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

1679111252

Comments

  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    Subaru.com says 2400 lbs when properly equipped. It tells you to check the owner's manual for details.
    By having the option, I think you can say the Forester can tow 2400 lbs (at a cost you have to factor in).
  • psychogunpsychogun Posts: 125
    Link to Outlander specs: http://media.mitsubishicars.com/detail?mid=MIT2007111569457&mime=ASC

    The sheet doesn't specifically say "maximum" towing capacity.
    However, since the Outlander V6 including the towing package can tow 3,500lbs (according to the Accessories page), I would say 1,500lbs is the max for the 4-cylinder.
    I think the Outlander Owner's Manual may be best source...
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I will check the owner's manual when I can get to a Mitsu dealer.

    Honestly, the 1000 lbs limit without trailer brakes is pretty industry-standard. Even full-size pickups have that restriction.

    I doubt the V6 Outlander can tow 3500 lbs if the trailer doesn't have trailer brakes.

    As for the "when properly equipped" issue, all you need is the tow hitch and harness, the rest is plug and play. I know some Hondas (specifically, the Odyssey) require oil coolers and power steering coolers, but that's not the case for Subarus.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    June 2008, just came out.

    It beat the CR-V, RAV4, Murano, and Vue Greenline.

    Too bad the Outlander wasn't invited.
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,246
    How To Find Your Car Owner's Manual Online

    Subaru lets you sign up and download an owner's manual. Unfortunately that option isn't available for Mitsubishi.

    Moderator
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    Correction: Rogue instead of Murano.

    Not that it really matters, but remember we were talking about 0-60 mph expected to be rather slow on the non-turbo models (at least this is what I was anticipating)? The MT comparo just confirmed that the non-turbo Forester is the slowest out of all the Japanese cute-ute? I'd blame primarily the 4-speed tranny for that as the car is lighter and the engine slightly more powerful than the rest.
  • psychogunpsychogun Posts: 125
    Though don't have much respect for the auto rags, I'm glad to see that the Forester won.
  • p0926p0926 Posts: 4,423
    the 1000 lbs limit without trailer brakes is pretty industry-standard

    True enough. However as much as it pains me to agree with Chelentano, if towing 2-3k lbs is a regular requirement, a V-6 is going to be the better choice. As the old saying goes, there's no replacement for displacement. But for everyday driving and occasional towing, the Forester XT will run circles around the Outlander :)

    -Frank
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    if towing 2-3k lbs is a regular requirement, a V-6 is going to be the better choice.

    In the past I had two beefy suvs with big V8s and trailer hitches. I used the hitches exactly zero times. If I was going to tow that much as a lifestyle I would get something that could actually handle it. Towing the max load in the Outlander is going to send the gas mileage and performance in the tank.

    If I was going to tow that much weight on occasion, I would rent a SUV. In the long run it will come out cheaper with gas at $4 bucks a gallon.
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 395
    In the past I had two beefy suvs with big V8s and trailer hitches. I used the hitches exactly zero times. If I was going to tow that much as a lifestyle I would get something that could actually handle it. Towing the max load in the Outlander is going to send the gas mileage and performance in the tank.

    If I was going to tow that much weight on occasion, I would rent a SUV. In the long run it will come out cheaper with gas at $4 bucks a gallon
    .

    Now that last statement is real silly (Why are you driving a Forrester then, as it doesn't get much different MPG than Outlander?) Sure my mpg goes to hell when towing, but when not towing I get the same mpg as you. Renting a real gas hog
    is not economical for me the number of times I go snowmobiling in winter. If I wanted real gas mileage then we're talking some 30-40 mpg FWD econobox and I would have kept my old Dakota and Durango for towing (Not Forrester or Outlander in the 20's mpg range). For me this is the best all round solution. The Outlander provides the tow power when needed, but is reasonable on MPG considering it's a 4WD vehicle. (the 1000 lb tow capacity 4 cylinder 160 or so HP AWD vehicles can't cut it and may get a little better MPG, but I would not want to try to merge on the highway towing with them with an 18 wheeler bearing down on you!
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Now that last statement is real silly (Why are you driving a Forrester then, as it doesn't get much different MPG than Outlander?) Sure my mpg goes to hell when towing, but when not towing I get the same mpg as you.

    Because it's faster, and I like the drivetrain better? :confuse

    Sure my mpg goes to hell when towing, but when not towing I get the same mpg as you

    The XT gets better epa numbers than the Outlander. But I won't pick a nit.

    It is my opinion. I know people like to haul stuff. I rent a truck/suv when I need to haul/shlepp. That is why I prefaced my "silly" remark, by if I were doing this as a "lifestyle" choice rather than occasionally.

    If this works for you great.
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 395
    Because it's faster, and I like the drivetrain better? :confuse



    The XT gets better epa numbers than the Outlander. But I won't pick a nit.

    It is my opinion. I know people like to haul stuff. I rent a truck/suv when I need to haul/shlepp. That is why I prefaced my "silly" remark, by if I were doing this as a "lifestyle" choice rather than occasionally.


    The point was not the endless nit picking over Outlander vs Forrester mpg ,but why rent a tow vehicle when either of these in their most powerful forms have plenty of tow power. The V6 outlander does not lose significant mpg vs the 4Cly and same for turbo/non-turbo Forrester, but it's all the difference when towing. My Outlander still gets better mpg than the Dakota or Durango when towing (barely) and significantly more when not. Renting a big pig accomplishes little but extra $ on rental and gas. If one is in it for the mpg neither Outlander or Forrester can compare to FWD econoboxes, but since you own the vehicle anyway they both will do much better than V8 vehicles except for very big towing (My Dakota could tow like 6500 lbs as set up, but I never ended up hauling cars as originally intended (just about 1700 lbs of sleds with trailer. with additional stuff within the back hatch area.) You own it, might as well use it!!! I personally don't see the purpose of a FWD only Outlander. (far more economical FWD choices)
  • p0926p0926 Posts: 4,423
    The Outlander may work great for you and your towing needs but not everyone has the same requirements.

    Someone may want to occasionally tow a heavy load but the rest of the time they just want good mpg. In this case, owning an econobox and renting a full-size SUV or truck when the need arises makes the most sense.

    Someone may routinely tow a large boat or camper. In which case, owning a full-size SUV or truck is the obvious choice.

    Someone may want the utility of a small SUV but not care about AWD so a FWD Outlander might suit them fine.

    Someone may not have any towing or cargo hauling requirements and want a vehicle that gets good mpg and is comfortable. For them, a sedan might be their best choice.

    I could go on and on but hopefully you get my point. Everyone has different priorities when it comes to what they're looking for in a vehicle: price, towing, mpg, cargo capacity, ride, handling, appearance, acceleration, comfort, etc. Any vehicle has its strong points as well as its weak points.

    -Frank
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    It really was a general comment not intended to pick on details. But Frank said in a more eloquent way what I was thinking.
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 395
    The Outlander may work great for you and your towing needs but not everyone has the same requirements.


    Absolutely, but if you go back to the origins of this thread it was about if towing 2-3K
    lbs was a semi regular thing
    . Kdshapiro said he'd rent a vehicle to do the job. My point was if you owned one of these vehicles anyway, then it was within their capability. If you're talking about towing a 5K lb boat these are not the vehicles. And personally for me (yes for me, YMMV) I would be looking at a 35 mpg FWD econobox if towing was not in the equation with gas going towards $4/gal..
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Note that you can't compare 0-60 directly for the cute-utes in that test because the others were all FWD models. FWD model are about 150 lbs lighter and have less drivetrain loss (ask a dynomometer operator).

    It still came in under 10 seconds, and the turbo clocked a blazing fast 6.6 seconds.

    The Outlander V6 splits the difference - about half way between the base Forester and the turbo Forester. So if people think the V6 makes the Forester seem slow, the turbo Forester makes the V6 seem slow. It has about the same advantage.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Rockville Mitsubishi got a 4 cylinder in stock, so I went to test drive it. Oddly enough this was a 2009 model, basic model with very few options. It was weird because they had a loaded 2007 V6 on the show room floor, so they are selling 2007s and 2009s side-by-side.

    First I checked out the loaded V6 in the showroom, then drove the 4 banger, then checked out the V6 again to note the upgrades the high-end models get.

    Sitting in the V6, first thing I noticed is there were no door sill protectors, probably an accessory option, but the Forester has those standard. I love the seats. I wish the leather were perforated, and maybe a little softer, but the shape is perfect, as if the Outlander designer copied the EVO designer's work.

    The arm rests are both padded but they are certainly not leather, sorry chelentano. Put two finger on the material and pinch them together. The soft leather on the seat has small wrinkles. The vinyl on the arm rests does not. It's also a bit shinier so it looks different, too.

    I sat in the EVO in the showroom and guess what? It uses the same faux suede/microfiber in the Forester I test drove. Nice! :shades:

    This is par for the class, but every plastic surface is hard to the touch, and tap on anything and it feels hollow. The high-end model did have a nice leather steering wheel, but the base model I drove did not. They did not have a loaded up 4 cylinder, which is why I checked out the XLS a 2nd time (to note the differences).

    The bin at the top of the dash is useful but hit the button and it pops open undamped, so it feels a bit cheap. Utility trumps luxury, so that's OK. It would be a good place to stash a Garmin GPS.

    The headliner, again, par for this class, looks like recylced dryer lint glued on to cardboard. Subaru does this too. It's as if they got their materials from the local laundromat. C'mon guys, spend 50 more cents and put some padded fabric or something.

    The carpeting feels a bit thin, but I'd say the same thing about competitors in the $20-25k price class.

    The sun visor is, you guessed it, plastic, but squeeze it and you hear this strange crunching sound. Forester's is plastic but at least it feels more solid.

    I popped the hood (this is still prior to the test drive) and found the fluid caps are all different colors. Subaru makes everything yellow, for easy reference, an idea Mitsubishi should copy. They should also copy the neat struts on the Forester that lift the hood for you when you unlatch it. I had to fuss with a prop rod on the Outlander.

    In the cargo area, the clam shell opening is actually pretty neat, and they were thoughtful enough to close the seam when you open it. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the carpet covering the 3rd row seat, which was about an inch short and left an unfinished look. On the right side, some velcro was holding down the carpeting, not sure what it covered (the jack?), but it also looked unfinished.

    Also, it's neat that you can sit there, but a better idea would be if the 3rd row could fold back and be used for true tail gate seating. My Toyota minivan does this. It's very useful.

    The side curtain air bags do not protect the 3rd row, but this is a sin also repeated by Subaru on its Tribeca crossover. How much money do they save with this type of cost cutting, honestly?

    To close the tail gate there is a place for your fingers but some plastic trim right below it had some flash (extra plastic where the molds part) and felt a bit sharp. A strap would work better.

    There is a donut spare underneath and outside. I'd prefer they ditch the 3rd row and include a full size spare. I think only the RAV4 still offers a real spare tire, though.

    The salesman comes get me at this point for a test drive. I'll split this post so it doesn't get too long...
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    This base model felt notably cheaper. The cloth reminded me of the cloth in the Forester, i.e. durable but not exactly plush. Get the leather.

    This one also had 16" rims with plastic wheel covers, which is a shame, because it meant I didn't really get to test the handling much. It did have more body roll than the Forester, which stays flatter.

    I was hoping to like the CVT, but it let me down. It makes the throttle pedal feel totally disconnected from the powertrain. I floored it and it slowly built revs, up to about 4500rpm, then dropped again. Seems like they try to get the engine up to where it makes torque, keep it there, then drop off the revs as you reach cruising speeds.

    The engine actually performs fine. I was alone, so there wasn't much weight in the vehicle, but acceleration was reasonable. I had the windows open and heard the engine did sound rough, but I closed the windows and the vehicle is actually well insulated so it's really not that bad. If you do not tow or haul huge payloads, I think it will get the job done, and cost you less to buy, and in gas and insurance.

    Just make sure you like the CVT. On this basic model, there were no paddle shifters. Though it seems counter-intuitive on a CVT when the whole idea is to find the optimum ratio and avoid stepped shifts in the first place.

    I mentioned this after the Auto Show, but visibility is not good. What I found during my test drive is that the mirrors don't do enough to help - they are far too narrow.

    The trip computer was measuring 7.x mpg when I got in, so I reset it and managed only 9 mpg on my test drive. Still, it's green, so that doesn't mean much.

    I parked and checked out the back seat. The seating surfaces are a bit hard. They slide fore and aft, which is very nice, but to leave room for the doors and shock towers the seat bottoms have a strange cut-out. The head rests hit the back of my neck, so you really have to raise them all the time. Problem is, that may hinder visibility even more. Strangest of all, my head rubbed the ceiling on an XLS with the moonroof.

    So headroom is so-so, but legroom is limo-like. Slide is back and you have all the room in the world, plus there is foot room under the front seat. If you have kids with long inseams and short torsos, they will be thrilled.

    Each door has a molded bottle holder, which may be industry-standard nowadays but it's still a good idea and worth a mention.

    The back seat's arm rest is nicely padded, but the cup holders are too far back.

    What else?

    The exhaust exits are on the right, I prefer the Forester's twin exhaust.

    There is a circular spot in the center console, the salesman said it was for coins?

    The brochure says you can get a PZEV V6 model, but it loses 7hp. The cool thing about the Forester PZEV is that you actually gain 5hp.

    I also found out the 2WD models have a bigger gas tank - 16.6 gallons. We definitely want AWD, though.

    Likes? Seats, available features, and efficiency with acceptable performance.

    Dislikes? Visibility, CVT operation, interior materials (except seats, shifter, and steering wheel with leather models).
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    I stand corrected, I did not read the details I only looked at the 0-60 mph times. However, it's still a 9.5-10 sec vehicle.

    You are right, the Forester XT is very quick and I never argued with that. However, it's expected since it's a turbo and a good, proved one and the car is light for the class. It's definitely superior by a mile to the other turbo small SUV attempts - CX7 and RDX. I wouldn't bash a 4-cyl SUV for not being as fast as a similar V6 nor a V6 for not being as fast as a fairly big turbo 4.
    The V6 Outlander slots in between the fast turbo and the slow 4-cylinder and this is to be expected. The 4WD V6 Outlander is a 8.0-8.5 sec. car which I find adequate and I'm fine with it. I know I wouldn't be satisfied with a 4-cylinder CUV from any manufacturer, not even the Rogue (it's got a CVT which I don't like). But that's just me.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    I think your observations are fair overall. If there is something to nit-pick on the Outlander is the materials and few week points in the fit-and-finish. However, none of the few shortcomings were deal breakers for me. The high points in my list were design (very high), the powertrain, 4WD system, versatility, reliability, fuel efficiency, features, price and when combined, the Outlander LS 4WD did meet my requirements.
    One note is that you have to keep in mind that any base model, from any manufacturer, Forester included, feels cheap by comparison - they all come with steel wheels (with cover or "styled"), urethan steering wheel, lower grade fabric seats, plastic fog lights covers and decontented in general.
    Step up to the mid-trim or top trim and things change (for some) and the Outlander is no exception. I got the LS V6 4WD and I have all the "must have" in my shopping list. I cannot say the same for Honda or Toyota for instance in terms of features/price.
    However, the 2009 Forester 2.5X Premium would meet all my "must have" items.
    Although many Outlander owners have the sunvisors in their dislike list, I don't mind them at all. It's true, I wish they were more solid, but not a real issue for me. I actually like the headliner and I prefer it to the rather cheap ones you find in some of the mainstream vehicles. The luxury cars are a whole different story.
    I like most of the materials in the Outlander, although I would've liked them to be more solid (they do feel a bit hallow) and I would've liked to have the door panels from the MY08. They are only slightly lower grade compared to the hard plastics on the other vehicles in the class. I did not sit in the 2009 Forester, but if the plastics are the same grade as in the Impreza, they are not better than the Outlander in my opinion (actually I still prefer the Outlander). I agree that the CRV has the best materials in the class, but not by much.
    I have the sued-like fabric in my car and I like it so far. It's been holding up very well for more than one year now.
    In regards to the rear seatback, I see what you mean, but is it any different in the Forester? In my opinion, they are as good as in the RAV4 and much better than the CRV. I'll check them out in the Forester too when I'll have a chance. I doubt that you could seat comfortably without raising the headrest, but I'm yet to check it out myself.
    The Outlander is not perfect by any means, but I think it's at par with the rest of the class. It really comes down to the personal preference.
    Oh, and you are right, the door armrests, the door inserts and the center floor console lid in the XLS models are covered with "leatherette" not leather.
    I don't like the CVT either and I would take a 4-speed A/T any day (I'd like a 5,6-speed though).
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    >> Rockville Mitsubishi got a 4 cylinder in stock, so I went to test drive it. Oddly enough this was a 2009 model, basic model with very few options. It was weird because they had a loaded 2007 V6 on the show room floor, so they are selling 2007s and 2009s side-by-side.

    It must be your typo or you talking about Lancer. The 2009 Outlander is not available yet.

    >> I wish the leather were perforated
    .

    It is perforated, just in a different way: on side sitting area, not in the middle like Forester. I do like Forester perforation in the middle more.

    >> The arm rests are both padded but they are certainly not leather, sorry chelentano. Put two finger on the material and pinch them together. The soft leather on the seat has small wrinkles.

    It is vinyl, you r right, but if you don’t inspect it very close it looks like leather and offers more luxury feel.
    .

    >> The headliner, again, par for this class, looks like recylced dryer lint glued on to cardboard.

    The headliner is actually a special unique fabric designed to absorb odor. http://www.buyersguide.com/cars/07_mitsubishi_outlander.jsp
    .

    >> The sun visor is, you guessed it, plastic, but squeeze it and you hear this strange crunching sound.

    The visors feel certainly cheep I agree, but I don’t care.
    .

    >> I mentioned this after the Auto Show, but visibility is not good. What I found during my test drive is that the mirrors don't do enough to help - they are far too narrow.

    Forester visibility is little better, but Outlander is acceptable and better then Murano or CX-7. I agree about the mirror. I went and bought after marker extra wide rear view mirror for $20. Now I have no blind spots.
    .

    >> Strangest of all, my head rubbed the ceiling on an XLS with the moonroof.
    Yea, rear seat head room with moon roof is little tight for a tall person. You must be at least 6 foot I guess.

    The Outlander is the only car I found which fits my requirements: integrated Bluetooth, FAST key, great reliability, preferably 5/10 warranty, styling, aux audio jack, smooth engine and transmission, full-time AWD, priced under $25K.
    All of that I could get in Outlander XLS AWD for about $23.5K, but I went for extra packages.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Motorweek's Outlander V6 took 8.9 seconds to reach 60, but other times I've seen are in the low 8s. Definitely quicker than the normally aspirated 4 bangers (except the Rogue, which just about ties it).

    I pointed out the Rogue to my wife at the car show and she hated it. Too small and strangely styled for her.

    To me the Rogue is too style-over-substance.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Agreed 100% about the base models being notably cheaper than the loaded ones.

    Still, most of my complaints also apply to the loaded V6 on the showroom floor. The seats, shifter knob, and steering wheel are much appreciated upgrades on the interior.

    As for Forester vs. Impreza, Subaru thankfully gave the Forester more upscale door panels. It still has some of the same issues that I had with the Outlander - thin carpeting, same headliner, etc.

    Like I said, for $20-25k prices, this is not a problem.

    As for the headrest, let me explain it better. When lowered, it sticks out a bit from the seat. It happened to hit my neck, so you pretty much have to raise it up all the time. The Forester's sits on top of the seat and didn't create that problem for me. I'm 6' so I doubt shorter people would even notice.

    Personally, I'd pick the manual transmission, but two problems: the wife wants an automatic, and the LL Bean model only comes in automatic on the Forester.

    Oh well, it's her car.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    The salesman told me it was an 09. Rockville Mitsubishi, it was a silver base model. If they are not out yet then he must have been mistaken.

    I can say that the 2008 brochure does not list the SE model, what's up with that? Does it exist? Was it a late model intro, that didn't make the brochure? :confuse:

    I did note the perforations on the sides of the seat, I just wish it covered the whole seating surface. My Miata has leather like that and it doesn't "breathe" well.

    As for the feel of the arm rests, let's rack that up to personal preference. Personally, I think it's a shame they didn't use the same soft leather from the seats there. The vinyl is shinier and doesn't feel the same to the touch. I prefer the EVO's faux suede, again personal preference.

    The Forester's headliner looks identical. Maybe before they installed it on the Mitsu they sprinkled some baking soda on there. :shades:

    Cool that the aftermarket can step in and offer better mirrors.

    For early models, 98-02, the Forester L had tiny mirrors and the more upscale Forester S has big ones. Thankfully, they standardized on just one size and chose the bigger one.

    I am spoiled by the enormous mirrors on my minivan. With those and a fish-eye lens stuck on the back window, I can see well out of that big van.

    Yep, I'm about 6' even, and since it's usually kids in the back seat I don't think the headroom issue is a problem. Plus if it is, just don't get the moonroof. The Forester seemed to have more head room, less leg room. The opposite basically. I sat in the back of the Forester when my wife was test driving it (we had 5 people in the car).
  • psychogunpsychogun Posts: 125
    The SE was indeed a late addition for the '08 model year. It has a couple of upgrades to it like new interior door panel trim, chrome plated door handles, magnesium paddle shifters, and s standard 650watt Rockford Fosgate system with sub woofer (that eats into cargo space). I thought that the side-bolsters on the front seats are leather as well...

    http://media.mitsubishicars.com/detail?mid=MIT2007111569663&mime=ASC

    Several of these upgrades will be available on the '09 Outlander.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Thanks.

    The salesman must have been mistaken. He didn't know how to answer my towing questions, instead referring me to the brochure.

    He could not find the owners manual, but I doubt he spent much time searching.

    As is common in the industry he was more of a sales guy than a car guy. I was focused on the vehicle while he kept bringing up money - how much are you looking to spend? What kind of payments? Do you have a trade? etc.
  • psychogunpsychogun Posts: 125
    I find it distasteful when they bring money up before you've even driven the car.
    Then again, auto sales are dipping noticeably and they are under a lot of duress to make the sale...
    I'm in a similar boat as you, as I'm looking to trade in my Odyssey for a more fuel-efficient vehicle. I'm thinking new Honda Accord... but we'll see.
    Sorry about the off-topic post.
  • p0926p0926 Posts: 4,423
    I'm looking to trade in my Odyssey for a more fuel-efficient vehicle. I'm thinking new Honda Accord

    Okay since we're off topic... I'm curious, the Odyssey get's pretty good mpg for a vehicle its size and I assume that the reason you got it was because you needed the load carrying capacity (you certainly didn't get it because of the coolness factor ;) ) so how's an Accord going to work?

    -Frank
  • craiglcraigl Posts: 12
    After reading all these glowing reviews from Outlander owners, I figured I ought to give the SUV a once over. (I'd initially not considered Outlanders because Consumer Digest and Edmunds had low real-world MPG averages. If memory serves, Edmunds averaged just over 18 MPG over a 1000 miles. CD was about the same, maybe a little lower.)

    So I contacted our local Mitsubishi dealer to find out if they had any V6 AWDs in stock. They did, and they offered me a nice price up front an a new '07 LS with sunroof and big, bad stereo. I stopped by and took the vehicle for a spin.

    I liked the V6 overall. It's not a powerhorse, but it's got enough get up and go for a leisurely driver like myself. The cargo space seemed ample, and I liked the way the vehicle looked from the outside. The brakes and handling were adequate.

    However, the fit and finish were pretty poor all in all. The dashboard and trim looked low buck to me (even for this class) and the displays washed out in the midday sun.

    Overall, I can see why people would like this vehicle, especially given the steep discounts available, but given it's questionable gas mileage, Mitsubishi's reputation for dishonesty, cheap interior, and good enough, but forgettable performance, the Outlander is not among my finalists (Forester, Outback, CR-V, and RAV4).
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Did you try the CVT model as well?

    I'll ask the whole group - has anyone driven the V6 and CVT models back to back?
This discussion has been closed.