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
#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.
Nov 16, 2009 (6:23 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.
#698 of 1581 Re: monthly fuel costs [steve_]
Nov 16, 2009 (8:23 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]
Nov 16, 2009 (10:08 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]
Nov 16, 2009 (10:13 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 (10:17 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]
Nov 16, 2009 (10:49 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]
Nov 16, 2009 (11:05 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.
#704 of 1581 Re: Can we talk about the CARS???? [comem47]
Nov 16, 2009 (1:52 pm)
The current 3L V6 does not, but it did in the past. For instance, I currently drive a '99 Galant with the 3L V6 and this generation of the engine recommends/requires premium. As near as I can tell the current 3L V6 is an updated version of my car's engine and not an entirely new design. BTW my car runs fine on regular but gets about a half MPG less so in the end it's just as cost effective to burn the expensive stuff.
Also, IIRC the 3.8L from the Galant and Endeavor used premium. That's prior to the current Galant and when they sold the Endeavor. The current Galant is only offered with a 4 cyl.
Finally, there was a discussion in the earlier posts going back and forth about the 2010 Outlander V6 requiring premium. My posts were an attempt to provide at least some finality to the question by noting that Mitsu does not state premium is required.