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

1246752

Comments

  • rcpaxrcpax Posts: 580
    IMO, i ain't driving in the nevada desert so i'm not worried. where i live there is a gas station every 2 blocks, so i need not worry about running out of gas.the Outlander's tank capacity is actually one of the selling points for me. I don't have to carry extra fuel weight with just me driving the vehicle most of the time, that extra weight which would add to fuel consumption. But then again this is personal preference. The Outlander's fuel tank capacity is at best "about right", not too big, not too small.
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    Sure, it's main reason. I have to like styling to buy a car. The overall image of a Subaru in my mind is that ugly AWD station wagon.

    Equipment to price ratio (value) is the second big reason why I would not buy it. With its 4-speed tarnny, nearly part-tme AWD and shortage of modern gadgets his car worth may be around 20K. Otherwise, like I've said, subarus are well build and reliable cars.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Small tank a selling point? C'mon now. Anyone could fill up their tank half way.

    I don't want to have to stop for gas every 5 days.

    Give me a big gas tank any day. With a 21 gallon tank in my minivan, I can drive around for about 500 miles. Plus you can price shop for gas - buy it when you're in an area with lower gas prices, for instance.

    If you get stuck and have to pay a high price for gas, then you can elect to fill it up only partially. If it's cheap, fill 'er up.

    It actually lowers your overall fuel costs that way.
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    1 liter tank size difference is pretty small to make it a big advantage
  • dcm61dcm61 Posts: 1,482
    IMO, this topic is getting to the point of basically just wasting bandwidth.

    Has ANYONE involved in this bickering match actually driven BOTH the '08 Outlander AND '09 Forester?

    If not, please refrain from posting "armchair" opinions on the actual features that require at least a short test drive. Driveability, handling, etc. Please only post real world, meaningful, seat of the pants experience.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    It's not 1 liter, it's actually about 4.2 liters.

    Plus I'm talking about range, so you also have to account for the better gas mileage.
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    No, the discussion is about Forester and Outlander, not about your minivan or his Suburban. The Forester/Outlander tank difference is just 1L.
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 395
    IMO, this topic is getting to the point of basically just wasting bandwidth.

    Has ANYONE involved in this bickering match actually driven BOTH the '08 Outlander AND '09 Forester?

    If not, please refrain from posting "armchair" opinions on the actual features that require at least a short test drive. Driveability, handling, etc. Please only post real world, meaningful, seat of the pants experience


    Agreed!!! I'd like to hear from someone who's driven both for their honest opinion. (not that I'm in the market, just curious). In the mean time I can provide experience info on an 07 LS AWD Outlander if that helps anyone. (essentially the same as '08)
    I think the '09 Subaru is a step in th right direction from the smaller wagons that you really can't call a CUV. (an '08 Forrester would not have been on my check out list because of that, while a non-premium fuel ''09 might have)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I am talking about the Forester. The 2009 models have a 16.9 gallon tank.

    Are you sure you saw the 2009 Forester at the Chicago Auto Show? Did you even pick up a brochure? You have no idea what you are talking about.

    1.1 gallons more capacity = 4.2 liters extra.
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    Oh, my apologies. That's what i meant: 1 G not 1 L. It's a typo and I have these correct numbers on my chart. Still 1.1 gallon is small difference on 16G tank. And of course I saw Forester at the show.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    OK, the 2008 model had a 15.9 gallon tank, which is close to the 15.8 gallons of the Outlander. I thought you may have been looking at a 2008 Forester.

    You did use "L" two times.

    No harm, no foul.
  • jvainejvaine Posts: 34
    You and chelentano should get a life.
  • rcpaxrcpax Posts: 580
    All these discussions... :) well, anybody who is in the market for an SUV surely wouldn't be won over by threads like this one. I bought the Outlander for several reasons, and quite frankly, I don't give a shoot what others think, because I can decide for myself and I research on my own, and have my own preference. But still... Outlander FTW!! :shades:
  • I test drove Outlander 3 times when I shopping for a new car last december. The first time was not a good experience. I test drove a fully XLS 2wd model and there was significant torque steer. In 15 mins of my test drive I got little hang of it but still the torque steer was present while taking a fast turn.

    Second and third time I drove the AWD ones and the experience was better. I some how liked the interior of it. Clean layout especially the dashboard without the navigation. The interior material was little plasticy but overall it was pleasant. Front seats even without lumbar support and with less cushion were still very comfortable. One of the best probably in its class.The back seats were just opposite. Felt like a park bench with no cushion at all.

    What I did not like was the engine. It was loud and rough for a V6. I test drove RDX same time and found the turbo V4 of it smoother and quieter than the V6 of Outlander. Even 4 cyclinder Rav4 engine was quiter and smoother.

    Also the Outlander is a very good looking small suv, but it looks better in pictures than in reality I felt. I was turned off by its width from the backside when I saw in person. Its just too narrow. I wished Mitsubishi had made it little bit wider.

    Overall its a very nice car and I rate it highly and the only reason I did not buy the Outie was because of its brand.

    Last weekend I did get a chance to sit inside the 2009 Forrester. Its a nice car as well. It looks more like an SUV now instead of a wagon. Regarding interior I would say the material used in Forrester is a better quality than the Outlander, but overall interior appeal is same for both the cars.

    If the Outalnder was built by Subaru and Forrester by Mitsubishi and if I have to buy one then I would most likely buy the Outlander. The biggest drawback with Outlander I see is its brand name and thats probably the reason why they are moving so slowly from the dealer lots.
  • rcpaxrcpax Posts: 580
    If the Outalnder was built by Subaru and Forrester by Mitsubishi and if I have to buy one then I would most likely buy the Outlander. The biggest drawback with Outlander I see is its brand name and thats probably the reason why they are moving so slowly from the dealer lots.

    Now this one I had to reply to. I was a previous Mitsubishi owner, and I am highly satisfied when it comes to reliability. I don't think I would have bought another Mitsubishi if I had bitter experience with the brand. What is it specifically that you don't like about Mitsubishi?

    Look at Outlander's ratings from the people who bought the vehicle. I don't think they will rate the Outlander highly if it was a piece of crap.

    Over at Edmunds: 9.1 (with 13 reviews) for the 08 Outlander, 9.1 (120 reviews) for the 07 Outlander, and 8.6 (with only 8 reviews) for the Forester? That should tell you something.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Subaru turbos have been around for ages, which is why I didn't hestitate 1 new york second and took the plunge. I don't let the car idle before shutting it off and I change the oil every 3.5K. Seems a reasonable tradeoff to having something that blows the doors off everything else and is extremely reliable, and safe. The Forester has been clocked at 5.3 to 60 with the manual. Whatever turbo problems you allude to or know of, I'm not worried, the $500 extended warranty covers the turbo and more for 70/7. Obviously Subaru isn't worried either. And, it's a friggin' car.

    The styling of the car is odd. If I were buying a BMW it would make a difference. The odd styling didn't faze me for a second on the Forester, because I view it as a utility vehicle with a great AWD system that for right now serves a useful place in my garage.

    So far the only mechanical issue has been the back-seat pull down latch failure.
  • psychogunpsychogun Posts: 125
    If you're going to bring that up you also need to mention that Subaru was caught doing the same thing in 1997. They ended up recalling 1.47 million vehicles with defects.
    Since this occurred while the internet was still relatively new, there are virtually no news stories about it to be found.
    If you go about half-way down the New York Times article linked below, you'll find a mention of it, just so you know I'm not making this up.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E00EEDC1631F930A1575BC0A9669C8B6- - 3&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

    Either way, both companies have emerged from these critical misjudgments with better better products.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    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.

    Your post is a great illustration of why there are thousands of varieties of ice cream. I wanted a CUV. I wanted a CUV that was economical. I wanted a CUV that was utilitarian.I wanted a CUV that was safe. I wanted a CUV that was fast. I wanted a CUV with some minimum of creature comforts. I wanted a CUV with a class leading AWD system. If I'm gonna have something that handles like a dog. I want it to be a very fast dog. Subaru with it's Symmetrical AWD has very neutral handling for what it is.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Both companies have done something but Mitsu has been doing it for 23 years, doesn't say about Subaru.
  • h2k2f2h2k2f2 Posts: 44
    http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=330

    Chelentano:
    Can the Mitsubishi Outlander claim to this honor? No? I didn't think so!
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    That is a huge pick. But some may not place any weight on it and instead focus on its 4-speed tarnny, nearly part-tme AWD and shortage of modern gadgets...sic The sheet metal has been much improved for 2009.
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 395
    Chelentano:
    Can the Mitsubishi Outlander claim to this honor? No? I didn't think so!


    This is really getting old (give up nitpicking) The Outlander scored 5/5 for everything except rollover and it got 4/5 there.

    You really should get a life!!!

    http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2008/mitsubishi/outlander/safety/
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 395
    Interesting article I haven't seen before. Business week test driver claims 0-60 in 7.6
    (just shows testing varies). I didn't think theV6 outie felt slow regardless of whether something else is faster :

    You can even get the Outlander XLS with steering-wheel-mounted paddle shifters.Such add-ons would be laughable on many family cruisers, but the V6-powered Outlander is surprisingly quick. I clocked it at 7.6 seconds in accelerating from zero to 60 mph, noticeably faster than the sporty Mazda CX-7, which I clocked at about 8.5 seconds. The Outlander isn't as fast as the V6-powered version of the Toyota RAV4, but it isn't far behind.

    Full article is here: http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/mar2008/bw20080321_373437.htm
  • h2k2f2h2k2f2 Posts: 44
    We didn't start tthis. You might want to talk with Chelentano about "nitpicking." It's not an apples-to-apples comparison to compare the Outlander's NHTSA ratings with the Forester's IIHS ratings. The IIHS tests are more rigorous than those used by the NHTSA.
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 395
    Well I guess I gotta rule out the standard that most everyone goes by (NHTSA) and get rid of my Outlander. Oooooh it's so far off the mark!!!. Get real!!!!

    really tired of "my pee-pee is bigger than yours by a micron" regardless of who started it.

    As another person wrote it's really ridiculous to engage in armchair quoting specs .
    I actually test drove and actually bought according to my tastes and needs.

    Anyone listening to all this needs to do the same and let their own test drive tell the truth of what can be very subjective reviews and armchair wanking..
  • h2k2f2h2k2f2 Posts: 44
    How can you claim to speak for so many people, i.e. "most everyone"? I don't think anyone appointed you to be their representative. If you don't like this, then, by all means, don't keep reading. Nobody is forcing you.
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    Here, one more from Cars.com
    "..The automatic transmission is almost as smooth as the new CR-V's, while the engine provides considerably more power. The combination is far superior to the RAV4 despite the Toyota's higher horsepower figure, the Outlander is a better highway companion overall.... the Outlander handles steeply banked highway onramps with superb control and minimal body lean, giving the driver a sense of confidence not found in many SUVs — compact, car-based or otherwise.The ride was also car-like. Bumps were softly muted and road noise was minimal...Available with an optional manual four-wheel-drive system, the Outlander is one of the more affordable four-wheel-drive SUVs on the market, ...Surprisingly, the new Outlander seems to outclass its competitors on just about every front, although the RAV4 does offer more power with its optional V-6 engine (269 horsepower)."
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    In OCT MT issue Ron Kiino wrote: "Interior quality is premium and design contemporary... 3.0 liter with MIVEC is a refined and robust unit... New Outlander has an air that's all SUV enhanced with such luxury as standard LED tail lamps, available Xenon headlamps and 18" wheels...Outlander can easily hang with the best in it's class...delivers excellent balance through high-speed maneuvers."

    Mazda CX7 and Mitsubishi Outlander, both offering better performance and premium features (Xenon headlamps, navigation, DVD, premium sound systems etc) than any other CUV in this class. Mitsubishi standard V6 uses regular, has more rear leg room (39") and cargo room (39 cu ft) better warranty and price.

    From DEC Motor Trend issue:
    " ...once you get past the stellar V6, The RAV4 is a bit ordinary and doesn't offer the same value as its competitors" (A.Harwood)

    Mitsubishi got high ratings in performance and safety with rest of them being equal to RAV4. The interior in Mitsu received four stars, RAV4 got three. Both cars can tow 3500 lbs, both using regular fuel.
    Handling:
    Outlannder......RAV4
    Braking ft........ .... 128..............130
    600ft slalom mph ... 62.7.............60.6
    Lateral acceleration g 078..............0.75
    MT figure 8 (sec) ....... 28.3.............28.6
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,109
    Petty bickering and personal slams aren't particularly helpful. Let's steer away from that and stick to the designated topic.

    Thanks!

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper
This discussion has been closed.