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

1262729313252

Comments

  • p0926p0926 Posts: 4,423
    Globally Mitsubishi still sells twice more cars then Subaru

    That may be true but is little to comfort to someone who buys a Mitsubishi product only to see them abandon the North American market. I'm not saying that's a given but if they don't improve sales volume, at some point Mitsubishi is going to make the business decision to stop hemorrhaging money.

    Meanwhile five years from now, Subaru of America will almost certainly still be selling proven, effective and reliable technology like boxer engines and symmetrical AWD ;)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    They also called S-AWC "Japanese hyperbole" and said it only operates on the front axle.

    Look under "C/D TEST RESULTS" and you'll note the Forester won 6 out of the 7 in C&D as well.

    That's 3 out of 4 on Edmunds, 7 out of 7 on Motor Trend, and 6 out of 7 in C&D.

    Maybe S-AWC stands for Subaru Always Wins Comparisons. :P
  • p0926p0926 Posts: 4,423
    Otherwise these tests are too close. “Trap speed” 89.0mph vs. 88.7mph ? Common, big deal! Like I’ve said the other test shows better Outlander lateral grip of 0.81g vs. Forester’s - "it managed a whopping 0.78g"

    Huh? How can you argue that 3 tenths of a mph is too close to claim one is better but in the next sentence trumpet the Outlander as having better lateral grip when the difference is only 3 hundredths of a g? And you have to cherry-pick results from different reviews to obtain even that marginal advantage.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Read up one post - the Forester won 6 out of 7 performance results in C&D.
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,110
    They also called S-AWC "Japanese hyperbole" and said it only operates on the front axle.

    You changed that from "implied" to "said" just as I was posting this:

    "That last bit is Japanese hyperbole for an electronic front differential that senses driver inputs, vehicle attitude, and wheel slip to vary engine torque to either of the front wheels with an electronically controlled clutch pack."

    You're fast! :P

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Well, the quote's right there, they wrote it, I suppose.

    They more than implied it, hence the edit.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Don't forget to ask him if his Mercedes ML has a leather-wrapped dash, since he makes it sound so important. After all, his Benz cost even more than yours did.

    The leather *IS* nice, but the GT is supposed to compete in a higher price level, and they didn't upgrade the rest of the interior. You won't find headliners that visibly flex like this in a Benz:

    http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/past-road-test/small-suvs/videos-small-s- uvs/small-suvs-videos.htm

    Go to 1:18 in that review and you'll see this (it's worse than it looks, actually):

    image

    They wrote "the headliner is this really thin and flimsy material covered in a sort of mouse fur".

    The Forester's is also covered in mouse fur, but at least it's rigid.

    Neither of these are comparable to what you'd get in a Benz, no way no how.

    If your budget is $30 grand plus, at least an Outback gets you a padded, fabric covered headliner and sunshade, similar to what an entry-level Benz would have.
  • >> This is a GT, so perhaps they should have done more - delete the 3rd row, bigger brakes, lowered suspension?

    Didn't you criticize lowered suspension? Brembu brakes like in prototype would be nice but price would go up.
    .

    >> Both lose space for the moonroof and that subwoofer takes up another 2.8 cubic feet as well.

    Real subwoofer takes real space. I would rather keep real sub vs. some toy, some "Chinese hyperbole" . The panorama moonroof on Forester takes even more of space but it was a good move.
  • >> If the slalom incorporates more performance areas than the skidpad, then the Figure 8 incorporate more than the slalom - like braking and acceleration.

    I did not say it incorporates more performance, but it incorporates more handling. 'Performance' is to vague. It includes tow capacity and payload capacity for instance.
  • >> Subaru thanks Mitsu for the TD04 turbo but we still hope the Sports XT gets the same major upgrades that the WRX recently got from IHI, notably this:
    That's a VF52, not supplied by Mitsu.

    Subaru still incapable building their own turbochargers. IHI is Japanese company but it contracted China First Automobile Group to build turbocharges in China. So going from EVO class turbocharger to some Chinese turbocharger is a downgrade. After 3/4 billion dollar loss Subaru going after cheaper suppliers. Another downgrade is drop of Limited Sl. Differential on Forester. Subaru downgrades while Mitsu upgrades.
  • >> How could you know that if the year hasn't ended?

    I would ask you the same question in reference to your 2009 Mitsu sales report.
  • >> Huh? How can you argue that 3 tenths of a mph is too close to claim one is better but in the next sentence trumpet the Outlander as having better lateral grip when the difference is only 3 hundredths of a g? And you have to cherry-pick results from different reviews to obtain even that marginal advantage.

    No, I am saying the same you are saying: these differences are too marginal, within margin of error so I give example that marginal could go either way, especially limited by stability controls.

    However there are much more obvious differences: acceleration test, slalom handling, tow capacity, payload capacity, AWD system, Nav system, interior quality, audio system, Xenons/LED, FAST Key, transmission, warranty, premium moon roof, etc.
  • >>They also called S-AWC "Japanese hyperbole"

    Perhaps they have not done slalom test or walk on ice test. The autoblog.com says this:
    “we turn onto the most excellent, snaking Highway 74 and, well, we just weren't prepared for what happened next. Because by all accounts, it shouldn't have. In tall, top heavy crossovers, you expect a certain amount of understeer, reluctance and general fuddy-duddiness (it's a technical term – look it up) whenever you turn the wheel in anger. Not so with the Outlander GT – it simply glides through corners. The damping and vehicle control are also quite above par, as the expected body motions and stomach turning leaning tower of truck we've come to know and dread in sporty CUVs played hooky. High center of gravity, what high center of gravity? It's not just that the Outlander's smooth in the bends, but it's quick too. Honestly shockingly so. It's now 24 hours later and we're still surprised just how fast we were able to muscle the car around corners.”

    >> and said it only operates on the front axle.

    They did not say that. It's your own interpretation, you use the same "deductive" method which brought you to "Borg Warner" conclusion :-)
  • >> The leather *IS* nice, but the GT is supposed to compete in a higher price level, and they didn't upgrade the rest of the interior.

    What “higher price level”? Is it "hyperbola"? It’s $29K car. It’s way over-equipped for the price.
    .

    >> They wrote "the headliner is this really thin and flimsy material covered in a sort of mouse fur".

    First, it is not a GT on that video, it's some 4 banger. Second. This expert does not know what he is talking about, I guess “mouse fur" is another "hyperbola". That Outlander “mouse fur" headliner is special odor absorbing fabric so the car always smells inside neutral fresh and it works. You are right, my Benz does not have that :( ...It also handles worse then Toyota.
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,110
    it incorporates more handling. 'Performance' is to vague.

    Both terms might be regarded as too vague. "Handling" could also include how well it handles towing or load for example. :)

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper
  • fushigifushigi Posts: 1,240
    We're shooting for a Wednesday test drive of the GT.

    Deferred until Saturday. We had errands to run and the sales guy got off at 5. He was willing to stay & wait for us but since we weren't buying last night I didn't feel good about taking him away from his family for a couple of hours.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    there are much more obvious differences: acceleration test...

    Some in favor of the Forester, we should note.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    It was quoted, so I'm not sure why it's not clear:

    That last bit is Japanese hyperbole for an electronic front differential that senses driver inputs, vehicle attitude, and wheel slip to vary engine torque to either of the front wheels with an electronically controlled clutch pack

    Send feedback to editors@caranddriver.com.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    The proper spelling is "hyperbole".

    The headliner material is the same, and wasn't upgraded. At least in the GT I sat in. Have you even sat in one? You should go look at one considering how much you talk about it.

    special odor absorbing fabric

    That ranks right up there with the green HIDs you mentioned earlier. Whatever floats your boat.

    my Benz does not have that ...It also handles worse then Toyota.

    :confuse:
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Carscoop: "The S-AWC system uses an active front limited-slip differential"

    The Auto Channel: "Active Front Differential (Afd) Front Limited Slip Differential"

    The Car Connection: "an Active Front Differential and electronically controlled center diff"

    And just in case anyone still has any doubt whatsoever, you can read about it on Mitsubishi's own web site.

    So the torque vectoring only applies to the front axle, like that Prelude SH you dissed a day or two ago.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Why is it OK for Mitsubishi to outsource sound to Rockford-Fosgate (as if they didn't build electronics) and brakes to Brembo for their prototype, but it's not OK for Audi to work with ZF or Subaru to work with IHI? And again it's fine for Hyundai to get help from Borg Warner?

    And Mitsubishi doesn't build anything in China?
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 40,860
    We may have to rename this discussion "The esoteric differences between the Mitsu and Subie that six people actually care about". :P ;)

    All very interesting, but I'm afraid the minutiae is of little use or interest to people actually doing some comparison shopping.

    Most folks want to know how the cars drive, the mpg, the warranty, how the dealers are, how many airbags they have and what the fun factor is. And where the deals are.

    On that note, is anyone lurking here who is shopping? Please speak up, like our friend Fushigi has.

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

  • comem47comem47 Posts: 394
    "We may have to rename this discussion "The esoteric differences between the Mitsu and Subie that six people actually care about".

    Exactly!!!

    is not !!!
    is so !!!
    is not !!!
    I double dog dare ya!!! :P

    (some day I hope to tune in and actually see something of substance ..the person looking now excepted of course)
  • godeacsgodeacs Posts: 481
    Thank you, steve! Some people have far too much time on their hands - makes me wonder how they actually find time to drive.... :confuse:

    FTR, I am considering the Outlander, Forester, Outback, CR-V, RAV-4 and Santa Fe.... but could care less about the minutiae I've seen on this thread recently.....
  • Santa Fe and Rav-4 are really good SUV if you are looking for V6. Rav-4 V6 is not only more powerful, smooth and quieter than Outlander but also is more fuel efficient. This is the single most important thing that majority of the consumers look for and here our mighty Outlander fails to deliver. Mitsu has yet to make a decent V6 with good fuel economy and power. Outlander does not have a good V4 either in terms of power and fuel economy.
    Rest of the features in Outlander including the lame awd system that I have yet to read from any official Mitsu source that you can use the awd auto or lock mode on dry pavement are good only for marketing. Most of the consumers do not consider these when buying a new car. People look for fuel economy, or power of V6, smooth quiet ride and of course brand name that holds a good resale value. Outlander is way behind in all of these things.
    Moreover other than a few odd lancer and eclipse I hardly see any new Mitsu on the road though they have a number of cars in their lineup. Their Galant model is pretty much dead and mid size family sedan is the largest selling category. At this rate I wonder how long is Mitsu going to survive in North America unless they start selling in numbers.
  • >> So the torque vectoring only applies to the front axle, like that Prelude SH you dissed a day r two ago.

    No one said ONLY yet, but you. However I don't understand how the 2WD Prelude coupe is relevant here? And why you keep referring to capabilities to all these other cars Nissans, Outbacks, Imprezas? Is not the Forester the subject of discussion? What has Forester got? Nothing! It even lost Limited Slip Differential, while Outlander got first-in-class active front limited-slip differential and an electronically controlled 4WD coupling.
  • fushigifushigi Posts: 1,240
    Mitsu has yet to make a decent V6 with good fuel economy and power.

    HP/l of displacement, the Outlander and RAV4 are within 0.2: 76.66 for the Outlander and 76.86 for the RAV4. So you cannot accurately claim Toyota's engine is more refined or offers some technological superiority; it's just bigger. The economy advantage of the Toyota (1 city; 2 highway) is most likely due to transmission gearing and that the Mitsu is 81 pounds heavier. The large difference is that the Mitsu 3L has 1.4 more ft-pounds of torque per litre and achieves max torque at a lower RPM. Numbers from the carmaker's web sites.

    I'm not putting down the Toyota engine, but people need to realize when push comes to shove it isn't any more advanced than what other manufacturers have done.

    Rest of the features in Outlander including the lame awd system that I have yet to read from any official Mitsu source that you can use the awd auto or lock mode on dry pavement are good only for marketing.

    You can put it in any mode at any time at any speed. Been there, done that in an '09 on the test drive at the urging of the salesman. Exceptionally smooth transition; I wouldn't have even felt it if I wasn't paying attention.

    I hardly see any new Mitsu on the road

    Some people like having a vehicle that stands out. I personally would never buy a Camcord for the simple reason that I don't want to get lost in a sea of sameness. Mistu & Subaru both are small/niche players in the US so the odds of parking next to the same car are small.

    I am concerned about Mitsu's future in the US. But chicken and egg .. they can't stay around if no one buys and if no one buys they can't stay around. I'm willing to take a chance as I know the vehicles are sound.

    People look for .. brand name that holds a good resale value.

    Resale value is a false indicator if you keep your vehicle a long time. I have a '99 Galant and a similarly equipped Camry at the time was $3K more (even more when you factor in interest savings from finance specials). Now, after almost 11 years of practically flawless operation (1 minor repair + scheduled maintenance), running the numbers - same mileage & condition - at KBB indicates a mere $1K difference in trade in prices. The "superior" resale of the Camry would have cost $2K more, not less, in the long run.
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    "Mitsu has yet to make a decent V6 with good fuel economy and power."
    I'm not sure what you are talking about. My 07 V6 Outlander has 220 hp of decent power, and 17/24 mpg of good fuel economy. Yes, Rav4 is a bit better in this area, but worse in others, like handling, ergonomics, warranty, cargo flexibility or price.
    And where lame awd system comment came from? After two Chicago area winters I can mark it as excellent. With ASC, ABS and Traction control it is much better and safer than real 4X4 system I used to have in my old SUV. If you would read OUTLANDER forum close enough, you would found hundreds of happy owners, some driving in AWD all the time. This is electronic system, not affected by dry pavement as 4X4 systems. It is very similar system to Subaru AWD, with the difference, you can switch it off, if you wish (hint - on dry pavement, to save fuel)
    Thank you for speaking in the name of most of the consumers, but fortunately there are still a few open minded, who can see beyond letter T or H on the hood, when searching for a new car. I think Mitsubishi, Subaru, Mazda, or Hyundai can offer great value and good alternative as well.
  • >> Why is it OK for Mitsubishi to outsource sound to Rockford-Fosgate (as if they didn't build electronics) and brakes to Brembo for their prototype, but it's not OK for Audi to work with ZF or Subaru to work with IHI?

    Nothing wrong to outsource, but it shows level of techology and innovation, if you can't make it yourself. It shows that Audi is way behind in AWD technology while there is a legend about Audi AWD superiority (even they've never won the Dakar – the toughest offroad rally).

    And Subaru is behind in everything: dated AWD, dated 3-speed tranny, no FAST key, no Xenons, no electric vehicles, no turbochargers which they have to buy from China or from rival Mitsubishi.

    As for Mitsubishi, in addition to RF, it offers 5 options of Mitsubishi branded navigation/audio systems.
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 394
    "Rest of the features in Outlander including the lame awd system that I have yet to read from any official Mitsu source that you can use the awd auto or lock mode on dry pavement are good only for marketing. Most of the consumers do not consider these when buying a new car. People look for fuel economy, or power of V6, smooth quiet ride and of course brand name that holds a good resale value. Outlander is way behind in all of these things. "

    One huge thing against the RAV is that stupid swing door. Think about tight parking along the sidewalk in the city and emptying out the contents in the rear. Oops! :confuse: Opening upwards is clearly better than a door that is in your way. The low height flip down lower tailgate on the Outlander comes in handy hauling over sized loads. (extends the floor and you can drive with the the liftgate up) I thought about buying a RAV until I really THOUGHT about it some more. Other than that I can't fault Toyota.
This discussion has been closed.