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

1323335373878

Comments

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I see yours has no text-to-speech either!

    Neither does Subaru, but clearly neither of these is what I'd call "modern".

    I've had text-to-speech in my portables for half a decade now.

    C'mon folks, get out of the stone ages.
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 38,968
    Y'all will be pleased to note (or perhaps disappointed ;) ) to learn that the fuel costs between the Forester and Outlander are almost identical.

    Goodbye Miles per Gallon, Hello Monthly Fuel Cost
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Pleased - I've said all along that while the XT uses premium fuel, it uses less of it, which offsets the higher cost per gallon.

    Edmunds got it right - this is how it should be done.
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 389
    "Edmunds got it right - this is how it should be done"

    Edmunds made no statement to that effect at all (one way or another)

    That is how YOU think it should be done. Everyone has their opinion

    My preference for a CUV is for running the more available weasel pi** gas with lower compression. I'm sure someone else would prefer a supercharger over a turbocharger too. (with complexity can come expense and it's one more thing to add in for less potential reliability over time )YMMV.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    :confuse:

    I don't understand your response, the article (by Edmunds.com) said:

    We think it's time to get on with the changeover to something better.

    A figure that reflects monthly fuel cost makes much more sense


    That was their opinion. I merely agreed with it.
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 38,968
    Here's another blurb about it:

    "Edmunds.com, parent of AutoObserver, late last week submitted a recommendation to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation to make fuel-economy information on new-vehicle window stickers more useful by shifting to a cost-of-energy figure rather than today's emphasized miles-per-gallon numbers."

    Edmunds.com Recommends Shift From MPG Emphasis (AutoObserver)

    The background story is all the electric and hybrid cars on the horizon (and on the street) that don't have "normal" mpg usage.
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 389
    OIC. You were referring only to the way fuel costs are measured, Not that Edmunds was passing judgment that turbocharging "is the way it should be" (a matter of opinion!!! ) :shades:
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I did put that comment in a seperate paragraph. I meant Edmunds got it right when it comes to measuring fuel cost instead of MPG.

    How can you measure MPG on an electric car if it doesn't use Gallons but rather kilowatt-hours?

    I didn't even get a turbo, ours is a PZEV naturally aspirated engine. Clean and green. :shades:
  • fushigifushigi Posts: 1,218
    The current 3L V6 does not, but it did in the past. For instance, I currently drive a '99 Galant with the 3L V6 and this generation of the engine recommends/requires premium. As near as I can tell the current 3L V6 is an updated version of my car's engine and not an entirely new design. BTW my car runs fine on regular but gets about a half MPG less so in the end it's just as cost effective to burn the expensive stuff.

    Also, IIRC the 3.8L from the Galant and Endeavor used premium. That's prior to the current Galant and when they sold the Endeavor. The current Galant is only offered with a 4 cyl.

    Finally, there was a discussion in the earlier posts going back and forth about the 2010 Outlander V6 requiring premium. My posts were an attempt to provide at least some finality to the question by noting that Mitsu does not state premium is required.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Was the Endeavor discontinued?

    I test drove one a while back. That 3.8l was really torquey. They also set the engine nice and low in the engine bay. What happened to it?

    Also, I wonder what they did to the 3.0l to move from 220hp to 230hp. Did all models get that boost? Or just the GT?

    Switching gears a bit...

    Automotive News had a timely article, echoing Edmunds sentiments, here's part of a headline:

    Nissan North America says the Nissan Leaf all-electric car will get 367 mpg. No, it won't. General Motors Co. says the plug-in hybrid Chevrolet Volt will get 230 mpg. No, it can't...

    Energy cost per mile would work, and some folks already use that for gas vehicles.
  • >> The rest of your post waters things down by comparing Mitsu corporate to FHI. Subaru of America, where both of us live, is on a huge roll...

    'Subaru of America' does not build cars. It’s just a marketing office and sales numbers by local market/season may be misleading for the company health. The fact is that worldwide Fuji / Subaru sales decline every year: from 597,000 cars in 2008 to the projected 508,000 in 2010: a significant drop. FHI / Subaru is expecting this year a staggering net loss of 700 billion yen which is about 785 million dollars. Sorry, boys, no money for gadgets and we have to keep the 4 speed tranny for another decade.

    >> You don't know about Subaru's diesel?..


    Yea, sure, I know. The first time ever Subaru builds diesel: big deal, finally! Mitsubishi has been building them for over 50 years. That’s why Subaru is behind in diesel technology, and I would not recommend this first Subaru pancake.


    >> And guess what transmission it had? A 6 speed manual. No pretender, the real thing, with a clutch...

    He-he. “Real thing”: the 100 year old technology. Have you ever thought why Lexus and Benz don’t use your “the real thing” in their luxury SUVs? Or why did you purchase your Forester with crappy 4-speed auto instead of “the real thing”?


    >> modern NAV Really? What you haven't disclosed is the fact that your 2007 model had maps from way back in 2005, and that wasn't updated until 2009. 4 year old map data. That's pathetic. Modern? Try ancient...

    Why are you talking about 2007 Outlander model? “That's pathetic“: in 2007 Forester did not have ANY navigation while Outlander already had hard-drive based navigation: first in the class. Now we are talking about the current 2010 model navigation, which comes with Diamond Lane Guidance, fast hard-drive based map access, free Real Time Traffic, voice activated 40GB music server, and backup camera.


    >> Get a Kenwood instead. You called Subaru's stereo "generic", no realizing that's actually an advantage. It's a standard double-DIN opening. Anything fits, generic size, like you said. Get one of these for 1/3rd of the cost of OEM Navi...

    Yea, Do It Yourself, that’s the way to go with Subaru. Buy your own stereo, navigation, Xenons, satellite accessory, backup camera. And don’t forget to get that “fuse” at RadioShack for your AWD. Wow, not having anything in Subaru is actually “advantage”. Yea, it’s like buying a house with bare walls and finishing it yourself. Sure, I see the advantage.
  • >> Outlander GT starts at $31 grand, for cloth and no Navi… People are not looking for an economy-branded compact crossover for more than $30 large. At that price it makes more sense to buy Mercedes, BMW, or some other luxury make. The Outlander GT with leather and Navi costs $33 grand, and by then people aren't even considering Mitsubishi...

    No. MSRP aside, after the first 3-4 month the GT will become available, I expect its street price to be $30K or less fully loaded (excluding rear entertainment system). The comparably equipped smaller MB GLK would cost you $44K: FAST Key option alone costs over $1000. The comparably equipped Audi Q5 and Benz ML350 will cost you $53-56K plus tax, so the GT will be a steal at 30K.

    But if you use your own Do It Yourself approach, you can steal Forester for even less than that. Some of that stuff you can get on eBay cheaply, making in the mean time some Subaru bux. Another benefit would be that an aftermarket accessory failure would not count for Consumer Reports survey and Forester will remain on the top of reliability charts.

    Available on 1books.com for only $2.62 used, plus earn 3% in Subaru bux:
    image
  • Comparing Outlander with GLK and Q5 is lame. One is a economy class car and other a luxury brand. People tend to conveniently ignore that with GLK, Q5 and other luxury car, you get a better engine, better interior, better sound proofing, and overall a better ride. GLK has a powerful and smooth 3.5 V6. Does Outlander has that? Yes it has a V6, but a SOHC 3.0 V6 which is nothing to write about. And engine is a heart of any car. The last time I test drove it, I remember it was loud (I guess being a SOHC), rough and was lacking in low end torque. Yes mitsu saved money in building a decent V6 for Outie and cut corners in interior quality and instead invested in gadgets which to me and probably for many other consumers is not important in a small SUV.

    All major car makers can put the gadgets in a small SUV that Outlander has. Its not about having the capability. Its about what package appeals to most of the consumers and able to sell it in numbers. Mitsubishi followed a different route with Outlander and to me it seems that they did not quite succeed (sales are very low even after full 3 years). If that was'nt the case then Rav4 and CRV won't be at the top. Heck in terms of gadget a basic kia model has bluetooth, mp3 player, aux jack etc etc and they really market it that way since they really have nothing to write about in other areas.

    Lets see how many Outlander GT is Mitsubishi able to sell in North America in 2010.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Global car sales are down for everyone, Subaru's drop is less than most, and your data is already outdated (more on that later). Plus, the topic here is the Forester, which is doing great.

    Vehicles like the Tribeca, with a too-small 3rd row and no side curtain air bags to protect those occupants (sound familiar?), have caused the overall drop for Subaru, not the Forester.

    A timely article: Subaru: Japan's Hottest Car Company

    http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/nov2009/gb20091111_789023.htm

    Excerpt:

    For the timing being, expect Subaru's hot streak to continue. Mori has increased Subaru's annual sales forecast by 37,000, to 548,000 vehicles, and now expects to record sales of 204,000 in the U.S. Like all Japanese exporters, Subaru is still hampered by the strong yen, but the company at least expects a small operating profit for the six months through March 2010. It previously projected a $390 million loss.

    Right now the only reason they may not match 2009 sales is short supply. Subaru had a 15 day supply of cars on its lots after C4C. The only struggle right now is for supply to catch up to demand.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Yea, sure, I know

    Admit it, you did not know about Subaru's diesel engine. Otherwise why did you mention it on your list of things Subaru doesn't offer that Mitsubishi does?

    Have you ever thought why Lexus and Benz don’t use your “the real thing” in their luxury SUVs?

    Because those aren't the sportier manufacturers in that segment. BMW offers a true manual in the X3. RX350? Please...I own a Toyota, they're as far from sporty as you can get. Competent in other ways, sure.

    in 2007 Forester did not have ANY navigation

    Portables are better anyway, you're not stuck with outdated maps. When will they offer the next update, 2013? I wonder if you rent an Outlander (or one of its clones) in Europe if it still says East/West Germany, or maybe USSR? LOL :D

    Portables also offer Bluetooth and lane guidance, and 3 things the Outlander's expensive system does not:

    * frequent updates
    * 3 choices for traffic, including a free one with no subscription
    * text-to-speech

    Your 2007 Outlander did not have heated mirrors. And don't say you didn't care - because you said that was an important feature that you missed. Subaru had that 7 years sooner. Subaru added Navi the same year Mitsu added heated mirrors. After all, AWD is for snowy climates, and I'd rather see out my side mirrors than get directions from 4 year old maps:

    Make a left on to the Road That Doesn't Exist Any More...

    Not to mention all the businesses that closed (or opened) from 2005 to 2009.

    stereo, navigation, Xenons, satellite accessory, backup camera

    All that stuff just lowers your residual and ends up increasing ownership costs disproportionately. Plus they push the GT in to a lease payment that would get you a Benz or BMW - which is what you did.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    They will offer discounts because they'll have to. That's just too much money for a compact crossover from a non-luxury brand.

    At that price many people (like you) lease, and Outlanders don't lease well due to the residuals. Fancy options only lower residual percentages. Actual samples:

    $560/month with $3000 cap reduction + taxes and fees

    ($464 with taxes), first month payment + $350 doc fee/plates ($814 total) due at signing


    That's BMW/Mercedes money. No wonder you defected. Actions speak louder than words.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Since you're so familiar with that series..

    image
  • fushigifushigi Posts: 1,218
    While I agree that the GLK and the Outlander are not likely to be cross-shopped, I will take issue with some of your statements about the engines.

    GLK: 3.5L, 268HP = 76.6 HP/L
    Outlander: 3.0L, 230HP = 76.7 HP/L

    Power output/displacement is a wash so you can't really say the Benz engine is more advanced. It's just bigger. No advantage to MB there except for the "more is better" argument. Which is fine until you have to put gas in it:

    GLK: 16 city/21 highway/18 combined
    Outlander: 18/24/20

    Even brand new the GLK would have qualified as a clunker WRT fuel economy. That's not good. The Outlander gets 11-14% better fuel economy & will be less expensive to drive than the GLK. The GLK's gas tank is almost 2 gallons larger so their driving ranges are pretty similar.

    BTW, this is a revised version of the 3L V6 so the NVH you experienced may not be there anymore. It certainly hasn't been a factor in my Mitsu's 10 year old 3L V6; with 152K on the clock it's still silky smooth.

    I'm sure the GLK has better interior materials than the Outlander. I won't try to argue that point. But the Outlander has more passenger space by every measurement - hip, leg, head, and shoulder room. The GLK has more luggage capacity with the second row seats up but the Outlander bests it with the second (& third row, which the GLK doesn't offer) down by 18 cubic feet. Speaking of second row seats, the Mitsu's fold flat to the cargo floor; the GLK's do not. So good luck hauling those long, flat items without bending them.

    (All data is from the Edmunds specs pages for the 2010 V6 AWD models.)

    Regarding sales, yes, time will tell. Mitsu has problems there with brand recognition and with very limited advertising dollars. With those combined it will be hard to attract sufficient attention. They also have a relatively small dealer network nationally (although they're represented fine in my area - Chicagoland).

    Personally, I'm comparing the Outlander XLS to the GT. Same engine but different AWD system. Optioned similary the GT is a bit more expensive and I'm not sure the better AWD system is worth the extra cost. I'll drive both and see.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I believe clunkers had to get 18mpg or less using the unadjusted numbers from a while ago. The GLK would not qualify.

    Plus, short gearing makes it much quicker, a trade-off for the mileage.

    The point, though, is should Mitsubishi even be competing with Audi and Mercedes?
  • fushigifushigi Posts: 1,218
    You may be right, although I thought C4C used the revised numbers. In the end it doesn't matter. My point was that the GLK is thirsty by comparison and even when cruising - where quickness doesn't come into play - the Outlander beats it handily when it comes to economy. With a 7-speed auto and that engine, the GLK really should have come with a really tall highway gear; that would have allowed for much better mileage. The 2010 RAV4 with 4WD and Toyota's similar-speced 3.5L V6 gets 19/26/21 out of a 5 speed auto.

    Anyway, we shouldn't be comparing the Mitsu (or the Forester) to the Audi, MB, or RAV4 as I just did :blush: in this thread. Let's keep to just the Forester v. Outlander.
Sign In or Register to comment.