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
This discussion has been closed.
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Anyway, as far as performance cars go, Mitsubishi and Subaru are pretty much neck and neck, the new EVO X is a better car than the new STI, the AWD system is superior in Evo X, the SST tranny is more advanced, in 4x4s, few cars can compete with the drivetrain of Montero/Pajero, basically my point is that if there would be a demand for a performance oriented Outlander, you can be sure it would be competitive with Rav4 and Forester.
As far as handling is concerned, Outlander XLS (0.80g) has a slightly higher lateral acceleration score than the 2009 Forester (0.78g), but thats probably due to the higher center of gravity because of the higher ground clearance of Forester, so handling is pretty much a wash. What really kills it for the Forester is the outdated 4 speed auto transmission, this shouldn't be even available in a 2009 car.
And as far as Subaru turbos go, I know they are more reliable than Mazda turbos partly because Subaru uses Mitsubishi turbos :P Thats where Mitsu shines, in turbo and AWD technology. As far as CX-7 goes, it was just an exaple of a car who gets very good reviews in all the car magazines but as a daily driver the mileage really sux because a 2.3l turbo engine has to haul a over 3900lbs car. On paper the HP and torque look great but in reality it is an inefficient car that doesn't offer the utility of Outlander or CRV.
As far as the exterior design goes, just search around various forums in regard to 2009 Forester and Mitsubishi Outlander design cues pop up a lot so I am not the only one to see this.
Anyway, to me Outlander is a better car for the money. And if price/incentives are not an issue for you then you should just get a Cayenne :P What makes the Outlander so attractive this days is the price, you can really knock it down some. You can get a much better equipped car than the Rav4 or CRV for thousands less.
Anyway, sports cars as a whole are a niche market at best and sport SUVs/CUVs are a small margin of car sales, just shows that most people care more about the usefulness of the car rather than obscene 0-60 times.
Subaru uses a different turbo now, read the Edmunds review for more details. The old ones did use a Mitsubishi turbo but the turbocharger itself was nothing to write home about.
The 4 speed auto is about to be replaced with a CVT next year, I just hope it feels more connected than the other CVTs I've tried. Personally, I'd rather get a proven 4EAT than gamble with a v1.0 of any brand new transmission.
For instance, I'm glad my Sienna has the 5 speed auto vs. the new 6 speed auto, because Toyota's 6 speed is more problematic (hunting for gears, slippage, etc). So more ratios is not automatically better. In fact, if you buy a Toyota, the U151E 5 speed is a far better choice than the U660E 6 speed. Consumer Reports went as far as listing some models with the U660E as unreliable.
I only found out afterwards, but I was very relieved that my van has the older U151E.
The Outlander has been reliable so far, but the 6 speed only came out in 2007, so it hasn't really been tested long-term. Hopefully they remain reliable, we'll see.
GM also had problems with their 6 speeds autos in the Lambdas, first year models mostly.
Well, if Subaru is not using Mitsu turbos then I don't think thats actually a good thing. To put in in perspective even BMW came to realization that Mitsu makes one of the best in the world and guess which manufacturers turbo you will find inside a 335 or X6?
As far as transmissions goe, the Outlanders 6 speed auto tranny so far hasn't been problematic which is a very good sign considering its an all new unit, usually if there is a defect in a part such as a transmission, you would hear about it within few months of Outlanders release. Also, if car companies would settle on what only works, we would still be driving cars with a 1940s technology. Technology has to evolve in order to get better/more efficient with each new generation. First year releases are prone to problems but Subaru will have to release a more modern transmission sooner or later anyway. Better sooner to just get all the kinks out.
However, the Toyota burns regular, while the Subie needs premium.
Still, given how much gas costs now, that difference between fuel grades is about 5% - not huge, but an expense Subie owners pick up.
The Toyota has torque steer and feels very heavy at front end when driving (my experience, anyway - Edmunds found it too). Subie has no torque steer.
The Subies' 4 speed trans seems to work better with turbo engine .vs. natural one, perhaps because the turbo torqueband is broader and covers the gear spread more effectively.
I don't really know what this means, but my impression was that he implied that the tranny is too high-tech for them to attempt to repair at the shop. Just a word from the street..... The good thing is the tranny has 10 years/160km warranty on it and it's been trouble free so far.
If anything, dynamically, the handling actually compensates somewhat for the significant power deficit.
I bet the Forester XT would be the quicker since it would accelerate out of the turns a whole lot faster than the base Forester would. Hopefully MT takes the time to do a full test of the turbo - they really only mentioned the 0-60 time as far as specs go.
Any how, doesn't matter, as the base Forester performs just fine in the real world.
You speak very condescendingly of the Subaru automatic, so let me remind you that the XT performs better, period. Flip those paddle shifters all day long, and it won't matter, the XT will still outrun you.
Plus a CVT is on the way. Subaru has a 5 speed auto but wanted to wait to sort out the CVT instead. We decided not to wait - the 4EAT is proven reliable, handles 300hp in modified WRXs, and performs smoothly. The SportShift actually works very well - shifts are completed in a split second. I'd actually rate the transmission highly.
Honestly? Mitsubishi should have taken another year or two to sort out its own CVT. Between those two I'd pick the 4EAT by a wide margin.
A CVT has an infinite number of gears, yet by all indications the 6 speed auto is a whole lot better.
If I race my 21 speed bicycle against Lance Armstrong and his bike only has 3 speeds, he'd still win. You have to look at the entire powertrain, not just the number of gears.
Plus you don't want to see me in biking shorts.
You accept 8.5 seconds and 8.0 seconds, which means a margin of error of 0.5 seconds is acceptable.
If that's the case the 8.9 and 9.0 second results fall within the same margin of error.
It's pretty convenient to just ignore the two slowest 0-60 results, though.
As far as CVT goes, Nissan has the most experience with this as they really started doing CVTs in affordable passenger cars and already have a second generation CVT in their cars. Mitsu is on their first. What makes you think Subaru will get it all right on the first try, I highly doubt it, the first batch of cars will be guinea pigs, thats the way it is with all-new tech. But when CVT is done right it optimizes the engine to its best performance/efficiency at all the speeds.
Again, to me Outlander is simply a better bargain, right now you can get a new 2007 Outlander XLS for $21500 if you shop around. Price plays an important role, especially in todays tight economy. In reality Forester and Outlander are fairly similar cars, its not like either blows other one away in any category. One may be attractive in this category and the other is more attractive in another. It all comes down to tastes and personal interest as well as final price. Both brands don't have a high brand perception in US hence their relatively low sales numbers.
You seem to accept MT results and use them as a reference for the Forester's performance so let's just go by their numbers. In this case, the Outlander V6 is a 8.1 sec. to 60 mph.
Did you miss my explaination as of why I personally dismiss a specific set of numbers posted by Edmunds? I'll tell you again - they had bold tires on the car. However, when they did the usual Full-Test, they posted 8.2 sec to 60 mph, which is in line with what other magazines have posted. So, no, I don't dismiss Edmunds, just that particular test that was done under unfavorable conditions. It's not the result was not favorable, but the test conditions were. I hope you get what I'm really trying to say.
Again, you can believe what you want and consider whatever numbers you want. It doesn't really matter anyway and it doesn't change the facts.
I was trying before to explain you why I don't go by Motorweek for 0-60 mph as they are in general slower than any other publication, so they don't show the full abilities of the car. This time I'll use the 2006/2007 Subaru Forester XT (both 5-speed manual) example so perhaps you'll be more open to my argument.
Car and Driver: 5.9 sec
Motorweek: 6.6 sec.
It's a pretty significant difference between the two numbers for the same car. Which one would you go by?
I remember going along for a test drive of some car back in the late 50's/early 60's with my father - I was probably 8 or 10. He got on a side street and idled along without touching the gas. When I asked him what he was doing, he said any car can go fast but not all of them can go slow.
When y'all do the ramp test, maybe you can include a "lug the engine" component for my old man? :shades:
He says: "the V6-powered Outlander is surprisingly quick. I clocked it at 7.6 seconds in accelerating from zero to 60 mph, noticeably faster than the sporty Mazda CX-7, which I clocked at about 8.5 seconds. The Outlander isn't as fast as the V6-powered version of the Toyota RAV4, but it isn't far behind."
page 2: http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/mar2008/bw20080321_373437.htm
That's right. Mitsubishi also has build MIVEC engines for Daimler Smart car and turbocharged 4G15 engine for the Smart Brabus
Subaru performance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tMgWtlxeb8&NR=1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=g6H3IOtE6Q8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guTQWkpPFa4
Handling:
Forester 0.78g vs Outlander 0.80g
Drivetrain:
Recalled turbo and the 4-speed tranny suppose to be that great?
Utlity:
Outlander has larger EPA volume and higher tow capacity
Versatility:
What that suppose to mean? The Forester is more basic car, basic tranny, basic AWD, missing tons of equipment which otherwise you can find on the Outlander.
Forester 0.78g vs Outlander 0.80g ..
Where it counts, around curves, and in the straightaway the Forester would dust the Outlander. You keep posting these videos of Foresters circa 2002 and 2003, Need I remind you of how easy the Outlander 2007 gets stuck in the mud. The larger cargo volume and heavier chassis are amenities I don't need. I already have a real SUV vehicle that I can use for that purpose including towing.
The higher ground clearance and superior engine and drivetrain give the Forester XT a versatility the Outlander can only dream of.
The reason you even have vidoes of previous generation Subarus, is that people have faith in the AWD system. You can't find a video of an Outlander getting stuck, because people weren't stupid enough to drive them into those situations. They knew they would never get them out.
Engine is not really superior, its a turboed engine, for people who like to floor it constantly I bet the gas mileage is really bad just like in Mazda CX-7, thats the nature of small displacement turbo engines in 3500lbs cars. And whats the point of high ground clearance if you don't have lock differential, low range transfer case, or short overhangs, while Forester would probably be a bit better offroad then the Outlander (which I really doubt as they are equal) it's still not a real offroader.
Drivetrain is definitely not any better than the Outlanders, actually Outlander has a more modern transmission. Large cargo room is the whole point of an SUV/CUV. If you don't have it then where is the UTILITY? Again, you sound like a guy who should rather drive an STI or Evo which is also a better car :P
The symmetrical AWD and boxer engine makes the center of gravity in the Forester lower. The reality is AWD/4WD have been around for about 100 years, but Subaru includes AWD with every vehicle.
Engine is not really superior, its a turboed engine, for people who like to floor it constantly I bet the gas mileage is really bad just like in Mazda CX-7,
I agree about the gas mileage, but the engine being a horizontally opposed is naturally balanced compared to a V6, and that would make it smoother. If you drive with the Outlander's gas pedal to the metal, what will the gas mileage be?
Drivetrain is definitely not any better than the Outlanders, actually Outlander has a more modern transmission.
More gears is not necessarily better. The Forester XT manages better EPA mileage, better acceleration, better handling (at least the Foresters' handling is not called fragile) with a "supposedly" outdated transmission.
Again, you sound like a guy who should rather drive an STI or Evo which is also a better car :P
Nobody is saying this is a sports car, but I can stuff the car to the gills and then drive around in a vehicle, that pretends not to be a CUV. The only vehicle in this segment close is the RAV4 V6, but the Forester handles much better. (IMO)
We can go back and forth back and forth and so far all the tests show that Outlander has a slightly better ski pad number so I would say handling is about the same. From most of the reviews I have read so far is that the 4WD Outlander handles better than Rav4/CRV and the only car that seems to handle a bit better is a CX-7.
I agree about the gas mileage, but the engine being a horizontally opposed is naturally balanced compared to a V6, and that would make it smoother. If you drive with the Outlander's gas pedal to the metal, what will the gas mileage be?
The mileage in the Outlander will definitely suffer but not to the point of small displacement 4 cylinder turbo engine inside a 3500lbs car. In Europe Mitsubishi released a limited run of 2003-2006 Outlanders with a 4G63T engine, while the performance was great, when the car was really pushed, the weight of the car combined with overworking of the 2.0 liter engine resulted in crappy gas mileage. It's just the way it is. Mazda CX-7 suffers the same with its 2.3T engine, when you drive it all nice and slow, gas mileage is good but when you tap the gas pedal a bit harder you can be sure you are not gonna get the claimed 22MPG (more like 14-15MPG). Huge drop in gas mileage.
More gears is not necessarily better. The Forester XT manages better EPA mileage, better acceleration, better handling (at least the Foresters' handling is not called fragile) with a "supposedly" outdated transmission.
First off, Outlander is a stiffer/heavier car so I would expect the MPG to be lower than on Forester. More gears mean a more efficient drive when properly optimized. Second off, again, turbo engines, when you drive them nice and slow you will get the claimed mileage but once you tap the gas pedal forget the EPA numbers. And again, you can call it fragile and I can call it the best handling CUV maybe except the CX-7. Most reviews agree with me. Anyway, those are CUVs, they will never handle like sports cars.
Another thing, you talk about Forester XT, for regular Forester money I can get a base 4WD XLS or a 2007 4WD LS with Sun and Sound (both are approximately $21500 when you do the dealing and wheeling). You can't ignore the pricing aspect of cars.
What about the slalom? Skippad is only dependent on tires and that's it. Acceleration? So while the Outlander may have a slight edge in skidpad, the Forester has a huge edge in acclerlation and overall handling. Nobody every called the Foreseter fragile.
The mileage in the Outlander will definitely suffer but not to the point of small displacement 4 cylinder turbo engine inside a 3500lbs car
Back here in the US, Forester XT f/e is better than Outlander V6 for the latest model years according to the EPA.
Another thing, you talk about Forester XT, for regular Forester money I can get a base 4WD XLS or a 2007 4WD LS with Sun and Sound (both are approximately $21500 when you do the dealing and wheeling). You can't ignore the pricing aspect of cars
You can't, I can. I don't shop on features/$. A sub-woofer or blue-tooth will not sell me. If you believe you got the better car for your money, I'm very happy for you. We all should be happy with what we drive.
isn't fragile (frah-jill-ay) that fancy Italian word printed on the crate containing
the leg lamp in "A Christmas Story? :P
http://www.redriderleglamps.com/
That makes it almost Ferrari -like, a good thing! :shades:
What makes you think Subaru will get it all right on the first try
Nothing - that's why we ordered the proven 4 speed auto.
I highly doubt it, the first batch of cars will be guinea pigs
That's fair, I actually agree. Subaru will probably share Nissan's supplier, though, so I doubt it'll be truly brand new. Let's see.
when CVT is done right it optimizes the engine to its best performance/efficiency at all the speeds
Agreed 100%. In theory these are optimal. In practice, well, some of them need some work. Or perhaps it's a matter of the customers getting used to how they operate. Probably both.
Big discounts are nice, but keep an eye on resale, especially if you buy a leftover 2007. By fall that will be a 2 year old car with low miles.
dodo2 wrote:
It's a pretty significant difference between the two numbers for the same car. Which one would you go by?
Personally I would use all the data available, so I'd list both times.
I get what you're trying to say, though. I just think with such a small sample of data, I really wouldn't toss anything out. If Edmunds got one quick one and one not-as-quick, then maybe the quick one was a ringer. I don't think worn tires would slow a vehicle down that much.
You can use the benchmark 0-60 results, and that's fine with that as long as you're consistent and use the same for all vehicles being compared.
Like I said before, MT needs to conduct a full test of the XT model. They only quoted 0-60 times. The rest of the data applied to the non-turbo model they tested.
Compare apples to apples, base vs. base, and you get 0.78gs for both, a tie. C&D tested the 4 cylinder Outlander in the Feb 08 issue, and they got 0.78g.
You compared towing capacity for the model that favors Mitsubishi. Forester has more standard towing capacity, actually.
So even if Subaru came out with another, better, CVT, I would not touch it for at least a year to allow them to work out the inevitable bugs.
FYI, Saturn's Ion, in 2003, introduced a 5 speed Auto trans from Aisin. That thing never worked right, and after a few years GM gave up on it and went back to a proven 4 speed also used in the Cobalt. The Ion with 4 speed auto got better mileage and performance than before, _despite_ having one less gear in the trans.
The problem with Subie's naturally aspirated Forester engine is, though improved for '09, it just doesn't have that broad a torque curve, and that hurts with only 4 gears. The Turbo does much better, which helps the 4-speed work more efficiently.
Like in any type of racing, the best posted time is the actual indication of the performance. Lower times don't mean anything.
And yes, the tires are critical in any type of performance testing.
The reality is that the Forester probably isn't all that fast, but the XT is the fastest of the bunch.
What about you compare THE MAX towing capacity available for Forester and Outlander (as a product line not specific trim)?
Or another one: I need to tow 2500 lbs. Should I get an Outlander or a Forester (every other criteria being met by both vehicles)?
The Forester's "standard" towing capacity is 1000 lbs. vs. 1500 lbs on the Outlander (4-cyl).
If you want to tow more than 1000 lbs with the Forester, you'd better read this discussion:
Forester Towing Capacity
Mitsubishi does not require any modifications or trailer brakes to tow 1500 lbs.
Go drive the RAV4 V6 and Forester 2.5XT back-to-back and you'll see that the quickest vehicle is the RAV4.
The power to weight ratio favors the V6 RAV4 so I wouldn't be surprised that in real world RAV4 is a faster vehicle and 0-60 time only obviously shows 0-60 acceleration which doesn't mean it would be faster around a lap. I bet the RAV4 would pull away from Forester at higher speeds simply due to larger displacement. Turbo engines are great for quick spurts/0-60 acceleration but at higher speeds I would rather have more displacement.
What about the slalom? Skippad is only dependent on tires and that's it. Acceleration? So while the Outlander may have a slight edge in skidpad, the Forester has a huge edge in acclerlation and overall handling. Nobody every called the Foreseter fragile.
No one called Forester fragile because all I have seen so far are maybe two reviews. Besides, the so called fragile Outlander SE was the 2.4l version, I would never buy such a large car with such a little engine. Skidpad is not only dependent on tires, tires do help but it also depends on the weight distribution, chassis balance/stiffness of the car, and wheel control systems. Also, I wouldn't say that Forester has a better acceleration, from what I know the Outlanders V6 engine is optimized for highway use, once you get the car going it is as fast as the RAV4 which is saying a lot, read MotorTrend or Car And Driver reviews of the V6 Outlander and you will see what I am talking about. From a stand still, Forester XT will have a faster 0-60 time due to the favorable power to weight ratio but from a roll I doubt it would be faster than Outlander especially at speeds above 70MPH. Thats when the extra displacement helps.
Your "butt dynometer" is not a real substitute for real measurements.
Regardless, now you have it: somebody called the Forester fragile. Are you going to get over it and look for more substantial arguments? If you'll ever drive an Outlander, you'll have the chance to see for yourself that the car feels just. Those writers, often use all sort of metaphors that have nothing to do with the reality.
Like the old saying goes, "there is no replacement for displacement". :shades: This is even more obvious for this type of vehicle. A 4-cylinder engine, turbo or not just doesn't cut it. Sure, it's fine to go around town, but if you load the car with your family and gear and go up to the mountains or tow something, you'll feel the difference. Your 0-60 mph performance it's not going to help much in those situations.
Tell that to Nissan who built the GT-R, faster than a Vette with much less displacement. The Vette will surely pull away from the GT-R at hyper-extra legal speeds, but the GT-R at this moment is fastest production car built. (Note: not the one with highest speed, though)
Skidpad is not only dependent on tires, tires do help but it also depends on the weight distribution,
I disagree, skip pad is almost entirely dependent on tire grip and patch contact. By definition, you drive the thing around in a circle until it can't hold the road. A better test is the slalom, which challenges the cars tires, engine, drivetrain and weight distribution.
From a stand still, Forester XT will have a faster 0-60 time due to the favorable power to weight ratio but from a roll I doubt it would be faster than Outlander especially at speeds above 70MPH. Thats when the extra displacement helps.
See above comment on GT-R vs Vette.
Like the old saying goes, "there is no replacement for displacement". :shades:
See my comment on the GT-R. :P
As far as I know Bugatti Veyron is the fastest production car ever built (don't bring the Nurgburgring laps please). But anyway, why do you bring up supercars in SUV/CUV category??? What makes GT-R a better track car is not as much the engine (but it is a very powerful beast) but the ATTESA AWD system which helps GT-R to stick to the ground like glue, power to weight ratio favors Corvette and while GTRs engine power is underrated, its AWD system is the game changer. Besides, Corvettes larger displacement engine is actually LIGHTER than the Nissans 3.8l twin turbo. Corvette loses a lot of ground because of rather inferior handling to GT-R.
I disagree, skip pad is almost entirely dependent on tire grip and patch contact. By definition, you drive the thing around in a circle until it can't hold the road. A better test is the slalom, which challenges the cars tires, engine and weight distribution.
Well then, you are saying that Chevy Aveo outfitted with Evo X tires will have the same skidpad result as Evo X????? Like I said, good tires do improve skidpad numbers but they are far from everything. Skidpad gives an approximation of cars handling abilities.
Your "butt dynometer" is not a real substitute for real measurements.
Again, power to weight ratio favors RAV4, car performance has a lot of science in it. It really isn't difficult to predict potential numbers. And again, small displacement engines inside a 3500lbs CUV are not a good idea in my opinion, that right there along with the outdated 4 speed auto tranny kills the sale for me...
Different type of cars for different applications.
You made a point about the turbo, and I was refuting your assertion with a specific example of large displacement 6.2 supercharged engine vs the 3.8 in the GT-R. And yes there are other factors as well.
Well then, you are saying that Chevy Aveo outfitted with Evo X tires will have the same skidpad result as Evo X?????
No, I'm saying an EVO X fitted with crappy Chevy Aveo tires against an EVO X fitted with sticky high performance tires will lose. The tires are the biggest factor with vehicles of a similiar class.
Again, power to weight ratio favors RAV4, car performance has a lot of science in it
But the fact the Forester XT develops most of the torque, low in the power band favors off-the-line accleration and enables the Forester to keep the lead. The Foresters red-line is fairly high as well at 7K. By the time both cars hit 130 they may be even, but I have no desire to drive either of these vehicles at that speed. The XT develops max torque at about 3500 or so until redline. This should give the XT the advantage up to a point where one doesn't (except for those with a death wish)care to go any faster.
The tires are a big factor when comparing two identical cars. However, they are only one of many factors when comparing different cars, from the same class. Take for example the Evo and STi (still Mitsubishi vs. Subaru).
Do you think that by putting the best performance tires on the STi vs. the crapiest performance tires on the Evo, the STi will fully compensate for 0.10g difference on the skidpad? I don't think so.
I do, especially if you put the crappiest tires on the Evo. The .05 difference (see here) between the two represents engineering. But if you cripple the Evo with lousy tires that .05 advantage will vaporize.
So just to sum up. I'm in favor of small displacement turbo engines over larger displacement n/a engines. (case in point STI vs IS350, both vehicles use the same engines as the Forester and RAV4). Turbo engines are lighter making for a vehicle lighter on it's feet, more online torque earlier in the curve and performance and same performance at higher altitudes.
To me off the line punch is more important than punch at 70 mph. Those who assert the RAV4 may be more potent starting at 70 may be right, but to me it's a non-issue because mashing the gas at zero is what is important. I believe overall EPA F/E goes to the Forester XT for 2009 model.
Well again, different strokes for different folks, in real world driving the 0-60 time is only important on the ramps with a stop sign cuz even with a yield sign in front of you, you are already on a roll and that would favor the Outlander (remember that in V6 Outlander 80% of torque is available at 2000 rpm). Also, to me passing acceleration (again on the roll) is more important than 0-60 standstill time. Thats why there are so many car companies, each car company optimizes cars differently for different purposes, one for gas mileage, one for 0-60 acceleration, one for low end torque, one for passing power etc etc. It's really hard to optimize one engine to be all that.
Also, one more thing, I don't know how the mileage of the Forester XT is in real life but I know for a fact that Mazda CX-7 is rated at 16/22 but 14/15 is what we get here in NJ in everyday driving conditions (mixed city/highway driving). I am just using CX-7 as an example of a small displacement turbo engine inside a CUV, I know Outlander Turbo (available in Europe) also had rather crappy mileage compared to estimates. So I am willing to bet that Forester XT may get better mileage than CX-7 just because its a lighter vehicle but unless you will be driving it like a grandma you will probably get much closer to the minimum of EPA ratings rather than maximum. Outlander with V6 engine gets about 22/23MPG in everyday driving conditions according to my experience.
Different strokes for different folks as you say.
Also, one more thing, I don't know how the mileage of the Forester XT is in real life
Define real life. :confuse Only the EPA can perform standardized tests and that is the basis for comparison. Someone might claim they are getting 30mpg in their 2009 Forester, but fails to mention they keep 0 to 60 at more than 15 seconds. Similiarly someone else might claim they get 14 mpg from their 2208 Outlander but fail to mention each and every start is a full throttle acceleration. This is real life and why the EPA tests are probably the best measurement of real world f/e.
It's a fact (no I don't have any links) that a turbo engine will perform better than an "equivalent" N/A engine in the mountains (real mountains, not foothills). A N/A develops "asthma" at elevation, but a turbo, having forced induction, will happily go about it's business.
It would not be safe. The limitation here is braking, and the Outlander has 11.6" vented discs in front (Forester: 11.7" vented), and the front brakes do about 90% of the stopping. Rears are 11.9" non-vented discs in back (Forester: 11.3").
The XLS V6 already has 300+ extra pounds to pull to a stop, imagine with 3500 lbs more. 3781 curb weight for the XLS 4WD, plus 3500, so you'd be trying to stop 7281 pounds with only the stock brakes.
Funny thing is when it comes to trailer brakes, the base model 4 cylinder Outlander is actually at an advantage, simply because it's 250 lbs lighter and has the same sized brakes.
In post 388 you wrote:
if you load the car with your family and gear and go up to the mountains or tow something, you'll feel the difference
The exact opposite is true.
At altitude, the air thins out, and most engines would be wheezing on less dense air, losing significant power. That would include the V6 and all other engines being discussed here, except...
Turbos. Turbos can compensate by simply doing their job - providing boost and compressing that air. It would not wheeze at all, in fact they can still make full power and simply use their bleed off valves less (i.e. when they hit the same max PSI for boost).
If you really want to "go up to the mountains", a turbo is your best friend. Get an EVO.
For towing, you want torque first and foremost, and the Forester has more XT vs. V6, and X vs. SE.
That ignores gearing. Everyone knows the Outlander has a 6 speed slushbox, in fact we're reminded, on average, every 2.3 seconds.
Power to weight ratios dismiss this completely. It also ignores gear ratios.
Seconds, it ignores torque, which is really what does the job.
to me passing acceleration (again on the roll) is more important than 0-60 standstill time
We can wait to compare 30-50 and 50-70 mph passing acceleration, but do you really think the V6 will beat the turbo? I wouldn't bet on it.
Really? I'd check the owner's manual on that. I don't know of any Japanese brand that can tow more than 1000 pounds without trailer brakes. That includes full-size Toyota and Nissan pickup trucks.
As far as I know only a few European brands, like Land Rover (1,650 IIRC), state that they can tow over 1000 pounds without trailer brakes. The only other exception are full-size GM trucks, which are rated to tow 2000 pounds without trailer brakes, and perhaps the mid-size GM pickups which I think can tow 1500 pounds without trailer brakes.
So I'd be very suspicious that the Outlander can tow 1,500 pounds without trailer brakes. Again, check the owner's manual to see if in fact that's true. If it is, then great, but I highly doubt it.
Bob
I checked the manual and I stand corrected. The Outlander V6 can tow up to 1400 lbs. without trailer brakes so yes, it can tow more than 1000 lbs without trailer brakes (I still admit that I was partially wrong).
However, the manual doesn't say anything about other modifications required on the vehicle in order to tow up to the maximum capacity of 3500 lbs. I guess the Mitsubishi OEM hitch has everything.
In regards to my "mountains" reference I meant inclines versus high altitude, therefore read steep hills at low altitude with the car fully loaded. In this common real life scenario my personal feeling is that a V6 would perform better than a turbo 4, not to mention a n/a 4-cylinder.
You said "I need to tow 2500 lbs".
You need trailer brakes. :P
For towing, you want torque first and foremost, and the Forester has more XT vs. V6, and X vs. SE.
OK, then perhaps you can explain why the maximum towing capacity on any Forester trim is 2400 lbs. where on the Outlander is 3500 lbs.