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
#82 of 1581 Re: Why doesn't the V6 perform better? [ateixeira]
Apr 15, 2008 (12:33 pm)
Motorweek's test of the Outlander was even slower: 0-60 in 8.9 seconds. I did a double-take to make sure that was the V6, but it was.
My point is the better 4 cylinder (normally aspirated) competitors can match that and are a lot more economical with fuel. Why get a V6 if it's not a significantly better performer?
In fact, I wonder if Mitsubishi's own 2.4l with the CVT is as quick as their V6 model.
For reference, the last 2 Foresters they tested took 6.2 and 6.6 seconds, a whole other league.
Not to interfere with the little "war" here, but I wouldn't go by the numbers posted by the Motorweek. I read/watch their reviews but for whatever reasons they post higher test numbers for ALL the cars, in all performance tests. At the most, you could use the numbers to compare other vehicles tested by them.
Motorweek tested the 2006 Forester XT, which without doubt, posts better numbers than the Outlander and most of the V6 CUVs on the road. Does this mean much? If I were to buy a turbo vehicle, I would buy a car - WRX, Mazdaspeed3, STi, Evo, etc. I don't really see the point for a mainstream turbo SUV. It will handle like an SUV regardless so the straight-line acceleration it's just a waist of time.
I would be curious thought to see some numbers for the naturally aspired 2009 Forester. This would be relevant indeed. However, from what I've seen so far, all the I4 CUVs are in the same ballpark 9-10 sec. with the Rogue being the quickest.
The Outlander I4 is also up there with the CRV, RAV4 I4 and Rogue for fuel economy so it's not a lesser vehicle by comparison. I'm sure the 2009 Forester will join them too.
The Outlander V6 posts 8.1-8.3 sec. in any other car magazine test, which is about right and normal for its power output and size/weight (at least in my opinion); it doesnít feel underpowered or sluggish by any means.
On the other hand, the naturally aspired 3.0L H6 Subaru engine (same displacement as the Outlanderís V6), with 250 hp and 5-speed auto in the last gen Tribeca, posted a whooping 9.7 sec. to 60 mph (Motorweek called it "reasonable" LOL). This is truly in the I4 territory so not quite an accomplishment for Subaru.
For what it's worth, the Outlander V6 however is faster to 60mph than any naturally aspired I4 CUV without a question enve though that's by a second or so,
#83 of 1581 Relevance and Irrelevance of 0-60
Apr 15, 2008 (1:06 pm)
I thought I would be able to stay away from this thread... Ack! Oh well...
In my humble opinion, the 0-60 time is only a small piece of the performance story.
The job of an engine and transmission is to appropriately propel the vehicle in a given circumstance. The flexibility of an engine (i.e. availability of torque over the rev band) is a rather important aspect of overall performance.
I haven't test-drive the 09 Forester and it's been just over a year since I drove the Outlander, so I can't really comment.
I will regurgitate what I posted earlier. These are both fantastic vehicles, if you are in the market. Do yourself a favor and go test-drive both of them.
#84 of 1581 Re: freedom card [ateixeira]
Apr 15, 2008 (6:40 pm)
>> I've also noticed that in person, which you haven't, because you have not taken a serious look at the Forester (be honest, you haven't).
Wrong, I attended the new Forester at Chicago auto show.
>> How much does your Chase Freedom card earn you? 1%? I get 3%. I win.
Freedom card pays back 3% cash back on 3 top shopping categories and 1% on other categories. So what I do, I have two Freedom cards: Visa and Master Card and I use them for 3 different categories of purchases. So I get about 2.5% back in CASH, not in some subaru points. And Freedom has larger $600 a year cap, vs. Subaruís $500 a year cap. I get slightly smaller percentage but more rebate cap and most importantly I have freedom. By choosing cash I am not married to one manufacturer and I have freedom to spend my money any way I want, including a car purchase. Some Subaru bux do not enslave me: this time I can buy Outlander - next time i can try another brand. I win.
#85 of 1581 styling [swirl_junkie]
Apr 15, 2008 (6:52 pm)
I completely agree. Styling is extremely important and while it is subjective, my opinion is that Subaru is way behind in styling department. The only subaru exterior design I like is WRX. The new Forester looks better than previous ugly station wagon, but the new Forester appears to me as bad copy of Outlander, and while itís 2 years newer then Outlander it looks to me a 5 years older. You right: styling is the main reason I would not buy Subaru. Otherwise they are well build (little short on technology) but very reliable cars.
#86 of 1581 Re: 2009 vs. 2008 [h2k2f2]
Apr 16, 2008 (4:27 am)
It's interesting to me that you haven't replied to my question and comment. Why is that? Come on, it's time for an answer from you.
#87 of 1581 Re: styling [chelentano]
Apr 16, 2008 (7:12 am)
The current WRX STi is a good example of that. While looks is definitely is in the eye of the beholder, not too many Subaru aficionados like the current WRX/ WRX Sti styling. Need I say anything about the Evo-X? On the motorsports side of things, just look at the current WRC standing of Subaru right now. They haven't won a single rally since 2005. Shame.
#88 of 1581 Re: Paint chips on mitsubushi '07 outlander [tracyo1]
Apr 16, 2008 (7:34 am)
They suggest mud guards but even that will not stop rocks from hitting the back doors, what should I do?
WHat you need are longer mudflaps, which I got from autozone for 10$ a pair. That definitely prevented whatever "sandblasting" issue you have. I never had it because I bought one before winter. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure the rear panel will get road debris damage. That's why I bought mudguards and mudflaps early on. A few bucks saved my vehicle's paint work.
#89 of 1581 Re: 2009 vs. 2008 [h2k2f2]
Apr 16, 2008 (7:57 am)
>> It's interesting to me that you haven't replied to my question and comment. Why is that?
Why? You are asking the obvious stuff, thatís why. The premium gas, lower payload and higher RPM are in Forester' specs. Turbo engine is always noisier since it is working at higher RPM and with subsequent whistling noise as the air passes past the compressor wheel. No, I havenít drove it, but very few people did due to its turbo engine problems. Did you? I drove other turbos and they also have common listed issues. 4C turbo is not a good choice of engine for CUV/SUV.
Quote: "Turbochargers can also be damaged by dirty or ineffective oil, and most manufacturers recommend more frequent oil changes for turbocharged engines. Because the turbocharger will get hot when running, many recommend letting the engine idle for 1 to 3 minutes before shutting off the engine if the turbocharger was used shortly before stopping (what a hassle). This lets the turbo rotating assembly cool from the lower exhaust gas temperatures, and ensures that oil is supplied to the turbocharger while the turbine housing and exhaust manifold are still very hot; otherwise coking of the lubricating oil trapped in the unit may occur when the heat soaks into the bearings, causing rapid bearing wear and failure when the car is restarted. Even small particles of burnt oil will accumulate and lead to choking the oil supply and failure." This is called oil cooking.
#90 of 1581 Re: Why doesn't the V6 perform better? [comem47]
Apr 16, 2008 (8:00 am)
A: Towing for one. lots of 4 cylinders are limited to 1000 to 1500 lbs.
True for some models, but the base Forester X can tow 2400 lbs.
#91 of 1581 Re: Why doesn't the V6 perform better? [dodo2]
Apr 16, 2008 (8:04 am)
At the most, you could use the numbers to compare other vehicles tested by them.
But that's exactly what I did, for the V6 Outlander and for the Forester turbo.
Your criticism of the old Tribeca is outdated because that engine was replaced more than a year ago.
FWIW I ruled out the Tribeca for the same reason I ruled out the V6 Outlander - the gas tank is too small, so range is poor.