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
#746 of 1581 Re: Outlander vs. aftermarket accessories [ateixeira]
Nov 19, 2009 (7:36 pm)
>>I see, things only matter when Mitsubishi has the edge.
When you think Forester has an edge you talk about it. But when you see there no edge you talk about aftermarket accessories. There is really no edge except for large sun roof, which by the way eliminates that good roof safety test.
>> Safety means nothing to you now? It did a day or two ago.
You r talking about that new roof strength test. Outlander’s roof test is still rated 3 on 1-4 scale: better then CRV, Escape, Tribute, etc, even though it’s made of aluminum. A softer Outlander roof actually has positive safety implications: it was purposely made of more expensive aluminum to reduce center of gravity, improve handling and prevent rollover. As result of several improvements Outlander has excellent emergency handling / lower rollover risk (see impressive slalom test): great for safety. I mean I’d prefer not to rollover at all, rather than rollover and test the strength of my roof (and my neck). Other available safety features include HID headlamps with Adaptive Front Lighting System which includes automatic leveling, superior AWD system, parking sensors, and a rear view camera.
>> Reliability means nothing any more?
I’ve already commented on that. Forester is very reliable, but so is Outlander. Outlander was least 4 years: 2006-2009 CR at the top 4-6 most reliable in class:
Even though this quarter Forester is higher on CR list, remember that it has older and more proven equipment, and much less features. Example: if Forester does not have FAST Key, or rain sensors, satellite radio, these will never fail. If you house does not have a dishwasher and A/C those will never brake down.
Subaru sells basic dependable cars equipped with outdated but proven technologies.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.
#747 of 1581 Re: Link to Garmin Review [ateixeira]
Nov 19, 2009 (7:41 pm)
>>>>HID lighting in multiple colors: blue, green, yellow
>>Dude, are you serious?
I am serious, Dude. Glad I could enlighten you about color HIDs:
#748 of 1581 Re: I hate to interrupt.... [tazzi]
Nov 19, 2009 (8:03 pm)
>> but, in terms of driving, handling, reliability & cost to own - what are the major differences between the Outlander and the Forrester...
* Driving: Forester XT will be quicker in terms of pure acceleration, since it equipped with Mitsubishi turbocharger, and don't even think about non-turbo Forester if you looking for driving fun. Forester's dated 4-speed auto tranny is jerky, while Outlander 6-speed auto is super smooth.
* In terms of handling and overall driving experience Outlander GT wins: in spectacular slalom test Outlander GT beats every CUV except for $95K BMW X6 M: see my previus post #723. It even beats Mercedes C-Class sedan. Outlander has modern 6-speed tranny with padddle shfters, smooth V6, superior tri-mode AWD system with side-to-side torgue transfer, and superior entertainment.
* Reliability: Otlander V6 and Forester non-turbo are most reliable and both have excellent reliability, though Outlander offers superior warranty and road side assistance.
* TCO: Forester will cost you a couple of grands less over the 5 years, but you get what you paid for, or even less. Forester is relatively expensive for what it offers.
#749 of 1581 Re: Outlander vs. aftermarket accessories [chelentano]
Nov 19, 2009 (8:22 pm)
I did acknowledge the infotainment system, look back and you'll find it. But why did you feel the need to lie about the capacity and capabilities? 6 Gigs is not even close to 30 Gigs, nor is 9 close to 40. Why embellish?
I wonder if even the Mitsubishi owners believe you.
Source for the claim that the Forester IIHS crash tested did not have a moonroof, please?
#750 of 1581 Re: Link to Garmin Review [chelentano]
Nov 19, 2009 (8:27 pm)
Glad I could enlighten you about color HIDs
Add some spinners and that's a game changer. Safey it so overrated.
That's hilarious. I thought you were kidding.
#751 of 1581 Re: I hate to interrupt.... [tazzi]
Nov 19, 2009 (9:04 pm)
First let me ask, what's your budget? Buy or lease? Can you drive stick? Do you want the powerful engines, or the most fuel efficient ones?
That will help narrow it down.
Forester has a good balance of ride and handling. It's comfortable and user friendly, has good lateral grip for its class, solid fade-free braking. The turbo has very good acceleration.
The non-turbo automatic has average for its class acceleration, on par with the 2.4l Outlander with the CVT, CR-V, or 4 cylinder 'nox. If it's "slow" then so is everything else with the base 4 cylinder engine.
If you want efficiency with a bit more pep, try the manual transmission Forester. CR got 25mpg and it's quicker than any of the base 4-banger automatics. It actually very nearly matches the V6 Equinox in acceleration. Try it out.
Equinox has Direct Injection engines, very impressive on paper, though road tests have been a bit disappointing. I think it may just be too heavy, but neither engine is particularly quick. 180hp is more than either entry here offers in its base engine, though the PZEV 175hp Forester comes closer, plus the Forester is the only one that offers a manual.
EPA numbers are better, but CR got 21mpg. Forester 2.5i and Outlander CVT got 22mpg, but the champ here is the Forester manual at 25mpg. Plus it's the quickest of all of those - if you can drive stick.
If you want a V6 or turbo, the DI 'nox again is well ahead here, with a lot more HP (264), but again it's heavy. CR tested one (Nov 09 issue) and it wasn't as quick as expected, nor as fuel efficient. Comparing mileage, the V6 'nox got 18mpg, 19mpg for the 220hp Outlander V6 (not a 2010), and 20 mpg for the Forester turbo using premium fuel. Forester was quickest, even with the fewer gear ratios accounted for.
Kudos to Chevy for at least putting a larger gas tank in the V6 model - a whopping 20.9 gallons. But it will have the highest fuel costs. Run Edmunds' TCO tool for an idea of total costs over 5 years, they'll account for everything.
I have not driven the 'nox yet. I did drive its little brother, the Saturn Vue, and didn't like the electric power steering. No feel at all, reminded me of my Toyota. If you test drive one pay attention to the steering.
Forester is the only one of the 3 to make the IIHS Top Safety Picks list for 2010. Not sure if the Equinox went through all the tests yet, to even be eligible.
Forester 2.5i is also ranked #3 in class in terms of reliability, the only model here to make CR's top 6 in class. 'nox is too new to be rated.
We have an 09 Forester PZEV Limited auto. Despite the haterade here, the transmission is fine. We've owned it for more than a year, not just a test drive around the block. The shifts are smooth and decisive. My Sienna has a 5 speed auto compared to the Forester it hesitates and feels indecisive. It's more than just the number of ratios, it's the feel, so drive it and evaluate this for yourself.
We've beat 30mpg on a trip, and I've seen 33mpg for short periods. People with stick shifts have gotten tankfuls of more than 32mpg. Very pleased.
Dislikes? Well, look closely at all of these. The headliners feel like card board with dryer lint or peach fuzz sprayed on. The dashes are not padded, and plastics are hard. Carpets are thin. I'll take a close look at the Equinox come Auto Show season, but both the Forester and Outlander have cheap materials that simply do not belong in a price class beyond $30k or so. Maybe even $25k.
We have no regrets. If our Forester was stolen or totalled today, we would buy another Forester. Same model, even.
Best of luck shopping, and feel free to ask specific questions about the Forester.
#752 of 1581 Re: Outlander vs. aftermarket accessories [ateixeira]
Nov 19, 2009 (10:05 pm)
>> But why did you feel the need to lie about the capacity and capabilities? 6 Gigs is not even close to 30 Gigs, nor is 9 close to 40. Why embellish?
We’ve never got into details about HD memory allocation for different functions. Please point to my post were I “lie”. “40GB HDD digital music server” or “30GB hard-drive-based music server” with several variations, that what it’s called in many online sources:
http://www.cars.com/go/crp/research.jsp?section=optionsAndExtras&makeid=34&model- - id=6708&year=2009&myid=10689&acode=USB90MIS032C0&mode=&aff=national
Your Forester is using only 4.7 Gb DVD for maps. Do you really what to get into conversation about Outlander music server capabilities not knowing once again what you are talking about?
>> Source for the claim that the Forester IIHS crash tested did not have a moonroof, please?
The IIHS site states that tests conducted on cars with typical equipment. Large panoramic sun roof is not typical, it’s a $1000 option. Good luck rolling over on that large glass sun roof though.
#753 of 1581 Re: I hate to interrupt.... [tazzi]
Nov 19, 2009 (11:09 pm)
Yes, the newer Equinox looks interesting and MPG looks great. Back in 2007 the Equinox was a different beast altogether and was quickly ruled out. As much as I love my Outlander I have no preconceived allegiance and would have to give this a serious look if I were shopping now(my wife has a 2006 Malibu Maxx V6 that has treated her real well with great MPGs) Chevy has also caught up on the warranty thing with the Outlander for a few years now. (the 100k part, not "or 10 years part")