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

1246778

Comments

  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    I guess you have no more arguments and nothing more substantial to say. The last thing I need is your a rude advice.
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,110
    Let's avoid making it personal and stick to the real issues instead.

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    You pay more for gas?

    Not true.

    OK, let's ignore the fact that Subaru only really required regular fuel, and go with the recommended premium fuel. We'll accept that you pay 30 cents more per gallon. You pay about 9% more.

    Outlander owners are ignoring the fact that it is rated for only 17mpg city, vs. 19 mpg city for the Forester XT. It uses 12% more fuel around town. That offsets the extra you pay for premium.

    Plus, 0-60 in 8.1 seconds, are you sure about that? That's slow! Wow.

    V6 and 6 speeds, and that's all it'll do? That's competitive with the better 4 cylinder normally aspirated models, but nowhere near the Forester XT.

    The Forester X and LL Bean models should nearly match that level of acceleration, and they use cheap ol' regular fuel and less of it, so if you really want to save fuel that's a better choice.

    I bet Mitsubishi's own 2.4l with the CVT isn't much slower than 8.1 seconds.

    8.1 seconds, really? That's slower than my minivan. :D
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Honestly, now, do you really think that the leather-wrapped steering wheel is a dealer-installed option?

    Seriously. Air bag and all? The dealer installs it, not the factory? Do you really believe that?

    Oh boy. :D

    Steve already pointed out you did include incentives. And again, a 2009 will be worth more than a 2008 in resale.

    If you want to add all other potential incentives, then add up to $2000 discount for Subaru Bucks, which you can get with a Chase credit card.

    The previous generation Forester that you call "obsolete" was a Car & Driver 5Best Trucks for 3 years in a row, beating the Outlander. So does that mean they think the Outlander is even less than obsolete? Perhaps so, because in their latest comparison with an Outlander, that AWD system you keep bragging about gave the Outlander the lowest score in the off road category, and prompted C&D to say the Mitsubishi even "felt fragile". Ouch.

    You don't even understand what I'm saying about SportShift, so I give up. Forester shoppers can sample it for themselves and they'll see what I mean.
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 390
    You are quoting city mpg . Note that they are equal at 24 hwy mpg. I do better that the 2008 epa on city in any event (more like the 19 mpg rating for city and I regularly exceed 25 mpg on hwy). So any real life driving will be a mix of the two. As for acceleration, I find it more than adequate. If I wanted a rocket sled I guess I would have bought a RAV-4, but I don't care for the rear door (taste)and other ergonomics and price. I'm not going to try to convince you or anyone else against buying what they are already sold on (you obviously are), but just pointing out that fuel cost are not equal. (if you choose run a turbo on regular you're counting on the timing to be backed off by knock sensors to not damage your engine. This timing retard will effect economy and performance. You can't choose regular fuel and boast about premium performance. I'm not sure what Subaru's line is if engine damage were to occur on regular. The engine was designed around premium fuel. Once again, FOR ME the combo of price, warranty and features (like 3500 lbs towing) are a better value for thousands less. YMMV
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Sure, but apples-to-apples, i.e. in the exact same test, the Forester XT shows an advantage around town.

    Consumer Reports also got better observed MPG with their Forester vs. their Outlander, so that's been the case outside the EPA labs as well.

    If we are looking at fuel costs, that mileage advantage should be accounted for. Premium fuel costs more, but getting less MPG also will cost you more.

    If you use regular and the ECU backs off the timing on a Forester XT, it would probably still be quicker than the Outlander. The Subaru has a substantial advantage there.

    I hate the swing door on the RAV4 as well, so I'll agree with you on that one. We got a Sienna, so we enjoy that great engine but don't have to put up with the poor visibility and wrong-way curb blocking door on the RAV4.

    My beef isn't with you, it's with a certain member that keeps putting down the Forester even though he didn't even realize the 2009 Forester XT has a different AWD system than the 2008. (see the 2009 Forester threads for details)

    Some people just don't know what they're talking about! Not you...
  • psychogunpsychogun Posts: 121
    Remember: When arguing with a fan boy, it's hard for onlookers to tell the difference. ;-)

    Suffice to say that both of these vehicles are fantastic. Incidentally, anyone shopping for a mid-size CUV should definitely test-drive both.
    I'm disturbed by how often prospective buyers value the written word above an actual test-drive. Simply discarding models based on half-baked tests that they read. Before I digress, it needs to be said that there is not a single publication (paper or virtual) remaining that is not biased. Hmmm... I suppose that in itself is (my) bias. :-)
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    >> 0-60 in 8.1 seconds, are you sure about that? That's slow! Wow. V6 and 6 speeds, and that's all it'll do? That's competitive with the better 4 cylinder normally aspirated models, but nowhere near the Forester XT.

    Well, you can try to make a racing car out of CUV and you can get good acceleration out of your turbo, but you pay for this pleasure with premium fuel, low payload, and noisy hard working engine. The Outlander’s engine is much more balanced.
    .

    >> Honestly, now, do you really think that the leather-wrapped steering wheel is a dealer-installed option? Seriously. Air bag and all? The dealer installs it, not the factory? Do you really believe that? Oh boy.

    Oh girl, I was talking about Leather Shift Knob which is extra $189 option on Forester, but included with base Outlander XLE.
    .

    >>Steve already pointed out you did include incentives. And again, a 2009 will be worth more than a 2008 in resale.

    We can argue about incentives all day long, but you can’t argue that MSPR and Invoice is lower on Outlander.
    .

    >>If you want to add all other potential incentives, then add up to $2000 discount for Subaru Bucks, which you can get with a Chase credit card.

    Chase card? I use Chase Freedom card much smarter: it pays me cash back, so I can buy anything on cash, including any automobile. You on the other hand are stuck with your Subaru points.
    .

    >> The previous generation Forester that you call "obsolete" was a Car & Driver 5Best Trucks for 3 years in a row, beating the Outlander. So does that mean they think the Outlander is even less than obsolete? Perhaps so, because in their latest comparison with an Outlander, that AWD system you keep bragging about gave the Outlander the lowest score in the off road category, and prompted C&D to say the Mitsubishi even "felt fragile". Ouch.

    I have told you before that I care less about magazine reviews and “awards”. These magazines get paid by car manufacturers so they have obvious conflict of interest. I care more for ratings by real owners, who paid hard earned dollars to manufacturers (not the other way around like in case with magazines), and who drove thousands of miles on these cars. Example for 2007 cars top of the line trim:

    ..................MSNAutos ...Edmunds
    Outlander V6.....9.5 ...........9.1
    Forester turbo ...9.4 ..........8.3
    RAV4 V6..........9.0 ...........8.9
    CR-V ...............9.3 ..........9.1
    CX-7 turbo .......8.8 ...........8.7

    Result? Outlander has the highest owner ratings on both sites.
    .

    >> You don't even understand what I'm saying about SportShift, so I give up. Forester shoppers can sample it for themselves and they'll see what I mean.

    You got no more real arguments I guess? SportShift or they call it Sportronic on Outlander was available two generations before 2009 Forester. In addition to the stick it has paddle shifter controls.
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    This is so true, and if they get paid by a client, they are even more biased.
  • h2k2f2h2k2f2 Posts: 44
    ...but you pay for this pleasure with premium fuel, low payload, and noisy hard working engine. The Outlander’s engine is much more balanced.

    Have you actually driven the Forester XT with this current version of the engine? If the answer is no, then I don't think that you're really in a position to make such a judgment about it.
  • 10years10years Posts: 48
    I have an 03 Forester X with 80K miles and zero problems to date. On a couple of occasions it has saved my butt with excellent brakes and solid handling in winter driving conditions. Compare that to an 03 Outlander.

    The 07s' comparison is new Outlander versus old Forester, it would be better to compare say 06 models.

    My son is beginning to look at getting a new CUV and Oulander is on the list. It certainly has some great features the 09 Forester does not and vice versa. But we have been somewhat dismayed by reports of paint chipping, sand blasting if you will, from winter sanded roads on the bottom panels on the Outlander which to date does not seem to have a practical solution by Mistu.
  • rcpaxrcpax Posts: 580
    I don't think it's a problem unique to Mitsubishi, a whole lot of other makes share the same problem. You can easily prevent it by putting on mudguards for your vehicle. Any vehicle will get paint damage if not adequately protected. Simply analogy, if the sun hurts your skin, wear sunblock. I don't have paint chipping in my Outlander because I bought mudguards.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Motorweek's test of the Outlander was even slower: 0-60 in 8.9 seconds. I did a double-take to make sure that was the V6, but it was. :surprise:

    My point is the better 4 cylinder (normally aspirated) competitors can match that and are a lot more economical with fuel. Why get a V6 if it's not a significantly better performer? :confuse:

    In fact, I wonder if Mitsubishi's own 2.4l with the CVT is as quick as their V6 model.

    For reference, the last 2 Foresters they tested took 6.2 and 6.6 seconds, a whole other league.

    I was talking about Leather Shift Knob which is extra $189 option on Forester

    Wrong.

    Leather shift knob is standard on the XT Limited, which is the model you were pricing. It's even standard on the LL Bean model. That's right from the 09 brochure. I've also noticed that in person, which you haven't, because you have not taken a serious look at the Forester (be honest, you haven't).

    How much does your Chase Freedom card earn you? 1%?

    I get 3%. I win.

    Does Mitsubishi offer a program that earns you 3%? Can you use it for service, like you can with Subaru? Parts? Accessories?

    This is important because we were debating TCO, and Subaru Bucks directly reduce your cost of ownership. Up to $2000 up front to buy it, and then $500 per year after that to get free service, a bike rack, etc.

    With a Chase Subaru card your TCO will be much, much lower on a Subaru.
  • tracyo1tracyo1 Posts: 1
    I have an '07 outlander that has multiple rock chips on the bottom half of both back passenger doors. According to the district manager in the warranty deparment this is not a defect in the paint so it's my issue. I agree that it is not a defect with the paint, I believe that it is a defect in the design of the vehicle. If you notice that the bottom black piece that is suppose to deflect the rocks away from a vehicle is in the same line as the vehicle you would understand that it isn't going to push them away but actually hit the doors. They suggest mud guards but even that will not stop rocks from hitting the back doors, what should I do?
  • Not to butt into the little debate you guys have going, but do looks even play a part in this issue? I personally didn't shop the Subaru because I wouldn't be caught dead driving it. I'm sure it's a great car, and is fantastic at what it does best... haul soccer moms to the grocery store in the snow. I wouldn't drive one period. Not if it was faster than a Lamborghini, not if it was better in the snow than a hummer.
    It looks like Clark W Griswold drove it off the lot, and even he didn't want it.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Styling is very subjective.

    The front half of these two vehicles actually look a lot alike, something chelentano has pointed out more than once.

    I'm not a fan of the wide D-pillar on the Outlander, but not because of the styling, it's more of an issue of rear 3/4th visibility. The Forester has very narrow pillars and the rear windows is set very low so you can see just about everything.

    Mitsu offers a backup camera and I recommend that feature.

    Any how, styling on both of these is attractive, IMO.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    Look in the Paint Chipping thread for more information. Based on my experience this winter, I too believe that the mudguards alone are not enough, but if you add the door garnish (stock on Japan and Europe) and some extra 3M clear film on the rear door you should be covered.
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 390
    [ateixeira wrote: My point is the better 4 cylinder (normally aspirated) competitors can match that and are a lot more economical with fuel. Why get a V6 if it's not a significantly better performer?

    A: Towing for one. lots of 4 cylinders are limited to 1000 to 1500 lbs.

    The V6 outie tows 3500 lbs. I personally don't feel the V6 outie is as slow as it's being made out to be. As someone else said "drive em". I did drive the other vehicles I was interested in ('08 Subaru was all that was offered at the time so I didn't bother looking at them last fall as the wagon was too small for me) I did drive A Hyundai Santa Fe (and found it very nice, but felt the Outie was more gas economical for me and cost less). I also love the Rockford Fosgate sound system
    and flip down tailgate. I also love the steering. There are compromises, but it fit my needs nicely with great value.

    The specs from delaers and magazines are only a starting point. A test drive tells a lot more.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    Motorweek's test of the Outlander was even slower: 0-60 in 8.9 seconds. I did a double-take to make sure that was the V6, but it was.

    My point is the better 4 cylinder (normally aspirated) competitors can match that and are a lot more economical with fuel. Why get a V6 if it's not a significantly better performer?

    In fact, I wonder if Mitsubishi's own 2.4l with the CVT is as quick as their V6 model.

    For reference, the last 2 Foresters they tested took 6.2 and 6.6 seconds, a whole other league.


    Not to interfere with the little "war" here, but I wouldn't go by the numbers posted by the Motorweek. I read/watch their reviews but for whatever reasons they post higher test numbers for ALL the cars, in all performance tests. At the most, you could use the numbers to compare other vehicles tested by them.

    Motorweek tested the 2006 Forester XT, which without doubt, posts better numbers than the Outlander and most of the V6 CUVs on the road. Does this mean much? If I were to buy a turbo vehicle, I would buy a car - WRX, Mazdaspeed3, STi, Evo, etc. I don't really see the point for a mainstream turbo SUV. It will handle like an SUV regardless so the straight-line acceleration it's just a waist of time.

    I would be curious thought to see some numbers for the naturally aspired 2009 Forester. This would be relevant indeed. However, from what I've seen so far, all the I4 CUVs are in the same ballpark 9-10 sec. with the Rogue being the quickest.
    The Outlander I4 is also up there with the CRV, RAV4 I4 and Rogue for fuel economy so it's not a lesser vehicle by comparison. I'm sure the 2009 Forester will join them too.

    The Outlander V6 posts 8.1-8.3 sec. in any other car magazine test, which is about right and normal for its power output and size/weight (at least in my opinion); it doesn’t feel underpowered or sluggish by any means.
    On the other hand, the naturally aspired 3.0L H6 Subaru engine (same displacement as the Outlander’s V6), with 250 hp and 5-speed auto in the last gen Tribeca, posted a whooping 9.7 sec. to 60 mph (Motorweek called it "reasonable" LOL). This is truly in the I4 territory so not quite an accomplishment for Subaru.

    For what it's worth, the Outlander V6 however is faster to 60mph than any naturally aspired I4 CUV without a question enve though that's by a second or so,
  • psychogunpsychogun Posts: 121
    I thought I would be able to stay away from this thread... Ack! Oh well... :-)

    In my humble opinion, the 0-60 time is only a small piece of the performance story.

    The job of an engine and transmission is to appropriately propel the vehicle in a given circumstance. The flexibility of an engine (i.e. availability of torque over the rev band) is a rather important aspect of overall performance.

    I haven't test-drive the 09 Forester and it's been just over a year since I drove the Outlander, so I can't really comment.

    I will regurgitate what I posted earlier. These are both fantastic vehicles, if you are in the market. Do yourself a favor and go test-drive both of them. :shades:
Sign In or Register to comment.