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
805 messages, Last post on Nov 27, 2009 at 5:17 AM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
|
|---|---|
|
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. |
|
|
I went to the Mitsubishi Canada website. The first thing that struck me was how similar the body shape of the Outlander is to the Forester and the Outlander. I wonder whether the designers were the same. It’s interesting in reading the reviews on the Outlander that critics think that it’s exterior styling is great but most don’t think too much of the Forester’s. I then compared features for the 2.5 X with Touring Package vs. the Outlander trim model that has most of the features that the 2.5X with Touring Package has plus a 4 cylinder engine so I am comparing apples with apples. Firstly, I'm not interested in the turbo Forester XT. Despite a lot of people on the Forester forums saying that it makes for a much better vehicle, the 4 cylinder is more than adequate for my needs (I came from a 2002 Honda Civic LX) and I suspect that most purchasers buy the 4 as opposed to the Turbo. So the trim to compare the Forester with Touring Package to is the Outlander ES with 4 wheel drive, which puts out 168 HP which is two less than the Forester's. The transmission for the ES is CVT Sportronic, until you get to the next trim level with the 6 cylinder six speed automatic, which is the LS. The ES doesn't have the sunroof. It comes only as a Sun and Sound package with the Rockford Fosgate premium stereo which costs an additional $2,250.00. It only comes pre-wired with Sirius, with no free trial subscription. The Forester's is already installed, but I would have to renew the free 3 month subscription. The ES does not come with FAST keyless entry. You have to go to the LS trim to get this. The ES doesn't come with Bluetooth; it is an accessory. A back-up camera, and parking sensors are accessories. The ES does not come with foglights as does the Forester. A fog light kit is an accessory. The ES doesn't come with a power driver's seat until you get to the highest trim, the 4WD XLS. Forester comes with 8 way power seats and lumbar support. The ES comes with 16 inch wheels as does the Forester. The paddle shifters don’t come with the ES - you have to go to the LS. As for the comparison regarding cargo room, there’s already been a lot of discussion about that back and forth in the previous posts. Ditto with the 4WD. I note in the Car Connection review I looked up, it says: “Choose '4WD Auto' and at least 15 percent of engine torque is routed to the rear axle at all times, and when you're accelerating on packed snow or other slippery surfaces, the rear wheels can accept up to 60 percent of the power,” Edmunds reports. “Choose '4WD Lock' and the system sends a greater percentage of torque to the rear wheels—up to 60 percent under full-throttle acceleration.” Most reviews pan the 4 cylinder engine, like they do with the Forester’s. So maybe we’ll call that one even. They also are of the view that the interior styling leaves something to be desired: “The 2009 Outlander can't overcome drawbacks regarding its materials and build quality. Car and Driver notes that it "doesn't quite match the RAV4 for material quality," while Edmunds mentions the "plastics and controls feel a bit low-grade." ConsumerGuide remarks that the "cabin has few padded surfaces and many plastic panels that feel thin and hollow to the touch" and "look on the cheap side," while one of their Mitsubishi Outlanders "suffered from a number of interior creaks and groans," a sign of poor build quality. However, critics say the same thing about the Forester interior. Call that one even too. In terms of quality, Car Connection says: “You can hear the Outlander's questionable build quality every time you drive down the highway. ConsumerGuide rates the Mitsubishi Outlander below the class average when it comes to interior noise levels and deems "engine and bump noise are the biggest sources of ruckus." AutoWeek adds that the 2009 Mitsubishi Outlander is plagued by "roaring engine, tranny, road and wind noise." In terms of handling and ride, mixed reviews: “Car and Driver says the Outlander has "a stiff suspension for an SUV." ConsumerGuide observes that "the suspension does a poor job overall of absorbing sharp bumps," which makes for a rough and uncomfortable ride. Edmunds contends, “Ride quality is just as important as handling in a small SUV, though, and the Outlander is indeed comfortable and well-mannered when cruising.” I think overall reviewers say handling is very good in the Outlander, at the expense of a harsher ride, but I haven’t read any review which says it’s superior to the Forester’s. In any event, in pricing it out, the MRSP of the ES, adding the fog lights, and the Sound and Sun package, costs $29,765., which is $30.00 less than the MRSP of the Forester with the Touring Package. Also, keep in mind that I would still not be getting the power driver’s seat with the ES. Taking into consideration all of the above, and the better residual value of the Forester, I think the Forester is better value for the money, at least in terms of my individual needs in a vehicle. I am leaning towards it, despite the better-looking interior of the Santa Fe. If only Subaru could have imported the Santa Fe’s interior design into the Forester! |
|
|
Replying to: yvr1 (Oct 29, 2009 3:29 pm) Mitsu offers a PZEV version of the V6, but you lose 7hp, for 213hp total. Still, if you're in to being green, it's nice to have that option. If you're comparing 4 banger to 4 banger, the Forester can actually tow more, FWIW. Have you looked at the Veracruz? I was really impressed with that interior. Especially the soft leather - very nice. With discounts it may not cost much more than a SF, and it gets ALG's 5 star rating for resale, so it may hold its value better than its little brother, and it offers true 3rd row seating: 
|
|
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
