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

1111214161752

Comments

  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    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.

    I do, especially if you put the crappiest tires on the Evo. The .05 difference (see here) between the two represents engineering. But if you cripple the Evo with lousy tires that .05 advantage will vaporize.

    So just to sum up. I'm in favor of small displacement turbo engines over larger displacement n/a engines. (case in point STI vs IS350, both vehicles use the same engines as the Forester and RAV4). Turbo engines are lighter making for a vehicle lighter on it's feet, more online torque earlier in the curve and performance and same performance at higher altitudes.

    To me off the line punch is more important than punch at 70 mph. Those who assert the RAV4 may be more potent starting at 70 may be right, but to me it's a non-issue because mashing the gas at zero is what is important. I believe overall EPA F/E goes to the Forester XT for 2009 model.
  • To me off the line punch is more important than punch at 70 mph. Those who assert the RAV4 may be more potent starting at 70 may be right, but to me it's a non-issue because mashing the gas at zero is what is important. I believe overall EPA F/E goes to the Forester XT for 2009 model.

    Well again, different strokes for different folks, in real world driving the 0-60 time is only important on the ramps with a stop sign cuz even with a yield sign in front of you, you are already on a roll and that would favor the Outlander (remember that in V6 Outlander 80% of torque is available at 2000 rpm). Also, to me passing acceleration (again on the roll) is more important than 0-60 standstill time. Thats why there are so many car companies, each car company optimizes cars differently for different purposes, one for gas mileage, one for 0-60 acceleration, one for low end torque, one for passing power etc etc. It's really hard to optimize one engine to be all that.

    Also, one more thing, I don't know how the mileage of the Forester XT is in real life but I know for a fact that Mazda CX-7 is rated at 16/22 but 14/15 is what we get here in NJ in everyday driving conditions (mixed city/highway driving). I am just using CX-7 as an example of a small displacement turbo engine inside a CUV, I know Outlander Turbo (available in Europe) also had rather crappy mileage compared to estimates. So I am willing to bet that Forester XT may get better mileage than CX-7 just because its a lighter vehicle but unless you will be driving it like a grandma you will probably get much closer to the minimum of EPA ratings rather than maximum. Outlander with V6 engine gets about 22/23MPG in everyday driving conditions according to my experience.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Well again, different strokes for different folks, in real world driving the 0-60 time is only important on the ramps with a stop sign cuz even with a yield sign in front of you, you are already on a roll and that would favor the Outlander (remember that in V6 Outlander 80% of torque is available at 2000 rpm).

    Different strokes for different folks as you say.

    Also, one more thing, I don't know how the mileage of the Forester XT is in real life

    Define real life. :confuse Only the EPA can perform standardized tests and that is the basis for comparison. Someone might claim they are getting 30mpg in their 2009 Forester, but fails to mention they keep 0 to 60 at more than 15 seconds. Similiarly someone else might claim they get 14 mpg from their 2208 Outlander but fail to mention each and every start is a full throttle acceleration. This is real life and why the EPA tests are probably the best measurement of real world f/e.
  • dcm61dcm61 Posts: 1,472
    Like the old saying goes, "there is no replacement for displacement". 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.

    It's a fact (no I don't have any links) that a turbo engine will perform better than an "equivalent" N/A engine in the mountains (real mountains, not foothills). A N/A develops "asthma" at elevation, but a turbo, having forced induction, will happily go about it's business.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I seriously doubt the V6 Outlander can tow a 3500 lb trailer that isn't equipped with trailer brakes. The industry standard is that any trailer over 1000 lbs requires trailer brakes, this is true even for a full-sized pickup trucks.

    It would not be safe. The limitation here is braking, and the Outlander has 11.6" vented discs in front (Forester: 11.7" vented), and the front brakes do about 90% of the stopping. Rears are 11.9" non-vented discs in back (Forester: 11.3").

    The XLS V6 already has 300+ extra pounds to pull to a stop, imagine with 3500 lbs more. 3781 curb weight for the XLS 4WD, plus 3500, so you'd be trying to stop 7281 pounds with only the stock brakes.

    Funny thing is when it comes to trailer brakes, the base model 4 cylinder Outlander is actually at an advantage, simply because it's 250 lbs lighter and has the same sized brakes.

    In post 388 you wrote:

    if you load the car with your family and gear and go up to the mountains or tow something, you'll feel the difference

    The exact opposite is true.

    At altitude, the air thins out, and most engines would be wheezing on less dense air, losing significant power. That would include the V6 and all other engines being discussed here, except...

    Turbos. Turbos can compensate by simply doing their job - providing boost and compressing that air. It would not wheeze at all, in fact they can still make full power and simply use their bleed off valves less (i.e. when they hit the same max PSI for boost).

    If you really want to "go up to the mountains", a turbo is your best friend. Get an EVO.

    For towing, you want torque first and foremost, and the Forester has more XT vs. V6, and X vs. SE.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    power to weight ratio

    That ignores gearing. Everyone knows the Outlander has a 6 speed slushbox, in fact we're reminded, on average, every 2.3 seconds. ;)

    Power to weight ratios dismiss this completely. It also ignores gear ratios.

    Seconds, it ignores torque, which is really what does the job.

    to me passing acceleration (again on the roll) is more important than 0-60 standstill time

    We can wait to compare 30-50 and 50-70 mph passing acceleration, but do you really think the V6 will beat the turbo? I wouldn't bet on it.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,694
    Mitsubishi does not require any modifications or trailer brakes to tow 1500 lbs

    Really? I'd check the owner's manual on that. I don't know of any Japanese brand that can tow more than 1000 pounds without trailer brakes. That includes full-size Toyota and Nissan pickup trucks.

    As far as I know only a few European brands, like Land Rover (1,650 IIRC), state that they can tow over 1000 pounds without trailer brakes. The only other exception are full-size GM trucks, which are rated to tow 2000 pounds without trailer brakes, and perhaps the mid-size GM pickups which I think can tow 1500 pounds without trailer brakes.

    So I'd be very suspicious that the Outlander can tow 1,500 pounds without trailer brakes. Again, check the owner's manual to see if in fact that's true. If it is, then great, but I highly doubt it.

    Bob
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    Outlander V6 towing:
    I checked the manual and I stand corrected. The Outlander V6 can tow up to 1400 lbs. without trailer brakes so yes, it can tow more than 1000 lbs without trailer brakes (I still admit that I was partially wrong).
    However, the manual doesn't say anything about other modifications required on the vehicle in order to tow up to the maximum capacity of 3500 lbs. I guess the Mitsubishi OEM hitch has everything.

    In regards to my "mountains" reference I meant inclines versus high altitude, therefore read steep hills at low altitude with the car fully loaded. In this common real life scenario my personal feeling is that a V6 would perform better than a turbo 4, not to mention a n/a 4-cylinder.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I don't want to be mean, but...

    You said "I need to tow 2500 lbs".

    You need trailer brakes. :P
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    Yes, I need trailer brakes, but I can still do it where with the Forester I cannot trailer brakes or not.

    For towing, you want torque first and foremost, and the Forester has more XT vs. V6, and X vs. SE.

    OK, then perhaps you can explain why the maximum towing capacity on any Forester trim is 2400 lbs. where on the Outlander is 3500 lbs.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I looked these up for the AWD/4WD thread, but they are relevant since we seem to be comparing everything under the sun:

    Angle of approach: Forester 24.8 degrees, Outlander 21 degrees
    Angle of departure: Forester 24.8 degrees, Outlander 18 degrees

    The concern here would be the Outlander's angle of departure. You may get the front bumper past an obstacle, but it might get hung up on the rear bumper.

    The Forester's identical numbers are a smarter design - if the front bumper can get past, you are good to go. :shades:
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I was poking fun because you picked an arbitrary number.

    I was shopping 4 cylinder models, so the towing capacity for the Outlander, to me, was 1500 lbs.

    So let's call my trailer 1600 lbs. ;)

    Even with your make-believe 2500 lbs trailer, I'd feel comfortable towing with my base-engined Forester, with trailer brakes of course. Just take a few things out of whatever you are towing.

    With the 4 cylinder Outlander, I'd be way over capacity and could not do it.

    So for me, your example shows that I made the right choice - the Forester.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    Although I haven't seen the official approach/departure angles from Mitsubishi, I can see how the Forester may have an advantage on some very particular off-road conditions. However, this has very little importance for me (and I guess for 99% of the Forester and Outlander owners) as I guess I will never be in the situation where a higher approach/departure angle would matter.

    Remember, I never said the Outlander is better than the Forester I was just challenging those saying the opposite ignoring or misinterpreting the data. My personal preference doesn't mean that the Outlander is better than the Forester for everybody not I ever made such a claim. The Forester bests the Outlander in some respects and the Outlander bests the Forester in others. At the end of the day, what matters is which car is best for each individual.
  • rcpaxrcpax Posts: 580
    So I'd be very suspicious that the Outlander can tow 1,500 pounds without trailer brakes. Again, check the owner's manual to see if in fact that's true. If it is, then great, but I highly doubt it.

    For the 3.0L US Outlanders, it's 1400lbs. How about this for proof, the owner's manual itself:

    image

    Really? I'd check the owner's manual on that. I don't know of any Japanese brand that can tow more than 1000 pounds without trailer brakes. That includes full-size Toyota and Nissan pickup trucks.

    My Mitsubishi Outlander can, I don't know about the Subaru Forester.

    In fact, properly equipped, the 4WD Outlander XLS can tow 3500lbs, while the Forester 2.5 XT can only do 2400lbs max?
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    I was poking fun because you picked an arbitrary number.

    I picked a number higher than the maximum towing capacity of the Forester. I could pick 3400 lbs. or anything in between for the purpose of illustration. Would you really tow above the maximum limit? You are brave in this case. I wouldn't tow anywhere near the maximum limit with any vehicle never mind over the limit.

    My point is if you need to tow over 2400 lbs, you need a V6 and the Outlander could fullfill this need, but the Forester cannot.

    As far as I'm concerned, I don't tow at all so it doesn't matter to me, but others may (this is an utility vehicle). The Forester turbo is faster to 60 mph, but it cannot tow as much as the Outlander V6. I guess you cannot have it all.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    Oh and another thing you did not comment on is that from what I read in the Forester forum here on Edmunds (linked provided in a previous post) it doesn't seem to be a trivial (or cheap) task to prep the car to use the maximum specified Forester towing capacity of 2400 lbs.(see the frustration of the original poster).

    Disclaimers:
    1. The discussion was about a pre-2009 Forester. Question: did this change for 2009?
    2. I did not read the whole discussion (only the first few pages) to find out what the solution was. Question: can any Forester-knowledgeable member shed some light on this topic?
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    No argument here as I'm aware of that and you clearly stated the conditions - equivalent engine, high altitude. I wasn't as clear as I should have been when describing my scenario.
  • I looked these up for the AWD/4WD thread, but they are relevant since we seem to be comparing everything under the sun:

    Angle of approach: Forester 24.8 degrees, Outlander 21 degrees
    Angle of departure: Forester 24.8 degrees, Outlander 18 degrees

    The concern here would be the Outlander's angle of departure. You may get the front bumper past an obstacle, but it might get hung up on the rear bumper.


    As I mentioned in my earlier post, I would expect the 2009 Forester to be a better engineered car simply because it's a 3 years younger design than the Outlander which came out in Japan in 2006. If Subaru wouldn't balance the car to the newest standards then they would have a big problem. I also expect the 2012/2013 Outlander to be a better balanced car than 2009 Forester, thats the nature of business.

    As far as Approach/Departure angles are concerned, it's meaningless. Those are not real offroaders. 24.8 degree approach/departure angle is pretty much below average for an offroader anyway, cars such as Mitsubishi Montero, Jeep Wrangler, or Land Rover LR3 have approach angles of 35-40 degrees, where Hummer H1 has over 60 degrees. Outlander and Forester are good to drive by some small stream (not too deep river), drive on the beach, or play around in some mud, but I would never dare to go rock climbing or drive into some real steep angles with either two.

    Reality is that Forester and Outlander are two rather evenly matched cars and it all comes down to brand perception, aesthetic/ergonomic preferences, and price.
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,694
    That's good to know—and I am surprised. Thanks.

    On another note... and going by that image posted, the Forester can carry either 165 or 175 pounds on the roof (I think it's been increased to 175 for the '09 Forester), whereas the Outlander can only carry 110 pounds. So, you can continue with this silly "mine-is-better-than-yours" discussion. ;)

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I guess with that 2500 lbs trailer I'll take 100 lbs out of it and load it on the roof, then. :D

    This discussion should be renamed "V6 Outlander vs. Forester XT", though, because those are the models everyone seems to refer to.

    Has anyone besides me even driven a 4 cylinder CVT Outlander? :confuse:

    Seriously.

    I was shopping the base 4 bangers. Maybe I need my own thread: "Outlander vs. Forester for people who are aware of the price of oil". :D
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    OK, I read up on that thread about the guy trying to find trailer brakes.

    You'd have the same problem with your 2500 lb trailer, though. So what's your point? :confuse:

    The Forester is pre-wired for towing, but the factory harness uses a 4-pin connector. Does the Outlander have a 7-pin connector?

    This is what I mean:

    image

    If so it would be a little bit easier, but he would still need electric trailer brakes, a controller inside the car, etc.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Reality is that Forester and Outlander are two rather evenly matched cars and it all comes down to brand perception, aesthetic/ergonomic preferences, and price.

    At the 50,000 foot level all cars in this segment are basically the same. When it comes down to the details there are huge differences, which is what this discussion is about. It also comes down to how you want to spend your money.

    Towing is meaningless to me as I have a real vehicle to do the towing, but departure angles are useful information for those who may take their vehicle off the paved surface just might need the even departure angles the Forester has.
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    This discussion will never end. There are a few enthusiasts of a 4cyl turbo engines, and nobody will convince them, there are better choices for SUV/CUV type vehicles. This discussion should move to XT vs. CX7 vs. RDX forum. There you can compare apples to apples. Here, we should concentrate on Forester and Outlander with a base engine. For the majority of people your 0-60 sprint is not that important. Just look at statistics, combine sales of all CUV with turbo engine, and compare it to sales of Honda CRV alone. Most people will say no to premium fuel, complex turbo engine or expense of permanent AWD. Subaru strength used to be standard AWD in all of its cars. In a CUV/SUV segment it is not an advantage any more- every make and model can be AWD/4WD, plus many are better off road, most will have more cargo capacity or towing capacity. Add to this (subjective) not so great styling, and lack of drive train choices. Is this a reason, why Subaru is looking at Toyota parts bin?
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    There are a few enthusiasts of a 4cyl turbo engines, and nobody will convince them, there are better choices for SUV/CUV type vehicles.

    Better according to who? To me the RAV4 is not better, neither is the Outlander, neither is the RDX (too expensive for what it is), CRV (underpowered)..etc. Better is in the eyes of the beholder. I do agree this is a never ending theoretical discussion.

    As far as AWD systems and drive systems, they are not created equally and Subaru has a reputation for going where a CRV can't. For some this may make a difference, for others not.

    plus many are better off road, most will have more cargo capacity or towing capacity

    Which ones are better off-road? Those that are better off-road are worse on-road. More towing, great, take it. Bigger cargo area, fine, you can have it. No other vehicle in this segment can match the overall prowess of the XT, which was important to me.

    I do agree, previous to 2009 Foresters were ugly, you know what. I didn't care. High end gadgetry in the cabin was never Subarus strong point and frankly I'm not a fan of it either. Lack of drivetrain choices, if AWD wasn't important on the Outlander there wouldn't be such a huge debate. So criticizing Subaru for lack of drive train choices and then beating the details of AWD operations for these two vehicles to death is laughable.

    If you want to start a separate topic for Outlander 4 cylinder vs Forester 4 cylinder, please feel free to do so.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    You'd have the same problem with your 2500 lb trailer, though. So what's your point?

    How do you know I'd have the same problem? FWIW, I can find out by asking the Outlander owners who installed the tow hitch and towed trailers - I think there few of them on the Outlander forums.

    If so it would be a little bit easier, but he would still need electric trailer brakes, a controller inside the car, etc.

    Again, how do you know you need a controller inside the car? Have you really researched the Outlander in this respect, or you just assume .... or just because the Forester needs one the Outlander automatically needs one too.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,282
    Roof load capacity is sort of important to some of us. My canoes range from around 65 to 80+ pounds, and my racks are set up to carry three at once. Plus a couple of kayaks hanging on ... :shades:

    And you got nervous driving behind utility trailers - I do tie my boats on very securely. :blush:

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    I guess with that 2500 lbs trailer I'll take 100 lbs out of it and load it on the roof, then.

    LOL.... You are funny! Are you going to chop off you horse, boat, ATVs, snowmobile, bike, furniture, or other heavy or bulky items you may need to tow in ONE piece and put the balance on your roof ?....

    What are you going to do with your Forester if you have to tow 3000 lbs.?

    Seriously, jut give it up and accept that if you need to tow more than 2400 lbs you need a different vehicle that can do the job. The Outlander is only one out of many. The Forester is a great vehicle, but it just can be everything and it's not the only one that can do what it can do.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Here, we should concentrate on Forester and Outlander with a base engine

    At least one person agrees with me.

    (subjective) not so great styling

    The Forester is pure function over form. It's designed from the inside out, with good visibility in mind. It came out conservative looking, but very functional. I prefer this over, say, a trendy car like the Rogue. Fits nothing and can't see a darn thing either.

    lack of drive train choices

    Huh? With the base engine you can choose between the 4 speed slushbox and the 5 speed manual. Mitsubishi has a CVT only for the 4 cylinder.

    If it were for me, I'd get the 5 speed manual, which is better than *any* automatic IMHO, but it's the wife car.

    Is this a reason, why Subaru is looking at Toyota parts bin?

    The opposite is true - Toyota will build their next Celica based on the Impreza platform (which is shared with the Forester). That's the only shared vehicle planned so far.

    So Toyota is the one borrowing from the Subaru parts bin.

    To be honest I would not mind at all if Subaru got HVAC, stereo/entertainment, that kind of stuff from Toyota. I'd like to see them keep their powertrains distinct, however.

    Kei cars excepted.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Again, how do you know you need a controller inside the car? Have you really researched the Outlander in this respect, or you just assume .... or just because the Forester needs one the Outlander automatically needs one too.

    Because I've researched trailer brake kits.

    If the Outlander has a standard 4-pin connector, this is what the setup would look like:

    image

    Note the adaptor that takes the 4 pin input and produces a 7 pin output.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    My minivan can tow 3500 lbs, so I'd be fine actually.

    What are the odds that you need more than 2400 lbs and less than 3500 lbs and that your trailer has brakes and you have a 7 pin connector and if not you have a 4 pin connector and trailer brake kit and a brake controller installed inside the car? :D

    If you meet all those criteria then the Outlander (V6 model only) has an advantage, yes. Happy?
This discussion has been closed.