Last post on May 10, 2010 at 6:35 AM
You are in the Mitsubishi Outlander
What is this discussion about?
Mitsubishi Outlander, Subaru Forester, Car Comparisons, SUV
#710 of 1581 Re: Do It Yourself [chelentano]
Nov 17, 2009 (5:04 am)
Yea, sure, I know
Admit it, you did not know about Subaru's diesel engine. Otherwise why did you mention it on your list of things Subaru doesn't offer that Mitsubishi does?
Have you ever thought why Lexus and Benz don’t use your “the real thing” in their luxury SUVs?
Because those aren't the sportier manufacturers in that segment. BMW offers a true manual in the X3. RX350? Please...I own a Toyota, they're as far from sporty as you can get. Competent in other ways, sure.
in 2007 Forester did not have ANY navigation
Portables are better anyway, you're not stuck with outdated maps. When will they offer the next update, 2013? I wonder if you rent an Outlander (or one of its clones) in Europe if it still says East/West Germany, or maybe USSR? LOL
Portables also offer Bluetooth and lane guidance, and 3 things the Outlander's expensive system does not:
* frequent updates
* 3 choices for traffic, including a free one with no subscription
Your 2007 Outlander did not have heated mirrors. And don't say you didn't care - because you said that was an important feature that you missed. Subaru had that 7 years sooner. Subaru added Navi the same year Mitsu added heated mirrors. After all, AWD is for snowy climates, and I'd rather see out my side mirrors than get directions from 4 year old maps:
Make a left on to the Road That Doesn't Exist Any More...
Not to mention all the businesses that closed (or opened) from 2005 to 2009.
stereo, navigation, Xenons, satellite accessory, backup camera
All that stuff just lowers your residual and ends up increasing ownership costs disproportionately. Plus they push the GT in to a lease payment that would get you a Benz or BMW - which is what you did.
#711 of 1581 Re: Do It Yourself [chelentano]
Nov 17, 2009 (5:14 am)
They will offer discounts because they'll have to. That's just too much money for a compact crossover from a non-luxury brand.
At that price many people (like you) lease, and Outlanders don't lease well due to the residuals. Fancy options only lower residual percentages. Actual samples:
$560/month with $3000 cap reduction + taxes and fees
($464 with taxes), first month payment + $350 doc fee/plates ($814 total) due at signing
That's BMW/Mercedes money. No wonder you defected. Actions speak louder than words.
#712 of 1581 You must have read this book after 2007
Nov 17, 2009 (5:17 am)
Since you're so familiar with that series..
#713 of 1581 Re: Mitsubishi Outlander GT [suvsearcher1]
Nov 17, 2009 (7:14 am)
While I agree that the GLK and the Outlander are not likely to be cross-shopped, I will take issue with some of your statements about the engines.
GLK: 3.5L, 268HP = 76.6 HP/L
Outlander: 3.0L, 230HP = 76.7 HP/L
Power output/displacement is a wash so you can't really say the Benz engine is more advanced. It's just bigger. No advantage to MB there except for the "more is better" argument. Which is fine until you have to put gas in it:
GLK: 16 city/21 highway/18 combined
Even brand new the GLK would have qualified as a clunker WRT fuel economy. That's not good. The Outlander gets 11-14% better fuel economy & will be less expensive to drive than the GLK. The GLK's gas tank is almost 2 gallons larger so their driving ranges are pretty similar.
BTW, this is a revised version of the 3L V6 so the NVH you experienced may not be there anymore. It certainly hasn't been a factor in my Mitsu's 10 year old 3L V6; with 152K on the clock it's still silky smooth.
I'm sure the GLK has better interior materials than the Outlander. I won't try to argue that point. But the Outlander has more passenger space by every measurement - hip, leg, head, and shoulder room. The GLK has more luggage capacity with the second row seats up but the Outlander bests it with the second (& third row, which the GLK doesn't offer) down by 18 cubic feet. Speaking of second row seats, the Mitsu's fold flat to the cargo floor; the GLK's do not. So good luck hauling those long, flat items without bending them.
(All data is from the Edmunds specs pages for the 2010 V6 AWD models.)
Regarding sales, yes, time will tell. Mitsu has problems there with brand recognition and with very limited advertising dollars. With those combined it will be hard to attract sufficient attention. They also have a relatively small dealer network nationally (although they're represented fine in my area - Chicagoland).
Personally, I'm comparing the Outlander XLS to the GT. Same engine but different AWD system. Optioned similary the GT is a bit more expensive and I'm not sure the better AWD system is worth the extra cost. I'll drive both and see.
#714 of 1581 Re: Mitsubishi Outlander GT [fushigi]
Nov 17, 2009 (8:00 am)
I believe clunkers had to get 18mpg or less using the unadjusted numbers from a while ago. The GLK would not qualify.
Plus, short gearing makes it much quicker, a trade-off for the mileage.
The point, though, is should Mitsubishi even be competing with Audi and Mercedes?
#715 of 1581 Re: Mitsubishi Outlander GT [ateixeira]
Nov 17, 2009 (10:45 am)
You may be right, although I thought C4C used the revised numbers. In the end it doesn't matter. My point was that the GLK is thirsty by comparison and even when cruising - where quickness doesn't come into play - the Outlander beats it handily when it comes to economy. With a 7-speed auto and that engine, the GLK really should have come with a really tall highway gear; that would have allowed for much better mileage. The 2010 RAV4 with 4WD and Toyota's similar-speced 3.5L V6 gets 19/26/21 out of a 5 speed auto.
Anyway, we shouldn't be comparing the Mitsu (or the Forester) to the Audi, MB, or RAV4 as I just did in this thread. Let's keep to just the Forester v. Outlander.
#716 of 1581 Re: Mitsubishi Outlander GT [fushigi]
Nov 17, 2009 (11:18 am)
We own a Sienna so I know the 2GR engine well.
We have gone off on a tangent a bit, but that's because when you're spending $450-550 a month on a lease, that's what you would be comparing.
Mitsu's web site compares the GT to the Forester XT and the BMW X3.
I think it's quite flattering that Mitsubishi considers those the benchmarks.
#717 of 1581 Re: Mitsubishi Outlander GT [ateixeira]
Nov 17, 2009 (11:59 am)
Leasing has never appealed to me. I don't want perpetual payments even if it does mean I get a new ride every three or so years. My '99 was paid off in '01 so I've been sans payment for over 8 years. The trade-off of driving a car with more miles on it is well worth the many thousands of dollars I've saved. Although I will admit I now drive only around 7K miles a year so I wouldn't have to live in fear of a mileage penalty on a lease.
Hmm. When I tried the Compare link it came up with the RDX and Sante Fe in addition to the Forester.
#718 of 1581 Re: Mitsubishi Outlander GT [fushigi]
Nov 17, 2009 (1:33 pm)
Comparing Outlander and GLK does not make much sense especially in terms of fuel economy and that was my whole point. Any luxury car will be thirsty on fuel due to more weight and an engine that is geared more towards performance than economy. Rav 4 V6 and Outlander XLS is a more appropriate comparison. And even here Rav 4 beats Outie hands down in terms of fuel economy and power.
In V4 version too both CRV and Rav4 beats Outlander in fuel economy and power. Where Outlander shines is its smooth 6 speed tranny which none of its competitors have except for CX-7. The 6 speed in Outie is also pretty reliable too as I have not heard of any issues in this forum. I wish they would have paired that 6 speed with a bigger and refined V6.
#719 of 1581 Re: Mitsubishi Outlander GT [fushigi]
Nov 17, 2009 (3:01 pm)
Mitsu's site listed BMW and Subaru. Maybe I didn't scroll to the right enough? Or were you talking about Edmunds?
Any how, Mitsu is certainly ambitious if they list BMW and Acura.
Anyone who wants to spend $33k on a Subie can get an Outback 3.6R Limited with Navi, and that gets a backup cam with trajectory lines (does Outlander have those?), big engine power, and a huge 8" Nav screen that is eye candy. It even takes voice commands. A USB port is standard and will charge and play iPod tunes, too.
Good luck finding one right now, though, 'cause they're on back order.
That system will trickle down to the Forester - but I still say OEM nav is grossly overpriced and not updated often enough.
Subaru is better than most here - the Forester's been out for just over a year and already they offer a map update. I think the Tribeca (out longer) has had 3 updates since 2006.
Still - I live in the DC area near the ICC, and they just opened the first portion. It'll finish only in Jan 2011, opening in phases. Unless your maps are current, those routes will be ignored completely. For me that would be totally useless - even with traffic.
I just upgraded to a new Garmin and I'm still playing with all the gadgets, but my initial impression is that this makes much more sense for about 1/10th the cost (with bluetooth, traffic, text-to-speech, etc.).
Edit: no text-to-speech on the OB's Navi either. Portables win!