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 2 of 159

#8 of 1581 Re: Outlander vs. Forester [ateixeira] by chelentano

Feb 14, 2008 (4:16 pm)

Replying to: ateixeira (Feb 13, 2008 12:30 pm)
>> Audi Quattro cannot do a max of 0/100 to 100/0. Audi uses a Torsen limited-slip center differential with a bias ratio of 2 to 1. By design, the limit of that system is 33/67 to 67/33. It's just plain wrong. Even if the bias ratio was 9 to 1, it would be 10/90 to 90/10. A Torsen is completely incapable of sending 100% to one axle. It's just impossible by design.
  
That’s what I am saying, not every person really qualified to dismiss expert opinion. I guess you probably just don’t know the complete picture. Even the http://wikicars.org/en/Quattro says about Quattro: “up to 100% of torque can be transferred to either axle”. It says it there twice. So the guy from NY Times is right.
.
 
  
>> Chrysler Group minivans don't even offer AWD. How old is that chart? Mama-mia.
 
This 2002 or 2003 article is still newer then that “proof” of yours, which you posted to me in the other thread, which was dated by year 2000 and hosted on some noname site which even could not afford to buy a domain name.
  
And since we primarily talking about the Subaru, the 2002 Subaru info is almost as good even for the year 2014. According to your own words, Subaru’s AWD system in 1998 was the same, as it’s today. [“I owned VC equipped with 5 speed manual, 1998 model. It still uses the same system today”]
 
Anyway, Subaru is little slow on new technologies and on innovation. The brand new 2009 Forester uses same-old-same-old 4-speed auto tranny, which means they going to sell that car with dated AWD and dated tranny probably at least through the year 2014! Also Subaru is coming up this year first time ever with its first diesel engine: welcome to 21 century!
.
 
  
>> Now, let's specifically look at what they say about Subaru's systems. First they list the 5 speed manual, call it 50/50 default and 0/100 max. The 50/50 part is actually correct. The 0/100 is not. …Next, the Active AWD system, found on the low-price automatic models. They say 90/10 default (which is correct) up to 50/50 max, which is incorrect. If the front axle was getting 50% of the power or more, the front wheels would have spun like crazy on that ramp. Remember it didn't spin at all. So the front axle was getting 0 power. It should be 100/0 to 0/100.
  
The NY Times guy is probably right again. In his other article “Introduction to All Wheel Drive systems” he actually calls this auto transmission Subaru’s AWD system “part time”:
“Subaru has for many years been quietly offering radically different AWD systems in the same car, depending on the transmission choice. The manual transmission Legacies and Imprezas use a full time system that is split 50-50 with viscous couplings for limiting slip. In the automatic transmission versions, however, the system is a part time”.
 
I mean really: 10% of rear axel torque you can barely call full-time. Is it really even 10% or he just rounded the number? I’d call that a fake full-time AWD. Again, there is too much marketing from Subaru, too little technology.

#9 of 1581 Re: Outlander vs. Forester [chelentano] by paisan

Feb 14, 2008 (6:04 pm)

Replying to: chelentano (Feb 14, 2008 4:16 pm)
No offense but wikki is wrong a lot more than it's right.
 
-mike
Motorsports and Modifications Host

#10 of 1581 Re: Outlander vs. Forester [paisan] by chelentano

Feb 15, 2008 (8:38 am)

Replying to: paisan (Feb 14, 2008 6:04 pm)
That's good to know, Mike, but I wish you would point this to Ateixeira earlier, when he used a reference to the Wiki site in his last post.

#11 of 1581 Re: Outlander vs. Forester [chelentano] by paisan

Feb 15, 2008 (6:08 pm)

Replying to: chelentano (Feb 15, 2008 8:38 am)
Sorry I missed it or I would have. As I said, anytime I've actually check on wikki facts, I realized they are just like anything else on the internet, opinion rather than fact so I dismiss most of what is on there as complete crap cause it has no rep.
 
-mike
Motorsports and Modifications Host

#12 of 1581 Re: Outlander vs. Forester [paisan] by steve_ HOST

Feb 15, 2008 (6:32 pm)

Replying to: paisan (Feb 15, 2008 6:08 pm)
Remember this study in Nature a couple of years back?
 
That's the granddaddy Wikipedia started by individual volunteer contributors Nature is talking about, not the wikicars thing that was started by Internet Brands to tout their own material.

#13 of 1581 They look alike by chelentano

Mar 30, 2008 (6:05 pm)

#14 of 1581 Features and Specs by chelentano

Apr 05, 2008 (9:58 pm)

Now since the 2009 Forester is available for sale, let's look at the features and specs comparo for both SUVs. Common features are not mentioned. Blue color indicates data for the 4 cylinder Outlander SE (Special Edition), which is mostly identical to XLS, except for engine and transmission. The Outlander SE would be a counterpart to the Forester LL Bean, I guess.
 
Correct me, if something is not accurate, but the Outlander appears to be a much better deal.
 

#15 of 1581 Re: Features and Specs [chelentano] by steve_ HOST

Apr 05, 2008 (10:46 pm)

Replying to: chelentano (Apr 05, 2008 9:58 pm)
The Edmunds comparison tool for the 08 ES AWD and the 09 2.5X may be of interest.
 
I'm more of a base model guy and would go for the manual tranny non-turbo Forester and the ES Outlander (in real life I might just go for the FWD Mitsu, but for comparison purposes, I looked at the base AWD). Plus there's a stop order on the Forester turbos (Stop Sale).
 
No premium fuel requirements on the base engine Subie either. EPA MPG is 20/26.
 
Best thing the Mitsu has going is the 10 year drivetrain warranty, although the 60k part of it isn't quite as good as the 7/70 I had on my old Voyager. Actually my current Quest came with a 5/60 drivetrain, and I hit 60k during the third year, so Mitsu really should stretch that out a bit to correspond more realistically with typical miles driven a year. Definitely a better basic warranty on the Mitsu.
 
Not sure about the CVT transmissions. I miss having a stick. You'd think a CVT would easily last those 10 years, having fewer parts and all. I'd like to drive one for a couple of days.
 
Crash ratings aren't out for the Forester yet afaik - Outlander does well.
 
Both of them have 16" tires - have you priced tires lately? I don't want to even think about the cost of an 18" or bigger tire with the price of crude these days.
 
I don't tow, but that could be a deal killer for tire kickers.
 
People still use CDs?

#16 of 1581 Re: Features and Specs [steve_] by chelentano

Apr 05, 2008 (11:26 pm)

Replying to: steve_ (Apr 05, 2008 10:46 pm)
>> I'm more of a base model guy and would go for the manual tranny non-turbo Forester and the ES Outlander.
 
The 4 cylinder Outlander was not available last year, otherwise I would consider it, since I do a heavy urban driving in Chicago, but I’d get the Special Edition - you can get so much car for your dollar.
.
 
>> Plus there's a stop order on the Forester turbos
 
Technical issues, perhaps.
.
 
>> Not sure about the CVT transmissions. I miss having a stick. You'd think a CVT would easily last those 10 years, having fewer parts and all. I'd like to drive one for a couple of days.
 
CVT is shiftable on the Outlander. I believe even paddle shifters are present. The V6 Outlander suppose to get a twin clutch tranny next year, which would be cool.
.
 
>> Both of them have 16" tires - have you priced tires lately? I don't want to even think about the cost of an 18" or bigger tire with the price of crude these days. I don't tow, but that could be a deal killer for tire kickers.
 
Not a concern for me. By the time I need new tires, I get a new car. Otherwise if we commit to drive SUV, be prepared for higher costs of gas, tires, etc.
.
  
>> People still use CDs?
 
Some do. Also these are CD-Rs with MP3 capability. You can stuff so much music into 6 CDs, or you can get the single DVD version Outlander with build-in MP3 music server, Sirius radio and iPod connector.

#17 of 1581 Re: Features and Specs [chelentano] by steve_ HOST

Apr 05, 2008 (11:45 pm)

Replying to: chelentano (Apr 05, 2008 11:26 pm)
Yeah, I'd like to play with paddle shifters too.
 
Ordinarily I wouldn't think too much about this class of vehicle unless you're willing to call them tall wagons, but my sister got a used Forester a year ago and I've enjoyed driving it. It seems a bit more versatile than my Outback in some ways and almost could take the place of our minivan.
 
None of them really get the mpg I'd like to see - I'd really like to get ~25/26 in town and over 30 on the road while still being able to tote bulky camping gear around.
 
The Outlander's tailgate looks interesting too btw.
 
CDs = moving parts = last century. I want an AUX type jack that will accept an MP3 player or USB stick. Give me steering wheel controls that integrate with it too. Oh yeah, while I'm dreaming, make it standard, lol.
 
Not to get too far afield, but have you done a similar comparison with the new CR-V?

Messages Page 2 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