, 2008 10:25 am)
Reality is that Forester and Outlander are two rather evenly matched cars and it all comes down to brand perception, aesthetic/ergonomic preferences, and price.
 
At the 50,000 foot level all cars in this segment are basically the same. When it comes down to the details there are huge differences, which is what this discussion is about. It also comes down to how you want to spend your money.
 
Towing is meaningless to me as I have a real vehicle to do the towing, but departure angles are useful information for those who may take their vehicle off the paved surface just might need the even departure angles the Forester has.

#418 of 1581 Re: Angles of approach/departure [kdshapiro] by piast

May 14, 2008 (11:31 am)

Replying to: kdshapiro (May 14, 2008 10:59 am)
This discussion will never end. There are a few enthusiasts of a 4cyl turbo engines, and nobody will convince them, there are better choices for SUV/CUV type vehicles. This discussion should move to XT vs. CX7 vs. RDX forum. There you can compare apples to apples. Here, we should concentrate on Forester and Outlander with a base engine. For the majority of people your 0-60 sprint is not that important. Just look at statistics, combine sales of all CUV with turbo engine, and compare it to sales of Honda CRV alone. Most people will say no to premium fuel, complex turbo engine or expense of permanent AWD. Subaru strength used to be standard AWD in all of its cars. In a CUV/SUV segment it is not an advantage any more- every make and model can be AWD/4WD, plus many are better off road, most will have more cargo capacity or towing capacity. Add to this (subjective) not so great styling, and lack of drive train choices. Is this a reason, why Subaru is looking at Toyota parts bin?

#419 of 1581 Re: Angles of approach/departure [piast] by kdshapiro

May 14, 2008 (12:12 pm)

Replying to: piast (May 14, 2008 11:31 am)
There are a few enthusiasts of a 4cyl turbo engines, and nobody will convince them, there are better choices for SUV/CUV type vehicles.
 
Better according to who? To me the RAV4 is not better, neither is the Outlander, neither is the RDX (too expensive for what it is), CRV (underpowered)..etc. Better is in the eyes of the beholder. I do agree this is a never ending theoretical discussion.
 
As far as AWD systems and drive systems, they are not created equally and Subaru has a reputation for going where a CRV can't. For some this may make a difference, for others not.
 
plus many are better off road, most will have more cargo capacity or towing capacity
 
Which ones are better off-road? Those that are better off-road are worse on-road. More towing, great, take it. Bigger cargo area, fine, you can have it. No other vehicle in this segment can match the overall prowess of the XT, which was important to me.
 
I do agree, previous to 2009 Foresters were ugly, you know what. I didn't care. High end gadgetry in the cabin was never Subarus strong point and frankly I'm not a fan of it either. Lack of drivetrain choices, if AWD wasn't important on the Outlander there wouldn't be such a huge debate. So criticizing Subaru for lack of drive train choices and then beating the details of AWD operations for these two vehicles to death is laughable.
 
If you want to start a separate topic for Outlander 4 cylinder vs Forester 4 cylinder, please feel free to do so.

#420 of 1581 Re: Two comments... [ateixeira] by dodo2

May 14, 2008 (12:14 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (May 14, 2008 10:54 am)
You'd have the same problem with your 2500 lb trailer, though. So what's your point?
 
How do you know I'd have the same problem? FWIW, I can find out by asking the Outlander owners who installed the tow hitch and towed trailers - I think there few of them on the Outlander forums.
 
If so it would be a little bit easier, but he would still need electric trailer brakes, a controller inside the car, etc.
 
Again, how do you know you need a controller inside the car? Have you really researched the Outlander in this respect, or you just assume .... or just because the Forester needs one the Outlander automatically needs one too.

#421 of 1581 Re: Two comments... [rsholland] by steve_ HOST

May 14, 2008 (12:22 pm)

Replying to: rsholland (May 14, 2008 10:34 am)
Roof load capacity is sort of important to some of us. My canoes range from around 65 to 80+ pounds, and my racks are set up to carry three at once. Plus a couple of kayaks hanging on ...
 
And you got nervous driving behind utility trailers - I do tie my boats on very securely.

#422 of 1581 Re: Two comments... [ateixeira] by dodo2

May 14, 2008 (12:25 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (May 14, 2008 10:45 am)
I guess with that 2500 lbs trailer I'll take 100 lbs out of it and load it on the roof, then.
 
LOL.... You are funny! Are you going to chop off you horse, boat, ATVs, snowmobile, bike, furniture, or other heavy or bulky items you may need to tow in ONE piece and put the balance on your roof ?....
 
What are you going to do with your Forester if you have to tow 3000 lbs.?
 
Seriously, jut give it up and accept that if you need to tow more than 2400 lbs you need a different vehicle that can do the job. The Outlander is only one out of many. The Forester is a great vehicle, but it just can be everything and it's not the only one that can do what it can do.

Messages Page 43 of 159

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement