Mitsubishi Outlander vs. Subaru Forester

kdshapiro · May 2008

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.

comem47 · May 2008

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)

p0926 · May 2008

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

kdshapiro · May 2008

It really was a general comment not intended to pick on details. But Frank said in a more eloquent way what I was thinking.

comem47 · May 2008

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..

ateixeira · May 2008

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.

ateixeira · May 2008

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...

ateixeira · May 2008

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).

dodo2 · May 2008

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.

dodo2 · May 2008

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).

chelentano · May 2008

>> 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 dont 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 dont 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.

ateixeira · May 2008

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.

ateixeira · May 2008

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.

ateixeira · May 2008

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).

psychogun · May 2008

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.

ateixeira · May 2008

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.

psychogun · May 2008

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.

p0926 · May 2008

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

craigl · May 2008

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).

ateixeira · May 2008

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?

rcpax · May 2008

Gas mileage? I am averaging 22mpg with the V6 on my mixed drive this spring. I used to get 18mpg on the same route (work-home-grocery) when the vehicle was new, but once it's all broken in, mpg improved way above current EPA estimates. Now, I don't know how many 3.0L V6s get the same mileage.

As for the rest of your personal preferences, I could argue otherwise, but what's the point? The world would be such a boring place if people have the same preference.

busta4 · May 2008

"it's questionable gas mileage, Mitsubishi's reputation for dishonesty, cheap interior, and good enough, but forgettable performance,"

Nicely put, good luck not settling for less.

your lucky not to have to find out what the Outlanders cheap plastic sounds like in an interior after a few miles on it. forget the discounted price, you get what you pay for.

rcpax · May 2008

your lucky not to have to find out what the Outlanders cheap plastic sounds like in an interior after a few miles on it. forget the discounted price, you get what you pay for.

I drive the same vehicle as you do, got it Dec 06, so far no rattling sounds. As for getting what I paid for the price, I'd say I got more bang for the buck. But sounds like your experience is different.

forget the discounted price, you get what you pay for.

If you are looking for luxury in your interior, BMW or Mercedes might be the right vehicle for you.

biscuit_xls · May 2008

If the V6 Outlander has "forgettable performance" then I'd really like to hear how you rate the 4 cylinder CUV's, because the CRV and RAV4 were both dog slow and sounded like the engine was going to explode when merging onto the freeway every time I test drove them. The Outlander V6 has plenty of power and it delivers it smoothly.

Fuel mileage on all of the competing CUV's is going to be within a few points either way. The 4 cylinder models don't get that great of mileage in real world usage because you have to work the engine harder just to get going. The turbo engines suck fuel like crazy if you use the power aggressively.

My Outlander has ZERO rattles after 14,000 miles... I can't say that for my other two cars (both Honda's).

craigl · May 2008

The V6 on the Rav4 isn't dog slow. It's a rocket, and it gets surprisingly good gas mileage. The Outlander certainly is faster than the other vehicles I'm considering, but the others are plenty powerful enough for a plodding old timer like me. (Okay, I have to admit that I liked the getty up and go on the Rav4, not that I'd need it.)

As to forgettable performance, I was writing in general about the handling, braking, acceleration, turning radius, etc. The Outlander does fine in all those areas, but it didn't make a lasting impression one way or the other.

ateixeira · May 2008

Try a CR-V or Tiguan, maybe.

psychogun · May 2008

My apologies for the OT in this post.

I have 3 kids, that's why we got the Odyssey. One in a regular seat, one in a booster, and one in a full car-seat.
The new Accord is just about wide enough to still seat all three in the back. We'll see...

Regarding craigl's Outlander test-drive.

While "feel" of a cars' handling will always depend on personal preference, it's worthy to note that in terms of raw numbers, the Outlander handles better than the RAV4 in all aspects except acceleration (and, depending on the source, braking).
But again, that's just by the numbers. You gotta go with what "feels" right for you.

biscuit_xls · May 2008

I was referring to the RAV 4 with the 4 cylinder engine, it's slow and noisy. The RAV4 V6 is rocket ship, check the RAV4World forum for real world mileage and reliability. The RAV4 was my second choice, I'm glad I chose the Outlander because I really enjoy the tech features.

"Handling, braking... turning radius" I think you need to take that test drive again, the Outlander does great in those categories. Best in class in my opinion, and I drove everything at least twice before I made my purchase.

rcpax · May 2008

The Outlander does fine in all those areas, but it didn't make a lasting impression one way or the other.

Of course it won't, because it's a Mitsubishi Outlander. But if it was a Toyota Outlander or a Honda Outlander, it will.

piast · May 2008

"Overall, I can see why people would like this vehicle"
That's why
"..The automatic transmission is almost as smooth as the new CR-V's, while the engine provides considerably more power. The combination is far superior to the RAV4 despite the Toyota's higher horsepower figure, the Outlander is a better highway companion overall.... the Outlander handles steeply banked highway onramps with superb control and minimal body lean, giving the driver a sense of confidence not found in many SUVs  compact, car-based or otherwise.The ride was also car-like. Bumps were softly muted and road noise was minimal...Available with an optional manual four-wheel-drive system, the Outlander is one of the more affordable four-wheel-drive SUVs on the market, ...Surprisingly, the new Outlander seems to outclass its competitors on just about every front, although the RAV4 does offer more power with its optional V-6 engine (269 horsepower)."

dodo2 · May 2008

Just be aware that the RAV4's display does wash out in the sunlight too and the interior could rattle. Check out the rav4world.com forum so you don't set yourself up for disappointment. The RAV4 V6 fuel economy is only marginally better than the Outlander with the benefit of the much more power (and not so nice torque steer). There are few more driving experience related issues like throttle lag and throttle suden surge (check www.nhtsa.dot.gov).
Oh, and if you live in a snow area, be aware that the in the RAV4 you cannot easily turn off the VSC system and you may get stuck on few inches of snow (again check the above mentioned forum for more information).
Other than that, buy which ever car is best for you.

ateixeira · May 2008

Any interior could rattle. Are you saying an Outlander's can't?

Do we really need to ask busta4 to elaborate on what exactly he meant by "you get what you pay for"?

No vehicle is perfect. Toyota sells a ton of them, so there will be more owners to complain if a problem creeps up.

People here have said CR rates the Outlander as reliable so far, sure, but CR also measured satisfaction with dealer repairs and only 44% of owners were satisfied. Among manufacturers they were 2nd to last, beating only VW (infamous for terrible dealer service).

Maybe busta4 is among that other 56% that cannot get their problems fixed in a satifactory manner at a Mitsubishi dealer? And the other poor guy with the peeling paint?

It's a good thing the Outlander has been reliable for most people. Imagine if it wasn't!

Instead of defending Mitsubishi, why don't you guys help them out and write letters to Mitsubishi to take action to fix these issues? That's what forums like these are for.

I just think some of you could be a lot more helpful and do something constructive instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to any and all criticism of the Outlander.

ateixeira · May 2008

Please, busta4, elaborate on what you meant by "you get what you pay for". Don't spare any details. The floor is yours.

In the spirit of trying to help, have you called 1-800-222-0037 to complain directly to Mitsu corporate? Open up a case number and ask them to put pressure on your dealer to fix the car to your satisfaction. Don't give up, keep calling until some action is taken.

Remember you are in the majority - 56% of Mitsubishi owners are not satisfied with the service they are getting from their dealers.

The number for Subaru is 1-800-SUBARU3 by the way, because no car is perfect.

If you think it affects the safe operation of the vehicle, and this goes for any model, file a report with the NHTSA ODI (Office of Defects Investigation), here is a link for that:

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/ivoq/index.cfm

Competition is good, and improves the breed. The last thing we want is for any competitor in this segment to become complacent.

ateixeira · May 2008

Same thing to you, regarding the paint chipping, complain! File a report.

We were discussing the subject in another thread, and someone said they were actually able to get a Mitsubishi dealer to repaint their bumper for free.

dodo2 · May 2008

Any interior could rattle. Are you saying an Outlander's can't?

No. I'm saying exactly the same thing as you do. However, the OP was listing the potential for interior rattles as a negative for the Outlander or an inherent attribute. I was just pointing out that the RAV4 is notorious for interior rattles. People suggesting that buying a Toyota or Honda would mean a better build and no rattles are just uninformed. They do rattle too, they do have defects too, they have bad dealers too and by the numerous owner reports, Honda and Toyota could be rather arrogant with the customers.

I just think some of you could be a lot more helpful and do something constructive instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to any and all criticism of the Outlander.

Personally I just react to the posts coming from people that don't own, don't know anything about the car, didn't even drive or come near the car, don't know anything about the other cars they proclaim superior, but yet, they bash the Outlander.

And the other poor guy with the peeling paint?

The paint is not peeling, is chipping, which is a different thing.
Oh and I meant few times to point this out to you, in a friendly manner not in the context of the Forester/Outlander debate. If you are getting the Forester, take a close look at the bulging fenders as I have a strong feeling that they may be subject to similar issues, due to the very similar shape of the rocker panel. Try to imagine the trajectory of a stone thrown by the outer edge of the front wheel and see where it would hit. Unless the Forester has a very strong paint (although all cars today have rather soft paints due to environment regulations) , frequent hits may cause paint chips too. They don't occur right away and you may notice them too late. I would keep in the back of my mind the option to get some mud guards from the get go.

ateixeira · May 2008

Agreed, no vehicle is perfect.

I wasn't really complaining about the way you react. It's not hard to guess who I was referring to.

I remember some EVOs that had their warranties voided when Mitsubishi employees infiltrated several message boards like these. So when I see people behaving suspiciously like Mitsubishi employees, well...you never know.

Whatever we end up with, I will be ordering the factory mudguards, if available. Subaru used to make them standard, nowadays they are an accessory item. Note the photo on the right of this page, how there is unpainted black cladding on many of the lower portions of the Forester, surely that's an attempt to prevent chips by design.

I don't have the Outlander catalog here (it's at home), but someone shared a picture of some mud flaps that I felt were too big for a daily driver. The really wide, red ones. I think they had a Mitsubishi logo on them.

I still think the Mitsu dealer should re-spray his bumper. How old is the vehicle, less than 2 years?

rcpax · May 2008

I still think the Mitsu dealer should re-spray his bumper. How old is the vehicle, less than 2 years?

Does Subaru cover paint damage due to sand, gravel and stone?

p0926 · May 2008

People suggesting that buying a Toyota or Honda would mean a better build and no rattles are just uninformed.

I disagree. Toyota and Honda both have a hard earned reputation for reliability and build quality. While no manufacturer is exempt from having the occasional lemon roll off the line, statistically speaking, the chances of that happening with Toyota or Honda is somewhat less than with Mitsubishi or Subaru.

-Frank

dodo2 · May 2008

Reading the RAV4 and CRV dedicated forums ( I can suggest rav4world.com and hondasuv.com) gives you a different perspective.
You are exactly right, Honda and Toyota, while they are not bad brands by any means, are currently raiding on they "hard earned reputation".
I had an '89 Honda (Acura) car which was still amazing after 16 years. However, 2000+ vehicles are not the same. I have few friends owning 2001Civics and while the were fine overall, they weren't trouble free. One of them had previously a '97 Civic in which I rode for few months and we were both in agreement that the 2001 was a step behind in terms of build quality and materials.
I drove a Camry for few days and while the engine was refined ( I did not like the sedate driving experience), the materials and build quality (misaligned interior/exterior panels and rattles) were only average at the best.
Before Outlander came out, for a few months I was contemplating buying the RAV4 V6. I was a bit concerned about dropping this amount of money in a car that could end up with a puddle on the front passenger side, rattles from various sources, throttle lag, get stuck in few inches of snow, etc.
Don't trust me - go check it out yourself.
Would I buy a Honda or Toyota product? Yes, if they would offer a car for my liking. Would I equally buy a Subaru, Mitsubishi or Mazda product? Yes. In fact I have a 3 year old Mazda3 which was as reliable as a car can be, not to mention the rewarding driving experience.

kdshapiro · May 2008

Some time reading the RAV4 and CRV dedicated forums ( I can suggest rav4world.com and hondasuv.com) and maybe you will have a different perspective.

I've been in enough models of each to believe there really isn't an issue with either. If you want to believe the internet boards, go right ahead. But I take them with a grain of salt as, I believe only the unsatisfied will yell. With these modesl from Honda and Toyota falling off the dealer lots, I can believe some models will have some problems. However, I did not hear rattles or see misaligned panels.

The AWD systems on these vehicles are another matter and I'm not really sold on the on-demand nature of it, but that is a separate discussion.

p0926 · May 2008

Some time reading the RAV4 and CRV dedicated forums and maybe you will have a different perspective

I doubt it. Online forums by their very nature tend to distort problems. In fact that's one of my biggest beefs with Edmunds... any old crackpot can start a new topic with the primary intent of bashing a given make and model

Then the unsuspecting visitor drops in to do some research about a vehicle they're thinking about buying and they get cold feet because of all the negative stuff they see posted.

Has Honda's and Toyota's quality slipped some? I would agree that yes they have slightly but thye're still the industry standard. Here's an excerpt from Motor Trend's current cute-ute comparison test:

"As with all Hondas, everything about the CR-V feels like it's built to tolerances alien to the hands of slapdash humans"

So while the other Japanese manufacturers (Misubishi, Mazda, Nissan and Subaru) all have admirable records, IMO, they are still a step (albeit slight) below Honda and Toyota.

-Frank

kdshapiro · May 2008

So while the other Japanese manufacturers (Misubishi, Mazda, Nissan and Subaru) all have admirable records, IMO, they are still a step (albeit slight) below Honda and Toyota.

While there are a few things that irk me about the Forester, fit or finish aren't either. No doubt the higher end RAV4 or CRV are higher end than the Forester in terms of accutrements. But for what it is, the stuff on the Forester works fine. My only warranty repair necessary or that was needed to date was a broken plastic, rear seat switch flipper downer thingy.

stever · May 2008

(although all cars today have rather soft paints due to environment regulations)

I think that's an urban legend. Just because modern paints don't contain lead and have low VOC, the advances in formulation and application (electroplating, clearcoats, etc.) has more than made up for any perceived advantages of paint from the 50's or 80's.

Then there's auto paint getting tested in Japan that's self-healing and will actually fix the odd scratch over a week or so, but I haven't heard much about it lately.

Meanwhile, some 3M or Stoneguard film may be worth it to you.

dodo2 · May 2008

Then there's auto paint getting tested in Japan that's self-healing and will actually fix the odd scratch over a week or so, but I haven't heard much about it lately.

IIRC Nissan EX35 has such paint (standard or optional I'm not sure).

Could be an urban legend, but I have seen countless posts from owners of many brands, including luxury brands, complaining about the paint chips.

Sure, some 3M clear film is your friend ....

dodo2 · May 2008

If you spend some time on the model-dedicated forums I'm sure you'll gather a lot of first-hand real life reports. I'm not talking about forums like Edmunds.com, MotorTrend, C/D where non-owners or occasional posters come and go without bringing anything to the table. Also, the car magazines reviews are the least trusted sources of information IMO. Most of the times they are full of inaccurate and unsubstantiated information.

I agree that Honda and Toyota have a slight edge over the other Japanese manufacturers from certain stand points, but they are not a guarantee for a trouble-free ownership by any means. The thing that I will argue about is that this slight difference is blown out of proportions by the car magazines and perpetuated by the vast majority of the buyers that only use the car magazines and main online auto outlets as their sole source of information.
Again, personally, I wouldn't have a problem to buy the vehicle I like from any of the Japanese manufacturers today.

dodo2 · May 2008

Note the photo on the right of this page, how there is unpainted black cladding on many of the lower portions of the Forester, surely that's an attempt to prevent chips by design.

The Outlander has the same plastic cover on the rocker panel, but that's not where the chipping occurs. The vulnerable areas are the lower part of the doors and the bulging part of the fender/rear door. Mitsu also put some clear film on, but it's just not enough.
I'm yet to check out the Forester, but it's just my gut feeling that it's exposed to the same problem. When you get the car, drive through some mud an see where the dirt collects on the side of the car.
Luckily, there are ways to protect the Outlander from this issue. I wish Mitsu had done it from the factory, but I'll end up doing it on my own anyway. Not overly concerned about it. I got few paint chips myself, from before I put the mud guards on, but they are easy to touch up and when I'm done, they'll be covered by the clear film and the door side garnish I bought from Japan (Mitsu accessory).

craigl · May 2008

I just think some of you could be a lot more helpful and do something constructive instead of having a knee-jerk reaction to any and all criticism of the Outlander.

Amen.

ateixeira · May 2008

The person I was referring to did have his bumper re-painted free of charge. That's why I brought it up.

What I'm saying is if someone comes to complain about a problem, instead of arguing with him or her and getting defensive about how great your [insert model name here] is, why not try to help them out?

This is why I provided the 800 numbers for both Subaru and Mitsubishi.

In a tight-knit owner community you might even see a letter writing campaign to get one particular problem fixed for free.

In other words, instead of alienating someone who comes to complain, try to help them out instead.

Test out my theory. Go to a Subaru thread, tell them you are shopping for a used Forester, and ask what sort of flaws to look for. What you will get is full disclosure - look for wheel bearing issues on models prior to the 03 redo, head gaskets on the 99-02 models, check the front and rear main seals for oil leaks, drive in a figure 8 to test the diffs, etc.

For Mitsubishi you get "this the most reliable car in the world and you have a 10 year warranty" but noone tells you dealers only fix 44% of the problems that come up to your satisfaction.

Is the warranty even transferable? I will not be surprised if I don't get an answer.

biscuit_xls · May 2008

It's one thing to complain, but when the person declares that the vehicle/manufacturer is not even worth considering because a single issue then it usually results in flames. It's a few rock chips, get over it, protect your vehicle, or buy something else.

dodo2 · May 2008

Test out my theory. Go to a Subaru thread, tell them you are shopping for a used Forester, and ask what sort of flaws to look for. What you will get is full disclosure - look for wheel bearing issues on models prior to the 03 redo, head gaskets on the 99-02 models, check the front and rear main seals for oil leaks, drive in a figure 8 to test the diffs, etc.

Test this theory - go to a Subaru thread and start telling them that the Outlander is better (just because you say so) and they all have a crappy car from a crappy company. This is what's going on here.
People knowing nothing to little about the vehicle and the company nor have any interest in buying it, come here and start bashing.

Now, go to the other dedicated Outlander forums, where only people owning the car or interested in buying one come over and share their experience and ask questions. The things are totally different.

Mitsubishi Outlander vs. Subaru Forester

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles