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

2456752

Comments

  • comem47comem47 Posts: 395
    Well I do better than the 2008 ratings on my 2007 LS V6 AWD. I've gotten 27 mpg hwy last fall (last weekend 25.5 mpg on a trip and and we're not on summer fuel yet) 23 mpg is mixed average with city being 19mpg-20 mpg ). So the fuel is so close but I'm burning regular and last time I checked premium is in excess of 10C a gallon more. To each their own but I wouldn't want a premium diet. (but whatever floats your boat).
    It would have been easier to go for a Subaru, dealer wise (largest dealer in US is just 3 miles away and they have an excellent reputation, but I liked the larger size of the Outlander over Forrester and Forrester was more, let alone Tribeca (I'm glad they at least got rid of that horse collar grill) Let's call it personal taste. As I mentioned before If it wasn't the Outlander it was going to be a Hyundai Santa Fe for this size vehicle with warranty and price. My LS AWD with Sun and sound package (Rockford Fosgate 650 W with power Sunroof )listed for a hair over $25K
    (I believe the 2007/8 Forrester is at least $2K more and I paid less with incentives and got more for my trade in than elsewhere. (also the warranty is far superior on the Outlander and I keep my vehicles for several years).
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I'm glad you do better than the EPA numbers, but so could anyone. My minivan gets better mileage than you are reporting, with 266hp and 8 full-size seats, plus a 21 gallon gas tank for a ton more range.

    Honestly, the mileage isn't too bad, it's the tiny little gas tank. Mitsu should put in a 20+ gallon tank to give you some better range. 15.8 gallons for a V6 model?

    Outlander is bigger, but to me it's too small to compete in the mid-size arena, yet too big to be as efficient as the best compacts. Call it an inbetween-er.

    Also, I took a tape measure to the auto show, and the cargo area was something like 37" wide, the narrowest of all the compact crossovers I measured. Perhaps they had to make room for those 18"s, or the suspension just isn't very compact. Length and height were good, but you may have to stack things up.

    Sante Fe is a great value but it doesn't meet my fuel economy targets. FWIW, I would shop the 4 cylinder Outlander CVT, the normally aspirated Forester, not the V6 or the turbo.

    I checked again in CR, both vehicles are "Recommended", and both have "Much Better than Average" reliability. Kudos to both.

    Outlander does "Average" on ownership cost and owner satisfaction. Forester does "Much Better than Average" on ownership cost and "Better than Average" on owner satisfaction.

    Honestly though if you love one more than the other I think you should pay more to get what you want. :shades:
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 8,596
    Honestly though if you love one more than the other I think you should pay more to get what you want.

    Or, just pay to get what you want, regardless of whether it is more. ;)
    2010 Subaru Forester, 2011 Ford Fiesta, 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup, 1974 Ford Pinto Wagon
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    >> You would have to add a moonroof, leather, and 6CD to the Outlander to get to the equipment level that is standard on the Forester XT Limited. That's more than $3000 in options by my math, enough to reverse that ranking.

    That’s wrong. 6-CD changer is standard on Outlander.
    .

    >> 'you get much better equipped car 'Really? No moonroof, no leather, no CD changer, and it's better equipped? It is cheaper, but that's because more things are options rather than standard, as on the Forester XT.

    Take a look: Outlander XLS with 3 packages TMV $29,414 (it's actually less: Mitsu dealer usually does not charge destination), which includes leather, sunroof, nav, premium stereo, Xenons. The Forester with all main packages TMV $31,882. The Forester costs more yet this higher price does not include paddle shifters, Bluetooth, FAST Key, keyless start, music server, 18” wheels, Xenons, 650-watt amplifier, LED, Skid Plates – everything the Outlander has got. In addition Subaru has less capable transmission and AWD. So with Outlander for less money you get much better equipped car.

    In addition to the purchasing costs, the Forester has higher maintenance costs due to more expensive premium gas and shorter warranty.

    image


    >> Subaru had to cheat using this nearly part-time AWD- I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. It is full time and constantly adjusts the torque split, constantly.

    The Forester is only technically a full-time AWD car: the car is front axle biased with 90/10 front/rear torque split under normal driving conditions. It would pass more torque to the rear only when a slippage occurs: it’s reactive, but not a proactive system. The Outlander would pass 40% to the rear under normal driving conditions and it will pass more when the slippage occurs. In addition the Outlander owner has a choice of 2WD mode, but the Forester’s owner does not.
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    >> Not your fault, though you didn't cite a source for us to try to contact them to correct all their mistakes.

    No, it’s my fault, if there is inaccuracy.


    >> Anyhow, right off the top of my head, here are some of the many, many mistakes that chart makes:
    * it uses the old EPA number for the Mitsu, 19/26, revised down to 17/24


    You are right. I will fix it.
    .

    >>* no mention of Forester's Sirius satellite radio capability
    >>* no mention of ability to play MP3 and WMA files
    >>* no mention of ability to play CD-Rs
    >>* it overlooks the SportShift trans on the Subaru (this is a matter of preference)


    It overlooks all these features on both cars. The chart attempts do display only unique reasonably substantial features which differ among both cars. Otherwise chart would get too long.
    .

    >>* trailer wiring exists for the Forester, that chart implies it does not

    This trailer info posted according to Edmunds.com. Post your link, if otherwise.
    .

    >>* Bluetooth is indeed offered on the Forester, that chart says its not

    Yes, it just became available for the Forester as dealer installed kit, I will correct it. Note, that factory installed bluetooth is standard on the Outlander.
    .

    >>* the chart says no DVD player, also wrong, Forester will play DVDs on the NAV screen

    Edmunds.com says “DVD player is not available”. Post a link, then I will fix the chart. Note, that on Outlander you can get the second rear DVD.
    .

    >>Also, there are a few things the Forester has that the Mitsu does not:
    * dual exhaust outlets (vs. single)


    That’s wrong. The Outlander has dual. Not a big deal though.
    .

    >> * hood struts (vs. a cheap prop rod)
    >> * perforated leather standard on the models compared
    >> * more power
    >> * more torque
    >> * mention the option of a manual transmission, for those who prefer it over a slushbox.


    These are insignificant. Outlander could counter these with odor absorbing interior, standard leather shifter, aluminum roof, faster hard drive navigation, GPS Diamond Lane Guidance system, speed adjusted radio volume, second rear DVD player, optional multicolor HID lights, dual stage turn signal, digital multi-info display, etc.
    .

    >>* extra power and torque still yields better city gas mileage, +2mpg

    You forgetting the weight difference and practically part-time AWD on Forester.
    .

    >>* better visibility (especially around the D-pillar)

    Subjective and insignificant. I would counter it with better handling and styling on Outlander
    .

    >>* seat heaters standard
    >>* Manual transmission Foresters have a unique Hill Start Assist feature.
    >>* bigger gas tank for better cruising range


    True. I will make the update these. Hill assist is not unique: it's on RAV4 and others, and will be on 2009 Outlander model with twin clutch tranny.
    .

    >>* moonroof standard, and also 3 times the size of Mitsu's optional one

    Not 3 times. May be 50% larger, but I will make the update
    .

    >>* 10 way power driver's seat standard (pkg on Mitsu)

    The chart already says that it's standard on Forstr. Double check please.


    >>I'm not sure if the Outlander XLS also includes heated mirrors and wiper de-icers but those are also standard on the Forester XT.

    You better make sure :)


  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    You compared an 2008 model with a brand-new 2009 that doesn't have incentives yet. Of course the price will be higher. 2008 Forester XTs are still available, if you wanted to compare same year models.

    When you go to sell them a 2009 will be worth more than a 2008.

    You also dismiss the extras that the Forester has (how convenient). The hood struts are very cool, pop the hood and it raises itself. I do my own maintenance and this important to me. The cheap prop rod clip on my Miata has broken twice, a real nuisance.

    You dismiss SportShift but your chart lists paddle shifters, so it should list the tap shift feature on the Forester. Some prefer them on the steering wheel, others prefer them on the shifter itself. Personal preference. But if the chart lists one, it should list the other, if you want to be fair.

    Subaru does recommend premium fuel but it doesn't require it, plus remember the EPA city is 2 mpg better, so you'll likely use less fuel. You will not see any cost advantage. The Forester does enjoy more range, though.

    Subaur's AWD is proactive, it adjust constantly even before there is slip. In fact in 1st and 2nd gears it defaults to 50/50. Only when cruising does it default to 90/10.

    How do I know about trailer wiring. See photo below. The harness is there, just plug and play.

    The NAV system will play DVDs, but I have yet to see any technical spec on it. In fact I'm looking for those because we are considering getting that option. My main concern is that these built-in units have a safe mode where it does not let you enter a destination while on the go. You have to pull over and put the vehicle in Park.

    So let me ask, how does the Outlander's GPS system work? Will it let you enter an address while moving?

    Most don't. To me this is a deal-killer. If you can't use it while on the go, even when a passenger occupies the seat next to you and can enter it, well, that just stinks.

    A few more things...

    You mention the Outlander's standard air filtration but the Forester has that too.

    According to my Consumer's Guide (not the same as CR, by the way) Auto 2008, the Outlander only has a tilt wheel. The Forester XT's tilts and telescopes.

    Also according to that same book, heated mirrors and wiper de-icers are standard on the Forester XT. It makes no mention of those on the Outlander, that's why I asked you to make sure, since you own the car and should know.

    The rear seats on the Forester can also recline. They even make a bed with the front seats.

    You mention the leather steering wheel and shifter on the Outlander but the Forester has those, too.
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 395
    Well nobody is going to convince the other on personal preference. In my case I needed an 4WD/AWD vehicle to tow my snowmobile trailer in winter. None of the very high end features were a must for me (leather. etc) and I wanted to keep it under $25K The pre-2009 Forresters I feel were a smaller station wagon vs a Crossover SUV. (and I bought in fall 2007) I also feel they should be doing a bit better on MPG considering the size/weight and being 4 cyl. We already discussed why I wouldn't want the turbo (premium fuel) and the Outlander can tow 3500 lbs with the V6.(some of the econobox AWD cars I looksd at were limited to 1000 lbs)

    The newer 2009 Forrester is something I might have looked at were it available at the time (looking more like an Outlander! ;-) ,but Subarus, Hondas and Toyotas all are riding on past reputation and refusing to deal on price/warranty. I feel I got a better value for my $(with quite a few features standard) but everyone will have their personal preferences, price aside.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    That's fine. I was just correcting that chart, which was very one-sided.

    I'm sure Subaru has a similar chart, somewhere, just as biased, listing things from their perspective. :D

    The Mitsu warranty is great, but then you have to ask yourself if you trust the company behind it. I simply don't.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    My 2005 XT has a RWD bias upon acceleration where nearly all of the torque gets transfered to the rear. My owners manual says torque is constantly varied between front and rear depending on acceleration, although I don't doubt when cruising there is a FWD bias.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Doesn't it default to 45/55?

    It was the base model that had the 90/10 split, even then not in 1st, 2nd, or Reverse, it's 50/50 in those cases, and constantly adjusts.
  • h2k2f2h2k2f2 Posts: 44
    It looks like one area where the 2009 Forester XT can stomp on the Outlander is the the 0-60 test. In a recent Motor Trend test, the Forester XT needed only 6.6 seconds, even with its supposedly inferior automatic transmission. When MT tested the Outlander last year, that CUV needed 8.1 seconds to hit 60 MPH. Ouch!

    http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/112_0806_2009_subaru_forester_xt_quick_- test/
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    >> You compared an 2008 model with a brand-new 2009 that doesn't have incentives yet.

    Actually Edmunds TMV of $29,414 for the Outlander does not include incentives. Normal street price for Outlander in this configuration is $28,000K which includes incentives. With additional rebates (student, previous Mitsu owner or veteran you can get additional $500 off). But even regardless incentives, MSPR price for Outlander is also lower vs. Forester MSPR.
    .

    >> Of course the price will be higher. 2008 Forester XTs are still available, if you wanted to compare same year models.

    Actually I did a favor to Subaru fans. 2008 Forester is so obsolete - it cannot compete with 2008 Outlander.
    .

    >> You also dismiss the extras that the Forester has (how convenient).

    Like I said these extras are insignificant but if you want to fight for every cup holder, we can add all minor extras, no problem, though Outlander has more extras.
    .

    >> The hood struts are very cool, pop the hood and it raises itself. I do my own maintenance and this important to me. The cheap prop rod clip on my Miata has broken twice, a real nuisance.

    While owning last two cars, I had never opened my hood (my mechanic did), so I don’t care and I don’t even know the difference to tell what kind of “struts” it got.
    .

    >> You dismiss SportShift but your chart lists paddle shifters, so it should list the tap shift feature on the Forester. Some prefer them on the steering wheel, others prefer them on the shifter itself. Personal preference. But if the chart lists one, it should list the other, if you want to be fair.

    Outlander also has Sport Shift. Like I’ve said, the chart does not list features available on both cars in the same way (standard/option). So, for instance, if both cars have Tire Pressure Monitor, or power windows, then we don’t put in this chart, otherwise chart gets too long. But in addition to the Sport Shift, Outlander has paddle shifters, which is listed as a separate feature even on Edmund.com. So I believe it’s perfectly fair.
    .

    >> Subaru’s AWD is proactive, it adjust constantly even before there is slip. In fact in 1st and 2nd gears it defaults to 50/50. Only when cruising does it default to 90/10.

    Yea, so Subaru owner gets quality ride only in 1st and 2nd gear. That’s what I am saying: Forester is practically a part-time AWD.


    >> How do I know about trailer wiring. See photo below. The harness is there, just plug and play.

    Well, Edmunds.com says there is no wiring. They do make mistakes, but your photo is taken out of contexts from who know where, and looks like from old car, not 2009. Don’t you have a link from Subaru site or some car site which would say that it has the trailer wiring?
    .

    >> let me ask, how does the Outlander's GPS system work? Will it let you enter an address while moving? Most don't. To me this is a deal-killer. If you can't use it while on the go, even when a passenger occupies the seat next to you and can enter it, well, that just stinks.

    Yes, you can enter, change, and delete destinations while running at any speed. So to my knowledge the Outlander is the only a car in this segment, which has this capability. Besides, the navigation on Outlander is faster due to its hard drive based design. It also equipped with unique for this price category GPS Diamond Lane Guidance system.
    .

    >> You mention the Outlander's standard air filtration but the Forester has that too.

    That's not what I meant, not just filtration. Outlander has air purifier and interior part of the roof is made of special odor absorbing material.
    .

    >> According to my Consumer's Guide (not the same as CR, by the way) Auto 2008, the Outlander only has a tilt wheel. The Forester XT's tilts and telescopes.

    I know, and Forester already got credit for it in the chart.
    .

    >> Also according to that same book, heated mirrors and wiper de-icers are standard on the Forester XT. It makes no mention of those on the Outlander, that's why I asked you to make sure, since you own the car and should know.

    2008 model of Outie has heated mirrors, but not de-icer. De-icer available on Outie in other then US markets, but we will give Forester a credit for it.
    .

    >> The rear seats on the Forester can also recline. They even make a bed with the front seats.

    Same here.
    .

    >> You mention the leather steering wheel and shifter on the Outlander but the Forester has those, too.

    Yea, but on Forester it’s a dealer installed option, and on the Outie it’s factory standard feature.
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    Good point, Forester appears to be quicker. But you would expect this better acceleration from a car with the same horse power as the Outlander, but 500 pounds lighter and with turbocharger. Similar situation exists with Mazda CX-7. Of course 4-cylinder Turbo engines accelerate faster, but they use premium gas, work harder, produce more emission, less reliable and can do less payload/tow load. I believe for these reasons 4cyl turbo would not be a good choice of engine for SUV/CUV.

    No one could surprise us these days with more horse power and more torque. Mitsubishi, for instance, got spectacular 405 hp out of its Evo 8 MR FQ400, which had only 2 Liter turbocharger! It makes 0-60 in 3.5 sec.

    Surprise is, when you can get a combination of high power, low gas mileage and low emissions. The Outlander is attempted as balanced power/emissions/milage car. It has smooth regular gasoline V6 engine, which deliver appropriate power, but low emissions and reasonable for full-time AWD milage.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,322
    Actually Edmunds TMV of $29,414 for the Outlander does not include incentives.

    It depends on what incentives you mean. TMV takes into account any current manufacturer-to-dealer incentives for the vehicle. Manufacturer-to-consumer rebates aren't included since they don't affect the actual transaction price. You negotiate your best deal and then you choose whether to get cash back or whether to apply the rebate against the sales price. TMV

    Just curious, how do you check your oil without raising your hood? :shades:

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

  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    >> It depends on what incentives you mean. TMV takes into account any current manufacturer-to-dealer incentives for the vehicle.

    Edmunds TMV is not quite accurate for Mitsubishi cars. Edmunds TMV is above invoice, but if you read "Prices Paid" forum, everyone gets the Outlander below invoice. $28K below invoice price is possible exactly because of dealer incentives from Mitsubishi, which lack transparency and not publicized. Consumer incentives take price even lower. Most people don't get consumer incentives picking a low financing instead. Additional consumer incentives such as student, veteran or loyalty $500 rebates each are also available. So you can get this car stuffed with technology and 5/10 warranty for quite cheap. I'd say it's the best deal in any car segment.

    >> Just curious, how do you check your oil without raising your hood?

    I don't! As I mentioned in my post, my mechanic checks my oil :)
    Why should I? While they change my oil, they do that free 20-point inspection, tire pressure, etc. And if I get a flat tire I have free road side assistance from Mitsubishi.
    Also if I get low oil level, I'd get the Oil Warning signal on my multi-information display, so no manual oil check is really needed by consumer.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,322
    Old habit I guess - I usually check my oil every time I fill up with gas.

    I think TMV is accurate. Remember, it's reporting what people are paying for a car in your area.

    People who participate on the forums here are more car savvy and informed than the typical buyer, so naturally they tend to beat TMV. :shades:

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

  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    >> I think TMV is accurate. Remember, it's reporting what people are paying for a car in your area.

    You might be right.

    >> People who participate on the forums here are more car savvy and informed than the typical buyer, so naturally they tend to beat TMV.

    So it pays to visit these forums :--)
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    The chart is updated, including your corrections and comments.

    Forester got credit for more torque, bigger tank, wiper dicer, sunroof, standard heated seats, and standard leather. Also mentioned shiftable transmission, hood struts, and perforated leather. Hill Assist feature is not added, since this turbo model is not equipped with it.
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,109
    So it pays to visit these forums :--)

    Indeed, it does.

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper
  • h2k2f2h2k2f2 Posts: 44
    The notion that turbos are less reliable is more urban legend today than anything else. And yes, I am aware of the rumor mill frenzy that is going on with the 2.5 liter Subaru turbos.

    "Surprise is, when you can get a combination of high power, low gas mileage and low emissions. The Outlander is attempted as balanced power/emissions/milage car. It has smooth regular gasoline V6 engine, which deliver appropriate power, but low emissions and reasonable for full-time AWD milage."

    What's funny is that the Subaru Forester XT with its turbo seems to do a better job of meeting that sweet combination of high power, low mlieage, and low emissions. It produces higher power and makes more efficient use of it (due in part to the Forester's lower weight). It has better fuel efficiency than the Outlander and meets the same emissions standards (both LEV II with PZEV models available for sale in some states). It looks like Mitsubishi needs to go back to work on its V6.
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 395
    To Subaru's credit they have redesigned the turbo to come in at lower rpms and be more seemless. (Turbos can be peaky). The main negative is the price (I was off on my estimate and premium locally is about 30 cents more per gallon, not just 10cents)

    For closely the same fuel economy (albeit a bit less power) I'd rather be spending $3.30 a gal than $3.60 (net effect of the turbo being less $fuel efficient in this case). In the example above for a 15 gal fill-up the regular gas car will cost $49.50 to the premium gas car $54.
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    >> It produces higher power

    This higher torgue of turbo engine gets you a better acceleration, but Forester has lower payload/tow load specs. Exactly the same story with Mazda CX-7 turbo.
    .

    >> It produces higher power and makes more efficient use of it (due in part to the Forester's lower weight).

    The lower weight is one factor in the Forester's decent gas mileage. Another one is 90/10 AWD split: in normal driving conditions Forester is practically a 2WD car. Subaru realized that they could not meet these mileage/emission targets with a full-time 50/50 split, so they had to cut corners to achieve that gas mileage and emission standards.

    The Outlander on the other hand meets these targets with 60/40 full-time split. And it has much better payload/tow specs.
  • h2k2f2h2k2f2 Posts: 44
    For some of us, towing is a non-issue. Also the Forester's torque split is not held to 90:10 and is proactively adjusted as needed. So, your claimed advantages aren't selling points for me. Overall, for me, the XT still wins in the powertrain department over the Outlander V6.
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    >> For some of us, towing is a non-issue.

    It's not only towing, it's regular payload also. We are not driving raodster, we are driving utility vehicle here, so payload is important to many.
    .

    >> Also the Forester's torque split is not held to 90:10 and is proactively adjusted as needed.

    It adjusted only if slippage occurs. Otherwise it's practically a 2WD car. And government EPA testing is done in a lab, so there is no much slipping.
    .

    >> Overall, for me, the XT still wins in the powertrain department over the Outlander V6.

    Right, XT's superior powertrain comes with engine problems, nearly part-tme AWD and antiquated 4-speed Auto.
  • h2k2f2h2k2f2 Posts: 44
    It adjusted only if slippage occurs. Otherwise it's practically a 2WD car. And government EPA tasting is done in a lab, so there is no much slipping.

    Sorry, it is adjusted in anticipation of slippage in some circumstances. But if you can't accept that fact, I can't help you.

    And government EPA tasting is done in a lab, so there is no much slipping.

    I didn't realize that they actually tasted things as part of the tests. Mmmm! :)

    Right, XT's superior powertrain comes with engine problems, nearly part-tme AWD and antiquated 4-speed Auto.

    The four speed is well matched to its engines. It still delivers the goods that the Outlander's six speed doesn't (higher EPA numbers and better 0-60 numbers). More gears isn't always better and this is a case in point.
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    >> Sorry, it is adjusted in anticipation of slippage in some circumstances.

    I accept your apologies, and I am glad that now you are saying “some circumstances” which is a progress in a splitting hair process:--)
    .

    >> didn't realize that they actually tasted things as part of the tests.

    Yea, government employees combine it with wine tasting :--)


    >> The four speed is well matched to its engines. More gears isn't always better and this is a case in point.

    Nice try for excuse. I wonder why don’t they use a 4-speed tranny on top of the line Mercedes and Lexus? Why do they use a 7 and 8-speed transmission? They are so behind...
  • h2k2f2h2k2f2 Posts: 44
    >> The four speed is well matched to its engines. More gears isn't always better and this is a case in point.

    Nice try for excuse. I wonder why don’t they use a 4-speed tranny on top of the line Mercedes and Lexus? Why do they use a 7 and 8-speed transmission? They are so behind...

    IYou are making sweeping generalizations. More gears doesn't automatically equal superior performance. The Subaru Forester is a case in which more gears don't provide any benefit beyond bragging rights.
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 395
    Put another way with the current fuel prices. If both vehicles average 22 mpg combined and you pay 30 cents more for premium fuel then that's around 9% more or degrade the mpgs for an equivalent fuel cost to getting a little over 20 mpg vs the 22 mpg on the same $$ for a regular fuel vehicle. The "cost MPGs" are not the same.
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    Yeap. You pay more for the Forester, for gas, for repairs (shorter warranty), but you get less equipment and older technology, compare to the Outlander.

    For instance 2009 Forester comes with dated 4-speed tranny, but 2009 Outlander coming with spectacular 6-speed Twin Clutch: huge technological gap.
  • h2k2f2h2k2f2 Posts: 44
    Just keep telling yourself this stuff. Maybe even you'll eventually really believe it.
This discussion has been closed.