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

1404143454652

Comments

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Quoting them:

    Consumer Reports has named Honda and Subaru as class leaders for building the best all-around vehicles.

    That previews their April issue.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    (I changed the subject to start a new thread for the MT comparo only)

    I will focus on the objective results/specs from their tests. The Forester ranked:

    #1 power-to-weight
    #2 in torque
    #1 in ground clearance
    #1 in turning circle
    #1 for lightest weight
    #1 for best weight distribution
    #1 for most towing
    #1 for best passing (tie)
    #1 for best brakes
    #1 for most grip (keep in mind the ground clearance)
    #1 for best overall performance (figure 8)
    #1 for best fuel economy

    Best fuel economy is "not that great"? Hello? McFly? I guess the others were really bad, then?

    They say "softly sprung" as if that's a bad thing, yet it also managed the most grip. I see that as great ride and handling, quite a feat.

    Did you also notice it has the lowest price? $9,876 less than the GMC Terrain. You call that fair? That is TEN GRAND less. :mad:

    They could easily have tested the turbo XT model and the price still would not have been the highest.

    More to the point, be honest now, do you really think a 2.4l CVT Outlander would have placed higher? With 168hp?

    We can compare the results from the GT:

    0-60 7.4
    60-0 136 ft
    Gs 0.76
    MT figure eight: 28.4s @ 0.58g

    Forester accelerated in 9.3s, slower as you would expect when you compare a V6 to a base 4 banger. Remember the XT turbo took 6.6 seconds.

    But let's give the Outlander the V6 edge, for fun. 1-0 Mitsubishi.

    Braking was 114 feet, nothing short of amazing. Best in test, and 22 feet shorter than the Outlander GT. That's well over one car length. In an emergency stop, if the Forester had a near miss stopping at a red light, the Outlander would get in a pretty serious accident.

    1-1 tie.

    Lateral grip. Surprise, the "softly sprung" Forester holds at 0.81g. Fasten your seat belts. The GT managed only 0.76g on that same exact skid pad. Not even close.

    Forester 2-1.

    So it comes down to their signature test - the figure 8. This combines acceleration, braking, handling, transitions, and gives one all-around result. Guess what? Exactly tied. 28.4 seconds, 0.58g average. Both figures tied.

    Overall: Forester 2-1 plus a couple of ties.

    So as you can see, when you look at the subjective scores and measures, the Forester more than holds it own, even in an unfair fight.
  • Thank you for the insight. :)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Was I thorough enough for ya? :D
  • imaginaryimaginary Posts: 61
    edited February 2010
    Yes, very thorough. I was not aware that the Subaru Forester had the best turning circle (out of the entire CUV segment?) :)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Not sure but it's a very tight radius. Great for U-turns.

    In the new C&D David E. Davis reveals he bought a Forester for personal use. Can't get a better endoresement from a long-time motor scribe than spending his own hard earned money on one.

    Hasn't he always liked Mercedes and Subarus? :confuse:
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 395
    The Forester beats the Outlander by 4" in turning radius(34'4" vs 34''8"). Either way they are pretty tight. (My previous vehicles felt like I was turning around an aircraft carrier by comparison, having to make a 3 point turn or also being a pain when lining up for tight parking spaces.) Sometime ago I made a U-turn in the road and had to wait for my wife following me to make a 3 point turn in her Malibu with a circle about 3' wider. (she keeps telling me I'm not going to make it when riding with me when I've done U-turns) ;)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Agreed, both are quite good.

    My old Forester (1998) had a very wide turning radius - a lot of times I could not squeeze in a U-turn. The neat thing is that the new one manages a tighter radius despite a longer wheelbase.

    Good packaging. :shades:
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 395
    edited February 2010
    Oops, make that turning circle diameter, not radius at 34 feet and inches :blush:
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    Here are results of Motor Trend test of my 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander, XLS 4WD
    Engine 3.0L/220-hp/204-lb-ft SOHC 24-valve V-6
    Transmission 6-speed automatic
    Wheelbase 105.1 in Length x width x height 182.7 x 70.9 x 66.1 in
    Max Cargo Capacity 72.6 cu ft
    Max Towing Capacity 3500 lb
    0-60 mph 8.1 sec Quarter mile 16.4 sec @ 86.2 mph
    Braking, 60-0 mph 128 ft
    Lateral acceleration 0.78 g (avg)
    600-foot slalom 62.7 mph (avg)
    MT figure eight 28.3 sec @ 0.59 g (avg)
    EPA city/hwy fuel economy 19-20/26-27 mpg (old standard)

    + Excellent warranty, excellent safety ratings, great fit and finish, great standard futures, great styling in and out, great previous Mitsu experience.
    All that for 22.5K (+tax) and 1.9% financing. Good enough for me.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    That's a great price, too.

    I don't think Mitsu is discounting like that any more. batman paid $31.2k for his GT/leather, and that's only because he got a $500 loyalty incentive. So nearly $32k without that for the average Joe (plus tax).

    I think that's the real reason sales aren't up - dealers (and Mitsu) are holding the line on prices. Someone like you walks in and finds the new GT is nearly 10 grand more than your last Outlander, and they experience sticker shock.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Just got the auto issue of Consumer Reports, and it's a Subaru love fest. :shades:

    Forester indeed is a Top Pick. Subaru and Honda tie for the overall brand score, though Subaru's average test score beat Honda 81 to 77. Actually, Subaru beat all other brands listed (page 15).

    They also report on objective measures like ownership cost and owner satisfaction, areas where the Forester really shines.

    Outlander is listed among the "most overlooked" models, and also squeezes in to 3rd in class since they bumped the RAV4 for now. They also show it on the front page of the recommended used cars.
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    Sticker on mine was 26K+ (with appearance pkg.). It took a lot of research and negotiating to get that price. It depends on the local market as well. I think I would be able to repeat that strategy in Chicagoland again if needed.
  • imaginaryimaginary Posts: 61
    edited February 2010
    "Someone like you walks in and finds the new GT is nearly 10 grand more than your last Outlander, and they experience sticker shock."

    Scenario #1
    Dealer: SOMEONE CALL 911! THIS GUY AIN'T BREATHING!
    Innocent Bystander: What's wrong?!
    Dealer: This guy is having a sticker shock!
    Innocent Bystander: OMG!!!!!!!111oneon HOLD ON!

    Lol, sticker shock.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    How long do you plan to keep it?

    We buy and hold. I had my last Forester for 9 years, a Legacy for 7. I don't think I've ever sold a car that was less than 7 years old.

    That's good for long-term costs, we've been able to spend our funds in other areas.

    Right now our oldest car is a 2007 model and I don't plan to trade it in for at least another 3-5 years.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited February 2010
    :D

    As piast implied the XLS V6 model is still available for less.

    Funny post, though. :shades:
  • Does the 2010 Subaru Outback 3.6R Limited use the same AWD system as the 2010 Subaru Forester XT? Or are there some differences i.e. transfer clutch?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    No, it uses the more sophisticated VTD system, which defaults to a 45/55 split.
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    Same here. Considering not so good resale value, I think it is wise to hold them at least 7 years, or as long as power-train warranty is (10 years in Mitsubishi case).
    I hope my next car would be able to get 30 mpg combined, without the extra cost of hybrid set-up, and not at the expense of space or AWD capability. Small / medium sized diesel pick-up truck could make my short list as well. Neither would be available in the next few years, so Outlander will stay with me for a while. So far it was a happy marriage.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I think there is *plenty* of room for improvement in fuel efficiency in this class.

    The base Legacy CVT 2.5i can manage 31 mpg highway, and it's heavier than the Forester. At 80mph they're taching under 2000rpm! The Terrain/Equinox can hit 30 (though those may be FWD) via DI and tall gearing.

    Combine those tricks - a tall CVT and Direct Injection, and there's no reason a Forester shouldn't beat that Legacy.

    I believe both Outlander and Forester are sold in Europe with diesels, though I doubt either meets CARB emissions. Sigh.
  • 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: 1,245
    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: 1,245
    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
This discussion has been closed.