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
661 messages, Last post on Nov 10, 2009 at 9:33 AM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
|
|---|---|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: dodo2 (May 16, 2008 10:11 am) 1) I know at least a dozen people in my area alone that have upgraded their Foresters. They're constantly bitchin' that there is no Forester STI like there is in Japan. What Subaru knows, as the video has shown, they would be creating competition from within their own brand. Americans are too loyal to brands. The only person who's going to buy an FSTI is someone who otherwise would have bought either an STI or FXT. 2) The ground clearance of any Suby is superior to many of the 4x4 vehicles with live axles and exposed differentials. The 2009 FXT is a full inch higher off the ground than before. For what purpose? Who's logging with the FXT? We know from rallying that anything STI height or above is adequate for snow, mud, gravel. Lower it 2", and you go back to the maximum useful height for a CUV, in my opinion, plus you'd drastically reduce body roll, which seems to be the Achiles heel of this vehicle, which in turn causes the ESP to intervene. 3) They don't need to go full Evolander. In particular I think the EVO's turbo-4 could do equivalent or better power and better economy than an NA-V6 if Mitsu were so inclined. |
|
|
Replying to: bigmclargehuge (May 16, 2008 10:30 am) I don't know, apparently Subaru owners do as Subaru underlines its "off-road" capability as strength and the Subaru fans here seem to promote the idea (see the passionate posts about the fraction of an inch advantage as well as the approach/departure angle posts). Having said that, I think having decent ground clearance on a CUV like the Outlander and Forester is great. Last winter I easily plowed through a feet of snow maybe more, in more than one occasion (lazy to shovel the driveway). I wouldn't try that with my car. To me, the Forester (2009) and the Outlander ground clearance (very similar) would be a selling point versus the ground clearance in the RAV4 and CRV. We indeed disagree here, but that's fine. It would be interesting to see, percentage wise, how many XTs Subaru sold for the previous generation. My bet is that it was around 10-15% perhaps. I think the only reason Subaru still included the XT model in their US lineup was not because they sold well, but because they didn't want to completely upset their fan base. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: dodo2 (May 16, 2008 10:45 am) As it stands, going mainstream means giving away whatever percentage their niche market was away to the competition. |
|
|
Replying to: dodo2 (May 16, 2008 10:45 am) Not sure about all XT's, but IIRC, only 3% of Forester sales were M/T XT's. They didn't sell well because Subaru sucks at advertising their products. Speaking of advertising, I don't think I've ever seen a TV ad for an Outlander. I don't recall seeing a TV ad for any Mitsubishi for that matter. Maybe I just ignore them. 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: dcm61 (May 16, 2008 10:56 am) Totally agree with this. They really should have marketed them as versatile alternatives to boring cars and SUVs. If I had known that I could get a Forester to keep pace with any number of sports cars, while retaining safety, reliability, economy, 4-door/wagon utility, and offroad ability; I certainly would have dropped by the dealership much sooner. As it was, I was very biased AGAINST Subaru until I was forcefed their full potential in the passenger seat. Likewise I have never known anyone else to buy one until until I gave them a ride BigMcLargeHuge style  They sell 99% word-of-mouth, and its entirely their own fault that there are a select few that know what they are capable of. |
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs Mitsubishi Outlander Mitsubishi Outlander vs. Subaru Forester
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2009 Mitsubishi Outlander
2010 Subaru Forester
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
