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
804 messages, Last post on Nov 26, 2009 at 11:55 AM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
Replying to: rcpax (May 16, 2008 6:32 am) I think Dave (dcm) nailed it when he said this is what turning off AWD equates to. You might as well just save thousands and buy a FWD Outlander and carry low-profile chains for the tires when you really need it. I find it a bit absurd that biscuit says the XT does not feel quick, especially after Edmunds' XT reached 60mph a full 2+ seconds sooner than the V6 Outlander. The XT is absurdly quick, are you kidding? The slowest XT tested is quicker than the quickest Outlander V6 tested. Individual tastes may prefer the boost of a turbo engine, or a linear V6, but there's no doubt which one is quicker. |
|
|
It was a rumor back then, but it's been confirmed since and reported on sites like Automotive News time and time again. Like I said, Google it, you'll get tons of hits. Toyota will indeed use this platform to build their next sports car. |
|
|
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (May 16, 2008 4:45 am) I don't, but some do. The bottom line is that the Outlander owners have the OPTION to do it easily, the Forester owners don't. It’s not a very big deal, just worth noting rather then discarding just because one is a Subaru fan and the Forester does not have this option. In fact most 4-cylinder SUV buyers are looking for fuel economy (why would they buy a 4-cylinder CUV in the first place) so anything that would take them one step further, aside from other common means, should be noted. The Outlander is a boring old small SUV. The Outlander is a 3 years old vehicle and it was fully redesigned at that time - platform, engine, tranny, body, interior, with no major components carried over from the previous models. You cannot really say the same about the 2009 Forester, as its powertrain is only an update of the previous generation. Boring: You can call the Outlander “boring” all you want, but you are in a negligible minority.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: dodo2 (May 16, 2008 7:46 am) I am not a 'Subaru fan'. I appreciate many makes and models. I objectively know the benefits of full-time AWD, and the superiority of a turbo-4 to an NA-6. So the Outlander doesn't have anything I would like or even recommend. Actually I think anyone who finds the Outlander exciting is of a negligable minority. Except on this forum. PS. All 5 of my friends with NA Suby's average around 25-27mpg year round. And they all live in urban areas. EPA is useless from my experience. PPS. Also, everyone who has modified their turbo version has reported a 1-3mpg improvement on average. Why? Free-flowing exhaust on a turbo car is helpful in a number of ways.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 16, 2008 7:28 am) No. There is no benefit from switching off the ABS, and no car does that. Certain systems make sense to be switched off safetly, other don't. You don't switch off the air bags either.  Going with your theory that driving a FWD car is unsafe it means that tens of millions of people are drving unsafe cars. Strange theory. Can you ask these two questions? 1. Is the 2009 Forester's VDC a safety system? 2. Can you switch it off? I find it a bit absurd that biscuit says the XT does not feel quick, especially after Edmunds' XT reached 60mph a full 2+ seconds sooner than the V6 Outlander. Edmunds 2007 Outlander XLS Full-Test Edmunds 2009 Forester XT Full-Test 0-60 mph time difference: 8.2-6.8=1.4 sec. From comparing the handling numbers side by side, it seems like the Outlander is doing better than the Forester. Read "Handling" comments as well. The Forester is doing better in the acceleration and braking. |
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 16, 2008 7:28 am) Also quicker than the RAV4.
|
|
|
Replying to: dodo2 (May 16, 2008 8:25 am) While both of these are not sports cars, this does not sound like very positive feedback.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 16, 2008 7:28 am) I think Dave (dcm) nailed it when he said this is what turning off AWD equates to. You might as well just save thousands and buy a FWD Outlander and carry low-profile chains for the tires when you really need it. Oh I see. All FWD cars are inherently unsafe. ...NOT AWD is a traction enhancing device and turning it off returns the vehicle to FWD. Hardly equivalent to defeating ABS. Oh how did we ever drive these unsafe vehicles before AWD came along? And yes I've seen an ABS switch in a race car (driver option, with skill) I've been driving cars long enough to have gone though all sorts of power train configurations. It's called learning to drive (and not overdrive) with what you have. Guess what, all vehicles are toast on glare ice and if you are stupid enough to be flying along driving over your head thinking my superbrain car is going to save my butt (and compensate for my poor judgment)you're in for a surprise someday.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: dodo2 (May 16, 2008 8:25 am) Massive overinterpretation. There's a difference between 'unsafe' and 'more safe.' full time AWD has better accident avoidance potential if utilized properly. Don't patronize. Oh I see. All FWD cars are inherently unsafe. ...NOT Another example of lack of comprehension. It actually is like turning off ABS. There are some cars that get along just fine without standard 4-wheel ABS. And if I had to rate the safety advantage of 4-wheel ABS vs. AWD, they'd rank about the same. Its all additional safety. Wheras none of these cars might be considered generally 'unsafe', some are 'safer' than others. |
|
|
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (May 16, 2008 8:19 am) Yes, but it doesn't bring anything inovative to set it apart. I'm not saying this in a negative way by any means. However, when the Outlander first came out it brought some new things to the segment (some are still unique). Most likely this doesn't matter to you as it seems like your focus is high performance only. However, this segment in general has a different focus. Subaru decided to follow the market and departed the raised station wagon approach for the compact SUV approach (good move IMO). I am not a 'Subaru fan'. I appreciate many makes and models Same here, including Subaru. However, here I'm strictly talking about the stock 2009 Forester, not Subaru vehicles in general and their abilities to be tuned for high performance. I objectively know the benefits of full-time AWD, and the superiority of a turbo-4 to an NA-6. So the Outlander doesn't have anything I would like or even recommend. Here we have different preferences. I prefer a NA V6 to a Turbo 4 in this application (compact SUV). I'd take a Turbo 4 in a different application though. I would recommend both the Outlander and the Forester as they both serve the purpose they are designed for very well. The BTW, the Outlander 4WD has a full-time 4WD as well. In terms of the powertrain offerings however, the Forester has a Turbo (with its benefits and shortcomings), the Outlander has a V6 (again with this benefits and shortcomings). It's a matter of personal preference and none of them is better than the other for everyone. Comparing them in terms of powertrains is like comparing apples to oranges, but it's still interesting if you are open minded. Actually I think anyone who finds the Outlander exciting is of a negligible minority. Except on this forum. Read every single Outlander review and you'll see that a common "like" for the Outlander is its design (in and out). No review (that I have seen anyway) called it "boring"; not even the ones that gave it not so favorable review (they mostly pick on the interior fit and finish, which is partially correct). If everything else that’s not a Turbo 4 300HP+ is boring for you, than yes, you could call it “boring”, but you are looking at the wrong segment for that. All 5 of my friends with NA Suby's average around 25-27mpg year round. And they all live in urban areas. EPA is useless from my experience. I too average above the EPA numbers in the Outlander, but for the sake of comparison, EPA is what most people go by as a reference.
|
|
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
