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

1235752

Comments

  • h2k2f2h2k2f2 Posts: 44
    Please define precisely what constitutes the boundaries of the designated topic. To me, these posts fall within those boundaries.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Mazda CX7 and Mitsubishi Outlander, both offering better performance and premium features (Xenon headlamps, navigation, DVD, premium sound systems etc) than any other CUV in this class. Mitsubishi standard V6 uses regular, has more rear leg room (39") and cargo room (39 cu ft) better warranty and price.

    They touched upon everything that is unimportant to me and more importantly they do not have better performance then the XT. The RAV4/Outlander/CX7 will see the tailights of the XT in a "street race", peformed on a track of course. :) Of importance to me.

    - First on the list. Good performance, the XT has great performance and will smoke all other CUVs in this class with a reported 5.3 to 60.
    - Second. Great AWD. Subaru fits the bill.
    - Third. Earned safety awards from IIHS.
    - Fourth. Okay handling. The Symmetrical AWD has about the most neutral handling and is okay for what it is and better than it's competition in this class.
    - Fifth. Minimum of creature comforts. XT Prem fits the bill. Don't care about anything mentioned above...and this coming from a loaded 330i.
    - Sixth. A car where the warranty wouldn't matter because it was reliable.
    - Seventh. The Forester is modable. My mechanic made his old one into a twin turbo.

    So while other CUVs have a more upscale attitude, the Forester gets down and dirty, which is what I wanted.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    We can conclude that no car is perfect, and no car company either. What matters is how they handle the problems that inevitably come up.

    That's common sense, I'm sure we can all agree.

    SoA (Subaru of America) did a good job handling the head gasket issues for the pre-2002 models, fixed them free of charge even for those out of warranty, and even extended the warranty.

    The latest engine issue affected 0.17% of turbo engines in a different country (no US models have been affected), yet Subaru took the initiative to order a stop-sell until the problem is completely resolved.

    Clearly they are taking the intiative to address any problems that come up.

    One would hope that Mitsubishi would do the same thing today, as well.

    Unless anyone really thinks the Outlander is 100% perfect? No car is.

    A couple of Mitsubishi fans are trolling the Subaru threads blasting the Forester, so that's why the tone has become so negative. Unless they are unhappy with their Outlanders, I have no idea why they'd be in a Forester thread in the first place, yet they are and they refuse to leave.

    The same people are also in the Pilot vs. Tribeca vs. Murano vs. Highlander thread, again why are they even there? If a Mitsu were added to that topic, it would be the Endeavor anyway, not the Outlander.

    These folks are baiting people to get in these arguments, and the tone inevitably goes bad.

    I am sorry that I fell for that "bait".

    Most of you seem like nice folks and your posts are balanced and reasonable, it's just a couple of bad apples that increase the noise ratio.

    Certain people have come to the Subaru boards using words like "lemon" to describe a turbo engine that they don't even know whether or not is affected, calling Mazda and Toyota owners "Subaru patriots" (I personally own a Miata and a Sienna, so go figure). Even here a certain person implied I was enslaved.

    Clearly they are inciting arguments.

    Any how, forgive me to stooping down to their level.
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,109
    To me, these posts fall within those boundaries.

    Personal shots do not fall within these boundaries.

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    At the time of those reviews, 09 XT wasn't available. Old one wasn't even in the same category. Please, fill free to post any performance numbers to compare, other than 0-60 time, which is great by the way.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    They're still trickling out.

    Here is a good first drive from Edmunds:

    http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124405#1

    Highlight (for me):

    we could throw the Forester into corners without worrying about throwing it into the trees at the same time. A vehicle so high off the ground should not be able to corner like this, yet it does. It should roll and dive, yet it doesn't. We just couldn't get over it. :shades:
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Old one wasn't even in the same category

    I disagree with that. Sure the '09 has been improved over earlier models, but it's a real stretch to say older models weren't in the same category. Clearly each competitor has their strengths. Where Subaru bests the competition, and has been doing so for years is under the sheet metal. If that doesn't matter to you....cool, buy an Outlander. I wanted a utilitarian vehicle that had some get up and go. One drive in an XT sold me.
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    I hope you are not talking about me. I never went to Subaru forum, and since this is a comparison, it is displayed under both makes. And since we are comparing Outlander with Forester (check this tread title), we can voice our opinions on either. You can always start new tread: “Why I love my Forester”, and you won’t see any of us from Mitsu site.
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    What I meant, other cars were just released new, improved models (RAV4, Outlander, CX7, RDX, Edge), bigger, faster and more refined than few years old Forester. It was more like a small station wagon than SUV, and there is nothing wrong with that. Many people bought it for it size and AWD alone. Personally I trust Subaru and Mitsubishi equally. I love Evo vs. STI fight. Unfortunately I don't like Subaru designs of recent years.
  • A couple of Mitsubishi fans are trolling the Subaru threads blasting the Forester, so that's why the tone has become so negative. Unless they are unhappy with their Outlanders, I have no idea why they'd be in a Forester thread in the first place, yet they are and they refuse to leave.

    The same people are also in the Pilot vs. Tribeca vs. Murano vs. Highlander thread, again why are they even there? If a Mitsu were added to that topic, it would be the Endeavor anyway, not the Outlander.

    These folks are baiting people to get in these arguments, and the tone inevitably goes bad.


    I have to agree with you on this one. I have been following this forum for past one year and I have seen this attitude from some of the Mitsu fans. These people go and open threads comparing Outlander with X3 and RX350 and dissing other people's opinions. They try to bait you in a discussion and then start parroting about the fast key, paddle shifter, music server, 6 speed and so on but fail to understand that people might have different set of priorities. Some people will just not buy Outlander because of Mitsu's prior record and low resale no matter what and that is not going to change over night. Some people would have had good experience with a Honda and Toyota or a Ford and want to stick with that Or some people just do not care about the paddle shifters and fast key.

    If these things things were so important to people then I would like to ask why are 2007 Outlanders still sitting in the dealer lots with dealers ready to sell it for nearly $4500 below invoice price. Obviously something is missing with the Outlander. Mitsubishi wanted to make a good small SUV and it did but still Outlander has to go a long way to become a mainstream SUV.
  • rcpaxrcpax Posts: 580
    Indeed it still has a long way to go, and fans, and I'd say that will include me, are giving the Outlander the exposure it needs (for free :P ). Sadly not too many people in the US realize the true value of the Outlander, or even consider Mitsubishi as an alternative, always overshadowed by Honda, and Toyota. Go to Europe, and the thing sells at a premium.

    Some would even say it's pointless to be discussing the motorsports achievements of Mitsubishi, like the Lancer Evo helping Tommi Makinnen win the driver's title 4 times in a row, and the Pajero Evo winning the Dakar rally 7 times straight (beating Volkswagen and BMW by a stretch), 12 in total for the whole history of Dakar. But without the famed reliability of the Lancer Evolution winning all these rallies, I don't think there'd be too many enthusiasts wanting to buy the car.

    The Outlander's poor sales is not a result of poor engineering or poor reliability. It's lack of exposure, and poor dealership support in some cases. Speaking for myself, having owned the Outlander 1 and a half years, I'd say I made the right choice. Subaru was of course in consideration while I was deciding, but I refuse to pay extra when I have a cheaper option that offers me what I needed a lot more extras.

    It will take years before Mitsubishi's sales gets anywhere near its Japanese rivals in the American market, no arguments with that one. But makes you wonder why owners rate the Outlander much higher than owners of the 09 Forester do for the Forester.
  • It will take years before Mitsubishi's sales gets anywhere near its Japanese rivals in the American market, no arguments with that one. But makes you wonder why owners rate the Outlander much higher than owners of the 09 Forester do for the Forester.

    I heavily considered the '08 Outlander before eventually selecting the '09 Forester. I agree that the Outlander appears to be an excellent value and has some fantastic features. I'm a huge fan of the hatch/tailgate combination -- brilliant idea. Rockford Fosgate stereo? Hell yes. Paddle Shifters -- gimmicky but fun. Ability to select the 4WD mode? Cool. 10 year warranty? Perfect.

    Combined, the '07 and '08 Outlander have 133 reviews averaging out at 9.1 overall on Edmunds. Impressive.

    The new Forester has 8 reviews. I hardly think that's a fair comparison. I won't even get into statistical significance, because I think it's plainly obvious that 8 data points isn't an adequate comparator. If there was only 1 review for the Forester that was a perfect 10, would that make it better than the 133 reviews averaging 9.1? I don't think so.

    We'll need to give it a little time before you start pointing to Edmunds reviews as evidence of superiority either way.
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Posts: 194
    - First on the list. Good performance, the XT has great performance and will smoke all other CUVs in this class with a reported 5.3 to 60.


    Where are you getting that 5.3 second number from? It seems unlikely that a 3440 lb CUV with a 4 speed automatic and 224 HP can get anywhere near that number.

    The RAV4 has 269 HP and goes 0-60 in the 7 second range. It should take more than 300 HP to get a CUV under 6 seconds.

    Either way, it's a CUV/people hauler not a dragster.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    No, not you, but there are 2 Outlander fans in the Forester thread (why?).

    One of them is also in the Tribeca/Pilot/Highlander/Murano threads. Those don't even compete with the Outlander. They are Endeavor competitors.

    suvsearcher1 is telling me they are also in the X3 and RX350 threads. Sad.

    rcpax wrote: "it's pointless to be discussing the motorsports achievements of Mitsubishi" yet a certain Outlander owner is doing exactly that in the TRIBECA thread. For cryin' out loud! :mad:

    The previous Forester was an IIHS Top Safety Pick, so in in safety terms, it certainly was in the same league.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    makes you wonder why owners rate the Outlander much higher than owners of the 09 Forester do for the Forester

    Ballot stuffing? ;)

    But seriously, certain passionate owners? I think that's a good thing. And sharing your passion in a relevant place, like a public review of the Outlander, is the appropriate place to do so.

    Not a Forester thread. Not in Tribeca/Murano/Highlander/Pilot thread. Not in BMW and Lexus threads by a long shot.

    Yet that's exactly what is happening. And that's why the tone became so negative.

    The folks posting now are a whole lot more reasonable, so it's been a pleasant exchange of different opinions. The way it should be.
  • Are you sure it's not a thread that shows in the Mitsubishi forum also? Some comparison threads are cross linked into several different forums, and can be seen in from several different models. If not, and they are actually seeking a fight in a thread that has no mitsubishi relevance then that's downright flaming.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I don't see how "2009 Subaru Forester" would be linked to the Mitsubishi Outlander.

    It should not be in the comparison thread, either, because those are larger SUVs, but if it is, it's because that person asked the Edmunds hosts to add it there, incorrectly so.

    Edit: OK, I checked. Here are the vehicles cross-listed for that discussion:

    What is this discussion about? Nissan Murano, Toyota Highlander, Subaru B9 Tribeca, Honda Pilot, Acura MDX, Volkswagen Touareg, SUV

    Not sure if you can subscribe to the entire SUV category, but even so, Outlander is clearly not in that discussion.

    that's downright flaming

    Thank you, so now you understand why I was upset. I've already apologized, and I'll do so again. Just be aware that I was baited, big time.

    There is, in fact, an appropriate discussion called "Outlander vs CX-7 vs Tribeca" which has been inactive since Sept 07. At best he should have posted the Dakar results there.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    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.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    But makes you wonder why owners rate the Outlander much higher than owners of the 09 Forester do for the Forester.

    That is easily explainable. I would give the Forester a 10 for everything it does well, performance, handling, AWD system, reliability, gas mileage, a lot of car for the price paid. The things that bug me however, would lower the score into the 8s. Four speed tranny, no steering wheel controls, no passenger electric seat, interior cabin noise at highway speed.

    The real question is knowing what I know today would I do it again. Well if I was buying the car today it would be a 335i, don't need another CUV today. Back when I bought the car I needed a CUV and I would make the same decision again.

    Bottom line, what the vehicle does well it does very well. What it doesn't do well is not as important as what it does well. But what it doesn't do well would knock a few points off the score.
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 395
    I don't see how "2009 Subaru Forester" would be linked to the Mitsubishi Outlander.

    It should not be in the comparison thread, either, because those are larger SUVs, but if it is, it's because that person asked the Edmunds hosts to add it there, incorrectly so.

    Edit: OK, I checked. Here are the vehicles cross-listed for that discussion:

    What is this discussion about? Nissan Murano, Toyota Highlander, Subaru B9 Tribeca, Honda Pilot, Acura MDX, Volkswagen Touareg, SUV

    Not sure if you can subscribe to the entire SUV category, but even so, Outlander is clearly not in that discussion.



    FYI: I'm reading this thread (and always have) under a title in the outlander group called "Mitsubishi Outlander vs. Subaru Forester" and this crossposting thread has existed there for quite some time. I can only speak for me, but that's how I found this discussion and read it out of curiosity as an Outlander subscriber.Just go from the top Forums / SUVs / Mitsubishi Outlander and you will see it (and has been
    a daily active thread for some time among many of the Outlander threads now idle)
    There also is a currently inactive thread called the reverse (Subaru Forester vs Mitsubishi Outlander)
  • steverstever Viva Las CrucesPosts: 41,312
    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
    Minivan fan. Feel free to message or email me - stever@edmunds.com.

  • 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: 1,475
    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: 1,745
    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?
This discussion has been closed.