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 62 of 159

#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.

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

Oct 30, 2009 (6:09 am)

Replying to: yvr1 (Oct 29, 2009 8:22 pm)
I test drove the Mazda5 as well. Too bad they don't offer things that they sell in the JDM version - like 7 seats, stability control, and even AWD.

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

Oct 30, 2009 (6:17 am)

Replying to: chelentano (Oct 29, 2009 9:27 pm)
Also read reviews from real world owners here on Edmunds
 
Just glance over to the right, Forester gets a 9.0 and the Outlander gets a 8.8. Both good scores. Sante Fe also does well with an 8.8.
 
I'm just saying, you should know there's more to the Forester than a large moonroof to earn a better score than your beloved Outlander.
 
The slalom handling test of new 2010 Outlander is spectacular
 
Remember, though, that model is lowered (anyone know how much?). It won't offer the 8.5" of clearance that the other models had. You pick one or the other, not both. People shopping for this vehicle should be aware of that trade-off.
 
I think the lowered suspension is fine in Florida and SoCal, but if you're in a snowy climate it'll bottom out and scrape bottom constantly. Let your climate and needs decide which is best.
 
Even then, if I didn't want a snow vehicle, and went to a Mitsu store, this would be better suited to an enthusiast driver:
 

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

Oct 30, 2009 (10:31 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (Oct 30, 2009 6:17 am)
>> Just glance over to the right, Forester gets a 9.0 and the Outlander gets a 8.8. Both good scores. Sante Fe also does well with an 8.8.
 
These all good cars. The Outlander rating is for the older 2007 generation though.
 .
 
>> I'm just saying, you should know there's more to the Forester than a large moonroof to earn a better score than your beloved Outlander.
  
You still did not offer any significant Forester advantage. The only strongest argument you attempted to make is a better resale rating, but then when you look at True Cost to Own numbers the advantage reduced to marginal. After all the Outlander is much more car for the money.
Outlander is not a religion for me. After happily driving it for 2.5 years, I decided to try another car and leased the MB ML350. It’s a nice looking SUV, twice more expensive, but still I am not sure if it is an upgrade. Nice quiet interior, solid build, power liftgate… but transmission gets confused at low speeds, handling is way below average, engine is abit underpowered for the weight. KeylessGo (FAST Key was standard on my Outlander) is a $1000 option, no hard drive music server. No paddle shifters, mediocre reliability ratings, only 4 year warranty (forget about this car after warranty expires), expensive maintenance ($100 oil change), no standard folding mirrors, Bluetooth is $500 optional accessory, no Bluetooth audio streaming… Outlander GT is an exceptional value and so much more fun to drive.
.
 
>>> The slalom handling test of new 2010 Outlander is spectacular
  
>> Remember, though, that model is lowered (anyone know how much?). It won't offer the 8.5" of clearance that the other models had. You pick one or the other, not both. People shopping for this vehicle should be aware of that trade-off.
  
Snow or not, on a paved road an inch or two difference of ground clearance would not matter especially considering exceptional AWD system. Anyway Mitsu might have lowered just a roof a bit: both the Australian Mitsubishi site and AOL Auto indicate that GT ground clearance of 8.5” which is just 0.4” less then Forester – not even worth to mention. This is a good ground clearance yet Outlander GT slalom score (Edmunds IsideLine) is superior to Audi Q5, BMW X3, X5, MDX, RDX, Infinity FX, MB ML63 AMG and even MB C-Class sedan, which has much lower ground clearance.
  
>> Even then, if I didn't want a snow vehicle, and went to a Mitsu store, this would be better suited to an enthusiast driver [EVO]:
 
Sure, EVO is a pure driving fun and incredible bargain, but if you need more utility, the GT gets very close.
 
click:

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

Nov 01, 2009 (8:58 am)

Replying to: chelentano (Oct 30, 2009 10:31 pm)
That's what I'd consider a mid-model makeover, not quite a new generation.
 
I just got my new Consumer Reports, Dec 09, and FWIW the Outlander is not in the top 6 Most Reliable Small SUVs (p. 63).
 
True Cost to Own numbers the advantage reduced to marginal
 
$2,700 is marginal? That's a lot of money...
 
You traded in your Outlander and the music went with it. To me it makes more sense to carry music in an iPod, iPhone, or portable MP3 player or SD card or something, that way it goes with you, and not just while you're driving.

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

Nov 01, 2009 (5:03 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (Nov 01, 2009 8:58 am)
>> That's what I'd consider a mid-model makeover, not quite a new generation
 
...Or going from 4-speed auto transmission in 1997 (1st generation of Forester) into 4-speed auto transmission in 2009: 3rd generation. This looks like a mid-model makeover, not quite a new generation.
 
>> I just got my new Consumer Reports, Dec 09, and FWIW the Outlander is not in the top 6 Most Reliable Small SUVs (p. 63).
 
So what, it is still somewhere among top most reliable. It was among top 4 most reliable small SUVs just earlier this year along with RAV4, CR-V and Forester:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/uptospeed/2009/02/consumer-report.html
And Mitsu was able to keep the Outlander very reliable in spite of so much more technology used.
 
  
>> $2,700 is marginal? That's a lot of money...
 
I've got a $2.3K TCO number which is $38 a month over 5 years. I guess for you it's a lot. For me $38/m well worth of: smooth 6-speed transmission w/paddle shifters, sharp handling, SMART Key, keyless ignition, Xenons, LEDs, 18" tires, music server, tri-mode AWD, more cargo volume, skid plates, 3-rd row seats, backup camera, split clamshel rear gate, 650-watt 9-speaker Rockford Fosgate stereo, integrated satellite radio, 6-CD changer, faster hard drive based nav, several more years of warranty, free road side assistance... Forester has none of that.
 
  
>>You traded in your Outlander and the music went with it.
 
Nope, the Outlander mp3 music server is intended to automatically backup your audio CDs while you listeting them, so you don't have to incert them next time. I obviously kept my audio CDs when I traded my Outlander.
 
>> To me it makes more sense to carry music in an iPod, iPhone, or portable MP3 player or SD card or something, that way it goes with you, and not just while you're driving.
 
Sure, for that reason the 2010 Outlander GT Bluetooth streaming audio capability allows you to stream wirelessly Pandora web radio or your mp3 collection through that nice 710-watt Rockford Fosgate stereo with 10" subwoofer. Imagine, you enter your car with your bluetooth capable mobile device, and you don't have to plugin any cables or adapters: all your music and your phone book available in your car after you turn on ignition! Forester can't do that.

#610 of 1581 Re: 2.5 X Forester 2010 with Touring Package vs. 2010 Chevy Equinox [chelentano] by baggs32

Nov 02, 2009 (10:28 am)

Replying to: chelentano (Nov 01, 2009 5:03 pm)
Nope, the Outlander mp3 music server is intended to automatically backup your audio CDs while you listeting them, so you don't have to incert them next time. I obviously kept my audio CDs when I traded my Outlander.
 
So basically you just gave free copies of copyrighted music to the next owner? Does the RIAA know about this?

#611 of 1581 Re: 2.5 X Forester 2010 with Touring Package vs. 2010 Chevy Equinox [baggs32] by steve_ HOST

Nov 02, 2009 (2:23 pm)

Replying to: baggs32 (Nov 02, 2009 10:28 am)
Just what is a "CD" anyway?

#612 of 1581 Re: 2.5 X Forester 2010 with Touring Package vs. 2010 Chevy Equinox [baggs32] by chelentano

Nov 02, 2009 (8:43 pm)

Replying to: baggs32 (Nov 02, 2009 10:28 am)
>> So basically you just gave free copies of copyrighted music to the next owner?
 
Who knows, may be I did, or may be I did not, I don't recall, or may be my music was not copyrighted, or may be i did not "give music free" but sold it with the car, or may be I erased it, or may be music left in a traded car in it is not considered illegal act in a court of law? Anyway please consult your legal adviser or try to issue a subpoena to find out.
 
  
>> Does the RIAA know about this?
 
Who knows what they know, try to google their 800 number to find out.
 
All great questions!

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

Nov 03, 2009 (8:43 am)

Replying to: chelentano (Nov 01, 2009 5:03 pm)
You're bench racing ... let's look at the results instead. The Forester XT is quicker and still managed to be more fuel efficient. Who cares how many ratios your slush box has when you're still trailing in acceleration?
 
I was just at the Apple store this weekend, and for $2700 I could buy a new iTouch, plus a Macbook Air for me, plus a Macbook Air for my wife, plus a iPod Shuffle for my kid so they can listen to their music.
 
Forester has LEDs lighting up the inside, pretty neat.
 
The sub in the Outlander takes up ~3 cubic feet of trunk space. A better location would be under the seat so it didn't use up that space.
 
The 3rd row isn't safe enough for me to put my children there - the rear headrest basically touches the rear glass. There's no crumple space at all.
 
Half the things you listed the Forester has as well.
 
Forester can't do that.
 
Are you sure? You also claimed it didn't have satellite radio and someone corrected you a short while ago. It sounds like you are just reading the Outlander brochure.
 
Mitsubishi's web site isn't even updated yet. You click on Outlander and it shows you the 2009. The 2010 teaser has scarce info.

Messages Page 62 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