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
807 messages, Last post on Nov 27, 2009 at 3:47 PM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
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.
|
|
|
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (May 16, 2008 9:33 am) True, but is the straight line or track performance a stand out for a small CUV? For example lowering a small CUV only negates one of its purposes to be higher off the ground in order to get the family through the snow, mud, back roads, etc. I guess Mitsu could easily make a Ralliart version of the Outlander (they showed an "Evolander" concept already - lowered, body kits, making 300hp), but I think they will never do it because it doesn't make business sense. These companies are in the business of making money and Subaru recognized that when they decided to go this route with the new Forester. I bet the sales numbers will show it sooner rather than later.
|
|
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
Today's Chats
