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
804 messages, Last post on Nov 26, 2009 at 11:55 AM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
Replying to: yvr1 (Oct 29, 2009 7:22 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Oct 29, 2009 8:27 pm) 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: 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Oct 30, 2009 5:17 am) 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: 
|
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Oct 30, 2009 9:31 pm) 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. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Nov 01, 2009 7:58 am) ...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. |
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Nov 01, 2009 4:03 pm) So basically you just gave free copies of copyrighted music to the next owner? Does the RIAA know about this? 
|
|
|
Replying to: baggs32 (Nov 02, 2009 9:28 am) 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: baggs32 (Nov 02, 2009 9:28 am) 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! |
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Nov 01, 2009 4:03 pm) 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.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Nov 03, 2009 7:43 am) Forester is quicker thanks to Mitsubishi-made turbocharger, but Subaru could not take advantage of turbo wasting quickness on mediocre handling. Slalom speed is pathetic: even lower the Toyota’s. >> The 3rd row isn't safe enough for me to put my children there - the rear headrest basically touches the rear glass. This is speculation. The car passed all safety tests and government approved. >> You also claimed it didn't have satellite radio and someone corrected you a short while ago. I already told you that Forester’s radio is $429 dealer installer accessory plus another $100 for labor: you can buy a laptop for your kid for this amount of money so you don’t have to wait 5 years for TCO saving. Outlander satellite radio is part of factory installed stereo. If we want to play accessories game that’s another story but Outlander would win again. There is multipage catalog available with all kinda of cool stuff such as multicolor custom Xenons, OLED navigation systems, stereo systems, low-mid range radar and collision systems, Bike racks, etc.
|
|
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
