Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Mitsubishi Outlander vs. Subaru Forester

145791032

Comments

  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    The person I was referring to did have his bumper re-painted free of charge. That's why I brought it up.

    So what's the problem then?
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    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.


    I would never say the Outlander isn't the best car for you. But the fact is each have their redeeming features and the Forester has been a top rated pick for a lot of reasons over the last few years.

    As far as Mitsubishi, they may be a huge conglomerate but in my eyes they have a long way to go before I would buy a car from them. I know people feel the same about Subaru, Lexus, Honda, BMW, Mercedes, Nissan etc. Car manufacturer bias is a fact of life, but Mistubishi in particular has earned my distrust.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    So what's the problem then?

    tracy01 hasn't received the same sort of help.

    I'm not asking for teflon bumpers. A few suggestions have been made, that's a start. That's how responses should be. How 'bout some links to sites that sell the mud guards, maybe some pricing, photos, etc.

    when the person declares that the vehicle/manufacturer is not even worth considering because a single issue

    That's a bit harsh, yes, but it's more than just the issue itself, it's how the manufacturer responds to the issue.

    For example, would you rather have 2 problems that a manufacturer was happy to fix for you, or 1 where they weren't? Noone has addressed the 44% satisfaction rate with Mitsubishi dealer repairs. I haven't got an answer to my question about whether the 100k warranty is transferable (nor do I expect one).

    go to a Subaru thread and start telling them that the Outlander is better

    That would be trolling. Very different. There is an appropriate place for comparisons - here!

    A couple of Outlander fans have not respected that boundary.
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Member Posts: 194
    Outlander Warranty Transferability

    Basic Warranty is fully transferable to subsequent owners at no charge for remainder of warranty. 120 month/100,000 miles Powertrain Warranty applies to original owner. Subsequent owners receive the balance of coverage remaining under the 60 month/60,000 mile New Vehicle Limited Warranty.
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Member Posts: 194
    Mitsubishi USA suffered during the merge with Chrysler, their cars and dealer network were crap. Recent products like the Outlander reflect a fresh new approach, and the 10 year warranty is an indication that Mitsubishi stands behind their product.

    I've had mixed experiences with my 3 local Mitsubishi dealerships. A new one just opened up and so far it has been good.

    The easy solution to getting great dealer service is to spend big bucks on a Lexus, MB, BMW etc. On the low end of the spectrum it gets a little dicey, I've had bad dealer experiences with Chevrolet, Honda, VW, Subaru, Ford.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    First off, you keep talking about peeling bumper, teflon bumper, etc.
    Can you post a reference to the post you are referring too? Personally I'm not aware of such an issue, but that's not important. Once you do that, we can take it from there.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    there are two very small "clearbra" patches applied, one on each size at the lowest point of the front of the rear wheelwell. This is apparently to help stop pitting of the paint in those areas.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    The Outlander has two small patches of clear film in that area too, but they are not enough. A much larger area is exposed and needs to be protected.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Thanks biscuit_xls, so the 100k warranty is not transferable. 5/60k still ain't bad.

    Suzuki has the only 100k mile powertrain warranty that is fully transferable that I know of.

    I agree that splitting from Chrysler was a good thing. They weren't going to get much out of that deal IMHO. It's odd that the 4 cylinder in the Outlander is shared with the Caliber, though. I pointed out in my test drive review that the Outlander did seem a lot better insulated, so the engine was not objectionable.

    dodo2: I sort of doubt tracy01 cares whether we call it peeling or chipping, she just wants her brand new crossover to look acceptable after a just a year or so of use. That seems like a fair expectation to me.

    Let's not crucify the poor girl for speaking up.

    tracy: do you have pics? I can host them for you. Maybe it's not that bad after all (then again maybe it is).
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    I was just curious about the posts you are talking about. I cannot remember it. It's not about how you call it - peeling or chipping, but where it occurs. You keep saying bumper and this is not where the usual chipping occurs therefore it wouldn't be a wide spread problem - the doors chipping is.
    Is about clearly stating the issue properly reference it and describe it and perhaps this is where you don't do a very good job.
    Just post the link to that discussion so we can all see what you are talking about.

    And yes, I did a Search for posts from "tracy01" in the Outlander discussion, but nothing came up other than your few posts.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Found it, link:

    http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f185114/76

    You're right, it was both rear doors, not the bumper.

    That would actually be harder to respray. It's easier to remove a bumper vs. 2 doors with all the trim and stuff.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    "It's odd that the 4 cylinder in the Outlander is shared with the Caliber, though."

    It's not at all. The R&D or OEM contracts don't go away with the stock sale.

    The engines, 2.0L and 2.4L, have been developed by Chrysler, Mitsubishi and Hyundai n partnership and they show up in various models from these manufacturers. However, each company has it own touch on the engines - e.g. MIVEC on Mitsubishi, so in the end they may perform quite differently.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I guess that makes sense.

    Subaru was part owned by GM but they never really developed any synergies. The closest we saw was the Saab 9-2x, but it was basically a re-badge. GM also sold a Chevy Forester in India for a while. It was funny to see a bow tie on the front like that.

    Toyota bought those shares, so let's see what happens next. They've announced a light RWD coupe, perhaps a Celica replacement, based on the WRX. Subaru will get a version too.

    Getting back on topic, I guess I would not mind it if Subaru started getting things like HVAC and stereo/GPS/entertainment system from Toyota, but hopefully they keep the drivetrains seperate.

    I want my next GPS to have traffic capability and with oil at $125 a barrel it would be nice to have access to gas prices, too. I may get a high-end Nuvi soon.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    Ateixeira: With all due respect, you blew this one up. You used this example more than once (with inaccurate description of the problem) to show how unfriendly, unhelpful and defensive the Outlander owners are when someone complains about the vehicle (and how good the Subaru owners are - presumably).
    Well, if you go back and check this post (#77), you’ll see that “tracy01” received quick responses from myself (#80) and “Rcpax” (#87) with two solutions to the problem as well as where to find more information (Outlander vs. Forester thread wasn’t really the best place to post about that issue, especially when there are few threads on the Outlander forum opened on this issue, with pictures and information). I still fail to see how “Tracy01” was pushed around, ignored or anything of this sort. No need to give “Tracy01” Mitsu’s 1-800 number as you suggested either as the number is in the Owner’s Manual, Mitsu’s web site and most likely on a windshield sticker.

    A good practice would be to check your information before you post… or state a disclaimer….
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    I think it's too early to see much technology exchange between Toyota and Subaru, but we'll certainly see it for the future products.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Tracy was immediately referred elsewhere as if there was a gag order on discussing problems you've had here in this thread.

    Also search for the "Amen" response I got and "you get what you pay for".

    I want to know what sort of problems creep up, what to expect. I can overlook problems as long as I feel like I understand what they are and trust the issues that arise will be taken care of.

    Am I skeptical? Absolutely.

    I complained that the cargo area is narrow and the knee-jerk response was that it's wider than the Forester's, even though it's about 3-4" more narrow. :confuse:

    You may recall the whole 7" cargo height advantage myth, too.

    The "leather" arm rests.

    Can you blame me for being skeptical?
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    "Tracy was immediately referred elsewhere as if there was a gag order on discussing problems you've had here in this thread."

    I referred Tracy01 to the appropriate thread AFTER I gave her/him a summary of my solution to the problem. I did that because the dedicated threads already have more information on the issue - other owners experience with the issue, pictures of body cladding, extended mudguards, door side garnish, sources where to get them from, prices, etc.

    Now that you brought this up, there is nothing about "gag order", but in order to keep these forums organized, the posts should be made in the appropriate place. Maybe one of the moderators could explain it to you better if you are not familiar with the concept (I'm trying to avoid the situation where you interpret my explanation as an unfriendly Outlander owner behavior ;) ).

    BTW: We are off-topic already. Remember, this thread is about "Outlander vs. Forester".

    I want to know what sort of problems creep up, what to expect. I can overlook problems as long as I feel like I understand what they are and trust the issues that arise will be taken care of.

    This is the reason to read the Outlander forum. There is a ton of information there. If you are truly interested in learning about the Outlander and his history form its launch, I can give you the links to few other Outlander forums.
    For the time being, we are in a shared thread visible from both Forester and Outlander forums so we should stick with talking about how these two cars compare.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    Yeah, but you weren't quite correct on the numbers you posted either IIRC. Also, do you remember the whole AWD, 20/80 power split bubble coming from the Forester's side? Don't make general statements - each side has its extremes, but most members are in between. Oh, and this is not specific to the Outlander's forums by any means. Each brand has its fan boys on these forums and there are flame wars going on all the time.
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Member Posts: 194
    I decided to get some first-hand knowledge of the Forester 2.5XT so I went to check it out and take a test drive.

    The Forester exterior styling looks good, very similar to the Outlander. The interior of the Forester is OK, mid-level quality and completely expected for this price range. I personally prefer the modern/industrial look of my Outlander's dash, but that's just me. The cargo area of the Forester is a little higher because the seats fold flat rather than flip forward, I like the low floor on the Outlander and the flip down tailgate better. The Forester holds 5 people, my Outlander can hold 7 in a pinch, I like that. The Forester sunroof is about twice the size of mine, kinda nice.

    I'd give the Forester a slight advantage in speed over my Outlander, but it didn't feel as powerful as the V6 RAV4. The turbo 4 felt a lot like the Mazda CX-7 and Acura RDX, smooth power without a lot of turbo lag. I don't drag race my CUV, so in everyday driving I don't think the difference is going to mean very much, they both have enough power to get the job done. Handling, ride and quietness were about the same.

    The Forester 2.5XT that I drove stickered at just over $31,000, my loaded Outlander had a sticker of $30,615 and I paid $29,085. I'd say my Outlander has the edge in terms of features at a similar price... missing from the Forester were 18" wheels, Bluetooth, HID headlights, 6-speed, paddle shifters, 10 year warranty, roadside assistance (?), subwoofer, DVD player, music hard drive, regular fuel capability etc.

    Things I liked on the Forester: rear visibility was a little better, huge sunroof, telescoping steering wheel, cupholder in rear seat.

    So there it is, the Forester is a good vehicle that will get the job done if you are looking for a CUV. Drive them all and make a decision that fits for you.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    If someone is shopping and they're not sure whether or not they trust Mitsubishi, then asking about what problems have crept up for people and if/how they were resolved is indeed relevant. To me, it's essential actually, because I don't.

    I guess that's the bottom line.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    You overlooked a few of the Forester's advantages...struts that lift the hood for you, twin exhaust, bigger gas tank for more range, and better city mileage, just to name a few.

    I guess different things matter to different people, so that's cool. :shades:
  • phdhuskyphdhusky Member Posts: 112
    After much research and deliberation I decided on the Forester. For one we got a great price and the Mitsubishi people were quite rude when it came to pricing. Much more comfortable with the Forester's ride but the Mitsu is a nice car with fun tech.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    but it didn't feel as powerful as the V6 RAV4

    It may not have felt as powerful but the XT will show the RAV4 it's tailights. And it has slightly better EPA fuel economy.

    Additionally, the XT at 6.6 seconds is the fastest of the other vehicles mentioned, RDX, CX-7 and Outlander.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    you weren't quite correct on the numbers you posted either IIRC

    I'll cut you some slack, because you did say "IIRC", but....

    I got 35" with my tape measure and the cargo liner in place.

    You removed the liner and got 35.5".

    So both measures were correct. :shades:

    My beef isn't with a half an inch, though, it's that an Outlander fan boy stated the Mitsu had a SEVEN INCH cargo height advantage, which turned out to be more like 1-3 inches, depending on where you measure.

    cars101 got 34.5" for the Forester, my measure was actually less perhaps due to the moonroof on the one I took my tape measure to. I think I got 32.something.

    How's that for honest? I could have used the cars101 number but shared my lower number instead.

    An Outlander owner claimed it was 30". LOL

    So clearly I am not the one trying to skew the numbers. ;)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Congratulations.

    My wife ordered a Forester. Due to high demand we could not find a blue LL Bean model in DC/MD/VA (closest one was in NJ), so she'll have to wait 6-8 weeks or so.

    Blue, PZEV, Limited model (which replaces the LL Bean). :shades:
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Member Posts: 194
    The RAV4 V6 feels much quicker and has a 40HP advantage. I don't think that 6.6 second number is accurate for the US Forester 2.5XT automatic. It felt like around 8 seconds and the horsepower/weight numbers back that up.

    I have a friend with a RAV4 V6, I'll bet dinner that it will beat the 2.5XT from a standing start to 60. PM if you have a 2.5XT in socal, I'll video tape it and post it on Youtube.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    You removed the liner and got 35.5".

    You keep distorting the information provided. I told you I measures WITH the cargo mat in place and I also DID NOT count few 1/8" in order to make sure you don't touch the ceiling. Basically I rounded up the measurement to the 0.5".

    Also, the measurement taken in the same place as the one shown on the cars101.com for the Forester, is 36.5" for the Outlander. With the cargo mat removed and measuring strictly cargo floor to roof is 37" or very close. I just provided the numbers so you can do your comparison.

    If someone is shopping and they're not sure whether or not they trust Mitsubishi, then asking about what problems have crept up for people and if/how they were resolved is indeed relevant. To me, it's essential actually, because I don't.

    I guess that's the bottom line.


    No, the bottom line is that there is an Outlander forum on Edmunds.com that has all the information about the Oulander. Go there an read the discussions and you'll find everything about the car. There are also other dedicated forums about the Outlander that contain a wealth of information from owners from all over the world.
    The "Forester vs. Outlander" thread is not the place to learn about the Outlander specific issues. Why is so hard to understand?

    In fact, this thread does not really contain any information that would help someone interested in learning about the Outlander. These senseless discussions about "my car is better than yours" don't really help too much IMO.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    You overlooked a few of the Forester's advantages...struts that lift the hood for you, twin exhaust, bigger gas tank for more range, and better city mileage, just to name a few.


    Wow ... these are real advantages. :surprise: "Twin exhaust" - really? Everyone would tell you that those two pipes you see are just a split from the muffler which doesn't do anything other than .. well ... impress some people.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    The RAV4 V6 feels much quicker and has a 40HP advantage.

    It's not the hp advantage it's the torque curve. The XTs torque will come on-line much faster giving it the advantage. Did you ever wonder why the STI can manage a 4.8 sprint to 60 with the same 2.5 liter engine? Or why with an ECU flash it can deliver 430 ft/lbs of torque?

    I don't think that 6.6 second number is accurate for the US Forester 2.5XT automatic. It felt like around 8 seconds and the horsepower/weight numbers back that up.

    The torque curve also backs up the 6.6 number. Did you look it up on the internet? How can your butt really tell the difference? Did you actually floor it? I'm not doing your research. Do a web search for: 2009 Forester xt 0 to 60 and see what you get. Do the same search for: 2008 RAV4 V6 0 to 60.

    Car and Drive got 5.9 to 60 with the 5 speed 2007 XT.
    click here. With the 5 speed manual coming in 2010 I wouldn't be surprise to see times like this. Notice the RAV4 is nowhere to be found in this list.
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Member Posts: 194
    Have you driven both vehicles?

    Show me this magical Subaru torque curve. The RAV4 V6 has 246 lb.-ft. of peak torque at 4,700 RPM.

    You can't take a spec from a completely different vehicle with a completely different transmission and expect the new Forester to be similar. There is only one number for the Forester 2.5XT published on the internet, 6.6 seconds, and after driving the vehicle I don't believe that is an accurate number.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Have you driven both vehicles?

    Have you personally and impartially timed both vehicles at the track?

    Show me this magical Subaru torque curve.

    Here ya' go! :shades Click here. I really think people can be less lazy about finding things, instead of expecting people to do their research.

    You can't take a spec from a completely different vehicle with a completely different transmission and expect the new Forester to be similar.

    Yes you can, it's the same motor with some tweaks. Not only that in 2010 the V6 RAV4 will be up against the same motor with a manual transmission. Note the 5.3 seconds to 60.

    There is only one number for the Forester 2.5XT published on the internet, 6.6 seconds, and after driving the vehicle I don't believe that is an accurate number.

    You can believe what you want, Unless you come up with something more credible, it is what it is. Forester rules!
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Member Posts: 194
    So what you're saying is that you haven't driven the 2009 Forester 2.5XT and the RAV4 V6.

    Those dyno charts don't impress me. I see a relatively stock one with 190HP and 218 torque at the wheels, but the curve spikes early and then goes down quickly. Maybe you can tweek it with mods and make more power, but is that what we're comparing? I wasn't.

    I stand by my bet, a stock RAV4 V6 will smoke a stock 2009 Forester 2.5XT.
  • 10years10years Member Posts: 48
    0 - 60 MT has:
    07 RAV4 V6 @ 6.7
    09 Forester XT @ 6.6

    At the finish, the RAV4 driver would see the back of the head of the XT driver while the Outlander would hardly see their tail lights through the swirling dust.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    07 RAV4 V6 @ 6.7

    It's hard to tell the exact times unless the vehicles are actually tested side-by-side. But the Forester can be slightly faster, to much, much faster.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    I stand by my bet, a stock RAV4 V6 will smoke a stock 2009 Forester 2.5XT.

    You're on.

    Those dyno charts don't impress me.

    300 lbs torque at the wheels don't impress you? Okay it doesn't have to. You don't even have to believe it, but that won't change the fact the XT is faster and has been faster since 2004.
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Member Posts: 194
    That 300 ft-lbs of torque is on a modified vehicle, not stock, so quit confusing the issue with completely different cars, transmissions, and modifications. The 2009 Forester 2.5XT does not come from the factory with that much torque.

    The RAV4 V6 feels significantly faster than the 2009 Forester 2.5XT. Go drive them and see for yourself, I did.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    The RAV4 V6 feels significantly faster than the 2009 Forester 2.5XT. Go drive them and see for yourself, I did.

    Your butt dyno is inaccurate. It's not how it feels, it's how it measures. Even though I'm making a point the XT is easily modable, the stock XT by all accounts has been faster, is faster and will be faster in these two manufacturers configurations.

    While the host at some point will probably say we are bench racing, not to mention way, way, off-topic, and we are, there is nothing of substance or credibility to indicate the RAV4 V6 stock to stock is faster than any model XT since 2004.
  • blitzkrieg79blitzkrieg79 Member Posts: 36
    KDShapiro, I don't know why are you so caught up in 0-60 times in SUV/CUVs for gods sake. Difference between the Rav4 V6 engine and the XT engine is a fact that when you actually push those cars to its limits the mileage of the XT will go to the crapper compared to Rav4, thats how turbo engines work. I would never buy a relatively small displacement 4 cylinder turbo engine inside a SUV/CUV, the cars are rather heavy and they strain smaller displacement engines more. Look at Mazda CX-7, while it gets good reviews all over the place, the reliability of that car is actually very bad due to it's engine and unreliable turbos.

    Anyway, to me an SUV/CUV is NOT a sports car, I will be perfectly happy with an 8 second 0-60 car, and I think thats plenty quick. Car manufacturers/magazines here in US get caught up in all the 0-60 times but reality is that with low US speed limits whats the point of 0-60 time when most roads have a 45MPH limit. Here in NJ a 6 lane turnpike has a 65MPH limit for gods sake. It's all just an enthusiast/marketing crap. SUV/CUV are supposed to give UTILITY/versatility/capacity first. If you want a sports car buy an STI/Evo/Corvette, no SUV/CUV will ever handle like a real sports car, laws of physics have a lot to do with it.

    Anyway, back to the Outlander vs Forrester topic, both cars are rather nice in this category but in my opinion Subaru really ripped off Mitsubishi design this time but in my opinion Outlander looks more sporty and elegant, interior wise its a wash, Mitsubishi offers a better warranty and better incentives, you can get an Outlander for $2000 below invoice. Reliability wise they are about the same. And those are the things that would push Outlander over Forrester in my purchase decision. What kills Mitsubishi in US is brand perception, but brand perception and brand reality are two different things. Look at how well Mitsubishi is doing in Europe (in the largest continental car market in the world).
  • piastpiast Member Posts: 269
    I agree 100%. At $4/ Gal for regular gas who cares about 0.1, 0.5 or even 1-2 sec difference in 0-60 time. Why are you in such a hurry anyway? Slow down, hug a tree or something. Seriously, 8 sec from 0-60 mph in Outlander is just fine.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Different strokes for different folks. Subaru as a brand has the most sporties CUVs in this price range, IMO. So I am biased toward performance, handling and drivetrain. Bluetooth, HID, harddrives would be nice to haves for me, but less important than the aforementioned. As far as gas mileage, when you push these cars to the limits, gas mileage is irrelevant and the EPA ratings for the 2009 XT are better than the V6 RAV4. Turbo engines use less resources to make and manufacturer as well compared to their V6 bretheren.

    Regarding reliability, can you point me to any credible source of information, showing Subaru has systemic problems with it's turbos?

    When you actually drive these cars, differentiating from them driving you, you realize there is a lot of difference in handling capability.

    I can't compare against Outlander yet, but I can compare against RAV4, there is a wide gap. You may not notice it, but I do.

    Since the 2009 looks like a much more handsome version of the 2008, I can't see where Subaru ripped off Mitsubishi.

    Mitsubishi may offer better warranty and incentives, but at the end of the day, I don't drive a warranty and incentives down the NJ turnpike or up the Garden State. The performance, handling, utlity, versatility and brand would push the Forester over the Outlander in my purchase decision.
  • comem47comem47 Member Posts: 399
    KDShapiro, I don't know why are you so caught up in 0-60 times in SUV/CUVs for gods sake. ....... SUV/CUV are supposed to give UTILITY/versatility/capacity first. If you want a sports car buy an STI/Evo/Corvette, no SUV/CUV will ever handle like a real sports car, laws of physics have a lot to do with it.

    At last. someone the GETS it !!!. the U in CUV/SUV is UTILITY. Otherwise this conversation is like track racing Kenworths and Peterbuilts (people do it, but what's the point?)

    I would never try to boast the Outlander is the best at any one thing, but I feel it represents great value for the $ ("utility").

    I think KDShapiro would be happier in a Subaru WRX with wheels that are 1.252 times nicer looking than the competition (as evidenced on the internet) :P .
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    would be happier in a Subaru WRX with wheels that are 1.252 times nicer looking than the competition (as evidenced on the internet) :P

    Your requirements/needs/wants vs mine are different. With the Forester XT I can have my cake and eat it too. I has good handling, good performance, good reliability, great drive train, good gas mileage, and the space to stuff a lot of junk if needed. What I compromise on, if compromise is the right word are the tech toys which I don't care about.

    All of this talk about how non-important performance and handling are has me laughing. Performance is always important, what happens when you mash the pedal and turn the wheel and/or step on the brakes to me are the single most important aspects of a car. More than bluetooth, sunroof and hard disc drives.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I have that same Toyota 2GR V6 in my minivan. It's a very nice engine but it tends to perform best fairly high in the rev range. The turbo in the Forester makes torque much sooner and would be long gone by the time the V6 really got in to its sweet spot.

    The 2GR is still a wonderful powertrain, FWIW.

    0-60 according to Motor Trend for all 3, then:

    Subaru Forester XT: 6.6
    Toyota RAV4 V6: 6.7
    Outlander V6: 8.1

    And MT's Outlander was quick - Motorweek took 8.9 seconds.

    Mostly, though, it's funny that to challenge the Forester in acceleration you call in...Toyota! :D
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    You're bustin' my chops for a half inch?

    Why aren't you giving chelentano a hard time for stating the cargo height advantage was 7"?

    At the opening it's 2" (36.5" you measured vs. 34.5" from cars101). Inside it's 35.5" to about 32.something, I don't feel like looking it up again. Call it 3".

    Where is the 7" advantage?

    I'm not the one making gross exaggerations.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    You're bustin' my chops for a half inch?

    LOL .... I'm not. I'm just looking for apple-to-apple comparison and using correct numbers and statements. That's all.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    "And MT's Outlander was quick - Motorweek took 8.9 seconds."

    For what is worth, Edmunds clocked the Outlander in 8.2 sec in their Full-Test. Any other review I can remember posting 0-60 mph times, was up to 8.3 sec. This, plus my first-hand experience driving this car for more than a year tells me that Motorweek time is an anomaly so I discard it.

    Oh, and if you are still seeking high acceleration numbers for the Outlander in your quest to prove whatever, let me help you out. Edmunds had posted 9.0 sec. in their CUV comparison they had few months back. However, in that test they used their Long-Term vehicle, which had totally worn tires to the point I wouldn't drive that car on a road with the slightest mist (see the Outlander LT blog where they post a picture of the tires shortly after they posted the article). The other vehicles were supplied by the manufacturers and I think is fair to believe they were in very good condition. As far as I'm concerned, I also discarded that instance from my books as not relevant for the stated reasons.

    I still use the numbers posted by MT in their 2007 Truck of the Year event as a reference when comparing some of the these SUVs performance numbers (CX7, RAV4 V6, CRV, SantaFe, etc.) since they were obtained in fairly equal testing conditions during the event.

    Whether you accept it or not, the Outlander V6 is a low 8 sec. car to 60 mph (8.0-8.5 sec). Feel free to attach your own attributes to it (e.g. slow, fast, average, adequate, sloppy, etc.), but this is what it is.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    Mostly, though, it's funny that to challenge the Forester in acceleration you call in...Toyota!

    I think that's because some made claims that the Forester XT would smoke any other SUV, ignoring the RAV4 V6.

    The V6 in the RAV4 (and other Toyotas ) is an outstanding engine by any means. I'd take it over the Subaru's turbo in Forester application and Outlander's V6 any day. For me, the RAV4's problem is the rest of the package, but this is a different topic.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I am not seeking high acceleration numbers at all, I'm seeking an AWD crossover with the best possible fuel economy (while meeting my other needs, of course), so none of the V6s or turbos even made my short list.

    kdshapiro is, and for him the Forester XT (or RAV4 V6) would be the top two choices.

    Remember, I drove the Outlander 2.4l CVT and felt it performed OK.
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Member Posts: 194
    Exactly, the Toyota engine is best in class, the rest of the vehicle is just ho-hum.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    Not a problem. I was just commenting on the Motorweek 0-60 mph time which I think it's not representative.
This discussion has been closed.