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
863 messages, Last post on Dec 02, 2009 at 10:57 AM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
Replying to: chelentano (Nov 04, 2009 9:41 pm) Is the 2010 Mitsubishi Outlander GT the Evo of crossovers? Not really It's 0-60? 7.9 seconds. YAWN! My minivan suddenly seems fast. I “bail” on my car every couple of years to try something new and exciting 7.9 seconds is not exciting, now I know why you didn't buy the 2010 GT. Forester XT? http://www.edmunds.com/subaru/forester/2009/testdrive.html We recorded a 0-60-mph sprint of 6.8 seconds en route to a quarter-mile time of 15.1 seconds at 90.4 mph — excellent numbers for a compact SUV Braking? XT wins again, 125 ft vs. 130 ft. Skid pad? Forester on top, .76g to .75. So Forester wins 3 out of 4 performance measure, Outlander takes only the slalom. Naturally, that's the only one that will matter to you.
|
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Nov 04, 2009 9:41 pm) In another thread you said it locked 50/50. 22% is still nearly FWD. And that's for slippery surfaces only, what happens if you forget to turn it off on dry pavement?  Subaru's split varies constantly according to needs, no buttons to worry about. You were name-dropping - Porsche, Dakar. So I did the same thing - Dodge Caliber, Chrysler, Jeep Compass. Outlander shares plenty of DNA with Chrysler.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Nov 05, 2009 4:04 am) 7.9 seconds is not exciting, now I know why you didn't buy the 2010 GT. We recorded a 0-60-mph sprint of 6.8 seconds en route to a quarter-mile time of 15.1 seconds at 90.4 mph — excellent numbers for a compact SUV Braking? XT wins again, 125 ft vs. 130 ft. Skid pad? Forester on top, .76g to .75. So Forester wins 3 out of 4 performance measure, Outlander takes only the slalom. The braking/skid pad difference is small. Skid pad tested with stability control on, that’s why Edmunds says that if you turn it off on GT, you get EVO. As for acceleration the GT’s 0-60 7.9 sec (I’ve also seen 7.4 sec in the other test) is good, better then Land Rover LR2 (9.1 sec). The Forester 6.8 sec number is very good but I would not call it exciting: Forester would not even pass Toyota RAV4, not to mention BMW X5M 4.5 sec (which is exciting). And the turbo engine is not a good choice for the utility vehicle: the payload and towing specs are poor, premium gas. There is nothing exciting about Forester: no exciting specs, older non-exciting technology, styling borrowed from Outlander. It’s a good basic dependable car with nice Mitsubishi turbocharger. Expensive for what you get. On the other hand there are quite a few exciting things about Outlander GT. The slalom handling beats almost anything, including X5M, Q5, ML63 AMG, Cayenne, RDX, MDX, and even Mercedes sedan. And this is with regular tires! The AWD system is the most advanced in class. The entertainment package is exciting too: 710 watt, 10” sub, streaming wireless audio, 40 GB music server, Sirius, 9” rear LCD, hard drive based Nav, backup camera etc. Xenons. LEDs, Fastkey. The wireless audio streaming is exciting too. The GT is exciting for its value alone.
|
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Nov 05, 2009 12:10 pm) The Forester 6.8 sec number is very good but I would not call it exciting You said you buy exciting cars, and that's quicker than what you spent your money on. Not to mention you have not driven a turbo. premium gas Recommended, same for the 230hp Outlander GT, per EPA.gov. The slalom handling beats almost anything Yeah, but it's a one-trick pony. That is the only thing it did well. All the other performance measures were ho-hum. Forester wins 3/4 performance tests. The AWD system is the most advanced in class Borg Warner supplies the same system for the Jeep Caliber and it's not Trail Rated. Edmunds noted how it felt like FWD saying "Some front wheel slip at launch". Fact is it's not sending enough power to the rear axle for them to feel like it wasn't FWD. Results speak louder than claims in a brochure. They also noted pedal fade after hard braking, You sure you want to tow a trailer when the brakes can barely handle the weight of the vehicle itself? Plus, you're only looking at the raw data, in their video, Inside Line said "Forester weaves through the slalom as quickly as you could expect from a compact utility." So clearly they thought it felt just fine. Yes, Outlander's time was 9% quicker in the slalom, but the Forester arrives to 60mph more than 16% sooner. You accelerate on merge ramps every day, probably. How often do you slalom around cones? Never. Acceleration is something you can and do use daily. Braking is vital when you need it. Skidpad grip makes it fun to take those highway ramps as well. These are things you can enjoy every day.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Nov 05, 2009 4:12 am) No, the Lock mode locks only the lower default rear axle torque, otherwise rear axle torque varies constantly 22-60% according to needs. No buttons / “fuses” to worry about ( I think early 50/50 split data was misleading in some sources). In addition torque varies side-to-side. . >> You were name-dropping - Porsche, Dakar. So I did the same thing - Dodge Caliber, Chrysler, Jeep Compass. Outlander shares plenty of DNA with Chrysler. Forester uses more parts from Mitsubishi then Outlander from Chrysler (none). And Compass/Caliber don't look as close to Outlander as Forester.
|
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Nov 05, 2009 12:57 pm) Even if Mitsubishi had supplied it to Jeep, the criticism would still apply. Jeep wants to sell cars, yet they have to admit - that system just doesn't cut it. They cannot endorse a vehicle they sell. The Mitsu turbo is so-so, a ball bearing turbo is a common upgrade for the EJ257. Mitsubishi can build great turbos, too bad the Outlander doesn't get one! 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Nov 05, 2009 12:50 pm) I did not say quickness alone is enough for a car to be exciting. Exciting car is usually a balanced package. Sorry, but none of Subarus could get even close to the ML350 in terms of excitement.
|
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Nov 05, 2009 1:16 pm) A balanced package will have acceleration, grip, braking, and handling, not just a slalom.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Nov 05, 2009 1:14 pm) Could you provide a link? . >> The Mitsu turbo is so-so Bad enough to be bought by Subaru 
|
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Nov 05, 2009 1:19 pm) You say things like "I called my Subaru dealer" and rarely provide links. Where's that dealer's site with an inventory? Again, Mitsu should put a turbo on the Outlander, then maybe it would deserve the "GT" nomenclature.
|
|
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
