Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Mitsubishi Outlander vs. Subaru Forester

1101113151652

Comments

  • phdhuskyphdhusky Posts: 64
    I looked hard at the Outlander and Forester before I decided on the premium forester vs the SE outlander. Yes the outlander has very nice toys and tech but it felt heavy during driving and I was not impressed by the interior at all. I wanted an 08 outlander as I did not want a V6 07. There are no incentives on the 08 so it was going to be more expensive than the premium 09 Forester. I tried hard to like the outlander because of the tech but I couldn't find other reason to get it over the forester.
  • steverstever Ex Yooper, en route to New MexicoPosts: 40,521
    Anyone can go slow, but not everyone can go fast

    I remember going along for a test drive of some car back in the late 50's/early 60's with my father - I was probably 8 or 10. He got on a side street and idled along without touching the gas. When I asked him what he was doing, he said any car can go fast but not all of them can go slow.

    When y'all do the ramp test, maybe you can include a "lug the engine" component for my old man? :shades:

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    LOL ... Hang in there Steve. Someone will come here and demonstrate that the Forester is faster than any other SUV even when it stands still and due to its superior AWD it will go up the ramp even when idle.
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    Business Week editor gets to 0-60 in 7.6 sec for the Outlander, which shows that testing varies.

    He says: "the V6-powered Outlander is surprisingly quick. I clocked it at 7.6 seconds in accelerating from zero to 60 mph, noticeably faster than the sporty Mazda CX-7, which I clocked at about 8.5 seconds. The Outlander isn't as fast as the V6-powered version of the Toyota RAV4, but it isn't far behind."

    page 2: http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/mar2008/bw20080321_373437.htm
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    >> Well, if Subaru is not using Mitsu turbos then I don't think thats actually a good thing. To put in in perspective even BMW came to realization that Mitsu makes one of the best in the world and guess which manufacturers turbo you will find inside a 335 or X6?

    That's right. Mitsubishi also has build MIVEC engines for Daimler Smart car and turbocharged 4G15 engine for the Smart Brabus
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    >> I am biased toward performance, handling and drivetrain. The performance, handling, utlity, versatility and brand would push the Forester over the Outlander in my purchase decision.

    Subaru performance:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tMgWtlxeb8&NR=1
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=g6H3IOtE6Q8
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guTQWkpPFa4

    Handling:
    Forester 0.78g vs Outlander 0.80g

    Drivetrain:
    Recalled turbo and the 4-speed tranny suppose to be that great?

    Utlity:
    Outlander has larger EPA volume and higher tow capacity

    Versatility:
    What that suppose to mean? The Forester is more basic car, basic tranny, basic AWD, missing tons of equipment which otherwise you can find on the Outlander.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Handling:
    Forester 0.78g vs Outlander 0.80g ..


    Where it counts, around curves, and in the straightaway the Forester would dust the Outlander. You keep posting these videos of Foresters circa 2002 and 2003, Need I remind you of how easy the Outlander 2007 gets stuck in the mud. The larger cargo volume and heavier chassis are amenities I don't need. I already have a real SUV vehicle that I can use for that purpose including towing.

    The higher ground clearance and superior engine and drivetrain give the Forester XT a versatility the Outlander can only dream of.

    The reason you even have vidoes of previous generation Subarus, is that people have faith in the AWD system. You can't find a video of an Outlander getting stuck, because people weren't stupid enough to drive them into those situations. They knew they would never get them out.
  • Hmmmmm, so tell me how car magazines calculate the ski pad number? They drive in a straight line??? Reality is that because of Forester rather high ground clearance, even with a "better" AWD I have a feeling this car is more prone to body roll than the Outlander, those are simple laws of physics, you can't do much about it except maybe make the car wider (heavier) which would mean losing some of driving dynamics. Reality is that Mitsubishi has as much experience in making AWD systems as Subaru, take a look at Evo X or Montero/Pajero, you may perceive them worse than Subarus technology but various reviews/tests suggest otherwise. So anyway, I still think there isn't a whole lot of difference between Outlander and new Forester to say either one is so much better than the other.

    Engine is not really superior, its a turboed engine, for people who like to floor it constantly I bet the gas mileage is really bad just like in Mazda CX-7, thats the nature of small displacement turbo engines in 3500lbs cars. And whats the point of high ground clearance if you don't have lock differential, low range transfer case, or short overhangs, while Forester would probably be a bit better offroad then the Outlander (which I really doubt as they are equal) it's still not a real offroader.

    Drivetrain is definitely not any better than the Outlanders, actually Outlander has a more modern transmission. Large cargo room is the whole point of an SUV/CUV. If you don't have it then where is the UTILITY? Again, you sound like a guy who should rather drive an STI or Evo which is also a better car :P
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    I have a feeling this car is more prone to body roll than the Outlander, those are simple laws of physics, you can't do much about it except maybe make the car wider (heavier) which would mean losing some of driving dynamics.

    The symmetrical AWD and boxer engine makes the center of gravity in the Forester lower. The reality is AWD/4WD have been around for about 100 years, but Subaru includes AWD with every vehicle.

    Engine is not really superior, its a turboed engine, for people who like to floor it constantly I bet the gas mileage is really bad just like in Mazda CX-7,

    I agree about the gas mileage, but the engine being a horizontally opposed is naturally balanced compared to a V6, and that would make it smoother. If you drive with the Outlander's gas pedal to the metal, what will the gas mileage be?

    Drivetrain is definitely not any better than the Outlanders, actually Outlander has a more modern transmission.

    More gears is not necessarily better. The Forester XT manages better EPA mileage, better acceleration, better handling (at least the Foresters' handling is not called fragile) with a "supposedly" outdated transmission.

    Again, you sound like a guy who should rather drive an STI or Evo which is also a better car :P

    Nobody is saying this is a sports car, but I can stuff the car to the gills and then drive around in a vehicle, that pretends not to be a CUV. The only vehicle in this segment close is the RAV4 V6, but the Forester handles much better. (IMO)
  • The symmetrical AWD and boxer engine makes the center of gravity in the Forester lower. The reality is AWD/4WD have been around for about 100 years, but Subaru includes AWD with every vehicle.

    We can go back and forth back and forth and so far all the tests show that Outlander has a slightly better ski pad number so I would say handling is about the same. From most of the reviews I have read so far is that the 4WD Outlander handles better than Rav4/CRV and the only car that seems to handle a bit better is a CX-7.

    I agree about the gas mileage, but the engine being a horizontally opposed is naturally balanced compared to a V6, and that would make it smoother. If you drive with the Outlander's gas pedal to the metal, what will the gas mileage be?

    The mileage in the Outlander will definitely suffer but not to the point of small displacement 4 cylinder turbo engine inside a 3500lbs car. In Europe Mitsubishi released a limited run of 2003-2006 Outlanders with a 4G63T engine, while the performance was great, when the car was really pushed, the weight of the car combined with overworking of the 2.0 liter engine resulted in crappy gas mileage. It's just the way it is. Mazda CX-7 suffers the same with its 2.3T engine, when you drive it all nice and slow, gas mileage is good but when you tap the gas pedal a bit harder you can be sure you are not gonna get the claimed 22MPG (more like 14-15MPG). Huge drop in gas mileage.

    More gears is not necessarily better. The Forester XT manages better EPA mileage, better acceleration, better handling (at least the Foresters' handling is not called fragile) with a "supposedly" outdated transmission.

    First off, Outlander is a stiffer/heavier car so I would expect the MPG to be lower than on Forester. More gears mean a more efficient drive when properly optimized. Second off, again, turbo engines, when you drive them nice and slow you will get the claimed mileage but once you tap the gas pedal forget the EPA numbers. And again, you can call it fragile and I can call it the best handling CUV maybe except the CX-7. Most reviews agree with me. Anyway, those are CUVs, they will never handle like sports cars.

    Another thing, you talk about Forester XT, for regular Forester money I can get a base 4WD XLS or a 2007 4WD LS with Sun and Sound (both are approximately $21500 when you do the dealing and wheeling). You can't ignore the pricing aspect of cars.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    We can go back and forth back and forth and so far all the tests show that Outlander has a slightly better ski pad number so I would say handling is about the same

    What about the slalom? Skippad is only dependent on tires and that's it. Acceleration? So while the Outlander may have a slight edge in skidpad, the Forester has a huge edge in acclerlation and overall handling. Nobody every called the Foreseter fragile.

    The mileage in the Outlander will definitely suffer but not to the point of small displacement 4 cylinder turbo engine inside a 3500lbs car

    Back here in the US, Forester XT f/e is better than Outlander V6 for the latest model years according to the EPA.

    Another thing, you talk about Forester XT, for regular Forester money I can get a base 4WD XLS or a 2007 4WD LS with Sun and Sound (both are approximately $21500 when you do the dealing and wheeling). You can't ignore the pricing aspect of cars

    You can't, I can. I don't shop on features/$. A sub-woofer or blue-tooth will not sell me. If you believe you got the better car for your money, I'm very happy for you. We all should be happy with what we drive.
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 390
    at least the Foresters' handling is not called fragile

    isn't fragile (frah-jill-ay) that fancy Italian word printed on the crate containing
    the leg lamp in "A Christmas Story? :P

    http://www.redriderleglamps.com/

    That makes it almost Ferrari -like, a good thing! :shades:
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Posts: 194
    I've driven the 2009 Forester 2.XT and the Outlander V6 and there is not a huge difference in acceleration. You can bank everything on one published 0-60 time, but the reality is that the Forester isn't that fast. You'll see when more reviews are published.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    blitzkrieg79 wrote:

    What makes you think Subaru will get it all right on the first try

    Nothing - that's why we ordered the proven 4 speed auto.

    I highly doubt it, the first batch of cars will be guinea pigs

    That's fair, I actually agree. Subaru will probably share Nissan's supplier, though, so I doubt it'll be truly brand new. Let's see.

    when CVT is done right it optimizes the engine to its best performance/efficiency at all the speeds

    Agreed 100%. In theory these are optimal. In practice, well, some of them need some work. Or perhaps it's a matter of the customers getting used to how they operate. Probably both.

    Big discounts are nice, but keep an eye on resale, especially if you buy a leftover 2007. By fall that will be a 2 year old car with low miles.

    dodo2 wrote:

    It's a pretty significant difference between the two numbers for the same car. Which one would you go by?

    Personally I would use all the data available, so I'd list both times.

    I get what you're trying to say, though. I just think with such a small sample of data, I really wouldn't toss anything out. If Edmunds got one quick one and one not-as-quick, then maybe the quick one was a ringer. I don't think worn tires would slow a vehicle down that much.

    You can use the benchmark 0-60 results, and that's fine with that as long as you're consistent and use the same for all vehicles being compared.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    You compared handling for the base Forester (not the XT model) to the V6 Outlander for those skidpad results.

    Like I said before, MT needs to conduct a full test of the XT model. They only quoted 0-60 times. The rest of the data applied to the non-turbo model they tested.

    Compare apples to apples, base vs. base, and you get 0.78gs for both, a tie. C&D tested the 4 cylinder Outlander in the Feb 08 issue, and they got 0.78g.

    You compared towing capacity for the model that favors Mitsubishi. Forester has more standard towing capacity, actually.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Posts: 1,721
    This was Subaru's first try at a CVT. They had a lot of problems with that trans and discontinued the vehicle after a very short time.
    So even if Subaru came out with another, better, CVT, I would not touch it for at least a year to allow them to work out the inevitable bugs.

    FYI, Saturn's Ion, in 2003, introduced a 5 speed Auto trans from Aisin. That thing never worked right, and after a few years GM gave up on it and went back to a proven 4 speed also used in the Cobalt. The Ion with 4 speed auto got better mileage and performance than before, _despite_ having one less gear in the trans.

    The problem with Subie's naturally aspirated Forester engine is, though improved for '09, it just doesn't have that broad a torque curve, and that hurts with only 4 gears. The Turbo does much better, which helps the 4-speed work more efficiently.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    You can use the benchmark 0-60 results, and that's fine with that as long as you're consistent and use the same for all vehicles being compared.

    Like in any type of racing, the best posted time is the actual indication of the performance. Lower times don't mean anything.

    And yes, the tires are critical in any type of performance testing.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    You can bank everything on one published 0-60 time, but the reality is that the Forester isn't that fast

    The reality is that the Forester probably isn't all that fast, but the XT is the fastest of the bunch.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    You compared towing capacity for the model that favors Mitsubishi. Forester has more standard towing capacity, actually.

    What about you compare THE MAX towing capacity available for Forester and Outlander (as a product line not specific trim)?
    Or another one: I need to tow 2500 lbs. Should I get an Outlander or a Forester (every other criteria being met by both vehicles)?

    The Forester's "standard" towing capacity is 1000 lbs. vs. 1500 lbs on the Outlander (4-cyl).
    If you want to tow more than 1000 lbs with the Forester, you'd better read this discussion:
    Forester Towing Capacity

    Mitsubishi does not require any modifications or trailer brakes to tow 1500 lbs.
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Posts: 194
    The reality is that the Forester probably isn't all that fast, but the XT is the fastest of the bunch.

    Go drive the RAV4 V6 and Forester 2.5XT back-to-back and you'll see that the quickest vehicle is the RAV4.
  • The reality is that the Forester probably isn't all that fast, but the XT is the fastest of the bunch.

    The power to weight ratio favors the V6 RAV4 so I wouldn't be surprised that in real world RAV4 is a faster vehicle and 0-60 time only obviously shows 0-60 acceleration which doesn't mean it would be faster around a lap. I bet the RAV4 would pull away from Forester at higher speeds simply due to larger displacement. Turbo engines are great for quick spurts/0-60 acceleration but at higher speeds I would rather have more displacement.

    What about the slalom? Skippad is only dependent on tires and that's it. Acceleration? So while the Outlander may have a slight edge in skidpad, the Forester has a huge edge in acclerlation and overall handling. Nobody every called the Foreseter fragile.

    No one called Forester fragile because all I have seen so far are maybe two reviews. Besides, the so called fragile Outlander SE was the 2.4l version, I would never buy such a large car with such a little engine. Skidpad is not only dependent on tires, tires do help but it also depends on the weight distribution, chassis balance/stiffness of the car, and wheel control systems. Also, I wouldn't say that Forester has a better acceleration, from what I know the Outlanders V6 engine is optimized for highway use, once you get the car going it is as fast as the RAV4 which is saying a lot, read MotorTrend or Car And Driver reviews of the V6 Outlander and you will see what I am talking about. From a stand still, Forester XT will have a faster 0-60 time due to the favorable power to weight ratio but from a roll I doubt it would be faster than Outlander especially at speeds above 70MPH. Thats when the extra displacement helps.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Go drive the RAV4 V6 and Forester 2.5XT back-to-back and you'll see that the quickest vehicle is the RAV4.

    Your "butt dynometer" is not a real substitute for real measurements.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    Hey KD, does it count if I call the Forester fragile? ;)
    Regardless, now you have it: somebody called the Forester fragile. Are you going to get over it and look for more substantial arguments? If you'll ever drive an Outlander, you'll have the chance to see for yourself that the car feels just. Those writers, often use all sort of metaphors that have nothing to do with the reality.

    Like the old saying goes, "there is no replacement for displacement". :shades: This is even more obvious for this type of vehicle. A 4-cylinder engine, turbo or not just doesn't cut it. Sure, it's fine to go around town, but if you load the car with your family and gear and go up to the mountains or tow something, you'll feel the difference. Your 0-60 mph performance it's not going to help much in those situations.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Turbo engines are great for quick spurts/0-60 acceleration but at higher speeds I would rather have more displacement.

    Tell that to Nissan who built the GT-R, faster than a Vette with much less displacement. The Vette will surely pull away from the GT-R at hyper-extra legal speeds, but the GT-R at this moment is fastest production car built. (Note: not the one with highest speed, though)

    Skidpad is not only dependent on tires, tires do help but it also depends on the weight distribution,

    I disagree, skip pad is almost entirely dependent on tire grip and patch contact. By definition, you drive the thing around in a circle until it can't hold the road. A better test is the slalom, which challenges the cars tires, engine, drivetrain and weight distribution.

    From a stand still, Forester XT will have a faster 0-60 time due to the favorable power to weight ratio but from a roll I doubt it would be faster than Outlander especially at speeds above 70MPH. Thats when the extra displacement helps.

    See above comment on GT-R vs Vette.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Sure...call it fragile. :shades. You know I didn't make that up, but it came out of a review, and it's not to dis the Outlander. It offers a nice tech package. But for the price point the Outlander is not getting it all. If it did, the price point would be in RDX territory.

    Like the old saying goes, "there is no replacement for displacement". :shades:

    See my comment on the GT-R. :P
  • Tell that to Nissan who built the GT-R, faster than a Vette with much less displacement. The Vette will surely pull away from the GT-R at hyper-extra legal speeds, but the GT-R at this moment is fastest production car built. (Note: not the one with highest speed, though)

    As far as I know Bugatti Veyron is the fastest production car ever built (don't bring the Nurgburgring laps please). But anyway, why do you bring up supercars in SUV/CUV category??? What makes GT-R a better track car is not as much the engine (but it is a very powerful beast) but the ATTESA AWD system which helps GT-R to stick to the ground like glue, power to weight ratio favors Corvette and while GTRs engine power is underrated, its AWD system is the game changer. Besides, Corvettes larger displacement engine is actually LIGHTER than the Nissans 3.8l twin turbo. Corvette loses a lot of ground because of rather inferior handling to GT-R.

    I disagree, skip pad is almost entirely dependent on tire grip and patch contact. By definition, you drive the thing around in a circle until it can't hold the road. A better test is the slalom, which challenges the cars tires, engine and weight distribution.

    Well then, you are saying that Chevy Aveo outfitted with Evo X tires will have the same skidpad result as Evo X????? Like I said, good tires do improve skidpad numbers but they are far from everything. Skidpad gives an approximation of cars handling abilities.

    Your "butt dynometer" is not a real substitute for real measurements.
    Again, power to weight ratio favors RAV4, car performance has a lot of science in it. It really isn't difficult to predict potential numbers. And again, small displacement engines inside a 3500lbs CUV are not a good idea in my opinion, that right there along with the outdated 4 speed auto tranny kills the sale for me...
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    I know, you didn't make it up, but you adopted the attribute and used it repeatedly as a negative for the Outlander. I drove the Outlander in various conditions, more than any reviewer and it feels anything but "fragile". So yes, I call that comment BS. Go drive the car first and honestly judge it for yourself.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    See my comment on the GT-R.

    Different type of cars for different applications.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    But anyway, why do you bring up supercars in SUV/CUV category???

    You made a point about the turbo, and I was refuting your assertion with a specific example of large displacement 6.2 supercharged engine vs the 3.8 in the GT-R. And yes there are other factors as well.

    Well then, you are saying that Chevy Aveo outfitted with Evo X tires will have the same skidpad result as Evo X?????

    No, I'm saying an EVO X fitted with crappy Chevy Aveo tires against an EVO X fitted with sticky high performance tires will lose. The tires are the biggest factor with vehicles of a similiar class.

    Again, power to weight ratio favors RAV4, car performance has a lot of science in it

    But the fact the Forester XT develops most of the torque, low in the power band favors off-the-line accleration and enables the Forester to keep the lead. The Foresters red-line is fairly high as well at 7K. By the time both cars hit 130 they may be even, but I have no desire to drive either of these vehicles at that speed. The XT develops max torque at about 3500 or so until redline. This should give the XT the advantage up to a point where one doesn't (except for those with a death wish)care to go any faster.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    No, I'm saying an EVO X fitted with crappy Chevy Aveo tires against an EVO X fitted with sticky high performance tires will lose. The tires are the biggest factor with vehicles of a similar class.

    The tires are a big factor when comparing two identical cars. However, they are only one of many factors when comparing different cars, from the same class. Take for example the Evo and STi (still Mitsubishi vs. Subaru).

    Do you think that by putting the best performance tires on the STi vs. the crapiest performance tires on the Evo, the STi will fully compensate for 0.10g difference on the skidpad? I don't think so.
This discussion has been closed.