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

1235778

Comments

  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    >> 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).

    Wrong, I attended the new Forester at Chicago auto show.


    >> How much does your Chase Freedom card earn you? 1%? I get 3%. I win.

    Freedom card pays back 3% cash back on 3 top shopping categories and 1% on other categories. So what I do, I have two Freedom cards: Visa and Master Card and I use them for 3 different categories of purchases. So I get about 2.5% back in CASH, not in some subaru points. And Freedom has larger $600 a year cap, vs. Subaru’s $500 a year cap. I get slightly smaller percentage but more rebate cap and most importantly I have freedom. By choosing cash I am not married to one manufacturer and I have freedom to spend my money any way I want, including a car purchase. Some Subaru bux do not enslave me: this time I can buy Outlander - next time i can try another brand. I win.
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    I completely agree. Styling is extremely important and while it is subjective, my opinion is that Subaru is way behind in styling department. The only subaru exterior design I like is WRX. The new Forester looks better than previous ugly station wagon, but the new Forester appears to me as bad copy of Outlander, and while it’s 2 years newer then Outlander it looks to me a 5 years older. You right: styling is the main reason I would not buy Subaru. Otherwise they are well build (little short on technology) but very reliable cars.
  • h2k2f2h2k2f2 Posts: 44
    chelentano:
    It's interesting to me that you haven't replied to my question and comment. Why is that? Come on, it's time for an answer from you.
  • rcpaxrcpax Posts: 580
    The current WRX STi is a good example of that. While looks is definitely is in the eye of the beholder, not too many Subaru aficionados like the current WRX/ WRX Sti styling. Need I say anything about the Evo-X? On the motorsports side of things, just look at the current WRC standing of Subaru right now. They haven't won a single rally since 2005. Shame.
  • rcpaxrcpax Posts: 580
    They suggest mud guards but even that will not stop rocks from hitting the back doors, what should I do?

    WHat you need are longer mudflaps, which I got from autozone for 10$ a pair. That definitely prevented whatever "sandblasting" issue you have. I never had it because I bought one before winter. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure the rear panel will get road debris damage. That's why I bought mudguards and mudflaps early on. A few bucks saved my vehicle's paint work.
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    >> It's interesting to me that you haven't replied to my question and comment. Why is that?

    Why? You are asking the obvious stuff, that’s why. The premium gas, lower payload and higher RPM are in Forester' specs. Turbo engine is always noisier since it is working at higher RPM and with subsequent whistling noise as the air passes past the compressor wheel. No, I haven’t drove it, but very few people did due to its turbo engine problems. Did you? I drove other turbos and they also have common listed issues. 4C turbo is not a good choice of engine for CUV/SUV.

    Quote: "Turbochargers can also be damaged by dirty or ineffective oil, and most manufacturers recommend more frequent oil changes for turbocharged engines. Because the turbocharger will get hot when running, many recommend letting the engine idle for 1 to 3 minutes before shutting off the engine if the turbocharger was used shortly before stopping (what a hassle). This lets the turbo rotating assembly cool from the lower exhaust gas temperatures, and ensures that oil is supplied to the turbocharger while the turbine housing and exhaust manifold are still very hot; otherwise coking of the lubricating oil trapped in the unit may occur when the heat soaks into the bearings, causing rapid bearing wear and failure when the car is restarted. Even small particles of burnt oil will accumulate and lead to choking the oil supply and failure." This is called oil cooking.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    A: Towing for one. lots of 4 cylinders are limited to 1000 to 1500 lbs.

    True for some models, but the base Forester X can tow 2400 lbs.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    At the most, you could use the numbers to compare other vehicles tested by them.

    But that's exactly what I did, for the V6 Outlander and for the Forester turbo.

    Your criticism of the old Tribeca is outdated because that engine was replaced more than a year ago.

    FWIW I ruled out the Tribeca for the same reason I ruled out the V6 Outlander - the gas tank is too small, so range is poor.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    When I hit the $500 cap I switch to a gas card that gets me 1-5% back. ;)

    My dealer's body shop will take Subaru Bucks, so I have plenty of freedom. You can also get bike racks, ski racks, etc.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    styling is the main reason I would not buy Subaru

    Note that I'm going to quote you on that.

    So you have ruled out Subaru for a subjective reason.

    Duly noted.

    While I'm at it, you like the WRX, but many old school Subaru fans do not, so this is a matter of your tastes not matching the typical Subaru buyers. A lot people think the WRX is the least attractive Subaru.

    You keep saying payload, payload, payload, but if that's such a priority, shouldn't torque also be a priority? The XT has a lot more torque.

    You call Subarus "very reliable". We finally agree on something. :shades:
  • 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: 1,457
    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: 390
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.