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

1171820222378

Comments

  • 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.
  • 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: 1,432
    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: 19,653
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.