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

1626365676878

Comments

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Subaru broke their own record, up 38%. Best February ever.

    Forester was up 6%, and it that gain sounds small, remember that last Feb was also a record month, with sales up 107% from Feb 08.

    Outback was up 159%. :surprise:

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Subaru-of-America-Inc-prnews-1229975928.html?x=0&.- v=1

    Time to bump the Camry from the SIA plant and start building more Outbacks.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Mitsu down 10%. Toyota was only down 9%. That's nuts.

    Suzuki is positively dying, though. :sick:

    http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100302/RETAIL01/100309979/1- 401
  • I don't understand poor Mitsu sales. They really don't have a weak product in their line. Sure, the Galant doesn't have a 6, but many makers are backing off their 6's to show better mpgs. The Galant might be the best mid-size value available! The Lancer is plenty capable, good-looking and safe. The Outlander is tops. The Endeavor is fine. Even the Eclipse isn't bad. I guess their sportiest car could use AWD for greater performance, but it would be foolish to depend on the Eclipse to turn around a company. (then again, I guess that's what they're doing with the EVO :confuse: )

    I guess its just poor advertising and insufficient dealerships.
  • fushigifushigi Posts: 1,232
    As a two-time very satisfied Mitsu owner even I'll admit the product line-up doesn't compare favorably across the board.

    I do like the Lancer and feel it has a lot to offer. Sporty styling and a good interior are starters. After checking out the compacts at the auto show last month I was amazed at how cheap the new Focus and current Corolla interiors were by comparison. The Civic was a mess; my wife is short and complained a lot about the dash layout, especially the "hump" gauge on top on the regular instrument cluster. How many cars in the Lancer's class offer knee airbags? The only one we know of is the upcoming Cruze. I haven't price-shopped so I don't know how the cost compare to the competition. Lancer's fuel economy is OK but only OK.

    EVO's price makes it a non-starter for all but the sports crowd.

    The Galant looks OK but is outdated, especially compared to other non-Camcords like the Sonata and Fusion. And the 4 cyl lags others in the MPG race. My prior car was a '99 Galant so I'm saddened to see the car not be more competitive.

    Endeavor is decent. Has good styling but lousy MPG. It also took 2009 off (2008, none for 2009, and back for 2010), which could not have helped visibility.

    Eclipse & it's variations have competition from the Altima Coupe, not to mention the reborn Mustang and Camaro crowd who might just prefer RWD in their 2-doors. The Eclipse is also heavy and somewhat slow for a sports coupe.

    The Outlander, my current ride, is IMO a very nice vehicle. Clean interior with lots of modern features, not unreasonably priced, aggressive styling with the new front end. IMO it compares favorably in it's segment.

    The Lancer sedan & Sportback and Outlander are Mitsu's shining stars right now. And I think they know it as those two (specifically the Sportback & Outlander) are getting advertising support. While I would like to see them in tandem lift Mitsu's sales, I think the reality is that until an all-new Galant that's class-leading in some way is revealed Mitsu will continue to just limp along at these sales levels.

    There is the i-MiEV coming in a year or two, but that will be a niche car. EVs remain expensive to buy and the i-MiEV is really just a city car like the Nissan LEAF.

    I know in Europe Mitsu OEMs the Outlander to Citroen; perhaps with partnerships, cross-selling, and other options they can grow their presence (if not their brand).
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    The volume models are old - Galant and Eclipse.

    I agree with you about it being foolish to depend on sport coupes - they suffer from "flavor of the month" syndrome. They're hot when they are brand new, but sales drop off quickly as new competitors arrive. So you only get decent volume for a short period.

    Galant is how old now? I think it came out in 2004.

    Remember when model cycles were 4 years? Now 5 years is par for the course, but the 2010 Galant is in its 7th model year. That's ancient. I doubt they'll have a new one for 2011 so that'll be 8 years.

    Endeavor also came out in 2004. It's been ignored as well.

    Volume models generate showroom traffic. If dad buys a Galant, he sees a Lancer for his son, an Eclipse for his daughter, and maybe an Endeavor or Outlander for his wife.

    Few feel motivated to enter a Mitsubishi dealer to check out an 8 year old sedan, especially when the competition has had one (often 2) full model updates.

    VW made the same mistake. Remember when the Golf V came out in Europe, and they kept selling the Golf IV here? The new model was several years late. VW lost touch - they were trying to market the luxury Phaeton and forgot their bread-and-butter volume model.

    Since then, the Golf VI arrived and the USA is getting the new model right away this time.

    Result?

    VW sales up 33% in February, and up 36% for the year.

    People are flocking to VW dealers to check out the new Golf. And who knows? They may end up buying something else.

    Interesting new volume models = showroom traffic = sales.

    The Outlander's biggest problem? The Galant.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited March 2010
    I know in Europe Mitsu OEMs the Outlander to Citroen; perhaps with partnerships, cross-selling, and other options they can grow their presence (if not their brand).

    And Peugoet as well, all of PSA.

    Who wouldn't want to see this replace the Eclipse?

    image

    It's just a concept but it will inspire the new Peugoet 407. And it looks H-O-T!
  • p0926p0926 Posts: 4,423
    US News & World Report rated the worst small SUVs according to thier Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). Unfortunately, the Outlander led the pack (definitely not a category you want to be #1 in):

    The Outlander has a bold new look, with a snarling, outsized grille and angrily canted headlights. It looks mad. It looks poised to eat the car in front of it. It looks cool. It’s also sporty, with sharp handling. And with one of the longest warranties in its class, it seems like a good deal -- until you run the numbers.

    IntelliChoice gives the Outlander a value rating of “Poor.” Its TCO ranges from $38,938 to $39, 545 -- that’s nearly double the car’s base sticker price. Heavy depreciation and high insurance costs are the culprit – and there’s nothing you can do about those.


    In comparison, the Forester was recommended as a Better Buy (than a Kia Sportage):

    Better Buy: Last year’s Motor Trend “Sport Utility of the Year,” the Subaru Forester is more expensive than the Sportage, but in the long run, will cost less. Its TCO starts at just $30,818, and earns the Subaru an “Above Average” rating from IntelliChoice. Yet the Forester offers more cargo space, sportier handling, and when it comes time to replace it, much higher resale value than the Sportage.

    Read the full article here

    -Frank
  • fushigifushigi Posts: 1,232
    Interesting. They're essentially saying a GM SUV won't depreciate like a rock. Don't all GM vehicles depreciate like crazy? The Terrain runs about $3K more than the Outlander so even if it doesn't depreciate as fast, you're paying more for that privilege. The Terrain gets better economy but it will take years and years for that to cancel out the higher up-front costs. And with a shorter warranty, the Terrain has the potential to be costlier to maintain, especially after 5 years.

    My Outlander GT, the highest trim available, costs under $900 a year to insure with comprehensive that well exceeds state minimums. I can't see the GMC being significantly cheaper such that it would really matter to long-term ownership costs.

    Anyway, not to argue the point but Intellichoice's data must differ from other sources. The sidebar on that article links to "Best affordable small SUVs", an article where the Outlander, while behind the Terrain, ranks #6 of 22. The Forester was #7.
  • authurdentauthurdent Posts: 82
    edited March 2010
    While I'm not crazy about USNews rankings, their's is an aggregate of many review sources, and yes, the aggregate ranks the Outlander a bit higher than the Forester.

    I don't care about depreciation, since we keep cars for around 10 years.

    As for insurance, it costs us HALF as much to insure the Outlander than it would have cost to insure a Mazda3, and just a bit higher (PA rates) than the figure cited above.
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    edited March 2010
    >> IntelliChoice gives the Outlander a value rating of “Poor.” Its TCO ranges from $38,938 to $39, 545 -- that’s nearly double the car’s base sticker price. Heavy depreciation and high insurance costs are the culprit.

    It appears IntelliChoice contradicts itself. According to IntelliChoice and this chart Outlander insurance cost less vs. Forester. Overall 5-year cost of ownership difference is only $118. In any case note that Outlander is much better equipped, so you get more car for the money.

    If we look beyond 5 years, Outlander will cost less to own due to lower repair costs: much longer 10 year p.t. warranty and better reliability. Forester powertrain warranty ends after 5 years while it is less reliable vs. Outlander according to the USNews data you promote. In fact Outlander is the second most reliable in that 22-car comparo.

    image
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Insurance is less, because the Mitsuibishi is a slug compared to the XT. Maintenance will be somewhat higher with turbo. So you get a faster more agile car vs a car with more doo-dads. You pick it.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Shows that Mitsubishi indeed may kill unprofitable subsidiaries/operations:

    http://www.autoweek.com/article/20100311/CARNEWS/100319961
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited March 2010
    He also compared the wrong models.

    We should compare the XLS to the less expensive XT Premium.

    You have to add packages to the XLS to get all the doo-dads you mention.

    Edit: TCO for the 2010 XT Premium is $41,593, so a few grand less.

    For reference, a 4 cylinder 2009 Outlander SE 4WD has a TCO of $42,207, and that's not even a V6, no options either. And I bet a 2010 is higher.

    source: autos.yahoo.com (linked from the article)
  • p0926p0926 Posts: 4,423
    edited March 2010
    "It appears IntelliChoice contradicts itself. According to IntelliChoice and this chart Outlander insurance cost less vs. Forester."

    First off, I think I made it quite clear that the article didn't directly compare the Forester to the Outlander. If you don't think the Outlander should headline the "Worst Small SUV Money Pit" category, then you should take it up with US News and Intellichoice.

    Secondly, the statement that the "Outlander is much better equipped, so you get more car for the money" is totally subjective and dependent on what factors a buyer considers a priority.

    -Frank
  • Rgarding cargo space in the 2010 Forester. The base model has more cu feet than the premium amd limited. Does anyone know why this is? The base does not have a moon roof so maybe this the reason.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    That is exactly right.

    If you think about it, you're not really losing any space, unless you were stuffing things up against the headliner, which is doubtful.
  • fushigifushigi Posts: 1,232
    That reminds me of something I noticed at the auto show. The Forester was level but the cargo area was not. It had a minor slope down towards the back of the vehicle. Now, for children's toys that would be good as it would make balls easy to retrieve, but for anything you might need to keep level, like a birthday cake, there's a potential problem.

    I don't know that it would dissuade me from buying one; just something I found to be a little odd.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited March 2010
    You mean the cargo floor, or the seat backs once folded?

    The cargo floor seems level to me, and that leaves a 42.2" wide (B) by 35.5" long (E) area for your cake. That's plenty.

    Pic:

    image

    Unless you have a 3 foot wide cake? :surprise:

    Maybe the kind that a cute girl pops out of?

    image
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Why is the head unit offset from center?

    It's a little off to the right, putting it farther away from the driver. If anything, it should be offset closer to the driver, for a better viewer and easier reach.

    Here's a pic to show what I mean. Top is original. Bottom is my "fixed" position, where it should be. Is this because of JDM models that have the steering wheel on the other side?

    imageSee more Car Pictures at CarSpace.com
  • Thanks for the info on the Forester trunk size. It appears one of the main complaints of the Forester is rattles. Do you think Subaru will address this? I now own a RAV4 and this is not a problem. We would like to replace our old Passet and thinking about a Forester. We like the looks but rattlews would drive me crazy.
Sign In or Register to comment.