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: 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: comem47 (May 16, 2008 8:36 am) Helping to prevent tire spins seems like a real useful safety feature to me. How did we get along without seatbelts, crumple zones, air bags, hid headlights. We did, but i wouldn't want to drive a car without them. 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. This is the age old arguement for people who don't understand drivetrains. Since AWD does not help on ice, it must be useless.
|
|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (May 16, 2008 9:01 am) Nobody said the AWD is useless, just that there are certain conditions when it doesn't have any value and can be disabled for added (hence marginal) fuel economy. Again, the Outlander's AWD setup would satisfy different people with different views. One can drive the in 4WD all the time and one could drive in 2WD at times. Do you get the point? |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: dodo2 (May 16, 2008 9:00 am) I don't particularly disagree with anything you posted. Exept that I was responding to claims that the Forester's tranny was 'fragile'. Not the case. So I gave examples of how it could be modded. Then I was questioned on the ability to mod it, which I think I've shown it can be. So this really took a downward slightly off-topic spiral away from the stock-stock comparison of the vehicles. However, I look at a turbo-swap on a Subaru like changing a tire. Same goes for springs. It should be said that nobody has to settle for stock. If my idea of a perfect vehicle is a 'Forester STI', they unfortunately make them only in Japan, so here we have to replicate them. That being said, I agree I'm not enamoured by the stock FXT. It comes out of the box needing improvement, and will always lack the manual option. I judge a vehicle on potential, because no factory to my knowledge has ever given me what it takes to be satisfied. >>>>Grease Monkey<<<<
|
|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (May 16, 2008 8:34 am) This doesn't sound stellar either after all the claims made here about the superior handling of the 2009 Forester XT (without even driving the car around the block, never mind on the track). "The Forester teeters on the brink of ESP all the way around the skid pad; in fact, the brakes got quite warm from it. That said, it felt tippy but freakishly neutral. Modulating the throttle did strange things to the steady arc of the skid pad, requiring more steering input than I'd prefer. In the slalom there's a noticeable steering delay and gain once the car rolls. Just as it starts to get fun, however, the ESP grabs the front brake aggressively." Let's see your spin KD.  Plus, this is what the Edmunds's editors have said about the Outlander's handling: "Respectably quick in the slalom for crossover/compact SUV. Stable and predictable and well behaved. Much better speed than grip and center of gravity would indicate." Is your excerpt from a different publication? Both Edmunds reviews were written by the same editor (Kelly Toepke) so we have the same person's view on both cars. |
|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (May 16, 2008 9:01 am) AWD is far from useless and surely I would be using it in winter. But it is hardly a requirement on dry roads. (ASC is still available without 4WD, BTW) I get the feeling though, that a lot of people feel the car is going to drive itself because of all the modern refinements. Witness all the SUV owners you find in a ditch in snowstorms that probably were puffing out their chests minutes before feeling superior with AWD or 4WD. The human brain can do wonderful things if you listen to it. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 16, 2008 7:28 am) 6.8 seconds for the 2.5XT, 8.2 seconds for the Outlander V6. And the Outlander has been rated at 7.1 by other reviewers, so the difference is not a lot. The transmissions also make a difference in the feeling, my Outlander 6 speed is always in the right gear. The Subaru only has 4 speeds so it has to hold the gear longer and it bogs down more when it shifts. During a full speed 0-60 run that is not as noticeable, but in everyday driving you will definitely notice it. I've had my Outlander for more than a year, so I know how it feels. When I test drove the 2009 Forester 2.5XT it didn't feel that quick. The RAV4 V6 definitely feels faster to me. |
|
|
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (May 16, 2008 9:11 am) I cannot say anything about being fragile, but being a 4-speed A/T, as good as it would be, it's just out of sync with the times. Not a good thing for a newly designed vehicle. Would you still consider a 2009 Forester "STi" (modded) in the new body style? Just out of curiosity as many were saying that the new design would alienate the old Forester enthusiast base.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: kdshapiro (May 16, 2008 8:28 am) Also quicker than the RAV4. 6.8 for the Forester 2.5XT 6.8 for the RAV4 V6 How is that quicker?
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: dodo2 (May 16, 2008 9:26 am) Lowering springs and a more squared-off front lip would make a world of difference, IMHO. I was dismayed when they didn't make it look like this: front (ignore the JDM sideview mirror) side If I could find the body kit to take it back more to a 'boxy' look, I'd be more inclined to upgrade. The differences are subtle, but necessary, IMHO. Indeed, the 2009 FXT looks like any other small CUV. It isn't set apart. Not that I'm saying the Outlander is. The Forester is still the only small CUV with even the quick potential to stand out and be something exciting.
|
|
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
