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

1424345474852

Comments

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Even if we ignore the $5k price difference (I certainly can't), the chart has plenty of errors.

    The GT has AFD (active front differential), but not ARD. That's according to Mitsubishi themselves. So why a score of 2?

    You don't score for price. That factor should actually carry the most weight.

    You don't score for mileage either. All the things where the Forester shows the advantage carry no weight.

    All the things where Mitsu does well carries lots of weight.

    You list handling but not braking, and no lateral grip. So you omit the results where the Forester does better.

    Your towing number are just plain wrong. You listed the Outlander's towing for a braked trailer and the Forester's towing for an unbraked trailer.

    That's already 6 errors in the first 9 lines.

    Subaru offers a hill holder clutch on the X models. And I doubt the Outlander has a true metal skid plate.

    Forester is pre-wired for towing, another error. I know because I installed a hitch.

    Forester has a reclining 2nd row, love mine! Works like a charm. Another error.

    HIDs are available now.

    Rear view camera is available in the JDM catalog, and don't say that's not fair becaue the green HIDs you shared pictures of earlier are from the JDM Mitsubishi catalog.

    Outlander has LED rear lights but Forester had LED interior lights. Omitted.

    Subaru offers XM and Sirius, BOTH, and the chart gives it a score of 0? 2 for Subaru, 1 for Mitsu for not giving you a choice.

    You gave points for the rear DVD entertainment system but did not include that in the price of the GT. At the $30k you quote it lacks leather and Navi, and you give it tons of points for those options. The amp and audio too, 3 points for an option not priced. That GT would be more like $35-36 grand!

    Even my cheaper Forester has chromed door handles, another error.

    CR Reliability forecast for the Forester is "Much Better Than Average". For the Outlander it's one step lower, "Better Than Average". This is from the brand new April car issue.

    Forester's powertrain warranty is longer than the 3 years you list, another error.

    Toss out the entire chart and start over, you had more things wrong than you got right.

    While we're at it, include important things:

    IIHS Top Safety Pick
    JD Powers Durability Study
    ALG residual value awards

    Unless you really believe chrome door handles are more important than safety, price, residuals, and durability?
  • fushigifushigi Posts: 1,248
    It will be interesting to see. I see plenty of Tucsons & Rogues around here (Chicago suburbs) but I'm not exactly counting.

    If they can delivery good economy it could be at least a minor hit. Rogue is 22/27 and Tucson is 22/30. Inside Line/MotorTrend are reporting an average of 30 which would imply something like 27/33 or thereabouts. If that holds true then it could sway those looking for an efficient mini-ute.

    I like the styling as well, and it might even sway my wife from getting another compact sedan. Neither of us drives all that many miles per year - her car turns 9 in May and has about 74K on it and I'm just over 2300 on my Outlander after 3.5 months. So while the forthcoming Chevy Cruze is on her list, it's 40MPG highway really doesn't make that big of a difference in the long run.

    Of course, size & utility of the cargo area will matter as will crash results.
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 395
    "Subaru offers a hill holder clutch on the X models."

    I don't know what I'd do with one of these with a 6 speed auto. :confuse:

    (I don't miss my previous 5 sp manual tranny at all) :shades:
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    edited March 2010
    Thanks for repeating the same information. If one spends their life in the slalom it's one story. But when you have to merge, pass, brake, have good ground clearance, be a top safety pick, the Forester wins hands down.

    But ateixeira covered those issues much more eloquently.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I guess the Outlander Sport is higher up than an Audi A3? More like the Q5?

    I have to see it in person to get a better idea of the scale.

    Cruze just had a stop-production to fix a quality glitch. Hopefully that's not a bad sign. Chevy needs a good compact car to draw young people to the brand.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited March 2010
    comem47: that was merely in response to the chart that listed Hill Start Assist.

    I guess you don't feel it's important with an automatic, but if so it's another thing to take off that chart.

    That plus I forgot to mention roof rack capacity and total interior space (again, he only mentions the things the Outlander does better). May as well add ground clearance, angle of approach, angle of departure.

    Point is there are pros and cons to both, if you're not wearing blinders that is.
  • The chart is a joke. A very poor sales pitch indeed. No wonder Outie is outsold 10:1 by its bigger Japanese competitors. Just to add Outlander lacks telescoping steering wheel (a very basic feature), power lumbar support, memory seats, power passenger seat, illuminated sun visors among other things.

    Outie GT produces 230 HP with premium which is barely enough for any vehicle to have a GT badge and it gives 18/24 which is again poor when you compare it to say Santa Fe which gives 20/26 in AWD configuration with 275 HP all with regular fuel. Not to say that there is a night and day difference in smoothness and quietness in Santa Fe's V6 as compared to Outie. Hyundai spent lot of money in developing their new engines 2.4 I4, and 3.5V6 and Mitsu spent money on gadgets some of them are just lame for an econobox. Their V4 also fair poorly against its competitors

    Check Mitsu other models and their engines and it seems that the company has yet to produce even a decent V6 that compares well with its competitors in terms of fuel economy, power and smoothness.

    Also I don't hear nowdays about the consumer rating for Outie being better than other models. I guess in that department too Outie lags. With 8.5 rating for barely 5 reviews against 8.7 of Forrester with 57 reviews, there is nothing to brag about it here too.
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    edited March 2010
    >> The GT has AFD (active front differential), but not ARD. That's according to Mitsubishi themselves. So why a score of 2?

    The GT gas two active differentials: front and center. The other 3 cars have none. The GLK ghas inferior braking-based side-to-side torque transfer. That’s why.


    >> You don't score for price. That factor should actually carry the most weight. You don't score for mileage either. All the things where the Forester shows the advantage carry no weight.

    This is comparo includes 2 "luxury" cars so I don’t see price/mileage difference to be appropriate. However the GT vs. XT price difference is small compare to what GT offers.


    >> You list handling but not braking, and no lateral grip. So you omit the results where the Forester does better.

    You may be right here about braking and we I will make the adjustment. However the skid pad difference it tiny: 0.75 vs. 0.76.


    >> Your towing number are just plain wrong. You listed the Outlander's towing for a braked trailer and the Forester's towing for an unbraked trailer.

    You are right and I corrected this. Forester can do 2400 lbs, still it is way below Outlander’s 3500 lbs, so score would not change.


    >> Subaru offers a hill holder clutch on the X models. And I doubt the Outlander has a true metal skid plate.

    This is just your speculation about skid plate and the skid plate type data is not available. Edmunds says that the XT has no hill holder:

    http://www.edmunds.com/new/2010/subaru/forester/101174059/VehicleComparison?op=2- - - - - - - - - - - - - - &tab=features&maxvehicles=5&basestyleid=101174059&styleid=101201397&vehicleindex- - - - - - - - - - - - - - =1&removestyle=101201397&styleid=101243830


    >> Forester is pre-wired for towing, another error. I know because I installed a hitch.

    Edmunds comparo (above) does not agree with you.


    >> Forester has a reclining 2nd row, love mine! Works like a charm. Another error.

    But Forester's 2nd row not sliding. It says there "sliding / reclining". Not quite as charming as on Outlander?


    >> HIDs are available now.

    Edmunds comparo (link above) does not agree with you.


    >> Rear view camera is available in the JDM catalog, and don't say that's not fair becaue the green HIDs you shared pictures of earlier are from the JDM Mitsubishi catalog.

    Outlander Green/multicolor HID option is not used as advantage in this comparo either. And you did not share here Subaru catalog.


    >> Outlander has LED rear lights but Forester had LED interior lights. Omitted.

    We just don’t have enough info on what type of interior lighting is used in all 4 cars. On the other hand the Outlander GT has advantage of having rear Reading Lights which Forster does not and it is not mentioned in the chart.


    >> Subaru offers XM and Sirius, BOTH, and the chart gives it a score of 0? 2 for Subaru, 1 for Mitsu for not giving you a choice.

    XM and Sirius are the unified company after the merger. No point to offer both: Subaru just offers older receivers. We have already discussed this: Outlander Sat. Radio is well integrated into entertainment system and part of the package, while satellite radio is only an optional accessory on XT and cost extra. Availability is also limited: I called my local Subaru dealer and among over 20 cars NONE had it installed.


    >> You gave points for the rear DVD entertainment system but did not include that in the price of the GT. At the $30k you quote it lacks leather and Navi, and you give it tons of points for those options. The amp and audio too, 3 points for an option not priced. That GT would be more like $35-36 grand!

    Nope, the street price $30k includes audio, leather and navi. Check out the “Outlander prices paid” thread or Edmunds TMV. Rear entertainment is not included (it says "street price w/main packages") but still it’s an advantage to have this as option. Rear entertainment is not included in X3 and GLK pricing either.

    >> Even my cheaper Forester has chromed door handles, another error.

    You are right, let's remove this "advantage".


    >> CR Reliability forecast for the Forester is "Much Better Than Average". For the Outlander it's one step lower, "Better Than Average". This is from the brand new April car issue.

    Not the XT turbo version: this one is below average:
    http://s215240594.onlinehome.us/cr_small_cuv.gif

    >> Forester's powertrain warranty is longer than the 3 years you list, another error.

    The powertrain warranty was not specifically mentioned for the XT, however it’s only 5 years vs. 10 years for the Outlander: either way a huge Outlander advantage.


    >>While we're at it, include important things:
    IIHS Top Safety Pick
    So is the Outlander

    >> JD Powers Durability Study

    However JD Power gives the Outlander higher design and manufacturing quality
    http://s215240594.onlinehome.us/Outlander_Forester_kbb1.jpg

    >> ALG residual value awards

    These “residual value awards” are meaningless since they are based on an artificial MSRPs price, but not on a real TMV price

    So after all the corrections the standing has not changed much (see above) .
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    edited March 2010
    >> Just to add Outlander lacks telescoping steering wheel (a very basic feature), power lumbar support, memory seats, power passenger seat, illuminated sun visors among other things.

    Most of these advantages/disadvantages (telescoping steering wheel, lumbar support, memory seats, power passenger seat ) reflected on the chart.
    .

    >>Outie GT produces 230 HP with premium which is barely enough for any vehicle to have a GT badge and it gives 18/24 which is again poor when you compare it to say Santa Fe which gives 20/26 in AWD configuration with 275 HP all with regular fuel. Check Mitsu other models and their engines and it seems that the company has yet to produce even a decent V6 that compares well with its competitors in terms of fuel economy, power and smoothness.

    The fuel economy difference is small considering the GT is quicker and it is using real deal AWD system. But “power and smoothness”? Outlander beats Santa Fe according to Edmunds InsideLine tests:
    0-60: GT 7.9 sec vs. SF 8.7
    Slalom: GT 66.2 vs. SF 61.3

    So Outlander V6 power is adequate. The GT also beats Land Rover LR2 in 0-60 by far (LR 9.3 sec) and few others. BTW, note Santa Fe’s bad braking:
    60-0: GT 130 ft vs. SF 140 ft.

    And speaking of smoothness, SF’s has older 5-speed auto transmission and just basic AWD with no active differentials and no toque vectoring.


    >> Also I don't hear nowdays about the consumer rating for Outie being better than other models. I guess in that department too Outie lags. With 8.5 rating for barely 5 reviews against 8.7 of Forrester.

    Outlander has good ratings in Consumer Reports reliability survey (link from the above post): http://s215240594.onlinehome.us/cr_small_cuv.gif , and it beats Forester in autos.msn.com 2009 consumer rating 9.3 vs. 8.8. Santa Fe gets only 8.6.
  • fushigifushigi Posts: 1,248
    The Outlander GT does have HSA as standard equipment; the other trim lines do not. Check the Safety area at http://www.mitsubishicars.com/MMNA/jsp/outlander/10/specs.do?loc=en-us
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Just as an aside a lot the Outlander "advantages" are irrelevant to a lot of people. The biggest advantage is the towing capacity. For those who tow that may be a real consideration.

    Unless one focuses on one specific vehicle trait in a make or brake decision (such as ground clearance or slolam numbers), the Forester XT comes out on top in agility and safety. The rating of CR is irrelevant as a good rating does not guarantee you a stellar ownership experience and a poor rating does not mean the car is ready for the junk yard. Many people fail to understand what these ratings mean and buy a car because CR predicted a stellar ownership experience only to have the opposite.

    What people want is form and function coming together. The Forester, IMO, does that much better than the Outlander.

    Each car has it's pluses and minuses and I will be the first to admit, there probably is someone on the face of the earth who would base the buy decision of Outlander vs Forester to the Outlander because it had rear reading lights. It just wouldn't be me.
  • fushigifushigi Posts: 1,248
    The rating of CR is irrelevant ...

    Realistically, so are all ratings. Reliability ratings mean little if you get the lemon or the cream puff of the crop. Economy ratings can be wildly different from what people get in real-world driving. Safety ratings only apply to the specific tests conducted and do not reflect all potential real-world accident situations (for instance, uneven road surfaces precipitating a crash will change the suspension compression and chassis flex & alter the exact angle of momentum). Reviewer A's criteria for a desirable vehicle only matters to those who share A's POV. Mazdas, for instance, often rank high in the reviews for their sporting nature but they're never volume leaders in the US.

    Even hard metrics aren't always relevant. Different reviewers get different acceleration & braking times. To compare, we always say you need similar weather & track conditions. Which, of course, means YMMV when it comes to how well you or I will be able to win the stoplight drag race.

    In fact, YMMV is about the truest saying possible when it comes to auto ownership. That's why is so important for people to make a list of what matters to them & their situation. With their personal needs, really-wants, kinda-wants, don't-care-abouts, and don't-want-at-all defined, you can narrow your focus & do actual car-to-car comparisons.

    In my personal case ..

    Ground clearance, while nice to have, isn't a need to me. I won't be off-roading and if the snow is so deep that 8.9 v. 8.5 inches of clearance matter, I'm probably not even going to be driving. I trust my driving ability but casual observation reveals that trusting the ability of the other drivers on the road would be a mistake (I realize they might think the same about me).

    I also don't care to modify my vehicles from stock so having a really good factory audio system is important to me. I'll never buy a convertible but always want a sunroof. I'll always opt for the most powerful engine offered and usually opt for the highest trim line; my ownership pattern tends to be for 8+ years so I want as many comfort & convenience options as I can get. In that same vein, resale doesn't matter to me at all. Versatility matters. Style matters. My brand experiences as well as those of friends & family matter. Dealership experience barely matters in that I won't buy from an arrogant retailer (auto or otherwise); otherwise I know I have options for service. And so on.

    BTW, while ranting about how none of these ratings matters, sitting in front of me is the 90 day JDP survey. :P
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited March 2010
    The F-XT has Active AWD, too, in fact that's what they call it in a brochure. You'd still have to score 1 instead of 0.

    I shopped 4 bangers (normally aspirated) so for me Outlander offered 1400 lbs towing capacity and Forester, 2400 lbs. To be honest the safe amount to tow is limited by brakes anyway.

    HIDs are new, and you should have known about it because I mentioned it before and you even responded.

    You gave 0 points even though the Forester's rear seat reclines. That would have been 1/2 point. Then add the lumbar and telescoping steering wheel, +2 for Forester.

    street price $30k includes audio, leather and navi

    batman47 paid $31,200 and only because he got $500 owner loyalty, so that would have been $31,700.

    Street price for an F-XT Navi is about $28.6k. Different price class.

    Who wants to pay for Sat Radio? BMW makes HD Radio standard and there's no monthly fee to pay. The chart should give more points to HD Radio.

    CR puts the Outlander between the two different Foresters (in that older chart, 2010 Forester XTs will show improvement and CR forecasts Excellent reliability now), plus JD Powers puts the Forester ahead. I don't see that as advantage Mitsubishi.

    Your chart is worse than my brackets for March Madness, and I had Kansas over Goergetown in the final.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited March 2010
    Don't know how I missed this, but they compared 8 cute utes, Forester came in 4th (one point out of 3rd place) while Outlander came in 5th.

    It wasn't as close as it sounds, though. Forester won all 3 subcategories, and the subjective Fun to Drive as well.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    My point was what separates the rankings in Consumers Reports might not be as wide what you think it is. I never buy on reliability ratings because you're gonna get what you're gonna get. So to me they are irrelevant. Unless CR says the engine or tranny is going to fall out by 100K it just doesn't matter. That's what warranties are for.

    I do agree I tend to ask people about cars. It's more important to me to have a car I can virtually throw around than a good sounding stereo system, and I opt for the moonroof as well. I can't live with a car with a lot of goodies that doesn't have some vestige of performance and handling. Unless I'm buying a BMW style matters less to me. Form and function have to come together.

    While different reviewers tend to get different results that is why test drives are important.

    In the end "the grid" that has been floating around is a bit useless for me, since it emphasizes things I don't care about and ignores things I do.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    2 important points:

    1. I just got a quote for a 7 year bumper to bumper extended warranty for $715. Keep in mind that the up front cost difference is more than that. Also keep in mind the TCO difference is also enough to pay for that warranty. And it doesn't increase TCO by $715 because it would eliminate the "Repairs" column entirely for the first 7 years.

    2. As we researched, the reason the realibility rating for the 09 model was "Average" (hardly bad) was that there was a small batch of bad con rod bearings, a problem that has been addressed. Consumer Reports felt comfortable enough to give the Forester lineup a "Much Better than Average" reliability forecast now for new 2010s (April issue, they no longer separate X and XT).

    Factor those two things, plus the JD Powers Durability score, and even a skeptic should feel fine about buying an XT.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited March 2010
    Just looked back, the TCO chart had $662 for the Forester under "Repairs", and $162 for Mitsubishi. Source: chelentano.

    The 7 year warranty for my Forester is $715. So that increases TCO by just $53.

    And at the end of those 5 years, you would still have 2 years of bumper-to-bumper warranty left over.

    The Outlander bumper to bumper warranty would have expired, though it would still have the 100k powertrain.

    Keep in mind when Subaru has had engine problems, they've extended the powertrain warranty on affected cars to 100k anyway, including in the case of the con rod bearings.

    All that proves is it may be worth getting such an inexpensive extended warranty. The value of the warranty has been overstated - it would cost me a $53 increase in TCO over 5 years.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Sorry for skimming your post, but I read it again and I agree with this part:

    Different reviewers get different acceleration & braking times. To compare, we always say you need similar weather & track conditions. Which, of course, means YMMV when it comes to how well you or I will be able to win the stoplight drag race.

    And to be unbiased, I'll show 2 very contrasting results.

    Edmunds 0-60 for the GT was on the slow side, but Car & Driver managed 0-60 in 7.1 seconds in this comparo:

    http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/484f036- 98b354b558bc433d7f1964c72.pdf

    Edmunds slalom for the GT was extremely quick, OTOH. But Car & Drive only managed 58.9mph in theirs.

    So the slow sample had a quick slalom, and the quick sample had a slow slalom.

    The CR-V actually ran a quicker slalom than the Outlander, and it was the slow poke of that bunch. The Tiguan also beat the GT's slalom, and the RAV4 tied it.

    So the reigning slalom champ lost the crown. This test was a direct comparison, same day same driver. Edmunds' car was tested by itself, so conditions could have varied.

    Forester managed 57.6mph, stability control inhibited. That's close (just 2% slower), and I wonder what would happen if they switched that off.

    The Forester's departure angle is 39% better (25 degrees vs. 18 degrees), and if anyone thinks that doesn't matter ask autoblog how fun it was to dig out of the sand when they got stuck in their GT.

    Point is this: 2% is nothing.

    Back to C&D, Forester got off the line the quickest to 30mph, and was in 2nd for 0-60, 2nd in the 1/4 mile (Outlander was 4th).

    Any how, you said it - YMMV.
  • Yesterday, I jumped into my fully loaded $27K OTD XLS (sans navi), opened up the smallish sunroof, turned on the (just) SIRIUS, precariously rolled off the curb with a deficient departure angle, and loped off to the Starbucks at a less than blistering 0-20. A few miles out, I noticed fuel use was plummeting like an H2, prompting me to pop the plasticky dash storage for a tissue to dab the tears. After another mile, I got caught between oncoming traffic and a cyclist. Did my best to slalom past, but nearly nicked my HIDs! At the next stop there it was, the shiniest, roof-rackiest, XT you ever saw, with the most glorious ground clearance. Our eyes locked, her hands gently grasping a smartly telescoped wheel. I gave a thumbs up. She offered a whisp of a smile then was off, never to be seen again, but I somehow knew that we would always be friends. Can't we all be friends.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited March 2010
    Saw this last night on the DC Beltway:

    imageSee more Car Pictures at CarSpace.com

    Pretty funny.

    The RAV4 it was towing is filled up with cargo all the way to the ceiling. The vehicle by itself is well over 3000 lbs so with the overloaded payload, we're talking 4500 lbs or so (with 165hp, it was not a turbo).

    The back window said they were going to Guatemala, so I imagine he was driving to Miami to take a boat there.

    Side note: the guy who bought our 1988 Mitsubishi Mirage was also taking it to Guatemala. So that must be where old imports spend their golden years.
  • Also I don't hear nowdays about the consumer rating for Outie being better than other models. I guess in that department too Outie lags. With 8.5 rating for barely 5 reviews against 8.7 of Forrester with 57 reviews, there is nothing to brag about it here too.

    I'm not sure how accurate this measure is, since its takes Edmunds WAY too much time to post customer reviews. My 2009 XLS review took at least 2 months to post, and reviews of older cars are still to post some 4 months later!

    More interesting, for me, is the precipitous drop off in ratings for the Forester between old/new model years 2008/2009. The Outlander didn't seem to suffer the same fate from old/new model years 2006/2007.

    Also, Edmunds editors seem to favor the Outlander revision over the Forester (and Outback) revisions. Granted, their rating system is a bit broad, and some measures in question are quite subjective, but 7.6 (and 7.5) to 8 is considerable.

    To-date, and with delayed ratings, Forester seems to be fairing better with consumer ratings this year. Outlander stayed consistent 2007-2009, and I believe as 2010 progresses, the Outlander ratings will rise.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    With higher prices for the new Outlander, expectations are also higher.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited March 2010
    Edit: TMV for the 09 XLS AWD started at $21,872. Your score was for 2009 models, the 2010s are not rated yet, and prices have changed.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    They updated their review for the 2010 Outlander:

    http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2010-mitsubishi-outlander-1.htm

    It scores 55/110, one point up from the 54 that the 4 cylinder models score. A bit below class average. Just 17.1mpg for their GT. Ouch.

    Forester XT Limited scores a 71, and earns their Recommended stamp. X Premium gets 70, X Limited 69 points. Class average is 58 so all models do well.

    http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2010-subaru-forester-1.htm

    Interestingly, the turbo got 22.4mpg, nearly matching the non-turbo, likely due to the taller gearing. Plus the turbo makes torque way down low, so no need for high revs.

    Also, Outlander scores actually dropped a little compared to their 2008 model ratings, while Forester scores improved significantly.

    Note: Consumer Guide is not related to Consumer Reports. CG partners with howstuffworks.com and is owned by Publications International. CR is owned by Consumers Union.
  • fushigifushigi Posts: 1,248
    I did a review of my Outlander at least 2 or 3 weeks ago and it has yet to be published. :cry:
  • fushigifushigi Posts: 1,248
    I don't know what the heck they did to get 17MPG; I get 20 pretty much regardless of how I drive - leadfoot or light. Maybe 17 is in stop-n-go traffic. I look forward to seeing what it will get on the highway once the engine is full broken in (IMO after about 5K miles; I'm at 2400 now) and we're off winter-blend gas.

    Anyway, I find some of the comments odd, like not having anything negative to say about 2nd row seating (and neglecting to mention it slides for/aft and reclines) yet apparently dinging it for the 3rd row design when many competitors don't offer one at all. Seems disingenuous.

    The "raucous engine" is probably limited to the 4 cyl model. I've not experienced that. The 6 does have some growl under heavy acceleration but under normal or light it's muted as well as anything this side of a Lexus. And the growl is just what you want to hear; it isn't thrashy like the Ford Vulcan V6.

    They didn't get the memo that the leather on the dash is fake.

    The touchscreen is hard to use for 2 or 3 things, like entering playlist titles, but for everyday things like switching channels/input sources and the like, I find it to be quite intuitive. For instance, Mode - FM - Preset Button gets you to your favorite FM channel. Mode - MusicServer - Playlist takes you to your list of playlists. Without dedicated buttons for each mode it literally can't get simpler. Well, it is a tad simpler; when you change modes it picks up where you left off with your last station setting or song playing from the CD/HD.

    Their specs are wrong if you go to the compare function. They list the GT at 17/23 MPG v. the official 18/24. They lose credibility in my book if they can't even cut-n-paste properly. Makes me wonder if their data & review are a mix of '09 and '10 models.

    Also, while lots of cars have automatic headlights nowadays, they neglect to mention the Outlander's are load-levling. They also skipped the rain-sensing wipers, a safety/control feature that few vehicles in this class have. I'm not even sure if any competitors offer it.

    Interesting that the CR-V and Tiguan are their Best Buys. Literally everyone I know who has ever bought a VW swears they'll never buy one again. And the CR-V fails the test when it comes to max towing capacity, ground clearance ;) , turning diameter, V6 or Turbo availability, 3rd row availability, and other measures. Yeah, I know Honda sells scads of 'em but I just don't see the appeal either in person or on paper.
  • fushigifushigi Posts: 1,248
    2010 GMC Terrain vs 2010 Honda CR-V vs 2010 Hyundai Tucson vs 2010 Subaru Forester: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/112_1003_crossover_suv_comparison/index- .html

    No Outlander in this one but the Forester has, in their opinion, not kept up with the competition. It came in last.
  • I've never considered Consumer Guide a reliable source, mainly due to poorly written reviews. Consumer Reports is only a bit better, but they also tend to be dry & boring, and not very timely. Edmunds used to be more adventurous and earnest. They still do a decent job, although they can tend to fall-in-line with the prevailing market.

    I find it best to balance a decently written review against consumer findings. Edmunds has a reasonable number of consumer reviews, but their timeliness has REALLY fallen off. Maybe they need to hire more staff!

    Another knock against CG is VW. VW is pathetic for reliability. I have also known WAY too may owners that have sold their VWs in disgust. Honda is fine, but not very interesting. A Honda is basically an appliance.

    As for Subarus, I don't care much for the cars, but the owner loyalty borders on fanatical, which is somewhat appealing.
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,109
    It's been taken care of. :)

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