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

1161719212252

Comments

  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    I don't particularly disagree with anything you posted. Exept that I was responding to claims that the Forester's tranny was 'fragile'. Not the case.

    I cannot say anything about being fragile, but being a 4-speed A/T, as good as it would be, it's just out of sync with the times. Not a good thing for a newly designed vehicle.

    Would you still consider a 2009 Forester "STi" (modded) in the new body style? Just out of curiosity as many were saying that the new design would alienate the old Forester enthusiast base.
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Posts: 194


    Also quicker than the RAV4.


    6.8 for the Forester 2.5XT
    6.8 for the RAV4 V6

    How is that quicker?
  • Would you still consider a 2009 Forester "STi" (modded) in the new body style? Just out of curiosity as many were saying that the new design would alienate the old Forester enthusiast base.

    Lowering springs and a more squared-off front lip would make a world of difference, IMHO.

    I was dismayed when they didn't make it look like this:

    front
    (ignore the JDM sideview mirror)
    side

    If I could find the body kit to take it back more to a 'boxy' look, I'd be more inclined to upgrade. The differences are subtle, but necessary, IMHO.

    Indeed, the 2009 FXT looks like any other small CUV. It isn't set apart. Not that I'm saying the Outlander is. The Forester is still the only small CUV with even the quick potential to stand out and be something exciting.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    The Forester is still the only small CUV with even the quick potential to stand out and be something exciting.

    True, but is the straight line or track performance a stand out for a small CUV?
    For example lowering a small CUV only negates one of its purposes to be higher off the ground in order to get the family through the snow, mud, back roads, etc.
    I guess Mitsu could easily make a Ralliart version of the Outlander (they showed an "Evolander" concept already - lowered, body kits, making 300hp), but I think they will never do it because it doesn't make business sense.
    These companies are in the business of making money and Subaru recognized that when they decided to go this route with the new Forester. I bet the sales numbers will show it sooner rather than later.
  • I disagree.

    1) I know at least a dozen people in my area alone that have upgraded their Foresters. They're constantly bitchin' that there is no Forester STI like there is in Japan. What Subaru knows, as the video has shown, they would be creating competition from within their own brand. Americans are too loyal to brands. The only person who's going to buy an FSTI is someone who otherwise would have bought either an STI or FXT.

    2) The ground clearance of any Suby is superior to many of the 4x4 vehicles with live axles and exposed differentials. The 2009 FXT is a full inch higher off the ground than before. For what purpose? Who's logging with the FXT?

    We know from rallying that anything STI height or above is adequate for snow, mud, gravel. Lower it 2", and you go back to the maximum useful height for a CUV, in my opinion, plus you'd drastically reduce body roll, which seems to be the Achiles heel of this vehicle, which in turn causes the ESP to intervene.

    3) They don't need to go full Evolander. In particular I think the EVO's turbo-4 could do equivalent or better power and better economy than an NA-V6 if Mitsu were so inclined.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    Who's logging with the FXT?

    I don't know, apparently Subaru owners do as Subaru underlines its "off-road" capability as strength and the Subaru fans here seem to promote the idea (see the passionate posts about the fraction of an inch advantage as well as the approach/departure angle posts).

    Having said that, I think having decent ground clearance on a CUV like the Outlander and Forester is great. Last winter I easily plowed through a feet of snow maybe more, in more than one occasion (lazy to shovel the driveway). I wouldn't try that with my car. To me, the Forester (2009) and the Outlander ground clearance (very similar) would be a selling point versus the ground clearance in the RAV4 and CRV.

    We indeed disagree here, but that's fine. It would be interesting to see, percentage wise, how many XTs Subaru sold for the previous generation. My bet is that it was around 10-15% perhaps. I think the only reason Subaru still included the XT model in their US lineup was not because they sold well, but because they didn't want to completely upset their fan base.
  • I think they have played, and are playing their cards totally wrong. If Suby sold the same range of high performance versions in the US (Legacy STI, Forester STI) they would get more enthusiasts to pull out their wallets and upgrade.

    As it stands, going mainstream means giving away whatever percentage their niche market was away to the competition.
  • dcm61dcm61 Posts: 1,459
    It would be interesting to see, percentage wise, how many XTs Subaru sold for the previous generation. My bet is that it was around 10-15% perhaps. I think the only reason Subaru still included the XT model in their US lineup was not because they sold well, but because they didn't want to completely upset their fan base.

    Not sure about all XT's, but IIRC, only 3% of Forester sales were M/T XT's.

    They didn't sell well because Subaru sucks at advertising their products.

    Speaking of advertising, I don't think I've ever seen a TV ad for an Outlander. I don't recall seeing a TV ad for any Mitsubishi for that matter. Maybe I just ignore them. ;)
  • They didn't sell well because Subaru sucks at advertising their products.

    Totally agree with this. They really should have marketed them as versatile alternatives to boring cars and SUVs.

    If I had known that I could get a Forester to keep pace with any number of sports cars, while retaining safety, reliability, economy, 4-door/wagon utility, and offroad ability; I certainly would have dropped by the dealership much sooner.

    As it was, I was very biased AGAINST Subaru until I was forcefed their full potential in the passenger seat. Likewise I have never known anyone else to buy one until until I gave them a ride BigMcLargeHuge style :shades:

    They sell 99% word-of-mouth, and its entirely their own fault that there are a select few that know what they are capable of.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    Speaking of advertising, I don't think I've ever seen a TV ad for an Outlander.

    They did have few ad campaigns on TV, both in the US and Canada.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Yes, VDC is a safety system.

    And yes, it can be turned off (actually the threshold is higher but it's not totally disabled) so that you can rock out of a snow bank.

    ABS = maximize 4 wheels stopping.

    AWD = maximize 4 wheels going.

    Ideally, you want both.

    FWD are not inherently unsafe, it's just that AWD has more safety potential and giving up that benefit when you pay for AWD seems silly when you don't have to.

    I would just leave it in 4WD auto all the time.

    I'm not sure I'd even use the Lock mode. If it truly does lock the axles together (or do they mean it locks the power split?), then you'd have problems in sharp turns with binding. So if the Auto 4WD mode really works, it would turn off and on when needed.

    With Lock, you'd have to hit the button for each sharp turn or U-turn, then back on, then off again, then on, and so on.

    If Auto works well, both other modes are unneeded, IMHO.
  • dcm61dcm61 Posts: 1,459
    I'm not sure I'd even use the Lock mode. If it truly does lock the axles together (or do they mean it locks the power split?), then you'd have problems in sharp turns with binding. So if the Auto 4WD mode really works, it would turn off and on when needed.

    With Lock, you'd have to hit the button for each sharp turn or U-turn, then back on, then off again, then on, and so on.


    IMO, Lock is a very poor naming choice for that mode. If I understand the Mitsubishi press release, you can drive 100K miles or more in Lock mode and it won't hurt the drivetrain. The Lock mode differs from the Auto mode in that it "locks" in a more rear bias power split (50% more than Auto mode). Once again, a very poor naming choice. Something like Sport would be a much better choice. In fact, the press release mentions using the Lock mode for more spirited driving.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    I can point to several 7+ seconds 0 to 60 runs for the RAV4. So if you take the slowest internet reported speed, so can I. You want to take the fastest, I'll take the fastest.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    I don't know, apparently Subaru owners do as Subaru underlines its "off-road" capability as strength and the Subaru fans here seem to promote the idea (see the passionate posts about the fraction of an inch advantage as well as the approach/departure angle posts).

    Apparently Mitsubish owners don't care about off-road but care about towing. There were many passionate posts about the difference in towing abilities between the two cars.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    Apparently Mitsubish owners don't care about off-road but care about towing. There were many passionate posts about the difference in towing abilities between the two cars.

    That's right. Towing was also passionately discussed, but how does your comment relate to the current conversation?
    Personally, I don't care about towing or any kind of off-roading where the approach/departure angle would matter. I care about snow, mud and some moderate logging trails where the 4WD and ground clearance matters.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Glass.

    You'd think the stuff cost more than gold nowadays, with windows being chopped (Escape), or enormous D-pillars that are slaves to style (Rogue, Outlander, RAV4, CR-V). Automakers build designs with huge blind spots then up-sell you on a navigation system with a backup cam to fix the problem they designed-in. $1600-2000 profit. Ka-ching.

    You pay for their design failure.

    So mostly, visibility. Being able to see out of it has unfortunately become a rarity in this class.

    Someone asked this about the Forester, above, so I'll mention what appealed to me (and my wife) about ours:

    * by far, best visibility in the compact crossover class
    * lightness - compacts should be light, most are bloated, overweight
    * IIHS Top Safety Pick
    * best non-hybrid fuel economy (20/26) for AWD
    * combined with a 16.9 gallon tank, long distances between fill-ups
    * good previous experience with the brand (they've won many Polk loyalty awards)
    * most horsepower among the 4 cylinder normally aspirated, 175hp for our PZEV
    * CHASE Subaru Credit card means $500/year free service/accessories
    * Much better than average ownership costs, 2nd best in class (CR)
    * high Owner Satisfaction ratings (being happy is the bottom line)
    * Much Better than Average Reliability
    * better than average satisfaction with dealer service (a warranty is only as good as the dealer behind it)
    * biggest moonroof - even the kids can star gaze
    * great ride/handling balance, smooth and very little body roll
    * comfy perforated, heated leather seats
    * softly padded elbow rests for all 4 of us
    * if it were going to be my car - another rarity - a real MANUAL trans
    * true 4-channel ABS (some cost-cut and use 3 channel systems)
    * good ground clearance, not for rock hopping but for those apple orchard visits
    * compact dimensions make it easy to park (big plus for my wife)
    * heated mirrors that work to clear even rain (my Sienna's aren't nearly as good)
    * wiper de-icers so no scraping
    * three 12-volt outlets (GPS, cell phone, spouse's cell phone)
    * trip computer (my van has this, I'm spoiled)
    * lights that fade out slowly, rather than turn off abruptly
    * stereo adjust volume automatically as speed increases

    Those are some of what appealed to us. Each person has different priorities, so each one of us will have a different list, I'm sure.

    To be honest I could stop at visbility, IIHS Top Safety Pick, and light weight, and that would be enough.

    Lightness is great because it helps acceleration, economy, handling, braking; lots of stuff.
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 390
    I'm not sure I'd even use the Lock mode. If it truly does lock the axles together (or do they mean it locks the power split?), then you'd have problems in sharp turns with binding. So if the Auto 4WD mode really works, it would turn off and on when needed.

    With Lock, you'd have to hit the button for each sharp turn or U-turn, then back on, then off again, then on, and so on.

    IMO, Lock is a very poor naming choice for that mode. If I understand the Mitsubishi press release, you can drive 100K miles or more in Lock mode and it won't hurt the drivetrain. The Lock mode differs from the Auto mode in that it "locks" in a more rear bias power split (50% more than Auto mode). Once again, a very poor naming choice. Something like Sport would be a much better choice. In fact, the press release mentions using the Lock mode for more spirited driving.

    Indeed lock is a bit of a misnomer. Not a solid lock like I had in my 4X4 Dodges
    but a power ratio split. Wheres I couldn't back out of my driveway while turning in 4X4 mode in the Dodges without severely binding I have tried the Outlander in all 3 positions with no tugging or binding whatsoever on dry surfaces while sharply turning.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    In that case I stand corrected.

    Indeed, they should call it "Sport" mode or something like that.

    If you go on a 4x4 site and say you have a Lock mode you would never here the end of it.
  • psychogunpsychogun Posts: 123
    Congrats on your purchase.

    Let us know how it stands up in real-world use.

    As I've mentioned before, I think the Forester and Outlander represent the best CUV's on the market.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Thanks. :shades:

    We factory ordered to get exactly what we wanted.

    Forester sales were up 49% in April and demand is hot, so the popular LL Bean model was hard to find, especially the colors my wife liked. Closest one we could locate was in NJ, almost 4 hours drive.

    High demand is a mixed blessing - it should mean good resale down the road, since the public really likes it, but it also means no incentives. :(

    We should be taking delivery in early July, so if incentives show up by then they will apply to our deal. I'm not holding my breath...
  • Instead of percentages I would like to know how many Foresters Subie sold this month last year compare to this month. Reality is that Mitsu and Subaru are small players. Marketing/PR teams suck big time for both companies here in USA, reality is that they offer the same quality products such as Honda or Toyota but because of bad marketing no one notices them. If Outlander had a Honda badge on it and FOrester a Toyota you can be more than sure that the sales would have been in a lot of thousands per month.
  • psychogunpsychogun Posts: 123
    Wow, you have to wait 6-8 weeks... Sorry to hear that.
    Depending on how high gas prices go over the next month or so, there is a chance demand for the new Forester may soften... But like you said, I wouldn't hold my breath either.
    Demand for the Outlander has softened considerably since the end of '07, unfortunate for Mitsubishi, but good for consumers... Hopefully, with the 4-cylinder Outlander now well represented on dealer lots, sales may rebound...
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Posts: 194
    Mitsubishi Motors has announced its production, sales and export figures for February 2008, with record-breaking growth fuelled by sales of the new Outlander and new Lancer, according to a report on carpages.co.uk.

    The report states that total global production came in at 128,606 units, an increase of 12.1 per cent over the same month last year, and marking the 12th consecutive monthly increase since March last year. Production volume in Japan at 86,909 units was up 17.7 per cent, the 17th consecutive month of year-on-year growth and marking a new record since Mitsubishi Motors spun off its truck and bus operations in 2003.

    This growth, carpages.co.uk reports, was driven by a 37.6 per-cent increase in output (29,444 units) of the new Lancer for the Russian, North American, Middle East and African markets and by a 36.1 per cent increase in output (17,243 units) for export shipment of the new Outlander, which continues to sell briskly in European and Chinese markets.
  • rcpaxrcpax Posts: 580
    And that's exactly the reason why Outlanders for Europe are already being built in the NedCar plant in Europe itself because of the great demand for the Outlander and its variants, the Peugeot 4007 and Citroen C-Crosser. Exports from Japan just can't satisfy the great worldwide demand.

    If Outlander is a "boring" SUV, I don't think Peugeot and Citroen will want to rebadge it under their own brand.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    36.1 per cent increase in output (17,243 units) for export shipment of the new Outlander

    Back here on earth, what does this have to with anything? For all I know, the compeition increased 50% in output, leaving the Outlander in the dust. You're better off sticking to discussing AWD nuances.
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Posts: 194
    It was a reply to this statement: Demand for the Outlander has softened considerably since the end of '07
  • If Outlander is a "boring" SUV, I don't think Peugeot and Citroen will want to rebadge it under their own brand.

    Right... because Peugeot and Citroen don't have any boring econoboxes at all... ;)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Blitz wrote:

    If Outlander had a Honda badge on it and Forester a Toyota you can be more than sure that the sales would have been in a lot of thousands per month

    I don't think anyone will argue with that.

    But...the fact is, Honda and Toyota earned that rep.

    gun wrote:

    there is a chance demand for the new Forester may soften

    Yes and no - fewer people will move up from compact sedans, but more people may downsize from an SUV. With 20/26 mpg stamped on the Monroney, that won't scare people away.

    It could hurt turbo sales but most of the volume is the base engine.

    How's the sales split with the Outlander, V6 vs. I4, I wonder? I bet the diesel represents a lot of those overseas sales.

    In the US, I think sales are softer. I found 7 left over 2007 models when I went on my test drive. That's not good.

    I'm sure the incentive will clear them out soon, but incentives erode residuals, which were already not as good as the Forester's per ALG.

    For someone who keeps their cars forever, that may not matter. You may be upside down on a loan for a while if you took one, but unless it's totalled or you have to sell it early for unforeseen reaons, no biggie.
  • rcpaxrcpax Posts: 580
    But...the fact is, Honda and Toyota earned that rep.

    And also true, a lot of people buy the brand rather than value for money, but as we know, these trusted brand vehicles are not without problems. So they are not superior by default.
  • rcpaxrcpax Posts: 580
    In the US, I think sales are softer. I found 7 left over 2007 models when I went on my test drive. That's not good.

    Can you remember the trims on those vehicles? The Outlander sells well on a particular trim than others. Back in 06, XLS was in hot demand, leaving the ES and LS on the lot.
This discussion has been closed.