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
803 messages, Last post on Nov 25, 2009 at 8:34 AM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
In post 7060 chelentano brags the Outlander GT has "More horse power", which may be true (see bottom), 230hp vs. 224hp for the Subaru Forester XT. To him that 2.7% advantage was significant enough to list, even though his Outlander had 220hp. Let's ignore that and look at the 2010s only. In the same post he mentions 18" vs. 17" wheels, but later dismisses the 21mpg vs. 20mpg EPA combined mileage advantage for the Forester. Double standard? Ok, so with 2.7% as a baseline for what he considers an advantage, let's see... * Forester XT has 5+% more peak torque that arrives 950rpm sooner * F-XT is more than 6+% lighter (to be fair, using models with no 3rd row here and later, to be consistent) * surprise - that means Forester has the better HP/weight ratio * 5% better EPA combined mileage * 5.7% smaller carbon footprint * 7% more fuel capacity, resulting in... * over 12% more driving range per tankful * 6% more ground clearance (even assuming GT is not lowered) * over 7% more passenger volume * 6+% better residual values * up to 10% better residual values on a 3 year lease * 5.5% lower TCO (using your #s and assuming Outlander uses 87 octane) * 200% bigger moonroof * 100% non-Caliber AWD system  Why did I say the 230hp vs. 224hp may be true? Because Subaru is rumored to have a 2010 Forester Sports XT with 265hp and 244 lb-ft of torque in the pipeline. That would mean over 15% more HP and 13.5% more torque than the Outlander GT.  I'm sure the response will be...230hp is enough. Above that amount doesn't matter. In fact any advantage any vehicle has over the Outlander does not matter to chelentano. Only the criteria where Mitsubishi shows an advantage matter, even if that advantage is smaller. Even if it's imagined.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Nov 03, 2009 8:49 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: tinycadon (Nov 03, 2009 10:38 am)  Check out this SEMA one-off, a Forester XTI: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNiwrB0Ap4Q&feature=player_embedded All the STI bolted in (fits, too). |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Nov 03, 2009 8:49 am) But in spite of more peak torque Outlander does slalom much faster and tows much more. >> F-XT is more than 6+% lighter (to be fair, using models with no 3rd row here and later, to be consistent) No, to be fair we must count the 3rd row, the subwoofer, heavier wheels, standard sat. radio, heavier V6, skid plates, etc all of that and more makes Outlander heavier, but adds value. >> 5% better EPA combined mileage Again slightly better mileage for a slightly lighter car. >> 5.7% smaller carbon footprint I though you've said that GT's specs are not published? >> 7% more fuel capacity, resulting in... >> over 12% more driving range per tankful Its like me saying: *100% better stereo *For 200% more fun >> 6% more ground clearance but resulting 10% worse slalom test results, so its not advantage at all specially considering that most of drivers drive offroad 1% of time. >> over 7% more passenger volume Not true, if you count 3rd row. >> 6+% better residual values 5.5% lower TCO But Forester is 70% worst equipped car, with 70% worse warranty, 100% worse road side assistance. >> 100% non-Caliber AWD system Cool. Why did not you mention Foresters 100% Mitsubishi-build turbocharger? >> 200% bigger moonroof Even though its probably a big stretch (its really about 70% bigger), that the only significant Forester advantage. Because Outlander GT has (all factory installed): 10% faster slalom speed: faster than any CUV under $90K 50% more transmission gears 100% more paddle shifters 40% more trailer towing 100% more Xenons 100% more music servers 4000% more Gigabytes of hard drive space 100% more subwoofers 100% more Rear View backup camera 50% more speakers 300% lower low frequency playback thanks to the 10" sub 30% faster hard drive navigation vs. DVD based 100% more of real-time traffic guidance 200% more AWD modes (3) 100% more of the default front axle torque 100% more of AWD side-to-side torque control 100% fuse-free FWD switch 100% more 115v power outlets 100% more rear entertainment systems with flip-down 9-inch wide-screen LCD, a remote control and set of infrared wireless headphones. 300% more of the FAST Key controlled doors 100% more keyless ignitions 40% more people capacity 17% more cargo volume 600% more MP3 compatible CD drives Did I mention 70% better warranty, 100% better road side assistance? 100% more wireless audio streaming 100% more wireless phonebook download capability 100% more rain sensors That's the percentage competition. I could also mention a bunch of specs were Outlander is 5-10% or so better, the way you did, but I don't think it worth it.
|
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Nov 03, 2009 9:36 pm) We shopped 4 cylinder models, non-turbo (so did the OP by the way), and the Forester actually tows more. It can meet that 2400# requirement someone just asked about, but the 4 banger Mitsu cannot. The V6 can, but again, this is a split decision. The slalom was impressive but was that pre-production? Lowered? Summer tires? Let's see full road test from a production model. And like you said, there's a trade off between ride and handling. Big rims and stiff suspension like that means a stiff ride. If you had found the 3rd row useful, your next vehicle would have had one as well. Same for the infotainment package (which forced you to violate copyright laws). The carbon footprint is straight from the EPA website. 100% worse road side assistance False, you do get roadside assistance from Subaru. You are just making this stuff up! Forester has a subwoofer, too, and it doesn't waste 3 cubic feet of cargo space. You're misleading people. 200% bigger moonroof is about right, want to measure? The Forester's covers the front seat and the back seat. It's enormous. You are listing specs for a 2010 Outlander GT that Mitsubishi has not even launched yet. None of that stuff is on their web site, in fact click on Outlander and it shows you the specs for the 2009. 100% more of the default front axle torque That's also wrong. You probably meant rear axle, but that too would be wrong. Mitsu's default split is 85/15, Subaru's in 90/10 or 80/20, depending upon who you ask. Plus the Subaru has more torque to send in the first place. 100% more of AWD side-to-side torque control Source? I don't believe that one bit. They use the traction control system, so it's braking to retard acceleration on one axle, not actively increaseing torque to one side or the other. Misleading. 40% more people capacity Munchkins, and even then I don't think they're safe. 17% more cargo volume Less with a subwoofer. Plus the Forester will fit a bigger volume box (CR). 600% more MP3 compatible CD drives Wrong yet again. Did I mention 70% better warranty, 100% better road side assistance? Yes, and you were wrong the first time, and now you're wrong the second time! Again you are just reading a brochure, and you don't really know much about how the Forester is equipped. Another contradiction - earlier you said the Hyundai has a Borg Warner AWD system from a Porsche. I don't buy it - the Porsche is primarily RWD, so first off it's backwards, not to mention it has to handle a heck of a lot more power. Then you say the Chrysler AWD system has nothing to do with Mitsubishi's even though they are also supplied by Borg Warner. Your reasoning was that the Outlander is built in Japan. So? Borg Waner is an American company (NYSE: BWA). Japan is where final assembly is done, but parts come from all over the world. The Forester is built in Japan with an AWD system built in Japan and not shared with the Chrysler Sebring rental car you'll find at airports in Minnesota. The base Outlander not only has the Borg Warnger AWD system from a Caliber/Compass, but also the 2.4l engine and the CVT transmission. This whole powertrain is shared. I notice you keep pretending the 4 cylinder Outlander does not exist. Here's where I agree with you - if I were in favor of the Outlander I would do the same thing. The engine sounds like a box of nails in a blender, 168hp is not enough for its weight, the CVT feels like a rubber band, and the AWD system...well, we know who that is shared with, and it's not Porsche!
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Nov 04, 2009 8:35 am) Yeah! Says Who? Says Me! Oh Yeah? Yeah! Says Who? Says Me!!!
|
|
|
Replying to: tinycadon (Nov 04, 2009 10:49 am) I will let him tell you how the leather from his seats are made from the hides of Seabiscuit, the paddle shifters from the horns of a unicorn, and the trim from the tallest tree on Mt. Olympus. Then he can explain to you why he bailed on Mitsubishi and bought a Benz. Actions speak louder than words.
|
|
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
