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

1568101178

Comments

  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,016
    Comparison topics get linked between the make/models being compared (although we overlook the linking now and then).

    This discussion should show up in both the Outlander and Forester boards when you look at the topic list.

    The '09 Forester discussion only has the Subaru listed as a make/model, although it also picks up Future Vehicle and Wagons categories.

    It's ok to talk about a car even if you don't own one or even if you have an irrational hate of the manufacturer. Just keep it civil, and on topic is all that's needed. That cross-ventilation does seem to temper the rah-rah effect you sometimes find on a model specific forum where you have to drink the Kool-Aid or go away.

    Someone showing up in this discussion and saying the CR-V is better than either the Outlander or the Forester would be off-topic (but if they were making a relevant point, even that would likely be tolerated by the community).

    So ... anyone test driving this weekend? The local radio spots are loaded with car ads this past week - more than usual. I think the dealers are hurting a bit.

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    >> It's ok to talk about a car even if you don't own one or even if you have an irrational hate of the manufacturer. Just keep it civil, and on topic is all that's needed. Someone showing up in this discussion and saying the CR-V is better than either the Outlander or the Forester would be off-topic (but if they were making a relevant point, even that would likely be tolerated by the community).

    Well said, Steve.

    >> So ... anyone test driving this weekend? The local radio spots are loaded with car ads this past week - more than usual.

    Yea, I am going to test drive the Forester :--)
  • dcm61dcm61 Posts: 1,457
    Yea, I am going to test drive the Forester :--)

    I hope you don't take too big of a hit on your trade-in. :P
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    So ... anyone test driving this weekend?

    Yes, in fact we just test drove a 2009 Subaru Forester LL Bean. :shades:

    I had test driven a Forester X Limited earlier, but the LL Bean model was not in stock because it's been the most popular one. Demand is so high they can't keep them in stock. It's the loaded model with the naturally aspirated engine, basically the fuel miser with all the options. They found a single one and called us in for a drive.

    Plus, the first time I went by myself, this time the whole family went along. The wife drove (we're shopping for a car for her).

    It was nothing new to me, but the Forester has impressively little body roll, and somehow manages to deliver a smooth ride as well. We drove over some train tracks and barely felt them.

    The engine is more than adequate, and moves it along nicely. Fuel economy and range are a priority for her, so she was satisfied with the base engine.

    Loved the perforated, heated leather. Much nicer than the cloth I sampled earlier, which felt durable but not very plush. The LL Bean is very plush, with door inserts that feel like micro-fiber and soft suede at the same time. All 4 doors have padded arm rests, plus arm rests for both rows. The kids loved the fold out bin in the back, which also houses 2 cupholders.

    The 3 of us fit nicely in the back since the salesman came along as well. Both seat backs have map pockets. The moonroof is HUGE, absolutely panoramic, and serves the front and back rows. Outlander owners would be very envious.

    Complaints? The NAV system was not set up properly, I guess you have to select one of 5 Regions. Any how, it did not have an intuitive interface at all. It also said the nearest Exxon was 5 miles away, while I know there were 2 close by that have been there for decades. It also could not find my address, though again it may not have been setup completely.

    Still, I brought my Nuvi widescreen along, mounted it with a clip mount, and the screen is closer to it appears almost as big (4.3" vs. 6.something), and for $199 vs. $1600 or whatever Subaru charges, it would be my choice by a long shot.

    We decided we would not opt for the NAV system, basically. When you get it you also get only a single CD instead of a 6CD changer. We'd rather have the 6CD and a Nuvi for about $1400 less.

    Other nit-picks? The thin-spoked rims on the XT are nicer looking. If I find an XT owner willing to trade, I would. Personal taste. I'm sure the wife could not care less. :D

    One thing that really stood out was how great the visibility is. The wife backed it up in to a tight spot between a row of other Foresters. No problem.

    I remember when we test drove an Expedition in 2002, she got out and asked the lot attendant to park it. With no blind spots and a tidy size, parking the Forester is no problem at all, even for her.

    She might have bought it on the spot if it didn't have the GPS option. Instead we asked the dealer to look for an LL Bean model sans NAV, in one of the two silver colors, or the medium blue, her preferences. She said she would settle for the sage green or maybe the red as well.

    We saw the Outlander at the DC Auto Show but I could not interest her in a test drive (not sure why, she owned a Mirage in the past). I may go on my own, mostly out of curiosity. I would sample the new 4 cylinder CVT model since that's the one that would most closely match her preferred Forester.

    So still no purchase yet, but we're close. Very close.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    Make sure you look at the SE trim; that's the trim to have for the I4 models.
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Posts: 194
    Here's a 5.9 number.
    More info

    Either performance is important or it's not. Performance and handling are very important to me more so than a carful of electronic doo-dads.


    Those numbers are for the previous generation Forester with a 5 speed manual. The new model has more weight and a 4 speed automatic, so those numbers are not accurate.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Those numbers are for the previous generation Forester with a 5 speed manual. The new model has more weight and a 4 speed automatic, so those numbers are not accurate.

    The numbers are accurate for my Forester. I still suspect the XT even with the auto will blow the doors off the rest of the segment. Which by the way have a quick nimble performing CUV would still be important over doo-dads.
  • 10years10years Posts: 48
    Thanks Juice for your write-up.

    What do you think about the CRV and Rogue ? Edmunds and CR rate the CRV at the top.

    It will be interesting to see your test drive impressions on the Outlander and chelentano's on the Forester.

    Thanks guys,
    Ted.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Posts: 1,714
    The '09 XT turbo's rated around 6.5 sec from 0 - 60 on one Canadian site I visited. Performance specs have been hard to narrow down.

    Like the LL Bean commented on here, my '09 XT Forester goes around curves pretty much as if on rails. Most bumps are well handled though speed bumps may leave you with "tail hop" or tossing. The seats are comfortable, and the turbo is far more responsive than earlier Subaru turbos I've driven (including the softer riding '08 Outback XT which offered the standard, annoying-in-town turbo rush). Mileage in city/suburban traffic is not great (around 19 mpg so far). Aside from annoying creaks from upper light console (fixed by wrapping foam around internal wiring) the interior's quieter than past Foresters and reasonable on Oregon's coarse freeways.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    All performance discussions evolved around the XT model, which without doubt would be faster than most SUVs in any class, including the Outlander.
    However, the volume seller will most likely be the naturally aspired H4 with a 4 A/T, which hasn't been known for its straight-line performance or fuel economy.
    According to EPA, the fuel economy for the 2009 Forester non-turbo H4 4A/T is at par with the I4 Outlander, CRV, RAV4 I4 and slightly less than the Rogue which has the best fuel economy out of all of them.
    I haven't seen any performance numbers for the non-turbo 2009 Forester, but MT tested the 2008 Impreza with the same powertrain and it was sloooow!!!!! (9.5 sec to 60 mph). Could the Forester, which is heavier, higher off the ground and boxier, be any faster? I don't think so, at least not until I see some real numbers.
    In this case, how a non-turbo 2009 Forester compare to the 2008 Outlander I4? It’s not going to be any faster or fuel-efficient so what’s next?
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 390
    In this case, how a non-turbo 2009 Forester compare to the 2008 Outlander I4? It’s not going to be any faster or fuel-efficient so what’s next?

    A test drive of course! ;)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    dodo2: SE model, got it. Does it get the same seats as the XLS V6? Those are nice.

    The Forester doesn't feel slow at all, FWIW. Your time for the Impreza is the slowest I've seen. C&D reached 60mph in an Impreza in the 7 second range. The Forester is slightly heavier but that should still put it in the 8-9 second range.

    As for the CR-V and Rogue, the wife didn't like the styling on either one, she especially disliked the Rogue (looks like an egg, she said). I like it, but it is very small inside, especially the cargo room, due to the shape. Form over function. Forester is the opposite.

    Her 2nd choice after browsing at the auto show, behind the Forester, was the RAV4.

    We definitely want something smaller and more fuel efficient than our minivan (otherwise what's the point? We'd just take the van).

    You wrote:

    It’s not going to be any faster or fuel-efficient so what’s next?

    Not sure about that - the Forester is a lot lighter than the Outlander, and has a couple more HP and lb-ft of torque. The CVT might make up for some of that difference, so a test drive is overdue.

    Looking now...Forester is rated 20/26, Outlander 20/25, close enough. The van is rated 17/23, so both meet our criteria. Forester would have the edge on max range due to the slightly bigger tank and Hwy mpg.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    ateixeira:

    I guess the seats shape is the same, but the SE has a unique leather-upholstery combination. It also has few other unique appointments.

    Weight: My recollection from looking at the specs is that both, the Forester and the Outlander I4 AWD are between 3500 and 3600 lbs. (same range as the CRV and RAV4 I4 AWD models); the Rogue AWD is a bit lighter in the 3,400-3,500 lbs. range. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    Impreza 0-60 mph: C/D tested the manual Impreza though. The Impreza was only 0.2 and 0.1 sec. faster than the 2.0L Lancer and 1.8L Civic. Still not very impressive for a 2.5L engine with more HP than both and about the same weight as the Lancer. The Civic is significantly lighter though.

    If you like the Forester better, this is all that matters. My point is that it comes down straight to the personal preference to pick any of the Japanese compact SUVs of today. They all have pluses and minuses, but overall they are very good vehicles. Which one is the best, it’s a personal choice really rather than a standing from a car magazine.

    The only thing is that some people live in the past (or ignorance) and they discount the NEW Mitsubishi models based on irrelevant arguments (resale value, Mitsubishi performance in the US, its past models, its history, etc.).
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I looked it up - the LL Bean model (basically a loaded 4 cylinder non-turbo) weighs 3360 lbs, so it's a bit lighter than most of the competition. It felt that way driving it, too.

    That Lancer and Civic do not have AWD, so it's hard to draw any conclusions from that. Any how, we've driven it on 2 occasions and neither of us found it lacking. It's not bullet quick the way the XTs I've driven are, but fuel economy is our priority right now.

    it comes down straight to the personal preference

    Sure does, and in my case my wife's personal preference, not mine! :D

    She liked her Mirage, so no beef with Mitsubishi from her perspective. What I did not like about that car is it didn't even have power steering. :sick:
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=51689

    Some excerpts from that article:

    new model is larger in every dimension, without being too big

    We like that, as this will be the vehicle we take when we do not need the acreage our minivan offers.

    it is easier to park and manoeuvre - and in the real world it was lighter on fuel than its rivals

    Big plus. I mentioned the parking issue on my test drive. Lighter on fuel is key with oil at $112/barrel. They tested the 4 cylinder models, so it was the best of the best.

    the safest car here

    :shades:

    Rear vision is best in class

    I think I've made that point more than once.

    Any how, they mention a lot of the positives that drew us to the Forester in the first place, and of course it won that comparo.

    FWIW, they have a lot of positives to say about the Outlander, too. Not sure if they ranked them officially, but it sounds like it would have come in 3rd, ahead of the RAV4 and CR-V.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    I stand corrected. The 2008 Outlander SE is 3,547 lbs. So the Forester is indeed lighter, which is a good thing.

    I would still buy the Outlander today as the V6 is a must for me in this type of vehicle (granted that it's powerful and fuel efficient enough, which the 3.0L V6 in the Outlander is). If I were to buy a 4-cylinder SUV, I would definitely consider the Forester as a top contender since I don't like the CVT in the Outlander. On the other hand, if the Outlander SE would have the 6A/T in the V6 or even better the new SST, it would be the clear winner for me.

    Like I said, as far as I'm concerned there is no clear winner in this class as it's all about the personal preference. However, it’s fun to compare and rank them based on measurable criteria.
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Posts: 194
    The Australian models are generally spec'd closer to the Japan market vehicles than the US vehicles. The Australian Outlander most likely has the suspension from the Japan market, which is different than US Outlanders, so don't base a lot on their impression that the suspension felt soft. US market Outlanders consistently rank among the top in handling, and my XLS V6 is definitely not soft in the handling department.

    Safety features also appear to be quite different from US specs.

    I too think a vehicle this large needs a V6. Thrashing a 4 cylinder to get the vehicle moving doesn't usually provide very much real-world advantage in mileage. The Outlander V6 feels and sounds much more upscale than any of the 4 cylinder CUV's I drove last year. My V6 is rated PZEV here in California and gets 25 mpg on the freeway and about 20 mpg in my daily driving mix. I don't think a 4 cylinder is going do be much more efficient/clean than that, just slower and rougher.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I'm sure tire choices are different, too.

    They did use US-spec enginesm, though. The JDM Forester gets a 2.0l, and they tested the US-spec 2.5l.

    20 around town and 25 highway is not bad but to be honest my minivan does better.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Not a good sign, Fitzgerald Mitsu has 12 in stock, but 7 of them are 2007s. I'm cross-shopping a 2009.

    That raises a red flag for me - why is demand so low?

    Also no SE models. :(

    I'd hate to have to go to Rockville Mitsubishi due to a prior bad experience. I may have to.
1568101178
Sign In or Register to comment.