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

1181921232452

Comments

  • >> That's what I'd consider a mid-model makeover, not quite a new generation

    ...Or going from 4-speed auto transmission in 1997 (1st generation of Forester) into 4-speed auto transmission in 2009: 3rd generation. This looks like a mid-model makeover, not quite a new generation.

    >> I just got my new Consumer Reports, Dec 09, and FWIW the Outlander is not in the top 6 Most Reliable Small SUVs (p. 63).

    So what, it is still somewhere among top most reliable. It was among top 4 most reliable small SUVs just earlier this year along with RAV4, CR-V and Forester:
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/uptospeed/2009/02/consumer-report.html
    And Mitsu was able to keep the Outlander very reliable in spite of so much more technology used.


    >> $2,700 is marginal? That's a lot of money...

    I've got a $2.3K TCO number which is $38 a month over 5 years. I guess for you it's a lot. For me $38/m well worth of: smooth 6-speed transmission w/paddle shifters, sharp handling, SMART Key, keyless ignition, Xenons, LEDs, 18" tires, music server, tri-mode AWD, more cargo volume, skid plates, 3-rd row seats, backup camera, split clamshel rear gate, 650-watt 9-speaker Rockford Fosgate stereo, integrated satellite radio, 6-CD changer, faster hard drive based nav, several more years of warranty, free road side assistance... Forester has none of that.


    >>You traded in your Outlander and the music went with it.

    Nope, the Outlander mp3 music server is intended to automatically backup your audio CDs while you listeting them, so you don't have to incert them next time. I obviously kept my audio CDs when I traded my Outlander.

    >> To me it makes more sense to carry music in an iPod, iPhone, or portable MP3 player or SD card or something, that way it goes with you, and not just while you're driving.

    Sure, for that reason the 2010 Outlander GT Bluetooth streaming audio capability allows you to stream wirelessly Pandora web radio or your mp3 collection through that nice 710-watt Rockford Fosgate stereo with 10" subwoofer. Imagine, you enter your car with your bluetooth capable mobile device, and you don't have to plugin any cables or adapters: all your music and your phone book available in your car after you turn on ignition! Forester can't do that.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,210
    Nope, the Outlander mp3 music server is intended to automatically backup your audio CDs while you listeting them, so you don't have to incert them next time. I obviously kept my audio CDs when I traded my Outlander.

    So basically you just gave free copies of copyrighted music to the next owner? Does the RIAA know about this? :surprise:
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,127
    Just what is a "CD" anyway? :P

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

  • >> So basically you just gave free copies of copyrighted music to the next owner?

    Who knows, may be I did, or may be I did not, I don't recall, or may be my music was not copyrighted, or may be i did not "give music free" but sold it with the car, or may be I erased it, or may be music left in a traded car in it is not considered illegal act in a court of law? Anyway please consult your legal adviser or try to issue a subpoena to find out.


    >> Does the RIAA know about this?

    Who knows what they know, try to google their 800 number to find out.

    All great questions!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    You're bench racing ... let's look at the results instead. The Forester XT is quicker and still managed to be more fuel efficient. Who cares how many ratios your slush box has when you're still trailing in acceleration?

    I was just at the Apple store this weekend, and for $2700 I could buy a new iTouch, plus a Macbook Air for me, plus a Macbook Air for my wife, plus a iPod Shuffle for my kid so they can listen to their music.

    Forester has LEDs lighting up the inside, pretty neat.

    The sub in the Outlander takes up ~3 cubic feet of trunk space. A better location would be under the seat so it didn't use up that space.

    The 3rd row isn't safe enough for me to put my children there - the rear headrest basically touches the rear glass. There's no crumple space at all.

    Half the things you listed the Forester has as well.

    Forester can't do that.

    Are you sure? You also claimed it didn't have satellite radio and someone corrected you a short while ago. It sounds like you are just reading the Outlander brochure.

    Mitsubishi's web site isn't even updated yet. You click on Outlander and it shows you the 2009. The 2010 teaser has scarce info.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    In post 7060 chelentano brags the Outlander GT has "More horse power", which may be true (see bottom), 230hp vs. 224hp for the Subaru Forester XT. To him that 2.7% advantage was significant enough to list, even though his Outlander had 220hp. Let's ignore that and look at the 2010s only.

    In the same post he mentions 18" vs. 17" wheels, but later dismisses the 21mpg vs. 20mpg EPA combined mileage advantage for the Forester. Double standard?

    Ok, so with 2.7% as a baseline for what he considers an advantage, let's see...

    * Forester XT has 5+% more peak torque that arrives 950rpm sooner
    * F-XT is more than 6+% lighter (to be fair, using models with no 3rd row here and later, to be consistent)
    * surprise - that means Forester has the better HP/weight ratio
    * 5% better EPA combined mileage
    * 5.7% smaller carbon footprint
    * 7% more fuel capacity, resulting in...
    * over 12% more driving range per tankful
    * 6% more ground clearance (even assuming GT is not lowered)
    * over 7% more passenger volume
    * 6+% better residual values
    * up to 10% better residual values on a 3 year lease
    * 5.5% lower TCO (using your #s and assuming Outlander uses 87 octane)
    * 200% bigger moonroof
    * 100% non-Caliber AWD system :P

    Why did I say the 230hp vs. 224hp may be true? Because Subaru is rumored to have a 2010 Forester Sports XT with 265hp and 244 lb-ft of torque in the pipeline. That would mean over 15% more HP and 13.5% more torque than the Outlander GT. :cry:

    I'm sure the response will be...230hp is enough. Above that amount doesn't matter. In fact any advantage any vehicle has over the Outlander does not matter to chelentano.

    Only the criteria where Mitsubishi shows an advantage matter, even if that advantage is smaller. Even if it's imagined.
  • Hey Juice, you a fan of the tv show: Numbers? :P
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    No but I did get perfect scores in SAT math. :shades:

    Check out this SEMA one-off, a Forester XTI:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNiwrB0Ap4Q&feature=player_embedded

    All the STI bolted in (fits, too).
  • >> The Forester XT is quicker and still managed to be more fuel efficient. Who cares how many ratios your slush box has when you're still trailing in acceleration?

    Forester is quicker thanks to Mitsubishi-made turbocharger, but Subaru could not take advantage of turbo wasting quickness on mediocre handling. Slalom speed is pathetic: even lower the Toyota’s.

    >> The 3rd row isn't safe enough for me to put my children there - the rear headrest basically touches the rear glass.

    This is speculation. The car passed all safety tests and government approved.


    >> You also claimed it didn't have satellite radio and someone corrected you a short while ago.

    I already told you that Forester’s radio is $429 dealer installer accessory plus another $100 for labor: you can buy a laptop for your kid for this amount of money so you don’t have to wait 5 years for TCO saving. Outlander satellite radio is part of factory installed stereo. If we want to play accessories game that’s another story but Outlander would win again. There is multipage catalog available with all kinda of cool stuff such as multicolor custom Xenons, OLED navigation systems, stereo systems, low-mid range radar and collision systems, Bike racks, etc.
  • >> Forester XT has 5+% more peak torque that arrives 950rpm sooner
    But in spite of “more peak torque” Outlander does slalom much faster and tows much more.

    >> F-XT is more than 6+% lighter (to be fair, using models with no 3rd row here and later, to be consistent)
    No, to be fair we must count the 3rd row, the subwoofer, heavier wheels, standard sat. radio, heavier V6, skid plates, etc – all of that and more makes Outlander heavier, but adds value.

    >> 5% better EPA combined mileage
    Again slightly better mileage for a slightly lighter car.

    >> 5.7% smaller carbon footprint
    I though you've said that GT's specs are not published?

    >> 7% more fuel capacity, resulting in...
    >> over 12% more driving range per tankful
    It’s like me saying:
    *100% better stereo
    *For 200% more fun

    >> 6% more ground clearance
    but resulting 10% worse slalom test results, so it’s not advantage at all specially considering that most of drivers drive offroad 1% of time.

    >> over 7% more passenger volume
    Not true, if you count 3rd row.

    >> 6+% better residual values 5.5% lower TCO
    But Forester is 70% worst equipped car, with 70% worse warranty, 100% worse road side assistance.

    >> 100% non-Caliber AWD system
    Cool. Why did not you mention Forester’s 100% Mitsubishi-build turbocharger?

    >> 200% bigger moonroof
    Even though it’s probably a big stretch (it’s really about 70% bigger), that the only significant Forester advantage.

    Because Outlander GT has (all factory installed):

    • 10% faster slalom speed: faster than any CUV under $90K
    • 50% more transmission gears
    • 100% more paddle shifters
    • 40% more trailer towing
    • 100% more Xenons
    • 100% more music servers
    • 4000% more Gigabytes of hard drive space
    • 100% more subwoofers
    • 100% more Rear View backup camera
    • 50% more speakers
    • 300% lower low frequency playback thanks to the 10" sub
    • 30% faster hard drive navigation vs. DVD based
    • 100% more of real-time traffic guidance
    • 200% more AWD modes (3)
    • 100% more of the default front axle torque
    • 100% more of AWD side-to-side torque control
    • 100% fuse-free FWD switch
    • 100% more 115v power outlets
    • 100% more rear entertainment systems with flip-down 9-inch wide-screen LCD, a remote control and set of infrared wireless headphones.
    • 300% more of the FAST Key controlled doors
    • 100% more keyless ignitions
    • 40% more people capacity
    • 17% more cargo volume
    • 600% more MP3 compatible CD drives
    • Did I mention 70% better warranty, 100% better road side assistance?
    • 100% more wireless audio streaming
    • 100% more wireless phonebook download capability
    • 100% more rain sensors

    That's the percentage competition. I could also mention a bunch of specs were Outlander is 5-10% or so better, the way you did, but I don't think it worth it.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Thanks for the turbocharger, in that case, perhaps Mitsu should consider adding one to their own V6.

    The car passed all safety tests and government approved

    Well, there is no rear crash test for the 3rd row, and when that arrives I bet that 3rd row option vanishes. There is no crumple space at all.

    Subaru does better overall in crash tests. The Outlander actually does well until you get to the IIHS Roof Strength test, where the Forester earns a better score. Forester has the advantage in safety - it gets the top score in every single test IIHS performs.

    The shopper above found that the Forester came with Sirius not only pre-installed but also with a free 3 month subscription. If you choose not to believe that, I honestly don't care.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Outlander does slalom much faster and tows much more

    We shopped 4 cylinder models, non-turbo (so did the OP by the way), and the Forester actually tows more. It can meet that 2400# requirement someone just asked about, but the 4 banger Mitsu cannot. The V6 can, but again, this is a split decision.

    The slalom was impressive but was that pre-production? Lowered? Summer tires? Let's see full road test from a production model. And like you said, there's a trade off between ride and handling. Big rims and stiff suspension like that means a stiff ride.

    If you had found the 3rd row useful, your next vehicle would have had one as well. Same for the infotainment package (which forced you to violate copyright laws).

    The carbon footprint is straight from the EPA website.

    100% worse road side assistance

    False, you do get roadside assistance from Subaru. You are just making this stuff up!

    Forester has a subwoofer, too, and it doesn't waste 3 cubic feet of cargo space. You're misleading people.

    200% bigger moonroof is about right, want to measure? The Forester's covers the front seat and the back seat. It's enormous.

    You are listing specs for a 2010 Outlander GT that Mitsubishi has not even launched yet. None of that stuff is on their web site, in fact click on Outlander and it shows you the specs for the 2009.

    100% more of the default front axle torque

    That's also wrong. You probably meant rear axle, but that too would be wrong.

    Mitsu's default split is 85/15, Subaru's in 90/10 or 80/20, depending upon who you ask. Plus the Subaru has more torque to send in the first place.

    100% more of AWD side-to-side torque control

    Source? I don't believe that one bit. They use the traction control system, so it's braking to retard acceleration on one axle, not actively increaseing torque to one side or the other. Misleading.

    40% more people capacity

    Munchkins, and even then I don't think they're safe.

    17% more cargo volume

    Less with a subwoofer. Plus the Forester will fit a bigger volume box (CR).

    600% more MP3 compatible CD drives

    Wrong yet again.

    Did I mention 70% better warranty, 100% better road side assistance?

    Yes, and you were wrong the first time, and now you're wrong the second time! :P

    Again you are just reading a brochure, and you don't really know much about how the Forester is equipped.

    Another contradiction - earlier you said the Hyundai has a Borg Warner AWD system from a Porsche. I don't buy it - the Porsche is primarily RWD, so first off it's backwards, not to mention it has to handle a heck of a lot more power.

    Then you say the Chrysler AWD system has nothing to do with Mitsubishi's even though they are also supplied by Borg Warner. Your reasoning was that the Outlander is built in Japan. So? Borg Waner is an American company (NYSE: BWA). Japan is where final assembly is done, but parts come from all over the world.

    The Forester is built in Japan with an AWD system built in Japan and not shared with the Chrysler Sebring rental car you'll find at airports in Minnesota.

    The base Outlander not only has the Borg Warnger AWD system from a Caliber/Compass, but also the 2.4l engine and the CVT transmission. This whole powertrain is shared.

    I notice you keep pretending the 4 cylinder Outlander does not exist. Here's where I agree with you - if I were in favor of the Outlander I would do the same thing. The engine sounds like a box of nails in a blender, 168hp is not enough for its weight, the CVT feels like a rubber band, and the AWD system...well, we know who that is shared with, and it's not Porsche!
  • Oh Yeah?

    Yeah!

    Says Who?

    Says Me!

    Oh Yeah?

    Yeah!

    Says Who?

    Says Me!!!

    :shades:
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Sorry to have hi-jacked the thread.

    I will let him tell you how the leather from his seats are made from the hides of Seabiscuit, the paddle shifters from the horns of a unicorn, and the trim from the tallest tree on Mt. Olympus.

    Then he can explain to you why he bailed on Mitsubishi and bought a Benz. Actions speak louder than words.
  • >>The shopper above found that the Forester came with Sirius not only pre-installed but also with a free 3 month subscription. If you choose not to believe that, I honestly don't care.

    That was in Canada. It's not a religion for me: no need to "believe" just check the web site.
  • >>The slalom was impressive but was that pre-production? Lowered? Summer tires?

    No, the Edmunds Inside Line web site indicates regular all-season tires. Outlander beats in slalom most of these expensive BMWs, Cayennes, MBs, Acuras, Audi, regardless if they are "lowered" (MB C-Class Sedan is much lower) or if they use sport tires. With sports tires Outlander GT will probably get closer to the top performer the $95K X6M.
    .

    >> False, you do get roadside assistance from Subaru. You are just making this stuff up!

    No I said Outlander has better road side assistance. Subaru’s is limited to 3years or 36K miles whichever comes first, Outlander: 5y / unlimited mileage. Am I "making this stuff up"?
    .

    >> Forester has a subwoofer, too, and it doesn't waste 3 cubic feet of cargo space. You're misleading people.

    It’s expensive and crappy dealer-installed accessory. $270 + $100 labor. How many iPods would you by for your kids without waiting for that 5 year TCO saving? The sub is tiny that’s why it could fit under the sit, therefore it would produce tiny bass. This tiny dealer installed passive sub connected to generic no name stereo, which usually is about 100 watt of amplification. Compare it to Outlander factory installed 10” brand name sub connected to brand name 710 watt amplifier.
    .

    >> 200% bigger moonroof is about right, want to measure?

    “About right”. I just want published dimensions.
    .

    >> 600% more MP3 compatible CD drives. Wrong.
    I admit I was wrong here: my apology, the Forester now does have 6 CD/MP3 changer. I guess my impression was based on different trim/year.
    .

    >> Mitsu's default split is 85/15, Subaru's in 90/10 or 80/20, depending upon who you ask.

    If you ask Subaru, Forester’s split is only 90/10, which is nearly a part-time system.
    On Outlander the default split is 85/15 in Auto mode, according to Mitsubishi. In the Lock mode the default is 78/22 which is over 120% more default torque to the rear axle vs. Forester. The Outie’s AWD is also more versatile: driver can switch from Auto to Lock to FWD mode on the go at any speed, no “fuse” needed. The GT AWD also capable of side-to-side torque transfer, no other car in this class is capable of it.
    .

    >> Another contradiction - earlier you said the Hyundai has a Borg Warner AWD system from a Porsche.

    I did not say that. I said Porsche and Hyundai both use the ITM 3e coupling system from Borg Warner.
    .

    >> Then you say the Chrysler AWD system has nothing to do with Mitsubishi's

    I did not say that. All I can say that Outlander has no Chrysler parts. Chrysler on the other hand could have Mitsubishi parts, why not? Even Subaru has Mitsubishi parts.

    Also Mitsubishi builds engines for Hyundai Genesis and Daimler Smart. Peugeot and Citroen buy from Mitsu more than parts, they buy badge-engineered versions of Outlander:

    image

    image

    Volvo, Citroen, Renault, Fiat, Subaru – all use Mitsubishi turbochargers. The BMW 335i twin-turbo coupe is also using Mitsubishi turbocharger. Apparently these turbochargers are pretty good and Mitsu knows how to use turbo to the max. The EVO VIII produced spectacular 405 horsepower from its only 2.0-liter turbo engine. At 202.5 hp per liter, it has the second ever highest outputs per liter of any car engine, and it achieves 0-60 mph in 3.5 second and also spectacular lateral grip of 1.03G.
    4-banger EVO vs V12 Lambo video . | . EVO vs. Ferrari
  • >> he can explain to you why he bailed on Mitsubishi and bought a Benz

    I like trying new cars and I can afford them, that’s why I am not driving the same minivan half of my life. I “bail” on my car every couple of years to try something new and exciting. Sorry, but Subaru cars were not on my list: they are dependable, but basic and fell far short of being exciting.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    no need to "believe" just check the web site

    OK, let's...

    iPod and Sirius are indeed available factory installed in the USA. Here are the parts codes, from fitzmall.com:

    FACTORY INSTALLED OPTIONS
    (E9B) IPOD INTERFACE

    D9C and D9D are the Satellite Radio options, you can choose XM or Sirius.

    Verify at kbb.com.

    These arrive at the dealer pre-installed. They are available a-la-carte or in options packages (3 ways to get Sirius from the factory), too.

    The cost you quoted was list, people pay invoice prices for options. On a 3 year lease you get 62% residual, so the cost you quoted (over 400?) was a gross exaggeration. And unlike you said, there is also no labor charge to order those.

    Actual cost? $129. Less on your 30 month lease. About ~$107 to stay out of trouble with the RIAA.

    Seems worth it to me.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    EVO is off topic here, and besides, that Edmunds track test you keep referring to summed it up right up front:

    Is the 2010 Mitsubishi Outlander GT the Evo of crossovers? Not really

    It's 0-60? 7.9 seconds. YAWN! My minivan suddenly seems fast.

    I “bail” on my car every couple of years to try something new and exciting

    7.9 seconds is not exciting, now I know why you didn't buy the 2010 GT.

    Forester XT?

    http://www.edmunds.com/subaru/forester/2009/testdrive.html

    We recorded a 0-60-mph sprint of 6.8 seconds en route to a quarter-mile time of 15.1 seconds at 90.4 mph — excellent numbers for a compact SUV

    Braking?

    XT wins again, 125 ft vs. 130 ft.

    Skid pad?

    Forester on top, .76g to .75.

    So Forester wins 3 out of 4 performance measure, Outlander takes only the slalom. Naturally, that's the only one that will matter to you.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Lock mode the default is 78/22

    In another thread you said it locked 50/50. 22% is still nearly FWD. And that's for slippery surfaces only, what happens if you forget to turn it off on dry pavement? :sick:

    Subaru's split varies constantly according to needs, no buttons to worry about.

    You were name-dropping - Porsche, Dakar. So I did the same thing - Dodge Caliber, Chrysler, Jeep Compass. Outlander shares plenty of DNA with Chrysler.
  • >> iPod and Sirius are indeed available factory installed in the USA. Verify at kbb.com. These arrive at the dealer pre-installed.

    Kbb.com does not say that satellite radio is factory installed. Subaru.com shows that it’s optional accessory. I called local Subaru dealer and out of 31 Foresters they have - none have factory installed satellite radio. Salesman says that they don’t get them factory installed, but they can install it for me for $600 with labor! Thanks much, sounds "exciting"! On my Outlander it came with my factory installed stereo and free 6-month subscription.


    >> On a 3 year lease you get 62% residual, so the cost you quoted (over 400?) was a gross exaggeration. And unlike you said, there is also no labor charge to order those. Actual cost? $129.

    Right, you would be a better salesman at that dealership :)
  • >> It's 0-60? 7.9 seconds. YAWN! My minivan suddenly seems fast.
    7.9 seconds is not exciting, now I know why you didn't buy the 2010 GT.
    We recorded a 0-60-mph sprint of 6.8 seconds en route to a quarter-mile time of 15.1 seconds at 90.4 mph — excellent numbers for a compact SUV
    Braking? XT wins again, 125 ft vs. 130 ft. Skid pad? Forester on top, .76g to .75.
    So Forester wins 3 out of 4 performance measure, Outlander takes only the slalom.


    The braking/skid pad difference is small. Skid pad tested with stability control on, that’s why Edmunds says that if you turn it off on GT, you get EVO. As for acceleration the GT’s 0-60 7.9 sec (I’ve also seen 7.4 sec in the other test) is good, better then Land Rover LR2 (9.1 sec). The Forester 6.8 sec number is very good but I would not call it exciting: Forester would not even pass Toyota RAV4, not to mention BMW X5M 4.5 sec (which is exciting). And the turbo engine is not a good choice for the utility vehicle: the payload and towing specs are poor, premium gas.
    There is nothing exciting about Forester: no exciting specs, older non-exciting technology, styling borrowed from Outlander. It’s a good basic dependable car with nice Mitsubishi turbocharger. Expensive for what you get.

    On the other hand there are quite a few exciting things about Outlander GT. The slalom handling beats almost anything, including X5M, Q5, ML63 AMG, Cayenne, RDX, MDX, and even Mercedes sedan. And this is with regular tires!
    The AWD system is the most advanced in class. The entertainment package is exciting too: 710 watt, 10” sub, streaming wireless audio, 40 GB music server, Sirius, 9” rear LCD, hard drive based Nav, backup camera etc. Xenons. LEDs, Fastkey. The wireless audio streaming is exciting too. The GT is exciting for its value alone.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I supplied the codes for the options, obviously they exist. Even if you cannot find one at your local dealer, it can be factory ordered. How am I so sure? Because mine was. 5 weeks later we got exactly what we wanted.

    I doubt your Subaru local dealer took your inquiry seriously since you're not really shopping for a Forester.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Actually they said: "Turn it off and there's a little Evo in this Outlander".

    The Forester 6.8 sec number is very good but I would not call it exciting

    You said you buy exciting cars, and that's quicker than what you spent your money on. Not to mention you have not driven a turbo.

    premium gas

    Recommended, same for the 230hp Outlander GT, per EPA.gov.

    The slalom handling beats almost anything

    Yeah, but it's a one-trick pony. That is the only thing it did well. All the other performance measures were ho-hum. Forester wins 3/4 performance tests.

    The AWD system is the most advanced in class

    Borg Warner supplies the same system for the Jeep Caliber and it's not Trail Rated. Edmunds noted how it felt like FWD saying "Some front wheel slip at launch". Fact is it's not sending enough power to the rear axle for them to feel like it wasn't FWD. Results speak louder than claims in a brochure.

    They also noted pedal fade after hard braking, You sure you want to tow a trailer when the brakes can barely handle the weight of the vehicle itself?

    Plus, you're only looking at the raw data, in their video, Inside Line said "Forester weaves through the slalom as quickly as you could expect from a compact utility." So clearly they thought it felt just fine.

    Yes, Outlander's time was 9% quicker in the slalom, but the Forester arrives to 60mph more than 16% sooner.

    You accelerate on merge ramps every day, probably. How often do you slalom around cones? Never.

    Acceleration is something you can and do use daily. Braking is vital when you need it. Skidpad grip makes it fun to take those highway ramps as well. These are things you can enjoy every day.
  • >> Lock mode the default is 78/22. And that's for slippery surfaces only, what happens if you forget to turn it off on dry pavement? Subaru's split varies constantly according to needs, no buttons to worry about.

    No, the Lock mode locks only the lower default rear axle torque, otherwise rear axle torque varies constantly 22-60% according to needs. No buttons / “fuses” to worry about ( I think early 50/50 split data was misleading in some sources). In addition torque varies side-to-side.
    .

    >> You were name-dropping - Porsche, Dakar. So I did the same thing - Dodge Caliber, Chrysler, Jeep Compass. Outlander shares plenty of DNA with Chrysler.

    Forester uses more parts from Mitsubishi then Outlander from Chrysler (none). And Compass/Caliber don't look as close to Outlander as Forester.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Both Outlander and Caliber/Compass are supplied the same AWD system from Borg Warner. That's the system that isn't Trail Rated. The non-endorsement from Jeep applies.

    Even if Mitsubishi had supplied it to Jeep, the criticism would still apply. Jeep wants to sell cars, yet they have to admit - that system just doesn't cut it. They cannot endorse a vehicle they sell.

    The Mitsu turbo is so-so, a ball bearing turbo is a common upgrade for the EJ257.

    Mitsubishi can build great turbos, too bad the Outlander doesn't get one! :D
  • >> You said you buy exciting cars, and that's quicker than what you spent your money on.

    I did not say quickness alone is enough for a car to be exciting. Exciting car is usually a balanced package. Sorry, but none of Subarus could get even close to the ML350 in terms of excitement.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I like the ML, but you and I have very differing ideas of what exciting is.

    A balanced package will have acceleration, grip, braking, and handling, not just a slalom.
  • >> Both Outlander and Caliber/Compass are supplied the same AWD system from Borg Warner.

    Could you provide a link?
    .
    >> The Mitsu turbo is so-so

    Bad enough to be bought by Subaru :)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Link was provided above, and look who's talking.

    You say things like "I called my Subaru dealer" and rarely provide links. Where's that dealer's site with an inventory?

    Again, Mitsu should put a turbo on the Outlander, then maybe it would deserve the "GT" nomenclature.
This discussion has been closed.