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

1272830323378

Comments

  • kipkkipk Posts: 1,576
    Seems to me they both did about the same while keeping forward motion in the snow. The 07 did stop and back up a couple of times. He got in trouble when he stopped, but so did the 09.

    Maybe I missed something! :blush:
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    The 07 sinks in a lot deeper and needed a push to get unstuck. The 09 got out on its own.

    The 09's traction control system also allowed less wheel spin, the effort to get moving is always more controlled.

    This is far more than 99.9% of owners will ever subject them to.
  • >> I kinda doubt the Sante Fe uses the same system as the Porsche 911...maybe the same type of system.

    The same type and the same brand. Porsche 911 and Santa Fe both use the ITM 3e multi-plate clutch coupling system from Borg Warner.
    .

    >> Automatic Foresters still always send some power to the rear axles (10 or 20%, depending on who you ask), unless you insert a FWD fuse

    If you ask Subaru's Corporate Communications Director Mike McHale, it's 10%. Santa Fe's number is no mystery: it can lock 50% of consistent power to the rear axles.

    Inserting a fuse is as high tech as Forester's 4-speed transmission :-)
    Do you have to run to RadioShack to get the fuse? I would be careful continuously running Forester with the fuse for long time: it may burn out the solenoid.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Borg Warner supplies that same system to Chrysler Corp, used in the Dodge Caliber and Jeep Compass.

    Note that the Compass is the only Jeep that's not Trail Rated.

    I'm sure any systems they supply to Porsche would meet very different duty requirements.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    What Forester could offer instead? Larger sunroof, and that’s about it. It's well build but basic car

    A true manual transmission, for starters, rather than an autotragic. Mitsu backed out on offering a dual-clutch gearbox (bummer!), so it's slushbox only.

    How 'bout gas mileage, too. The Outlander V6 was EPA rated for 19mpg, and CR got that same 19mpg in their tests. They got 22mpg in the auto Forester and a whopping 25mpg in their manual. That's 32% better mileage, and the tank is bigger so the range advantage is even greater.

    The turbo Forester outruns the Outlander V6 and gets better gas mileage as well. The new 2010 230hp V6 is supposedly more efficient, but it wants premium fuel, just like the Forester turbo. Per the EPA the quicker Forester turbo will save you $23 per year on fuel compared to a 2009 Mitsu and saves you more than $100 over the 2010 model, even accounting for the higher fuel costs for premium gas. It's 16.3 barrels of oil vs. 18.0 barrels of oil for those counting.

    Subaru does offer both satellite radio and bluetooth. I wonder what your source is.

    There is a trade-off or ride vs. handling, and the Forester wins the latter. A lowered Outlander GT sort of defeats the purpose of a raised crossover in the first place, and where is the manual tranny, or at least the SST gearbox? Subaru tried that too (XT Sports model) and it failed, so I wish Mistubishi luck. I'd rather have an EVO Sportback or a WRX 5 door if that's what I was looking for.

    Forester has class-leading ground clearance at 8.9", and also best-in-class approach, departure, and break-over angles.

    Subaru has manufactured more than twice as many AWD systems as Borg Warner (who specializes in 4WD, not AWD), and as mentioned above the system you keep bragging about is in the only Jeep that isn't good enough to earn a Trail Rated badge. It's basically Chrysler Corp's weakest system. They cancelled the option for the Caliber because noone wanted it:

    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/chrysler-dropping-awd-from-sebring-avenger-and-- caliber/

    CR actually rates the cargo capacity of the Forester as bigger than the Outlander, so that too depends on the source and how you measure. The turning circle is also tighter for the Forester.

    ALG gives the Forester 5 stars for residual value, while the Outlander only earns 3. Lease residuals as quoted by car_man confirm this, just go to either Lease Questions thread and ask for quotes using the same terms. BTW the OP is shopping the Santa Fe and that earns 3 stars. Forester kills here, I've seen 3 year leases with residuals of 62%, nothing short of amazing.

    Visibility is better, also. So it's not just the moonroof glass.

    Advantages of the Forester include far more than just the huge moonroof.

    Not to mention, the OP was comparing it to a Santa Fe, not an Outlander.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Ah, juice... you're nothing if you aren't thorough!

    :)
  • >> A true manual transmission, for starters, rather than an autotragic. Mitsu backed out on offering a dual-clutch gearbox

    Manual transmission is offered on Outlander in other markets: in USA demand for that 20th century technology is very low. The Mitsubishi’s dual-clutch marvel obviously is not for this price segment where the antique 4-speed automatics are still offered by some silly manufacturers. Outlander GT 6-speed auto with paddle shifters is extremely smooth. It also has fuel/emission saving Neutral Logic technology.


    >> How 'bout gas mileage, too. The turbo Forester outruns the Outlander V6 and gets better gas mileage as well. The new 2010 230hp V6 is supposedly more efficient, but it wants premium fuel, just like the Forester turbo.

    The mileage is improved on GT and the difference is marginal: 18 city /24 on GT vs. 19/24 on XT, not even worth to mention considering that premium fuel will cost more to XT owner. The GT still using regular fuel. The Forester turbo quickness comes at the price of premium gas, excessive noise, and stress on engine. Ironically , the Forester’s TD04 turbochanger has been build by Mitsubishi for Subaru since 2003.
    .

    >> Subaru does offer both satellite radio and bluetooth.

    Forester just “prewired” for satellite radio. Satellite radio is expensive $400 dealer installed option. There is a multipage catalog with all kinds of dealer installed goodies for Outlander, if we want to go there.
    And I did not say Forester does not offer Bluetooth. It’s just the basic one: it is does not offer Bluetooth audio streaming, no downloadable phone book capability and no voice controlled entertainment.
    .

    >> Forester has class-leading ground clearance at 8.9".

    The ground clearance difference is marginal: 0.5” and who cares for that since 99% of the time car is not off the road, but on the road, where lower clearance actually improves stability.
    .

    >> CR actually rates the cargo capacity of the Forester as bigger than the Outlander,

    Subaru official numbers measure Forester smaller though and that’s what counts.


    >> ALG gives the Forester 5 stars for residual value, while the Outlander only earns 3.

    3 star is normal – 6 models of Lexus and 7 models of Toyotas have 3 stars. After all, premium gas and shorter warranty will cost Forester consumer more money.
    .

    >> Visibility is better, also.

    That’s just your subjective opinion. Outlander though has larger side mirrors, backup camera, better emergency handling and second row airbags.
    .

    >> The turning circle is also tighter for the Forester.

    So what! It’s 0.4”difference. I can show you long list of these marginal differences were Outlander has better specs. Do we really what to go there?
    The bottom line is that Outlander is significantly superior in AWD, transmission, entertainment technology, comfort, handling and warranty. The manual transmission, the 0.4” nor 1 mpg specs could beat that.
  • volkovvolkov Posts: 1,302
    Two important things that have been misrepresented. The Subaru 4EAT with a clutch pack system is 90/10 front/rear by default and runs that way when cruising on a highway for example but it can adjust that to 50/50 front/rear based on driving conditions and wheel slip. I don't see a difference there between the Hyundai and the Subie. Having driven both brands in poor traction, winter conditions I can say that there is a definite advantage in the function of the Subaru between a Tribeca or a Forester and a Vera Cruz. I can't compare it to a Sante Fe having not driven one in winter.
    Residual values are very important. I honestly think that Mitsu make some nice vehicles, but unless you plan on keeping the vehicle for 10-12 years, the depreciation is the biggest part of the cost of ownership equation. Subarus have very good re-sale values which improves their COA. Mitsu resale values have traditionally been poor. You may state that 3 stars is standard but a better term is average. Hyundai is improving, but its residuals are still not stellar. Subie Forester is well above average here and that makes the vehicle relatively a better deal over the length of ownership for most buyers.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,209
    The ground clearance difference is marginal: 0.5” and who cares for that since 99% of the time car is not off the road, but on the road, where lower clearance actually improves stability.

    That last part isn't necessarily true. Especially if the lower ground clearance is the result of, for example, an exhaust pipe routed under the rear suspension like some recent Toyotas suffered from. Or maybe a low hanging suspension part. Point is, a vehicle can actually be riding higher than another vehicle even though the former's ground clearance is lower. Ground clearance is not a measure of actual ride hight or center of gravity, both of which do have a lot to do with stability.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Too bad Mitsu doesn't offer a manual tranny here. Subaru and Suzuki do, but the option is all too rare.

    I'd like to see Mitsu sell a Ralliart sportback - is that combination offered? I have yet to see an EVO sportback on the roads but that would certainly appeal more to me if I wanted something truly sporty.

    18 city /24 on GT vs. 19/24 on XT, not even worth to mention considering that premium fuel will cost more to XT owner. The GT still using regular fuel

    That's not what the EPA site says - it has the GT running on premium fuel. That may be how they got from 220hp to 230hp. Is there a source? I'm referring to information from fueleconomy.gov.

    Forester's turbo is smoother and quieter than the non-turbo, I doubt you've driven one since you're saying that. You keep calling it slow so I imagine you've only driven the 2.5X automatic, which is comparable to the 2.4l CVT Outlander, not your V6 model.

    Subaru official numbers measure Forester smaller though and that’s what counts

    Not if the box you bought won't fit! :D

    CR's biggest box does count, so this is a split decision.

    The Forester also surprisingly has more passenger volume, 107.6 cubic feet compared to the Outlander's 100.4 cubes.

    The Forester's mirrors are huge, are you sure you've driven one?

    After all, premium gas and shorter warranty will cost Forester consumer more money.

    You're speculating. Let's go to Edmunds TCO. 2009 models, since the 2010 Outlander isn't listed yet:

    Outlander XLS V6 AWD - $47,148
    Forester XT Limited - $44,466

    If the 2010 GT model with 230hp really does require premium fuel than the Forester would only stretch that advantage.

    significantly superior in AWD

    Remember, it's in the only Jeep that's not Trail Rated. The Compass has a 4WD lock mode, too, you pull up a chrome T-bar. Still not good enough.

    The Outlander is basically a super-sized Jeep Compass/Dodge Caliber. Same engine block in the base models, same CVT transmission, same non-Trail Rated AWD system.

    The Infotainment system is awesome - no debate there at all. But isn't it basically a Chrysler MyGig system, from the Caravan? No doubt a result of the Mitsu/Chrysler/Hyundai partnership.

    Having said that, I think Mitsu did remarkably well with some humble underpinnings.
  • yvr1yvr1 Posts: 4
    I went to the Mitsubishi Canada website.

    The first thing that struck me was how similar the body shape of the Outlander is to the Forester and the Outlander. I wonder whether the designers were the same. It’s interesting in reading the reviews on the Outlander that critics think that it’s exterior styling is great but most don’t think too much of the Forester’s.

    I then compared features for the 2.5 X with Touring Package vs. the Outlander trim model that has most of the features that the 2.5X with Touring Package has plus a 4 cylinder engine so I am comparing apples with apples.

    Firstly, I'm not interested in the turbo Forester XT. Despite a lot of people on the Forester forums saying that it makes for a much better vehicle, the 4 cylinder is more than adequate for my needs (I came from a 2002 Honda Civic LX) and I suspect that most purchasers buy the 4 as opposed to the Turbo. So the trim to compare the Forester with Touring Package to is the Outlander ES with 4 wheel drive, which puts out 168 HP which is two less than the Forester's. The transmission for the ES is CVT Sportronic, until you get to the next trim level with the 6 cylinder six speed automatic, which is the LS.

    The ES doesn't have the sunroof. It comes only as a Sun and Sound package with the Rockford Fosgate premium stereo which costs an additional $2,250.00.

    It only comes pre-wired with Sirius, with no free trial subscription. The Forester's is already installed, but I would have to renew the free 3 month subscription.

    The ES does not come with FAST keyless entry. You have to go to the LS trim to get this.

    The ES doesn't come with Bluetooth; it is an accessory. A back-up camera, and parking sensors are accessories.

    The ES does not come with foglights as does the Forester. A fog light kit is an accessory.

    The ES doesn't come with a power driver's seat until you get to the highest trim, the 4WD XLS. Forester comes with 8 way power seats and lumbar support.

    The ES comes with 16 inch wheels as does the Forester.

    The paddle shifters don’t come with the ES - you have to go to the LS.

    As for the comparison regarding cargo room, there’s already been a lot of discussion about that back and forth in the previous posts. Ditto with the 4WD. I note in the Car Connection review I looked up, it says:

    “Choose '4WD Auto' and at least 15 percent of engine torque is routed to the rear axle at all times, and when you're accelerating on packed snow or other slippery surfaces, the rear wheels can accept up to 60 percent of the power,” Edmunds reports. “Choose '4WD Lock' and the system sends a greater percentage of torque to the rear wheels—up to 60 percent under full-throttle acceleration.”

    Most reviews pan the 4 cylinder engine, like they do with the Forester’s. So maybe we’ll call that one even.

    They also are of the view that the interior styling leaves something to be desired:

    “The 2009 Outlander can't overcome drawbacks regarding its materials and build quality. Car and Driver notes that it "doesn't quite match the RAV4 for material quality," while Edmunds mentions the "plastics and controls feel a bit low-grade." ConsumerGuide remarks that the "cabin has few padded surfaces and many plastic panels that feel thin and hollow to the touch" and "look on the cheap side," while one of their Mitsubishi Outlanders "suffered from a number of interior creaks and groans," a sign of poor build quality.

    However, critics say the same thing about the Forester interior. Call that one even too.

    In terms of quality, Car Connection says:

    “You can hear the Outlander's questionable build quality every time you drive down the highway. ConsumerGuide rates the Mitsubishi Outlander below the class average when it comes to interior noise levels and deems "engine and bump noise are the biggest sources of ruckus." AutoWeek adds that the 2009 Mitsubishi Outlander is plagued by "roaring engine, tranny, road and wind noise."

    In terms of handling and ride, mixed reviews:

    “Car and Driver says the Outlander has "a stiff suspension for an SUV." ConsumerGuide observes that "the suspension does a poor job overall of absorbing sharp bumps," which makes for a rough and uncomfortable ride. Edmunds contends, “Ride quality is just as important as handling in a small SUV, though, and the Outlander is indeed comfortable and well-mannered when cruising.”

    I think overall reviewers say handling is very good in the Outlander, at the expense of a harsher ride, but I haven’t read any review which says it’s superior to the Forester’s.

    In any event, in pricing it out, the MRSP of the ES, adding the fog lights, and the Sound and Sun package, costs $29,765., which is $30.00 less than the MRSP of the Forester with the Touring Package. Also, keep in mind that I would still not be getting the power driver’s seat with the ES. Taking into consideration all of the above, and the better residual value of the Forester, I think the Forester is better value for the money, at least in terms of my individual needs in a vehicle.
    I am leaning towards it, despite the better-looking interior of the Santa Fe. If only Subaru could have imported the Santa Fe’s interior design into the Forester!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Do they offer the Forester PZEV in Canada? Here's a neat little secret - besides being a lot lower on emissions, you get 5 extra HP, for 175hp total.

    Mitsu offers a PZEV version of the V6, but you lose 7hp, for 213hp total. Still, if you're in to being green, it's nice to have that option.

    If you're comparing 4 banger to 4 banger, the Forester can actually tow more, FWIW.

    Have you looked at the Veracruz? I was really impressed with that interior. Especially the soft leather - very nice. With discounts it may not cost much more than a SF, and it gets ALG's 5 star rating for resale, so it may hold its value better than its little brother, and it offers true 3rd row seating:

    image
  • volkovvolkov Posts: 1,302
    We loved the V-C and were thiiiiis close to buying one until my wife put the brakes on a new car purchase. That being said, it's a big vehicle compared to the Forester and much thirstier.
  • yvr1yvr1 Posts: 4
    Yes, they do have the PZEV here but for some reason you can't pair it with the Touring Package.

    I also contemplated the Veracruz. I'm looking for a compact SUV so it's too big for me, and I don't need to seat 7, but seeing all the features you get with just the GL base model, including sunroof, fog lights, rear parking sensors, I agree it's a good buy; it would cost me about 6K more though compared to Forester or SF. And the base model doesn't come with 4WD; I'd have to go to the GLS trim which would cost 10.5K more. Plus fuel costs would go up. If I was in the market for a mid-large SUV I would likely take the Outback over the Veracruz though; I think the price would be similar and the Outback is a better vehicle overall, and the cargo capacity is huge.

    My wife and I just had twins 3 months ago and that's the impetus for buying a new car. Need room for that double stroller! In fact, I was very taken with the first car I reviewed, a Mazda 5 and almost bought a 2009 model because Mazda was offering a 3K reduction; however the dealbreaker was lack of traction control. The sliding doors I also found very appealing because I can put in the infant seats in the second row without stooping and bending my back. Also it had surprisingly large cargo area if you didn't use the third row seats (which basically would fit only children, and not very comfortably at that). In fact, the cargo area beyond the 2nd row seating (at least lengthwise) is bigger than the Forester's. But Forester is a much safer car; plus the high ground clearance, combined with the fact that the second row doors open very, very wide, also makes it easier to put the infant seats in. Not as effective as sliding doors, but next best thing.

    There must be a reason why the Canadian Automobile Journalists of Canada, and Motortrend voted the Forester as the best SUV for 2009. I figure I can't really go wrong with buying one.
  • >> Too bad Mitsu doesn't offer a manual tranny here.
    Why, “too bad”? You did not even buy manual Forester? I can’t imagine you would be buying manual Outlander.

    >> I'd like to see Mitsu sell a Ralliart sportback - is that combination offered?
    Not to my knowledge, but Mitsu will be offering a smaller SUV 1.8L turbo combined with Mitsubishi's Twin Clutch SST gearbox and an AWD system.
    http://blogs.thecarconnection.com/marty-blog/1037414_mitsubishi-previews-new-com- - - pact-crossover

    >>That's not what the EPA site says - it has the GT running on premium fuel. That may be how they got from 220hp to 230hp. Is there a source? I'm referring to information from fueleconomy.gov.
    Hmm, odd, but fueleconomy.gov also says that P could mean recommended, but not necessarily required. Edmunds says its regular:
    http://www.edmunds.com/mitsubishi/outlandergt/2011/featuresandspecs.html


    >> Forester's turbo is smoother and quieter than the non-turbo, I doubt you've driven one since you're saying that. You keep calling it slow so I imagine you've only driven the 2.5X automatic, which is comparable to the 2.4l CVT Outlander, not your V6 model.
    Right, the slow one I have driven was 4 banger. But the noise is in nature of turbo engines. Most of CVTs though are smoother then that 4 speed auto I tested.

    >> Not if the box you bought won't fit!
    Every test may use different size boxes or suitcases, and in different way so it’s subjective. Cubic feet volume is the most fair and standard way to measure space, just like using EPA rating for gas mileage.


    >> The Forester also surprisingly has more passenger volume, 107.6 cubic feet compared to the Outlander's 100.4 cubes.
    That is only true if you don’t count kids in the third row.


    >> You're speculating. Let's go to Edmunds TCO. 2009 models, since the 2010 Outlander isn't listed yet: Outlander XLS V6 AWD - $47,148 Forester XT Limited - $44,466
    Actually I’ve got numbers $44.4k vs $42.1K. The difference of $2.3K over 5 years is small, considering Outlander is bigger and better equipped. After 5 years the difference will be even smaller due to Outlander 10 year power train warranty.

    >> Compass has a 4WD lock mode, too, you pull up a chrome T-bar. Still not good enough. The Outlander is basically a super-sized Jeep Compass/Dodge Caliber. Same engine block in the base models, same CVT transmission, same non-Trail Rated AWD system.
    You're speculating. Chrysler times have long passed and Outlander is build in Japan. The GT is equipped with first-in-class active front limited-slip differential and an electronically controlled 4WD coupling. It can prevent wheel slip by redistributing torque from side-to-side. No Jeep, Dodge, nor Subaru could do that. Mitsubishi does however build turbochargers for Subaru.
  • >> The first thing that struck me was how similar the body shape of the Outlander is to the Forester and the Outlander. I wonder whether the designers were the same.
    I wonder myself. Even steering wheels look like twins.


    >> Firstly, I'm not interested in the turbo Forester XT. Despite a lot of people on the Forester forums saying that it makes for a much better vehicle, the 4 cylinder is more than adequate for my.
    I agree with those people. The XT is probably more fun to drive.

    >> Ditto with the 4WD. I note in the Car Connection review I looked up, it says: “Choose '4WD Auto' and at least 15 percent of engine torque is routed to the rear axle at all times, and when you're accelerating on packed snow or other slippery surfaces, the rear wheels can accept up to 60 percent of the power,” Edmunds reports. “Choose '4WD Lock' and the system sends a greater percentage of torque to the rear wheels—up to 60 percent under full-throttle acceleration.”

    Also the new 2010 Outlander AWD system is a significant update. Way ahead of Forester.


    >> They also are of the view that the interior styling leaves something to be desired:

    Again there is 2010 model with improved interior.



    >> In terms of quality, Car Connection says: “You can hear the Outlander's questionable build quality every time you drive down the highway. ConsumerGuide rates the Mitsubishi Outlander below the class average when it comes to interior noise levels and deems "engine and bump noise are the biggest sources of ruckus." AutoWeek adds that the 2009 Mitsubishi Outlander is plagued by "roaring engine, tranny, road and wind noise."

    All this magazines sell advertising and praise their clients. Just look and CR reliability rating I posted earlier and you will see Outlander on the top of rating. Also read reviews from real world owners here on Edmunds, Yahoo and MSN. All these people actually paid for their cars instead of being payed by car manufacturers. Also test drive it yourself and hear the noise levels.



    >> “Car and Driver says the Outlander has "a stiff suspension for an SUV." ConsumerGuide observes that "the suspension does a poor job overall of absorbing sharp bumps," I think overall reviewers say handling is very good in the Outlander, at the expense of a harsher ride, but I haven’t read any review which says it’s superior to the Forester’s.

    That’s the way it works. Sharp agile sport handling comes at expense of harsher ride. Generally you can’t have both. So if a soft ride is very important to you, you might want to go with Toyota, SF or Subaru. Lexus is known for plush ride, but dull handling. BMW is an opposite. The slalom handling test of new 2010 Outlander is spectacular. It even beats Mercedes C Class sedan.

    >> In any event, in pricing it out, the MRSP of the ES, adding the fog lights, and the Sound and Sun package, costs $29,765., which is $30.00 less than the MRSP of the Forester with the Touring Package. Also, keep in mind that I would still not be getting the power driver’s seat with the ES. Taking into consideration all of the above, and the better residual value of the Forester, I think the Forester is better value for the money, at least in terms of my individual needs in a vehicle.
    I am leaning towards it, despite the better-looking interior of the Santa Fe. If only Subaru could have imported the Santa Fe’s interior design into the Forester!


    I did not realize that you are in Canada talking about $30k price range and you are looking actually at entry level Outlander/Forester. I’ve seen entry level Outlander at $17 USD at the end of last year. At that level I agree Outlander advantage is not easy to see.
    The Outlander really shines in 2010 GT trim.
    The Forester would be a very good choice for your price range, though Santa Fe is more car for the money.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I test drove the Mazda5 as well. Too bad they don't offer things that they sell in the JDM version - like 7 seats, stability control, and even AWD.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Also read reviews from real world owners here on Edmunds

    Just glance over to the right, Forester gets a 9.0 and the Outlander gets a 8.8. Both good scores. Sante Fe also does well with an 8.8.

    I'm just saying, you should know there's more to the Forester than a large moonroof to earn a better score than your beloved Outlander.

    The slalom handling test of new 2010 Outlander is spectacular

    Remember, though, that model is lowered (anyone know how much?). It won't offer the 8.5" of clearance that the other models had. You pick one or the other, not both. People shopping for this vehicle should be aware of that trade-off.

    I think the lowered suspension is fine in Florida and SoCal, but if you're in a snowy climate it'll bottom out and scrape bottom constantly. Let your climate and needs decide which is best.

    Even then, if I didn't want a snow vehicle, and went to a Mitsu store, this would be better suited to an enthusiast driver:

    image
  • >> Just glance over to the right, Forester gets a 9.0 and the Outlander gets a 8.8. Both good scores. Sante Fe also does well with an 8.8.

    These all good cars. The Outlander rating is for the older 2007 generation though.
    .

    >> I'm just saying, you should know there's more to the Forester than a large moonroof to earn a better score than your beloved Outlander.

    You still did not offer any significant Forester advantage. The only strongest argument you attempted to make is a better resale rating, but then when you look at True Cost to Own numbers the advantage reduced to marginal. After all the Outlander is much more car for the money.
    Outlander is not a religion for me. After happily driving it for 2.5 years, I decided to try another car and leased the MB ML350. It’s a nice looking SUV, twice more expensive, but still I am not sure if it is an upgrade. Nice quiet interior, solid build, power liftgate… but transmission gets confused at low speeds, handling is way below average, engine is abit underpowered for the weight. KeylessGo (FAST Key was standard on my Outlander) is a $1000 option, no hard drive music server. No paddle shifters, mediocre reliability ratings, only 4 year warranty (forget about this car after warranty expires), expensive maintenance ($100 oil change), no standard folding mirrors, Bluetooth is $500 optional accessory, no Bluetooth audio streaming… Outlander GT is an exceptional value and so much more fun to drive.
    .

    >>> The slalom handling test of new 2010 Outlander is spectacular

    >> Remember, though, that model is lowered (anyone know how much?). It won't offer the 8.5" of clearance that the other models had. You pick one or the other, not both. People shopping for this vehicle should be aware of that trade-off.


    Snow or not, on a paved road an inch or two difference of ground clearance would not matter especially considering exceptional AWD system. Anyway Mitsu might have lowered just a roof a bit: both the Australian Mitsubishi site and AOL Auto indicate that GT ground clearance of 8.5” which is just 0.4” less then Forester – not even worth to mention. This is a good ground clearance yet Outlander GT slalom score (Edmunds IsideLine) is superior to Audi Q5, BMW X3, X5, MDX, RDX, Infinity FX, MB ML63 AMG and even MB C-Class sedan, which has much lower ground clearance.

    >> Even then, if I didn't want a snow vehicle, and went to a Mitsu store, this would be better suited to an enthusiast driver [EVO]:

    Sure, EVO is a pure driving fun and incredible bargain, but if you need more utility, the GT gets very close.

    click:

    image
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    That's what I'd consider 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).

    True Cost to Own numbers the advantage reduced to marginal

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

    You traded in your Outlander and the music went with it. 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.
Sign In or Register to comment.