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

1568101152

Comments

  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    I wonder if they have a different setup in the UK for the 4WD Lock mode. The description clearly states 50:50 split which is first time I see it.
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    I wonder the same thing. Either this is a simplified description ("the Outlander AWD for dummies"), or they made an adjustment for the 2008 model. The AWD description for 2007 Outlander you referring to is not available any more on US site.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    You sound like Bill Gates talking about Windows Vista.

    Oh really? When I see proof of how excellently the Mitsu system operates, I'll believe it. Until then it's all theory.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    It is not my explanation, but Mitsubishi's official description of the system. There is nothing to interpret; it's written in plain, simple English. If you don't get it or you don't want to get it, it's fine by me.

    I'm not seeing it, so let's drop it.

    The 4WD system is not optional in the Outlander 4WD; it is standard.

    Yes, and in the Outlander 2WD it's non-existent. So on the Outlander, AWD is optional.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    The way I see it, the Outlander has the most advanced, effective and versatile AWD system in this price category.

    The way I see it, they had to offer this hodge-podge of options in order to keep the gas mileage competitive.

    "when is a full time AWD drive system not a full time AWD system"

    On an Outlander of course.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    When "4WD Auto" mode is selected, the Outlander 4WD system always sends some power to the rear wheels, automatically increasing the amount under full-throttle acceleration. The coupling transfers up to 40 percent of available torque to the rear wheels under full-throttle acceleration, and this is reduced to 25 percent over 40 mph. At steady cruising speeds, up to 15 percent of available torque is sent to the rear wheels. At low speeds through tight corners, coupling torque is reduced, providing a smoother feel through the corner.

    Time for english lesson: increasing the amount under full-throttle acceleration. very clear. Says increases amount under full-throttle acceleration, not half-throttle acceleration or partial acceleration.

    At steady cruising speeds, up to 15 percent of available torque is sent to the rear wheels.

    Up to 15 percent. The bias is 85/15. It does not say automatic torque transfer under partial accleration, similiar to the Forester.

    Hency my conclusions.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    I think that would broaden the appeal, just don't put hokey switches into the thing like the Outlander. Subaru can build an efficient AWD system that's kicks the competitors butts without having the driver look out the window to determine if it is raining.
  • rcpaxrcpax Posts: 580
    Subaru can build an efficient AWD system that's kicks the competitors butts without having the driver look out the window to determine if it is raining.

    How does your Subaru "efficient" AWD then knows when to adjust torque, slippage, etc? You make it sound Subaru has a thinking AWD system that doesn't need feedback from the wheels.
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,157
    We're bogged down in details that frankly, 90+% of the buying public doesn't care about (or may not even realize that there's a difference).

    So, let's move the talk back to the rest of the rigs and take the 4WD/AWD stuff over to 4WD & AWD systems explained. Paisan's up on the new Forester in there, plus he's well versed on Mitsu as well. He can settle all the arguments. :shades:

    thanks.

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

  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    You make it sound Subaru has a thinking AWD system that doesn't need feedback from the wheels.

    Needs feedback from the wheels, not people.
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,157
    Moved your post:

    dodo2, "4WD & AWD systems explained" #1041, 29 Apr 2008 8:40 am

    KD also posted over there so I cut him some slack on the wheel feedback post. But we've moved on in here. :shades:

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

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I did not say “37 to 30 height”. These is approximate vertical clearance for two different vehicles. The 35” was your number.

    You said the Outlander had 37" vertical clearance, and the Forester had only 30".

    My tape measure read 35" for the Outlander, 32" for the Forester. So you overstated the advantage by more than double.

    Now you back off and say "approximate". Yeah, approximate as in off by 2 inches. :D

    I will take a tape measure to the Mitsubishi dealer. I'm curious to see if I can jam a 37" tall item in a 35" opening. ;)

    You didn't even address the part where you said the Outlander's cargo area was wider and I measured a 4" advantage for the Forester.

    But let's go back to how all this began. I took a tape measure to the Auto Show and measured those dimensions and commented that tall cargo areas (best example: RAV4) are not as useful as they seem because you have to stack things tall.

    Things like grocery bags do not stack well, you would crush groceries.

    In that context the Forester has a very usefully shaped cargo area - a big, square cargo floor. Sure it's not as tall, but you have more width and may not have to stack things up as much.

    Outlander has 16% more cargo volume with rear seat lowered

    Yes, by EPA volume, that's correct.

    But that still doesn't make the cargo area wider, which is what you said.

    And you would probably need a Sawzall to cram in that 37" tall box.

    $40 per year is not a giant deal but $240 per year over 10 years is $2400 in gas savings, likely higher due to ever increasing gas prices.

    I just found out the PZEV Forester makes 175hp, more than adequate for such a light crossover and $2400 buys a lot of toys. :)
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    My tape measure read 35" for the Outlander, 32" for the Forester.

    I just measured the cargo dimensions this morning to figure out if the box Subaru demoed in one of their videos would fit in the Outlander (it seems like it would).
    The cargo vertical opening is between 36.5-37". You can jam a 37" object in, provided that you remove the floor mat (if you have one like I do) and perhaps don't mind rubbing the ceiling a bit.

    The Outlander's cargo is also significantly deeper - aprox. 39 inches from the top of the seatback in the most forward position (Outlander's rear seats slide back and forth few inches) and with the seatback up (it reclines too).
    From this link, 2009 Forester Dimensions, I see that Forester's floor is shorter - 35.5" at the base of the seat. That dimension in the Outlander adds another 1-2" so it would be around 41-42".
    Where the Outlander lacks is the distance between the wheel wells, where it’s about 37" vs. about 42" in the Forester.
    However, I think the Outlander would fit anything that the Forester would if you change the orientation of the object to use the depth of the cargo instead of the width.
    If you have a 36"x36"x36" cube you are out of lack with the Forester, but OK with the Outlander (just an example). Still, the Forester's cargo space is pretty good too.

    Another observation, from the Forester's cargo picture it seems like the narrower floor dimension is right behind the rear seats (the side panels don't seem to run parallel) and not where the measurement was taken (E). I may be an illusion though due to the picture.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Does yours have a moonroof? That could explain the difference. Mitsubishi had 3 Outlanders on display at the DC Auto Show and all 3 were loaded up V6 models. Both the ones I sat in had the moonroof.

    2 of them had the black interior and one was that lighter color, beige-ish.

    What about a cargo liner? (edit: you answered that, yes)

    Are the 2007s any different than the 2008s?

    I will measure again on my test drive and note the presence or lack of a moonroof and liner.

    Subaru only had one Forester on display, and it was an LL Bean model with a moonroof. Without that option you actually gain a few inches in cargo height, but we're still getting a moonroof anyway.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Found some good specifics for the Forester, if anyone has a similar site for the Outlander please share.

    http://www.cars101.com/subaru/forester/forester2009.html#dimensions

    They measured 34.5" for the Forester, 2.5" taller than I measured, though they measured in the middle. I think I measured at the lowest point, towards the side, hence the lower figures for both models.

    Can you double check that? Measure 2" or so in from the outer edge of the door.

    If not I will when I finally get out to a Mitsu dealer.

    A little further up on that page they say the model with the moonroof has 5.3 cubic feet less space, but in reality that's way up at the roof level so you don't really sacrifice usable space.

    I don't jam things up against the roof liner because that would dent it and leave ugly indentations. That actually happened to my previous car. :(
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    I don't have the moonroof, but as far as I know, the moonroof only affects the headroom for the rear passengers, but I'm not sure - this was one of the reasons I did not care for the moonroof (plus the fact that it would've come bundled with the RF audio and the subwoofer in the cargo space.
    I needed/wanted a good cargo space (with the rear seats up) and this is one of the things that the Outlander offered.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    I don't jam things up against the roof liner because that would dent it and leave ugly indentations. That actually happened to my previous car.

    This is why I'd say 36.5" is safe with the floor mat and without touching the ceiling.
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,157
    Someone please go buy a few thousand ping pong balls and visit your local dealers this weekend.

    Failing that, I suppose we could consider how many cases of beer will fit behind the seats as a suitable substitute.

    Don't forget to number those ping pong balls before you fill up the interiors. :D

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

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I keep the seats up, too. Too much of a hassle to remove the kiddie seats and then put them back. If it doesn't fit, it goes on the roof! :D

    Forester's moonroof is different. It's huge. It goes over the back seats, so when you retract it, it has to go somewhere - so it eats up that 5 cubic feet or so of space at the ceiling of the cargo area.

    For me that doesn't matter. Like Steve said, I'm not piling up ping pong balls. I just want to know if that Big Box item is gonna fit.

    So that's how I measured - minimum clearance for a boxy item.

    You sure about that 36.5"? It's probably taller in the middle, and tapers down at the ends. I was measuring the lowest point, so that could explain it. I'm just measuring in a different place than you.

    For the Forester I can't recall if the lowest point was where the middle seat belt mount goes, or the indentation for the moonroof. But it's the opposite of the Outlander - it's shorter in the center, because of that indentation. Towards the outer edges, it's actually a bit taller.
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    I measured... The highest point in the middle of liftgate opening is36.75" on the sides 36".
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    I'd say 35.5" on the sides is safe, with some room to spare.

    Ateixeira: 36.5" I measured in the middle (where the the measurement for the Forester was taken).

    Also note that due to the fact that the Outlander's cargo floor is significantly lower, you could pile up more stuff behind the rear seats. This is another thing I liked about the Outlander's cargo space. I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the rear seats fold and tumble instead of fold the seatback alone.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I got 35", chelentano got 36" the 2nd time, you got 35.5". Let's call it 35.5". Fair enough.

    Any how, there's no 7" advantage as chelentano originally stated. It's less than half that.

    I don't want to split hairs, but the usable space is closer than the EPA volume would make you think, because the Forester has a nice, wide floor behind the 2nd row.

    These are supposed to be compacts, after all. What I expect is something light, fun, efficient. I can buy most big box items at Costco and still fit it inside.

    Plus, I have the minivan. 148 cubic feet of space. And that's before I fold the front passenger seat flat. Even behind 2 rows and 5 passengers I have 99 cubic feet. That's what I consider "big". :shades:
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    You looking into hypothetical situation of transporting a single 36" x 36" almost cubical box. How often we actually have to do that? Typically we have to transport several smaller then that boxes/items. Costco and Ikea are good examples. At Ikea most of the boxes are flat and long , but not of a cubical shape. So EPA volume is actually very useful number, besides it's objective and independent, so we don't have to argue our half-inch measurement differences. The Outlander has 16% more EPA volume space, even after accommodating folded 3rd row kiddy seat and it also has better payload/tow ability.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Most boxes are not that tall, they are wide and long, for stability. The Forester's cargo area is ideal for those.

    I'm looking at the more fuel efficient 4 cylinder models. Among those, the Outlander is rated to tow a maximum of 1500 lbs, while the Forester can tow 2400 lbs.

    So for me the Forester actually tows more.

    Among the base engines the Forester also has a few more pound-feet of torque pulling about 300 lbs less weight, so it should be better able to haul a heavy payload.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    By the way, I find it more than a little amusing that when it comes to cargo volume you find the EPA "objective and independent".

    Whenever I mention the 17mpg EPA city fuel economy number you dismiss it completely and proceed to offer your own observed fuel economy results that are clearly not independent.

    You want to have your cake and eat it.

    If we accept the 16% extra EPA cargo volume, then we should accept the 18% better EPA city fuel economy for both the base 4 cylinder models.

    The 17mpg EPA city fuel economy number for the V6 Outlander is, as you stated, objective and independent.

    I'm not telling anyone not to choose the V6, all I'm saying is you should respect the desires of those who choose more fuel efficient models for whatever reasons they may have. It's not just about the $200-240 per year savings, it's also increased range per tank, fewer stops at the gas station, fewer emissions, and less imported oil.

    If you don't care about those things, that's your perogative, but I do care.

    The Honda Fit, yes, I know! My mom owns one. They're nice. Love them. We just want a designated snow vehicle, so a Fit does not fit our needs.
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    No LLBean Forester can only tow 2400 lbs. but with trailer brakes.

    Otherwise, without the brakes it's only 1000 lbs. The 4 cylinder Outlander can tow 1500 lbs. with out the brakes.

    The Outlander trailing capacity would also be higher with brakes though it's unknown.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I don't think so...they state max towing capacity at 1500 lbs for the 4 cylinder. C&D listed standard and maximum in their review at 1500.

    The Forester can tow more.
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    >> Whenever I mention the 17mpg EPA city fuel economy number you dismiss it completely and proceed to offer your own observed fuel economy results that are clearly not independent.

    I am not sure what you mean. You probably confuse me with someone else. I am fine with EPA fuel economy numbers. Yes, the Forester has slightly better fuel economy, but don't forget that Outlander is heavier and it delivers more power to the rear axle.
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    >> don't think so...they state max towing capacity at 1500 lbs for the 4 cylinder. C&D listed standard and maximum in their review at 1500

    I got my info here:
    http://www.cars101.com/subaru/forester/forester2009.html#dimensions

    Can you provide a link to your data?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison_test/crossovers_and_suvs/mud_pupp- - ies_comparison_test+page-7.html

    That's the review itself. The on-line copy does not include the towing data, but the print copy does.

    So my source is Car & Driver, "Mud Puppies - Comparison Test", February 2008 issue. Article starts on page 38. I could scan it in but that would be violating a copyright.

    1500 lbs towing, standard and max, for the 4 cylinder model.
1568101152
This discussion has been closed.