Last post on May 10, 2010 at 5:35 AM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander
What is this discussion about?
Mitsubishi Outlander, Subaru Forester, Car Comparisons, SUV
#686 of 1581 Re: Chase Freedom Rewards [chelentano]
Nov 14, 2009 (9:48 pm)
forced to buy Subaru with its dated 4-speed transmission again
Mitsu got their CVT first, kudos, Subaru's is due out soon. Slushboxes are indeed dated - even with gimmicky manual shift modes.
Remember they offer a stick shift, though.
But keep in mind our tried-and-true Forester is on CR's most reliable list, and Mitsubishi, while deserving credit for getting their CVT to market, dropped out of that reliable list.
In fact Mitsu is notably absent - they did not have a single car out of the 48 most reliable per CR.
Mitsu sales are down, what, 48%? Subaru's sales are up.
Since you've gone on this tirade against the Forester, sales have basically experienced a meteoric rise. Even comparing the 2010 to the then-brand-new-2009 model, sales are still up. 2009 was way up from 2008. People obviously care about the resulting performance, not the number of gears in a transmission.
Does that work on the ladies? "My car may be slower, but I have more gear ratios." So smooth.
The Forester is leaner, meaner, greener, safer, and costs less to own.
Outlander does deserve credit for pioneering many firsts in the segment, a risk that unfortunately did not pay off in sales. People don't shop for spec sheets or options lists the way you do, they take test drives and buy the vehicle that brings a smile to their face.
Accolades from the press reaffirm their decisions, and sales keep rising.
#687 of 1581 Re: Can we talk about the CARS???? [godeacs]
Nov 15, 2009 (8:32 am)
Mitsu has updated their site with the official 2010 Outlander specs. http://www.mitsubishicars.com/MMNA/jsp/outlander/10/index.do?loc=en-us
To settle one earlier discussion point, Mitsu makes no mention of there being a premium fuel requirement for the 2010 Outlander V6. I compared against the Lancer Ralliart, which does require premium, and the Lancer specs page does note that difference.
#688 of 1581 Re: Can we talk about the CARS???? [fushigi]
Nov 15, 2009 (3:49 pm)
Either the EPA is wrong, or Mitsu recommends (not requires) premium and the EPA goes according to that recommendation.
Do they have any other models where premium fuel is recommended (but not required)? Just curious as to why the EPA would say that. I checked again and they still do:
Edit: Mazda recommends premium for my Miata, and the EPA uses premium fuel for their numbers. Premium is not required in the Miata, so maybe it's the same thing?
Anyone own a '10 GT yet? What does the owner's manual say? What about the fuel door itself? Usually it'll say something right there.
#689 of 1581 Re: Can we talk about the CARS???? [ateixeira]
Nov 15, 2009 (6:03 pm)
My guess would be that the EPA is running off of pre-release data. Past Mitsu V6s have wanted premium so maybe the data fed to the EPA was simply old.
As I noted the Lancer Ralliart "recommends" premium while the other Lancers do not: http://www.mitsubishicars.com/MMNA/jsp/lancer/10/specs.do?loc=en-us
From what I've heard, the '10 models will hit dealers later this month or the first week of December.
Anyway, I'm not saying this is definitive proof; just that the manufacturer's site does not mention premium as a requirement. I will go test drive one once they're available locally and find out.
#690 of 1581 Re: Can we talk about the CARS???? [fushigi]
Nov 15, 2009 (9:00 pm)
"Past Mitsu V6s have wanted premium so maybe the data fed to the EPA was simply old. "
??? The current Outlander V6 DOES NOT require premium nor is is even a recommendation (it would be a waste with nothing gained)
Now maybe the new one goes that way (a mistake IMHO) but it's not something they currently do.
#691 of 1581 Re: Chase Freedom Rewards [ateixeira]
Nov 15, 2009 (10:19 pm)
>> Mitsu got their CVT first, kudos, Subaru's is due out soon.
Soon! Who cares for CVT? This is old tech for cheap cars. Mitsu has been already selling cars with modern smooth 6-speed auto, and Dual-Clutch auto-manual, paddle shifters and neutral logic.
>> But keep in mind our tried-and-true Forester is on CR's most reliable list, and Mitsubishi, while deserving credit for getting their CVT to market, dropped out of that reliable list.
Well, may be it's not in the top 2 anymore, but top 3 or 5: who knows this still would be great, but actually you forgot to mention, that, looking at overall brand reliability, Mitsubishi brand is ahead of Subaru, Nissan, Mazda and Lexus in CR listing (published on Nov 2nd, 2009):
http://www.fivecentnickel.com/2009/11/02/most-and-least-reliable-cars-2009-editi- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - on/
>> Mitsu sales are down, what, 48%? Subaru's sales are up.
This is just in one market (US) and one month numbers. Mitsubishi still sells twice more cars/light commercial vehicles worldwide consistently every year vs. Subaru (Fuji):
And this does not even include Mitsubishi heavy vehicles and buses – by the way this Subaru manufacturing division went out of business in 2003.
>> Since you've gone on this tirade against the Forester, sales have basically experienced a meteoric rise.
"Meteoric rise"? Not quite. May be in some markets sales are better, but worldwide Fuji / Subaru sales decline every year (thousands of units):
2010: 508 (projected)
It will not be easy for Subaru to stop this “meteoric” decline, while dropping behind in key technologies: AWD, transmission, diesel, hybrid, plug-in electric, not even mention toys like modern NAV, streaming bluetooth, FAST key, etc.
>> The Forester is leaner, meaner, greener, safer, and costs less to own.
Forester is leaner for sure, leaner in terms of technology. As for safety, and accolades, not Forester, but Outlander won the "Top Safety Pick" by the IIHS:
Subaru sells "lean" basic cars equipped with outdated but proven technologies. This helps them to stay on the top of reliability charts and move funds from R&D to marketing, but this strategy may eventually backfire.
#692 of 1581 Re: Chase Freedom Rewards [chelentano]
Nov 15, 2009 (10:53 pm)
It will not be easy for Subaru to stop this “meteoric” decline ...
Technically, you're both right. Meteors generally fall and either become meteorites or vaporize completely. Only rarely does a meteor, with sufficient mass and just the right trajectory, reverse its decent and rise to become a meteoroid again.
Oh, yes, my point! And it is that sometimes people just don't want that much detail in a comparo.
SUVs and Smart Shopper
#693 of 1581 Re: Can we talk about the CARS???? [fushigi]
Nov 16, 2009 (5:44 am)
I hear you, the EPA is probably just mistaken.
#694 of 1581 Re: Chase Freedom Rewards [chelentano]
Nov 16, 2009 (6:03 am)
True, but it's a shame the dual-clutch SST transmission didn't make it to the US-spec Outlander GT, though. Keep in mind that vehicle starts at $31 grand, and that's with cloth and no Navi. Plus - Mitsu said it was coming.
may be it's not in the top 2 anymore, but top 3 or 5
Actually no, it did not make the top 6 in its class.
The rest of your post waters things down by comparing Mitsu corporate to FHI. Subaru of America, where both of us live, is on a huge roll. Their market share is up nearly 50%, primarily due to the main subject of this thread - the Forester.
Mitsubishi should stop selling passenger cars, and stick to trucks and other businesses.
You don't know about Subaru's diesel? Edmunds even tested it, in the Forester no less. Let's see who can get theirs to the USA first, Subaru or Mitsu.
And guess what transmission it had? A 6 speed manual. No pretender, the real thing, with a clutch.
Really? What you haven't disclosed is the fact that your 2007 model had maps from way back in 2005, and that wasn't updated until 2009. 4 year old map data. That's pathetic. Modern? Try ancient.
Since 05 Garmin has been through version 6, then 7, then 2008, then 2009, and now 2010, and by the way they've had TWENTY updates to the 2010 maps, currently on v2010.20.
How can you brag about a system that had 4 year old maps? It can't even match a $99 portable.
I'm not going to defend Subaru's Navi, in fact I passed on it. OEM Navi is overpriced, even at $1800 it's not worth it. Mitsu's costs more and offers more, but it's still grossly overpriced and has maps so dated it would not include roads built years ago. Not to mention the options costs more and I bet the updates cost a couple hundred bucks, too.
Get a Kenwood instead. You called Subaru's stereo "generic", no realizing that's actually an advantage. It's a standard double-DIN opening. Anything fits, generic size, like you said. Get one of these for 1/3rd of the cost of OEM Navi:
And since it has Garmin maps, you would have been able to get dozens of updates in the time you were waiting for just one. And the updates cost $99 for life. That head unit is about $700 with Bluetooth, and you can add a backup cam for $99, too.
So this is about 1/3rd the cost. Still less than half even with the backup cam and installation.
#695 of 1581 Re: Chase Freedom Rewards [chelentano]
Nov 16, 2009 (6:15 am)
As for safety, and accolades, not Forester, but Outlander won the "Top Safety Pick" by the IIHS
Forester was actually the FIRST small crossover to be named a Top Safety Pick, well before Outlander caught up several years later.
Here is the complete list for 2009:
Even now, the Forester gets the top score of "Good" in every single test IIHS performs, and the Outlander does not.
Outlander scores "Average" in the roof strength test:
Forester's roof is so much stronger that it can take all the weight that crushed the Outlander's roof, and the Outlander itself, crushed roof and all, and still the roof would not fail!
You keep falling back on the options list, but I will note that the Outlander GT starts at $31 grand, for cloth and no Navi. The Forester XT tops off at less than that even with Navi and heated leather. So the Outlander simply goes in to a much higher price range, where luxury brand competitors exist.
This is why sales won't pick up. People are not looking for an economy-branded compact crossover for more than $30 large. At that price it makes more sense to buy Mercedes, BMW, or some other luxury make. The Outlander GT with leather and Navi costs $33 grand, and by then people aren't even considering Mitsubishi.
No wonder you leased a Benz, at that price I would have, also.
We finally agree on something.