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 6 of 159

#46 of 1581 Re: 2009 vs. 2008 [steve_] by chelentano

Apr 11, 2008 (9:49 pm)

Replying to: steve_ (Apr 11, 2008 9:19 pm)
>> It depends on what incentives you mean. TMV takes into account any current manufacturer-to-dealer incentives for the vehicle.
 
Edmunds TMV is not quite accurate for Mitsubishi cars. Edmunds TMV is above invoice, but if you read "Prices Paid" forum, everyone gets the Outlander below invoice. $28K below invoice price is possible exactly because of dealer incentives from Mitsubishi, which lack transparency and not publicized. Consumer incentives take price even lower. Most people don't get consumer incentives picking a low financing instead. Additional consumer incentives such as student, veteran or loyalty $500 rebates each are also available. So you can get this car stuffed with technology and 5/10 warranty for quite cheap. I'd say it's the best deal in any car segment.
 
>> Just curious, how do you check your oil without raising your hood?
 
I don't! As I mentioned in my post, my mechanic checks my oil
Why should I? While they change my oil, they do that free 20-point inspection, tire pressure, etc. And if I get a flat tire I have free road side assistance from Mitsubishi.
Also if I get low oil level, I'd get the Oil Warning signal on my multi-information display, so no manual oil check is really needed by consumer.

#47 of 1581 Re: 2009 vs. 2008 [chelentano] by steve_ HOST

Apr 11, 2008 (10:26 pm)

Replying to: chelentano (Apr 11, 2008 9:49 pm)
Old habit I guess - I usually check my oil every time I fill up with gas.
 
I think TMV is accurate. Remember, it's reporting what people are paying for a car in your area.
 
People who participate on the forums here are more car savvy and informed than the typical buyer, so naturally they tend to beat TMV.

#48 of 1581 Re: 2009 vs. 2008 [steve_] by chelentano

Apr 11, 2008 (10:31 pm)

Replying to: steve_ (Apr 11, 2008 10:26 pm)
>> I think TMV is accurate. Remember, it's reporting what people are paying for a car in your area.
 
You might be right.
  
>> People who participate on the forums here are more car savvy and informed than the typical buyer, so naturally they tend to beat TMV.
 
So it pays to visit these forums :--)

#49 of 1581 Re: 2009 vs. 2008 [ateixeira] by chelentano

Apr 11, 2008 (11:24 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (Apr 10, 2008 6:48 am)
The chart is updated, including your corrections and comments.
 
Forester got credit for more torque, bigger tank, wiper dicer, sunroof, standard heated seats, and standard leather. Also mentioned shiftable transmission, hood struts, and perforated leather. Hill Assist feature is not added, since this turbo model is not equipped with it.

#50 of 1581 Re: 2009 vs. 2008 [chelentano] by tidester

Apr 12, 2008 (12:42 am)

Replying to: chelentano (Apr 11, 2008 10:31 pm)
So it pays to visit these forums :--)
 
Indeed, it does.
 
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper

#51 of 1581 Re: Features and Specs [chelentano] by h2k2f2

Apr 12, 2008 (6:32 am)

Replying to: chelentano (Apr 11, 2008 9:09 pm)
The notion that turbos are less reliable is more urban legend today than anything else. And yes, I am aware of the rumor mill frenzy that is going on with the 2.5 liter Subaru turbos.
 
"Surprise is, when you can get a combination of high power, low gas mileage and low emissions. The Outlander is attempted as balanced power/emissions/milage car. It has smooth regular gasoline V6 engine, which deliver appropriate power, but low emissions and reasonable for full-time AWD milage."
 
What's funny is that the Subaru Forester XT with its turbo seems to do a better job of meeting that sweet combination of high power, low mlieage, and low emissions. It produces higher power and makes more efficient use of it (due in part to the Forester's lower weight). It has better fuel efficiency than the Outlander and meets the same emissions standards (both LEV II with PZEV models available for sale in some states). It looks like Mitsubishi needs to go back to work on its V6.

#52 of 1581 Re: Features and Specs [h2k2f2] by comem47

Apr 12, 2008 (7:11 am)

Replying to: h2k2f2 (Apr 12, 2008 6:32 am)
To Subaru's credit they have redesigned the turbo to come in at lower rpms and be more seemless. (Turbos can be peaky). The main negative is the price (I was off on my estimate and premium locally is about 30 cents more per gallon, not just 10cents)
 
For closely the same fuel economy (albeit a bit less power) I'd rather be spending $3.30 a gal than $3.60 (net effect of the turbo being less $fuel efficient in this case). In the example above for a 15 gal fill-up the regular gas car will cost $49.50 to the premium gas car $54.

#53 of 1581 Re: Features and Specs [h2k2f2] by chelentano

Apr 12, 2008 (9:35 am)

Replying to: h2k2f2 (Apr 12, 2008 6:32 am)
>> It produces higher power
 
This higher torgue of turbo engine gets you a better acceleration, but Forester has lower payload/tow load specs. Exactly the same story with Mazda CX-7 turbo.
.
 
>> It produces higher power and makes more efficient use of it (due in part to the Forester's lower weight).
 
The lower weight is one factor in the Forester's decent gas mileage. Another one is 90/10 AWD split: in normal driving conditions Forester is practically a 2WD car. Subaru realized that they could not meet these mileage/emission targets with a full-time 50/50 split, so they had to cut corners to achieve that gas mileage and emission standards.
 
The Outlander on the other hand meets these targets with 60/40 full-time split. And it has much better payload/tow specs.

#54 of 1581 Re: Features and Specs [chelentano] by h2k2f2

Apr 12, 2008 (9:50 am)

Replying to: chelentano (Apr 12, 2008 9:35 am)
For some of us, towing is a non-issue. Also the Forester's torque split is not held to 90:10 and is proactively adjusted as needed. So, your claimed advantages aren't selling points for me. Overall, for me, the XT still wins in the powertrain department over the Outlander V6.

#55 of 1581 Re: Features and Specs [h2k2f2] by chelentano

Apr 12, 2008 (10:25 am)

Replying to: h2k2f2 (Apr 12, 2008 9:50 am)
>> For some of us, towing is a non-issue.
 
It's not only towing, it's regular payload also. We are not driving raodster, we are driving utility vehicle here, so payload is important to many.
.
 
>> Also the Forester's torque split is not held to 90:10 and is proactively adjusted as needed.
 
It adjusted only if slippage occurs. Otherwise it's practically a 2WD car. And government EPA testing is done in a lab, so there is no much slipping.
.
 
>> Overall, for me, the XT still wins in the powertrain department over the Outlander V6.
 
Right, XT's superior powertrain comes with engine problems, nearly part-tme AWD and antiquated 4-speed Auto.

Messages Page 6 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