Ask the Car People.SM


Mitsubishi Outlander vs. Subaru Forester

1581 messages,  Last post on May 10, 2010 at 6:35 AM

You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum.

What is this discussion about? Mitsubishi Outlander, Subaru Forester, Car Comparisons, SUV

Messages Page 61 of 159

#595 of 1581 Re: 2.5 X Forester 2010 with Touring Package vs. 2010 Chevy Equinox [ateixeira] by chelentano

Oct 29, 2009 (8:49 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (Oct 29, 2009 10:29 am)
>> Too bad Mitsu doesn't offer a manual tranny here.
   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.

#600 of 1581 Re: 2.5 X Forester 2010 with Touring Package vs. 2010 Chevy Equinox [chelentano] by yvr1

Oct 29, 2009 (4:29 pm)

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!

#601 of 1581 Re: 2.5 X Forester 2010 with Touring Package vs. 2010 Chevy Equinox [yvr1] by ateixeira

Oct 29, 2009 (5:44 pm)

Replying to: yvr1 (Oct 29, 2009 4:29 pm)
Do they offer the Forester PZEV in Canada? Here's a neat little secret - besides being a lot lower on emissions, you get 5 extra HP, for 175hp total.
 
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:
 

#602 of 1581 Re: 2.5 X Forester 2010 with Touring Package vs. 2010 Chevy Equinox [ateixe by volkov

Oct 29, 2009 (7:01 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (Oct 29, 2009 5:44 pm)
We loved the V-C and were thiiiiis close to buying one until my wife put the brakes on a new car purchase. That being said, it's a big vehicle compared to the Forester and much thirstier.

#603 of 1581 Re: 2.5 X Forester 2010 with Touring Package vs. 2010 Chevy Equinox [ateixeira] by yvr1

Oct 29, 2009 (8:22 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (Oct 29, 2009 5:44 pm)
Yes, they do have the PZEV here but for some reason you can't pair it with the Touring Package.
 
I also contemplated the Veracruz. I'm looking for a compact SUV so it's too big for me, and I don't need to seat 7, but seeing all the features you get with just the GL base model, including sunroof, fog lights, rear parking sensors, I agree it's a good buy; it would cost me about 6K more though compared to Forester or SF. And the base model doesn't come with 4WD; I'd have to go to the GLS trim which would cost 10.5K more. Plus fuel costs would go up. If I was in the market for a mid-large SUV I would likely take the Outback over the Veracruz though; I think the price would be similar and the Outback is a better vehicle overall, and the cargo capacity is huge.
 
  My wife and I just had twins 3 months ago and that's the impetus for buying a new car. Need room for that double stroller! In fact, I was very taken with the first car I reviewed, a Mazda 5 and almost bought a 2009 model because Mazda was offering a 3K reduction; however the dealbreaker was lack of traction control. The sliding doors I also found very appealing because I can put in the infant seats in the second row without stooping and bending my back. Also it had surprisingly large cargo area if you didn't use the third row seats (which basically would fit only children, and not very comfortably at that). In fact, the cargo area beyond the 2nd row seating (at least lengthwise) is bigger than the Forester's. But Forester is a much safer car; plus the high ground clearance, combined with the fact that the second row doors open very, very wide, also makes it easier to put the infant seats in. Not as effective as sliding doors, but next best thing.
 
There must be a reason why the Canadian Automobile Journalists of Canada, and Motortrend voted the Forester as the best SUV for 2009. I figure I can't really go wrong with buying one.

#604 of 1581 Re: 2.5 X Forester 2010 with Touring Package vs. 2010 Chevy Equinox [yvr1] by chelentano

Oct 29, 2009 (9:27 pm)

Replying to: yvr1 (Oct 29, 2009 4:29 pm)
>> 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.
I wonder myself. Even steering wheels look like twins.
 
  
>> 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.
I agree with those people. The XT is probably more fun to drive.
    
>> 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.”
  
Also the new 2010 Outlander AWD system is a significant update. Way ahead of Forester.
 
  
>> They also are of the view that the interior styling leaves something to be desired:
   
Again there is 2010 model with improved interior.
  
 
  
>> 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."
 
All this magazines sell advertising and praise their clients. Just look and CR reliability rating I posted earlier and you will see Outlander on the top of rating. Also read reviews from real world owners here on Edmunds, Yahoo and MSN. All these people actually paid for their cars instead of being payed by car manufacturers. Also test drive it yourself and hear the noise levels.
 
  
 
>> “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," 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.
  
That’s the way it works. Sharp agile sport handling comes at expense of harsher ride. Generally you can’t have both. So if a soft ride is very important to you, you might want to go with Toyota, SF or Subaru. Lexus is known for plush ride, but dull handling. BMW is an opposite. The slalom handling test of new 2010 Outlander is spectacular. It even beats Mercedes C Class sedan.
 
>> 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!
 
I did not realize that you are in Canada talking about $30k price range and you are looking actually at entry level Outlander/Forester. I’ve seen entry level Outlander at $17 USD at the end of last year. At that level I agree Outlander advantage is not easy to see.
The Outlander really shines in 2010 GT trim.
The Forester would be a very good choice for your price range, though Santa Fe is more car for the money.

Messages Page 61 of 159

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement