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 8 of 159

#66 of 1581 Re: 2009 vs. 2008 [chelentano] by ateixeira

Apr 14, 2008 (7:33 am)

Replying to: chelentano (Apr 11, 2008 8:26 pm)
Honestly, now, do you really think that the leather-wrapped steering wheel is a dealer-installed option?
 
Seriously. Air bag and all? The dealer installs it, not the factory? Do you really believe that?
 
Oh boy.
 
Steve already pointed out you did include incentives. And again, a 2009 will be worth more than a 2008 in resale.
 
If you want to add all other potential incentives, then add up to $2000 discount for Subaru Bucks, which you can get with a Chase credit card.
 
The previous generation Forester that you call "obsolete" was a Car & Driver 5Best Trucks for 3 years in a row, beating the Outlander. So does that mean they think the Outlander is even less than obsolete? Perhaps so, because in their latest comparison with an Outlander, that AWD system you keep bragging about gave the Outlander the lowest score in the off road category, and prompted C&D to say the Mitsubishi even "felt fragile". Ouch.
 
You don't even understand what I'm saying about SportShift, so I give up. Forester shoppers can sample it for themselves and they'll see what I mean.

#67 of 1581 Re: Features and Specs [ateixeira] by comem47

Apr 14, 2008 (9:25 am)

Replying to: ateixeira (Apr 14, 2008 7:23 am)
You are quoting city mpg . Note that they are equal at 24 hwy mpg. I do better that the 2008 epa on city in any event (more like the 19 mpg rating for city and I regularly exceed 25 mpg on hwy). So any real life driving will be a mix of the two. As for acceleration, I find it more than adequate. If I wanted a rocket sled I guess I would have bought a RAV-4, but I don't care for the rear door (taste)and other ergonomics and price. I'm not going to try to convince you or anyone else against buying what they are already sold on (you obviously are), but just pointing out that fuel cost are not equal. (if you choose run a turbo on regular you're counting on the timing to be backed off by knock sensors to not damage your engine. This timing retard will effect economy and performance. You can't choose regular fuel and boast about premium performance. I'm not sure what Subaru's line is if engine damage were to occur on regular. The engine was designed around premium fuel. Once again, FOR ME the combo of price, warranty and features (like 3500 lbs towing) are a better value for thousands less. YMMV

#68 of 1581 Re: Features and Specs [comem47] by ateixeira

Apr 14, 2008 (9:53 am)

Replying to: comem47 (Apr 14, 2008 9:25 am)
Sure, but apples-to-apples, i.e. in the exact same test, the Forester XT shows an advantage around town.
 
Consumer Reports also got better observed MPG with their Forester vs. their Outlander, so that's been the case outside the EPA labs as well.
 
If we are looking at fuel costs, that mileage advantage should be accounted for. Premium fuel costs more, but getting less MPG also will cost you more.
 
If you use regular and the ECU backs off the timing on a Forester XT, it would probably still be quicker than the Outlander. The Subaru has a substantial advantage there.
 
I hate the swing door on the RAV4 as well, so I'll agree with you on that one. We got a Sienna, so we enjoy that great engine but don't have to put up with the poor visibility and wrong-way curb blocking door on the RAV4.
 
My beef isn't with you, it's with a certain member that keeps putting down the Forester even though he didn't even realize the 2009 Forester XT has a different AWD system than the 2008. (see the 2009 Forester threads for details)
 
Some people just don't know what they're talking about! Not you...

#69 of 1581 None of you take this the wrong way... by psychogun

Apr 14, 2008 (9:31 pm)

Remember: When arguing with a fan boy, it's hard for onlookers to tell the difference.
 
Suffice to say that both of these vehicles are fantastic. Incidentally, anyone shopping for a mid-size CUV should definitely test-drive both.
I'm disturbed by how often prospective buyers value the written word above an actual test-drive. Simply discarding models based on half-baked tests that they read. Before I digress, it needs to be said that there is not a single publication (paper or virtual) remaining that is not biased. Hmmm... I suppose that in itself is (my) bias.

#70 of 1581 Re: 2009 vs. 2008 [ateixeira] by chelentano

Apr 14, 2008 (10:22 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (Apr 14, 2008 7:33 am)
>> 0-60 in 8.1 seconds, are you sure about that? That's slow! Wow. V6 and 6 speeds, and that's all it'll do? That's competitive with the better 4 cylinder normally aspirated models, but nowhere near the Forester XT.
 
Well, you can try to make a racing car out of CUV and you can get good acceleration out of your turbo, but you pay for this pleasure with premium fuel, low payload, and noisy hard working engine. The Outlander’s engine is much more balanced.
 .
 
>> Honestly, now, do you really think that the leather-wrapped steering wheel is a dealer-installed option? Seriously. Air bag and all? The dealer installs it, not the factory? Do you really believe that? Oh boy.
 
Oh girl, I was talking about Leather Shift Knob which is extra $189 option on Forester, but included with base Outlander XLE.
 .
 
>>Steve already pointed out you did include incentives. And again, a 2009 will be worth more than a 2008 in resale.
 
We can argue about incentives all day long, but you can’t argue that MSPR and Invoice is lower on Outlander.
.
 
>>If you want to add all other potential incentives, then add up to $2000 discount for Subaru Bucks, which you can get with a Chase credit card.
 
Chase card? I use Chase Freedom card much smarter: it pays me cash back, so I can buy anything on cash, including any automobile. You on the other hand are stuck with your Subaru points.
 .
 
>> The previous generation Forester that you call "obsolete" was a Car & Driver 5Best Trucks for 3 years in a row, beating the Outlander. So does that mean they think the Outlander is even less than obsolete? Perhaps so, because in their latest comparison with an Outlander, that AWD system you keep bragging about gave the Outlander the lowest score in the off road category, and prompted C&D to say the Mitsubishi even "felt fragile". Ouch.
  
I have told you before that I care less about magazine reviews and “awards”. These magazines get paid by car manufacturers so they have obvious conflict of interest. I care more for ratings by real owners, who paid hard earned dollars to manufacturers (not the other way around like in case with magazines), and who drove thousands of miles on these cars. Example for 2007 cars top of the line trim:
 
..................MSNAutos ...Edmunds
Outlander V6.....9.5 ...........9.1
Forester turbo ...9.4 ..........8.3
RAV4 V6..........9.0 ...........8.9
CR-V ...............9.3 ..........9.1
CX-7 turbo .......8.8 ...........8.7
 
Result? Outlander has the highest owner ratings on both sites.
.
 
>> You don't even understand what I'm saying about SportShift, so I give up. Forester shoppers can sample it for themselves and they'll see what I mean.
 
You got no more real arguments I guess? SportShift or they call it Sportronic on Outlander was available two generations before 2009 Forester. In addition to the stick it has paddle shifter controls.

#71 of 1581 Re: None of you take this the wrong way... [psychogun] by chelentano

Apr 14, 2008 (10:27 pm)

Replying to: psychogun (Apr 14, 2008 9:31 pm)
This is so true, and if they get paid by a client, they are even more biased.

#72 of 1581 Re: 2009 vs. 2008 [chelentano] by h2k2f2

Apr 15, 2008 (6:54 am)

Replying to: chelentano (Apr 14, 2008 10:22 pm)
...but you pay for this pleasure with premium fuel, low payload, and noisy hard working engine. The Outlander’s engine is much more balanced.
 
Have you actually driven the Forester XT with this current version of the engine? If the answer is no, then I don't think that you're really in a position to make such a judgment about it.

#73 of 1581 Re: 2009 vs. 2008 [chelentano] by 10years

Apr 15, 2008 (7:34 am)

Replying to: chelentano (Apr 14, 2008 10:22 pm)
I have an 03 Forester X with 80K miles and zero problems to date. On a couple of occasions it has saved my butt with excellent brakes and solid handling in winter driving conditions. Compare that to an 03 Outlander.
 
The 07s' comparison is new Outlander versus old Forester, it would be better to compare say 06 models.
 
My son is beginning to look at getting a new CUV and Oulander is on the list. It certainly has some great features the 09 Forester does not and vice versa. But we have been somewhat dismayed by reports of paint chipping, sand blasting if you will, from winter sanded roads on the bottom panels on the Outlander which to date does not seem to have a practical solution by Mistu.

#74 of 1581 ... by rcpax

Apr 15, 2008 (8:55 am)

I don't think it's a problem unique to Mitsubishi, a whole lot of other makes share the same problem. You can easily prevent it by putting on mudguards for your vehicle. Any vehicle will get paint damage if not adequately protected. Simply analogy, if the sun hurts your skin, wear sunblock. I don't have paint chipping in my Outlander because I bought mudguards.

#75 of 1581 Why doesn't the V6 perform better? by ateixeira

Apr 15, 2008 (9:24 am)

Replying to: chelentano (Apr 14, 2008 10:22 pm)
Motorweek's test of the Outlander was even slower: 0-60 in 8.9 seconds. I did a double-take to make sure that was the V6, but it was.
 
My point is the better 4 cylinder (normally aspirated) competitors can match that and are a lot more economical with fuel. Why get a V6 if it's not a significantly better performer?
 
In fact, I wonder if Mitsubishi's own 2.4l with the CVT is as quick as their V6 model.
 
For reference, the last 2 Foresters they tested took 6.2 and 6.6 seconds, a whole other league.
 
I was talking about Leather Shift Knob which is extra $189 option on Forester
 
Wrong.
 
Leather shift knob is standard on the XT Limited, which is the model you were pricing. It's even standard on the LL Bean model. That's right from the 09 brochure. I've also noticed that in person, which you haven't, because you have not taken a serious look at the Forester (be honest, you haven't).
 
How much does your Chase Freedom card earn you? 1%?
 
I get 3%. I win.
 
Does Mitsubishi offer a program that earns you 3%? Can you use it for service, like you can with Subaru? Parts? Accessories?
 
This is important because we were debating TCO, and Subaru Bucks directly reduce your cost of ownership. Up to $2000 up front to buy it, and then $500 per year after that to get free service, a bike rack, etc.
 
With a Chase Subaru card your TCO will be much, much lower on a Subaru.

Messages Page 8 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