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 71 of 159

#694 of 1581 Re: Chase Freedom Rewards [chelentano] by ateixeira

Nov 16, 2009 (7:03 am)

Replying to: chelentano (Nov 15, 2009 11:19 pm)
Dual-Clutch auto-manual
 
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.
 
transmission, diesel
 
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.
 
modern NAV
 
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] by ateixeira

Nov 16, 2009 (7:15 am)

Replying to: chelentano (Nov 15, 2009 11:19 pm)
As for safety, and accolades, not Forester, but Outlander won the "Top Safety Pick" by the IIHS
 
Not true.
 
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:
 
http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr112508.html
 
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:
 
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/roof/detailsbyclass.aspx?58
 
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.

#696 of 1581 modern NAV? by ateixeira

Nov 16, 2009 (7:23 am)

I see yours has no text-to-speech either!
 
Neither does Subaru, but clearly neither of these is what I'd call "modern".
 
I've had text-to-speech in my portables for half a decade now.
 
C'mon folks, get out of the stone ages.

#697 of 1581 monthly fuel costs by Stever@Edmunds HOST

Nov 16, 2009 (9:08 am)

Y'all will be pleased to note (or perhaps disappointed ) to learn that the fuel costs between the Forester and Outlander are almost identical.
 
Goodbye Miles per Gallon, Hello Monthly Fuel Cost

#698 of 1581 Re: monthly fuel costs [steve_] by ateixeira

Nov 16, 2009 (9:23 am)

Replying to: Stever@Edmunds (Nov 16, 2009 9:08 am)
Pleased - I've said all along that while the XT uses premium fuel, it uses less of it, which offsets the higher cost per gallon.
 
Edmunds got it right - this is how it should be done.

#699 of 1581 Re: monthly fuel costs [ateixeira] by comem47

Nov 16, 2009 (11:08 am)

Replying to: ateixeira (Nov 16, 2009 9:23 am)
"Edmunds got it right - this is how it should be done"
 
Edmunds made no statement to that effect at all (one way or another)
 
That is how YOU think it should be done. Everyone has their opinion
 
My preference for a CUV is for running the more available weasel pi** gas with lower compression. I'm sure someone else would prefer a supercharger over a turbocharger too. (with complexity can come expense and it's one more thing to add in for less potential reliability over time )YMMV.

#700 of 1581 Re: monthly fuel costs [comem47] by ateixeira

Nov 16, 2009 (11:13 am)

Replying to: comem47 (Nov 16, 2009 11:08 am)

 
I don't understand your response, the article (by Edmunds.com) said:
 
We think it's time to get on with the changeover to something better.
 
A figure that reflects monthly fuel cost makes much more sense
 
That was their opinion. I merely agreed with it.

#701 of 1581 Re: monthly fuel costs [ateixeira] by Stever@Edmunds HOST

Nov 16, 2009 (11:17 am)

Replying to: ateixeira (Nov 16, 2009 11:13 am)
Here's another blurb about it:
 
"Edmunds.com, parent of AutoObserver, late last week submitted a recommendation to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation to make fuel-economy information on new-vehicle window stickers more useful by shifting to a cost-of-energy figure rather than today's emphasized miles-per-gallon numbers."
 
Edmunds.com Recommends Shift From MPG Emphasis (AutoObserver)
 
The background story is all the electric and hybrid cars on the horizon (and on the street) that don't have "normal" mpg usage.

#702 of 1581 Re: monthly fuel costs [ateixeira] by comem47

Nov 16, 2009 (11:49 am)

Replying to: ateixeira (Nov 16, 2009 11:13 am)
OIC. You were referring only to the way fuel costs are measured, Not that Edmunds was passing judgment that turbocharging "is the way it should be" (a matter of opinion!!! )

#703 of 1581 Re: monthly fuel costs [comem47] by ateixeira

Nov 16, 2009 (12:05 pm)

Replying to: comem47 (Nov 16, 2009 11:49 am)
I did put that comment in a seperate paragraph. I meant Edmunds got it right when it comes to measuring fuel cost instead of MPG.
 
How can you measure MPG on an electric car if it doesn't use Gallons but rather kilowatt-hours?
 
I didn't even get a turbo, ours is a PZEV naturally aspirated engine. Clean and green.

Messages Page 71 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