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
872 messages, Last post on Dec 02, 2009 at 9:36 PM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
|
|---|---|
|
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. |
|
|
Replying to: dcm61 (May 16, 2008 10:56 am) They did have few ad campaigns on TV, both in the US and Canada. |
|
|
Replying to: dodo2 (May 16, 2008 8:25 am) And yes, it can be turned off (actually the threshold is higher but it's not totally disabled) so that you can rock out of a snow bank. ABS = maximize 4 wheels stopping. AWD = maximize 4 wheels going. Ideally, you want both. FWD are not inherently unsafe, it's just that AWD has more safety potential and giving up that benefit when you pay for AWD seems silly when you don't have to. I would just leave it in 4WD auto all the time. I'm not sure I'd even use the Lock mode. If it truly does lock the axles together (or do they mean it locks the power split?), then you'd have problems in sharp turns with binding. So if the Auto 4WD mode really works, it would turn off and on when needed. With Lock, you'd have to hit the button for each sharp turn or U-turn, then back on, then off again, then on, and so on. If Auto works well, both other modes are unneeded, IMHO.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (May 16, 2008 11:35 am) With Lock, you'd have to hit the button for each sharp turn or U-turn, then back on, then off again, then on, and so on. IMO, Lock is a very poor naming choice for that mode. If I understand the Mitsubishi press release, you can drive 100K miles or more in Lock mode and it won't hurt the drivetrain. The Lock mode differs from the Auto mode in that it "locks" in a more rear bias power split (50% more than Auto mode). Once again, a very poor naming choice. Something like Sport would be a much better choice. In fact, the press release mentions using the Lock mode for more spirited driving.
|
|
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
