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
825 messages, Last post on Nov 29, 2009 at 6:52 PM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Oct 27, 2009 7:34 am) Maybe I missed something! 
|
|
|
Replying to: kipk (Oct 27, 2009 7:53 am) The 09's traction control system also allowed less wheel spin, the effort to get moving is always more controlled. This is far more than 99.9% of owners will ever subject them to. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Oct 27, 2009 7:34 am) The same type and the same brand. Porsche 911 and Santa Fe both use the ITM 3e multi-plate clutch coupling system from Borg Warner. . >> Automatic Foresters still always send some power to the rear axles (10 or 20%, depending on who you ask), unless you insert a FWD fuse If you ask Subaru's Corporate Communications Director Mike McHale, it's 10%. Santa Fe's number is no mystery: it can lock 50% of consistent power to the rear axles. Inserting a fuse is as high tech as Forester's 4-speed transmission  Do you have to run to RadioShack to get the fuse? I would be careful continuously running Forester with the fuse for long time: it may burn out the solenoid.
|
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Oct 27, 2009 6:14 pm) Note that the Compass is the only Jeep that's not Trail Rated. I'm sure any systems they supply to Porsche would meet very different duty requirements.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Oct 28, 2009 7:43 am) Manual transmission is offered on Outlander in other markets: in USA demand for that 20th century technology is very low. The Mitsubishi’s dual-clutch marvel obviously is not for this price segment where the antique 4-speed automatics are still offered by some silly manufacturers. Outlander GT 6-speed auto with paddle shifters is extremely smooth. It also has fuel/emission saving Neutral Logic technology. >> How 'bout gas mileage, too. The turbo Forester outruns the Outlander V6 and gets better gas mileage as well. The new 2010 230hp V6 is supposedly more efficient, but it wants premium fuel, just like the Forester turbo. The mileage is improved on GT and the difference is marginal: 18 city /24 on GT vs. 19/24 on XT, not even worth to mention considering that premium fuel will cost more to XT owner. The GT still using regular fuel. The Forester turbo quickness comes at the price of premium gas, excessive noise, and stress on engine. Ironically , the Forester’s TD04 turbochanger has been build by Mitsubishi for Subaru since 2003. . >> Subaru does offer both satellite radio and bluetooth. Forester just “prewired” for satellite radio. Satellite radio is expensive $400 dealer installed option. There is a multipage catalog with all kinds of dealer installed goodies for Outlander, if we want to go there. And I did not say Forester does not offer Bluetooth. It’s just the basic one: it is does not offer Bluetooth audio streaming, no downloadable phone book capability and no voice controlled entertainment. . >> Forester has class-leading ground clearance at 8.9". The ground clearance difference is marginal: 0.5” and who cares for that since 99% of the time car is not off the road, but on the road, where lower clearance actually improves stability. . >> CR actually rates the cargo capacity of the Forester as bigger than the Outlander, Subaru official numbers measure Forester smaller though and that’s what counts. >> ALG gives the Forester 5 stars for residual value, while the Outlander only earns 3. 3 star is normal – 6 models of Lexus and 7 models of Toyotas have 3 stars. After all, premium gas and shorter warranty will cost Forester consumer more money. . >> Visibility is better, also. That’s just your subjective opinion. Outlander though has larger side mirrors, backup camera, better emergency handling and second row airbags. . >> The turning circle is also tighter for the Forester. So what! It’s 0.4”difference. I can show you long list of these marginal differences were Outlander has better specs. Do we really what to go there? The bottom line is that Outlander is significantly superior in AWD, transmission, entertainment technology, comfort, handling and warranty. The manual transmission, the 0.4” nor 1 mpg specs could beat that.
|
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Oct 28, 2009 8:20 pm) That last part isn't necessarily true. Especially if the lower ground clearance is the result of, for example, an exhaust pipe routed under the rear suspension like some recent Toyotas suffered from. Or maybe a low hanging suspension part. Point is, a vehicle can actually be riding higher than another vehicle even though the former's ground clearance is lower. Ground clearance is not a measure of actual ride hight or center of gravity, both of which do have a lot to do with stability. |
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Oct 28, 2009 8:20 pm) I'd like to see Mitsu sell a Ralliart sportback - is that combination offered? I have yet to see an EVO sportback on the roads but that would certainly appeal more to me if I wanted something truly sporty. 18 city /24 on GT vs. 19/24 on XT, not even worth to mention considering that premium fuel will cost more to XT owner. The GT still using regular fuel That's not what the EPA site says - it has the GT running on premium fuel. That may be how they got from 220hp to 230hp. Is there a source? I'm referring to information from fueleconomy.gov. Forester's turbo is smoother and quieter than the non-turbo, I doubt you've driven one since you're saying that. You keep calling it slow so I imagine you've only driven the 2.5X automatic, which is comparable to the 2.4l CVT Outlander, not your V6 model. Subaru official numbers measure Forester smaller though and that’s what counts Not if the box you bought won't fit!  CR's biggest box does count, so this is a split decision. The Forester also surprisingly has more passenger volume, 107.6 cubic feet compared to the Outlander's 100.4 cubes. The Forester's mirrors are huge, are you sure you've driven one? After all, premium gas and shorter warranty will cost Forester consumer more money. You're speculating. Let's go to Edmunds TCO. 2009 models, since the 2010 Outlander isn't listed yet: Outlander XLS V6 AWD - $47,148 Forester XT Limited - $44,466 If the 2010 GT model with 230hp really does require premium fuel than the Forester would only stretch that advantage. significantly superior in AWD Remember, it's in the only Jeep that's not Trail Rated. The Compass has a 4WD lock mode, too, you pull up a chrome T-bar. Still not good enough. The Outlander is basically a super-sized Jeep Compass/Dodge Caliber. Same engine block in the base models, same CVT transmission, same non-Trail Rated AWD system. The Infotainment system is awesome - no debate there at all. But isn't it basically a Chrysler MyGig system, from the Caravan? No doubt a result of the Mitsu/Chrysler/Hyundai partnership. Having said that, I think Mitsu did remarkably well with some humble underpinnings.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Oct 29, 2009 9:29 am) Why, “too bad”? You did not even buy manual Forester? I can’t imagine you would be buying manual Outlander. >> I'd like to see Mitsu sell a Ralliart sportback - is that combination offered? Not to my knowledge, but Mitsu will be offering a smaller SUV 1.8L turbo combined with Mitsubishi's Twin Clutch SST gearbox and an AWD system. http://blogs.thecarconnection.com/marty-blog/1037414_mitsubishi-previews-new-com- - - pact-crossover >>That's not what the EPA site says - it has the GT running on premium fuel. That may be how they got from 220hp to 230hp. Is there a source? I'm referring to information from fueleconomy.gov. Hmm, odd, but fueleconomy.gov also says that P could mean recommended, but not necessarily required. Edmunds says its regular: http://www.edmunds.com/mitsubishi/outlandergt/2011/featuresandspecs.html >> Forester's turbo is smoother and quieter than the non-turbo, I doubt you've driven one since you're saying that. You keep calling it slow so I imagine you've only driven the 2.5X automatic, which is comparable to the 2.4l CVT Outlander, not your V6 model. Right, the slow one I have driven was 4 banger. But the noise is in nature of turbo engines. Most of CVTs though are smoother then that 4 speed auto I tested. >> Not if the box you bought won't fit! Every test may use different size boxes or suitcases, and in different way so it’s subjective. Cubic feet volume is the most fair and standard way to measure space, just like using EPA rating for gas mileage. >> The Forester also surprisingly has more passenger volume, 107.6 cubic feet compared to the Outlander's 100.4 cubes. That is only true if you don’t count kids in the third row. >> You're speculating. Let's go to Edmunds TCO. 2009 models, since the 2010 Outlander isn't listed yet: Outlander XLS V6 AWD - $47,148 Forester XT Limited - $44,466 Actually I’ve got numbers $44.4k vs $42.1K. The difference of $2.3K over 5 years is small, considering Outlander is bigger and better equipped. After 5 years the difference will be even smaller due to Outlander 10 year power train warranty. >> Compass has a 4WD lock mode, too, you pull up a chrome T-bar. Still not good enough. The Outlander is basically a super-sized Jeep Compass/Dodge Caliber. Same engine block in the base models, same CVT transmission, same non-Trail Rated AWD system. You're speculating. Chrysler times have long passed and Outlander is build in Japan. The GT is equipped with first-in-class active front limited-slip differential and an electronically controlled 4WD coupling. It can prevent wheel slip by redistributing torque from side-to-side. No Jeep, Dodge, nor Subaru could do that. Mitsubishi does however build turbochargers for Subaru. |
|
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
