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

24567…32

Comments

  • comem47comem47 Member Posts: 399
    To Subaru's credit they have redesigned the turbo to come in at lower rpms and be more seemless. (Turbos can be peaky). The main negative is the price (I was off on my estimate and premium locally is about 30 cents more per gallon, not just 10cents)

    For closely the same fuel economy (albeit a bit less power) I'd rather be spending $3.30 a gal than $3.60 (net effect of the turbo being less $fuel efficient in this case). In the example above for a 15 gal fill-up the regular gas car will cost $49.50 to the premium gas car $54.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> It produces higher power

    This higher torgue of turbo engine gets you a better acceleration, but Forester has lower payload/tow load specs. Exactly the same story with Mazda CX-7 turbo.
    .

    >> It produces higher power and makes more efficient use of it (due in part to the Forester's lower weight).

    The lower weight is one factor in the Forester's decent gas mileage. Another one is 90/10 AWD split: in normal driving conditions Forester is practically a 2WD car. Subaru realized that they could not meet these mileage/emission targets with a full-time 50/50 split, so they had to cut corners to achieve that gas mileage and emission standards.

    The Outlander on the other hand meets these targets with 60/40 full-time split. And it has much better payload/tow specs.
  • h2k2f2h2k2f2 Member Posts: 44
    For some of us, towing is a non-issue. Also the Forester's torque split is not held to 90:10 and is proactively adjusted as needed. So, your claimed advantages aren't selling points for me. Overall, for me, the XT still wins in the powertrain department over the Outlander V6.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> For some of us, towing is a non-issue.

    It's not only towing, it's regular payload also. We are not driving raodster, we are driving utility vehicle here, so payload is important to many.
    .

    >> Also the Forester's torque split is not held to 90:10 and is proactively adjusted as needed.

    It adjusted only if slippage occurs. Otherwise it's practically a 2WD car. And government EPA testing is done in a lab, so there is no much slipping.
    .

    >> Overall, for me, the XT still wins in the powertrain department over the Outlander V6.

    Right, XT's superior powertrain comes with engine problems, nearly part-tme AWD and antiquated 4-speed Auto.
  • h2k2f2h2k2f2 Member Posts: 44
    It adjusted only if slippage occurs. Otherwise it's practically a 2WD car. And government EPA tasting is done in a lab, so there is no much slipping.

    Sorry, it is adjusted in anticipation of slippage in some circumstances. But if you can't accept that fact, I can't help you.

    And government EPA tasting is done in a lab, so there is no much slipping.

    I didn't realize that they actually tasted things as part of the tests. Mmmm! :)

    Right, XT's superior powertrain comes with engine problems, nearly part-tme AWD and antiquated 4-speed Auto.

    The four speed is well matched to its engines. It still delivers the goods that the Outlander's six speed doesn't (higher EPA numbers and better 0-60 numbers). More gears isn't always better and this is a case in point.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> Sorry, it is adjusted in anticipation of slippage in some circumstances.

    I accept your apologies, and I am glad that now you are saying “some circumstances” which is a progress in a splitting hair process:--)
    .

    >> didn't realize that they actually tasted things as part of the tests.

    Yea, government employees combine it with wine tasting :--)


    >> The four speed is well matched to its engines. More gears isn't always better and this is a case in point.

    Nice try for excuse. I wonder why don’t they use a 4-speed tranny on top of the line Mercedes and Lexus? Why do they use a 7 and 8-speed transmission? They are so behind...
  • h2k2f2h2k2f2 Member Posts: 44
    >> The four speed is well matched to its engines. More gears isn't always better and this is a case in point.

    Nice try for excuse. I wonder why don’t they use a 4-speed tranny on top of the line Mercedes and Lexus? Why do they use a 7 and 8-speed transmission? They are so behind...

    IYou are making sweeping generalizations. More gears doesn't automatically equal superior performance. The Subaru Forester is a case in which more gears don't provide any benefit beyond bragging rights.
  • comem47comem47 Member Posts: 399
    Put another way with the current fuel prices. If both vehicles average 22 mpg combined and you pay 30 cents more for premium fuel then that's around 9% more or degrade the mpgs for an equivalent fuel cost to getting a little over 20 mpg vs the 22 mpg on the same $$ for a regular fuel vehicle. The "cost MPGs" are not the same.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    Yeap. You pay more for the Forester, for gas, for repairs (shorter warranty), but you get less equipment and older technology, compare to the Outlander.

    For instance 2009 Forester comes with dated 4-speed tranny, but 2009 Outlander coming with spectacular 6-speed Twin Clutch: huge technological gap.
  • h2k2f2h2k2f2 Member Posts: 44
    Just keep telling yourself this stuff. Maybe even you'll eventually really believe it.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    I guess you have no more arguments and nothing more substantial to say. The last thing I need is your a rude advice.
  • tidestertidester Member Posts: 10,059
    Let's avoid making it personal and stick to the real issues instead.

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    You pay more for gas?

    Not true.

    OK, let's ignore the fact that Subaru only really required regular fuel, and go with the recommended premium fuel. We'll accept that you pay 30 cents more per gallon. You pay about 9% more.

    Outlander owners are ignoring the fact that it is rated for only 17mpg city, vs. 19 mpg city for the Forester XT. It uses 12% more fuel around town. That offsets the extra you pay for premium.

    Plus, 0-60 in 8.1 seconds, are you sure about that? That's slow! Wow.

    V6 and 6 speeds, and that's all it'll do? That's competitive with the better 4 cylinder normally aspirated models, but nowhere near the Forester XT.

    The Forester X and LL Bean models should nearly match that level of acceleration, and they use cheap ol' regular fuel and less of it, so if you really want to save fuel that's a better choice.

    I bet Mitsubishi's own 2.4l with the CVT isn't much slower than 8.1 seconds.

    8.1 seconds, really? That's slower than my minivan. :D
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Honestly, now, do you really think that the leather-wrapped steering wheel is a dealer-installed option?

    Seriously. Air bag and all? The dealer installs it, not the factory? Do you really believe that?

    Oh boy. :D

    Steve already pointed out you did include incentives. And again, a 2009 will be worth more than a 2008 in resale.

    If you want to add all other potential incentives, then add up to $2000 discount for Subaru Bucks, which you can get with a Chase credit card.

    The previous generation Forester that you call "obsolete" was a Car & Driver 5Best Trucks for 3 years in a row, beating the Outlander. So does that mean they think the Outlander is even less than obsolete? Perhaps so, because in their latest comparison with an Outlander, that AWD system you keep bragging about gave the Outlander the lowest score in the off road category, and prompted C&D to say the Mitsubishi even "felt fragile". Ouch.

    You don't even understand what I'm saying about SportShift, so I give up. Forester shoppers can sample it for themselves and they'll see what I mean.
  • comem47comem47 Member Posts: 399
    You are quoting city mpg . Note that they are equal at 24 hwy mpg. I do better that the 2008 epa on city in any event (more like the 19 mpg rating for city and I regularly exceed 25 mpg on hwy). So any real life driving will be a mix of the two. As for acceleration, I find it more than adequate. If I wanted a rocket sled I guess I would have bought a RAV-4, but I don't care for the rear door (taste)and other ergonomics and price. I'm not going to try to convince you or anyone else against buying what they are already sold on (you obviously are), but just pointing out that fuel cost are not equal. (if you choose run a turbo on regular you're counting on the timing to be backed off by knock sensors to not damage your engine. This timing retard will effect economy and performance. You can't choose regular fuel and boast about premium performance. I'm not sure what Subaru's line is if engine damage were to occur on regular. The engine was designed around premium fuel. Once again, FOR ME the combo of price, warranty and features (like 3500 lbs towing) are a better value for thousands less. YMMV
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Sure, but apples-to-apples, i.e. in the exact same test, the Forester XT shows an advantage around town.

    Consumer Reports also got better observed MPG with their Forester vs. their Outlander, so that's been the case outside the EPA labs as well.

    If we are looking at fuel costs, that mileage advantage should be accounted for. Premium fuel costs more, but getting less MPG also will cost you more.

    If you use regular and the ECU backs off the timing on a Forester XT, it would probably still be quicker than the Outlander. The Subaru has a substantial advantage there.

    I hate the swing door on the RAV4 as well, so I'll agree with you on that one. We got a Sienna, so we enjoy that great engine but don't have to put up with the poor visibility and wrong-way curb blocking door on the RAV4.

    My beef isn't with you, it's with a certain member that keeps putting down the Forester even though he didn't even realize the 2009 Forester XT has a different AWD system than the 2008. (see the 2009 Forester threads for details)

    Some people just don't know what they're talking about! Not you...
  • psychogunpsychogun Member Posts: 129
    Remember: When arguing with a fan boy, it's hard for onlookers to tell the difference. ;-)

    Suffice to say that both of these vehicles are fantastic. Incidentally, anyone shopping for a mid-size CUV should definitely test-drive both.
    I'm disturbed by how often prospective buyers value the written word above an actual test-drive. Simply discarding models based on half-baked tests that they read. Before I digress, it needs to be said that there is not a single publication (paper or virtual) remaining that is not biased. Hmmm... I suppose that in itself is (my) bias. :-)
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> 0-60 in 8.1 seconds, are you sure about that? That's slow! Wow. V6 and 6 speeds, and that's all it'll do? That's competitive with the better 4 cylinder normally aspirated models, but nowhere near the Forester XT.

    Well, you can try to make a racing car out of CUV and you can get good acceleration out of your turbo, but you pay for this pleasure with premium fuel, low payload, and noisy hard working engine. The Outlander’s engine is much more balanced.
    .

    >> Honestly, now, do you really think that the leather-wrapped steering wheel is a dealer-installed option? Seriously. Air bag and all? The dealer installs it, not the factory? Do you really believe that? Oh boy.

    Oh girl, I was talking about Leather Shift Knob which is extra $189 option on Forester, but included with base Outlander XLE.
    .

    >>Steve already pointed out you did include incentives. And again, a 2009 will be worth more than a 2008 in resale.

    We can argue about incentives all day long, but you can’t argue that MSPR and Invoice is lower on Outlander.
    .

    >>If you want to add all other potential incentives, then add up to $2000 discount for Subaru Bucks, which you can get with a Chase credit card.

    Chase card? I use Chase Freedom card much smarter: it pays me cash back, so I can buy anything on cash, including any automobile. You on the other hand are stuck with your Subaru points.
    .

    >> The previous generation Forester that you call "obsolete" was a Car & Driver 5Best Trucks for 3 years in a row, beating the Outlander. So does that mean they think the Outlander is even less than obsolete? Perhaps so, because in their latest comparison with an Outlander, that AWD system you keep bragging about gave the Outlander the lowest score in the off road category, and prompted C&D to say the Mitsubishi even "felt fragile". Ouch.

    I have told you before that I care less about magazine reviews and “awards”. These magazines get paid by car manufacturers so they have obvious conflict of interest. I care more for ratings by real owners, who paid hard earned dollars to manufacturers (not the other way around like in case with magazines), and who drove thousands of miles on these cars. Example for 2007 cars top of the line trim:

    ..................MSNAutos ...Edmunds
    Outlander V6.....9.5 ...........9.1
    Forester turbo ...9.4 ..........8.3
    RAV4 V6..........9.0 ...........8.9
    CR-V ...............9.3 ..........9.1
    CX-7 turbo .......8.8 ...........8.7

    Result? Outlander has the highest owner ratings on both sites.
    .

    >> You don't even understand what I'm saying about SportShift, so I give up. Forester shoppers can sample it for themselves and they'll see what I mean.

    You got no more real arguments I guess? SportShift or they call it Sportronic on Outlander was available two generations before 2009 Forester. In addition to the stick it has paddle shifter controls.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    This is so true, and if they get paid by a client, they are even more biased.
  • h2k2f2h2k2f2 Member Posts: 44
    ...but you pay for this pleasure with premium fuel, low payload, and noisy hard working engine. The Outlander’s engine is much more balanced.

    Have you actually driven the Forester XT with this current version of the engine? If the answer is no, then I don't think that you're really in a position to make such a judgment about it.
  • 10years10years Member Posts: 48
    I have an 03 Forester X with 80K miles and zero problems to date. On a couple of occasions it has saved my butt with excellent brakes and solid handling in winter driving conditions. Compare that to an 03 Outlander.

    The 07s' comparison is new Outlander versus old Forester, it would be better to compare say 06 models.

    My son is beginning to look at getting a new CUV and Oulander is on the list. It certainly has some great features the 09 Forester does not and vice versa. But we have been somewhat dismayed by reports of paint chipping, sand blasting if you will, from winter sanded roads on the bottom panels on the Outlander which to date does not seem to have a practical solution by Mistu.
  • rcpaxrcpax Member Posts: 580
    I don't think it's a problem unique to Mitsubishi, a whole lot of other makes share the same problem. You can easily prevent it by putting on mudguards for your vehicle. Any vehicle will get paint damage if not adequately protected. Simply analogy, if the sun hurts your skin, wear sunblock. I don't have paint chipping in my Outlander because I bought mudguards.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Motorweek's test of the Outlander was even slower: 0-60 in 8.9 seconds. I did a double-take to make sure that was the V6, but it was. :surprise:

    My point is the better 4 cylinder (normally aspirated) competitors can match that and are a lot more economical with fuel. Why get a V6 if it's not a significantly better performer? :confuse:

    In fact, I wonder if Mitsubishi's own 2.4l with the CVT is as quick as their V6 model.

    For reference, the last 2 Foresters they tested took 6.2 and 6.6 seconds, a whole other league.

    I was talking about Leather Shift Knob which is extra $189 option on Forester

    Wrong.

    Leather shift knob is standard on the XT Limited, which is the model you were pricing. It's even standard on the LL Bean model. That's right from the 09 brochure. I've also noticed that in person, which you haven't, because you have not taken a serious look at the Forester (be honest, you haven't).

    How much does your Chase Freedom card earn you? 1%?

    I get 3%. I win.

    Does Mitsubishi offer a program that earns you 3%? Can you use it for service, like you can with Subaru? Parts? Accessories?

    This is important because we were debating TCO, and Subaru Bucks directly reduce your cost of ownership. Up to $2000 up front to buy it, and then $500 per year after that to get free service, a bike rack, etc.

    With a Chase Subaru card your TCO will be much, much lower on a Subaru.
  • tracyo1tracyo1 Member Posts: 1
    I have an '07 outlander that has multiple rock chips on the bottom half of both back passenger doors. According to the district manager in the warranty deparment this is not a defect in the paint so it's my issue. I agree that it is not a defect with the paint, I believe that it is a defect in the design of the vehicle. If you notice that the bottom black piece that is suppose to deflect the rocks away from a vehicle is in the same line as the vehicle you would understand that it isn't going to push them away but actually hit the doors. They suggest mud guards but even that will not stop rocks from hitting the back doors, what should I do?
  • swirl_junkieswirl_junkie Member Posts: 8
    Not to butt into the little debate you guys have going, but do looks even play a part in this issue? I personally didn't shop the Subaru because I wouldn't be caught dead driving it. I'm sure it's a great car, and is fantastic at what it does best... haul soccer moms to the grocery store in the snow. I wouldn't drive one period. Not if it was faster than a Lamborghini, not if it was better in the snow than a hummer.
    It looks like Clark W Griswold drove it off the lot, and even he didn't want it.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Styling is very subjective.

    The front half of these two vehicles actually look a lot alike, something chelentano has pointed out more than once.

    I'm not a fan of the wide D-pillar on the Outlander, but not because of the styling, it's more of an issue of rear 3/4th visibility. The Forester has very narrow pillars and the rear windows is set very low so you can see just about everything.

    Mitsu offers a backup camera and I recommend that feature.

    Any how, styling on both of these is attractive, IMO.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    Look in the Paint Chipping thread for more information. Based on my experience this winter, I too believe that the mudguards alone are not enough, but if you add the door garnish (stock on Japan and Europe) and some extra 3M clear film on the rear door you should be covered.
  • comem47comem47 Member Posts: 399
    [ateixeira wrote: My point is the better 4 cylinder (normally aspirated) competitors can match that and are a lot more economical with fuel. Why get a V6 if it's not a significantly better performer?

    A: Towing for one. lots of 4 cylinders are limited to 1000 to 1500 lbs.

    The V6 outie tows 3500 lbs. I personally don't feel the V6 outie is as slow as it's being made out to be. As someone else said "drive em". I did drive the other vehicles I was interested in ('08 Subaru was all that was offered at the time so I didn't bother looking at them last fall as the wagon was too small for me) I did drive A Hyundai Santa Fe (and found it very nice, but felt the Outie was more gas economical for me and cost less). I also love the Rockford Fosgate sound system
    and flip down tailgate. I also love the steering. There are compromises, but it fit my needs nicely with great value.

    The specs from delaers and magazines are only a starting point. A test drive tells a lot more.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    Motorweek's test of the Outlander was even slower: 0-60 in 8.9 seconds. I did a double-take to make sure that was the V6, but it was.

    My point is the better 4 cylinder (normally aspirated) competitors can match that and are a lot more economical with fuel. Why get a V6 if it's not a significantly better performer?

    In fact, I wonder if Mitsubishi's own 2.4l with the CVT is as quick as their V6 model.

    For reference, the last 2 Foresters they tested took 6.2 and 6.6 seconds, a whole other league.

    Not to interfere with the little "war" here, but I wouldn't go by the numbers posted by the Motorweek. I read/watch their reviews but for whatever reasons they post higher test numbers for ALL the cars, in all performance tests. At the most, you could use the numbers to compare other vehicles tested by them.

    Motorweek tested the 2006 Forester XT, which without doubt, posts better numbers than the Outlander and most of the V6 CUVs on the road. Does this mean much? If I were to buy a turbo vehicle, I would buy a car - WRX, Mazdaspeed3, STi, Evo, etc. I don't really see the point for a mainstream turbo SUV. It will handle like an SUV regardless so the straight-line acceleration it's just a waist of time.

    I would be curious thought to see some numbers for the naturally aspired 2009 Forester. This would be relevant indeed. However, from what I've seen so far, all the I4 CUVs are in the same ballpark 9-10 sec. with the Rogue being the quickest.
    The Outlander I4 is also up there with the CRV, RAV4 I4 and Rogue for fuel economy so it's not a lesser vehicle by comparison. I'm sure the 2009 Forester will join them too.

    The Outlander V6 posts 8.1-8.3 sec. in any other car magazine test, which is about right and normal for its power output and size/weight (at least in my opinion); it doesn’t feel underpowered or sluggish by any means.
    On the other hand, the naturally aspired 3.0L H6 Subaru engine (same displacement as the Outlander’s V6), with 250 hp and 5-speed auto in the last gen Tribeca, posted a whooping 9.7 sec. to 60 mph (Motorweek called it "reasonable" LOL). This is truly in the I4 territory so not quite an accomplishment for Subaru.

    For what it's worth, the Outlander V6 however is faster to 60mph than any naturally aspired I4 CUV without a question enve though that's by a second or so,
  • psychogunpsychogun Member Posts: 129
    I thought I would be able to stay away from this thread... Ack! Oh well... :-)

    In my humble opinion, the 0-60 time is only a small piece of the performance story.

    The job of an engine and transmission is to appropriately propel the vehicle in a given circumstance. The flexibility of an engine (i.e. availability of torque over the rev band) is a rather important aspect of overall performance.

    I haven't test-drive the 09 Forester and it's been just over a year since I drove the Outlander, so I can't really comment.

    I will regurgitate what I posted earlier. These are both fantastic vehicles, if you are in the market. Do yourself a favor and go test-drive both of them. :shades:
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> I've also noticed that in person, which you haven't, because you have not taken a serious look at the Forester (be honest, you haven't).

    Wrong, I attended the new Forester at Chicago auto show.


    >> How much does your Chase Freedom card earn you? 1%? I get 3%. I win.

    Freedom card pays back 3% cash back on 3 top shopping categories and 1% on other categories. So what I do, I have two Freedom cards: Visa and Master Card and I use them for 3 different categories of purchases. So I get about 2.5% back in CASH, not in some subaru points. And Freedom has larger $600 a year cap, vs. Subaru’s $500 a year cap. I get slightly smaller percentage but more rebate cap and most importantly I have freedom. By choosing cash I am not married to one manufacturer and I have freedom to spend my money any way I want, including a car purchase. Some Subaru bux do not enslave me: this time I can buy Outlander - next time i can try another brand. I win.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    I completely agree. Styling is extremely important and while it is subjective, my opinion is that Subaru is way behind in styling department. The only subaru exterior design I like is WRX. The new Forester looks better than previous ugly station wagon, but the new Forester appears to me as bad copy of Outlander, and while it’s 2 years newer then Outlander it looks to me a 5 years older. You right: styling is the main reason I would not buy Subaru. Otherwise they are well build (little short on technology) but very reliable cars.
  • h2k2f2h2k2f2 Member Posts: 44
    chelentano:
    It's interesting to me that you haven't replied to my question and comment. Why is that? Come on, it's time for an answer from you.
  • rcpaxrcpax Member Posts: 580
    The current WRX STi is a good example of that. While looks is definitely is in the eye of the beholder, not too many Subaru aficionados like the current WRX/ WRX Sti styling. Need I say anything about the Evo-X? On the motorsports side of things, just look at the current WRC standing of Subaru right now. They haven't won a single rally since 2005. Shame.
  • rcpaxrcpax Member Posts: 580
    They suggest mud guards but even that will not stop rocks from hitting the back doors, what should I do?

    WHat you need are longer mudflaps, which I got from autozone for 10$ a pair. That definitely prevented whatever "sandblasting" issue you have. I never had it because I bought one before winter. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure the rear panel will get road debris damage. That's why I bought mudguards and mudflaps early on. A few bucks saved my vehicle's paint work.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> It's interesting to me that you haven't replied to my question and comment. Why is that?

    Why? You are asking the obvious stuff, that’s why. The premium gas, lower payload and higher RPM are in Forester' specs. Turbo engine is always noisier since it is working at higher RPM and with subsequent whistling noise as the air passes past the compressor wheel. No, I haven’t drove it, but very few people did due to its turbo engine problems. Did you? I drove other turbos and they also have common listed issues. 4C turbo is not a good choice of engine for CUV/SUV.

    Quote: "Turbochargers can also be damaged by dirty or ineffective oil, and most manufacturers recommend more frequent oil changes for turbocharged engines. Because the turbocharger will get hot when running, many recommend letting the engine idle for 1 to 3 minutes before shutting off the engine if the turbocharger was used shortly before stopping (what a hassle). This lets the turbo rotating assembly cool from the lower exhaust gas temperatures, and ensures that oil is supplied to the turbocharger while the turbine housing and exhaust manifold are still very hot; otherwise coking of the lubricating oil trapped in the unit may occur when the heat soaks into the bearings, causing rapid bearing wear and failure when the car is restarted. Even small particles of burnt oil will accumulate and lead to choking the oil supply and failure." This is called oil cooking.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    A: Towing for one. lots of 4 cylinders are limited to 1000 to 1500 lbs.

    True for some models, but the base Forester X can tow 2400 lbs.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    At the most, you could use the numbers to compare other vehicles tested by them.

    But that's exactly what I did, for the V6 Outlander and for the Forester turbo.

    Your criticism of the old Tribeca is outdated because that engine was replaced more than a year ago.

    FWIW I ruled out the Tribeca for the same reason I ruled out the V6 Outlander - the gas tank is too small, so range is poor.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    When I hit the $500 cap I switch to a gas card that gets me 1-5% back. ;)

    My dealer's body shop will take Subaru Bucks, so I have plenty of freedom. You can also get bike racks, ski racks, etc.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    styling is the main reason I would not buy Subaru

    Note that I'm going to quote you on that.

    So you have ruled out Subaru for a subjective reason.

    Duly noted.

    While I'm at it, you like the WRX, but many old school Subaru fans do not, so this is a matter of your tastes not matching the typical Subaru buyers. A lot people think the WRX is the least attractive Subaru.

    You keep saying payload, payload, payload, but if that's such a priority, shouldn't torque also be a priority? The XT has a lot more torque.

    You call Subarus "very reliable". We finally agree on something. :shades:
  • rcpaxrcpax Member Posts: 580
    IMO, i ain't driving in the nevada desert so i'm not worried. where i live there is a gas station every 2 blocks, so i need not worry about running out of gas.the Outlander's tank capacity is actually one of the selling points for me. I don't have to carry extra fuel weight with just me driving the vehicle most of the time, that extra weight which would add to fuel consumption. But then again this is personal preference. The Outlander's fuel tank capacity is at best "about right", not too big, not too small.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    Sure, it's main reason. I have to like styling to buy a car. The overall image of a Subaru in my mind is that ugly AWD station wagon.

    Equipment to price ratio (value) is the second big reason why I would not buy it. With its 4-speed tarnny, nearly part-tme AWD and shortage of modern gadgets his car worth may be around 20K. Otherwise, like I've said, subarus are well build and reliable cars.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Small tank a selling point? C'mon now. Anyone could fill up their tank half way.

    I don't want to have to stop for gas every 5 days.

    Give me a big gas tank any day. With a 21 gallon tank in my minivan, I can drive around for about 500 miles. Plus you can price shop for gas - buy it when you're in an area with lower gas prices, for instance.

    If you get stuck and have to pay a high price for gas, then you can elect to fill it up only partially. If it's cheap, fill 'er up.

    It actually lowers your overall fuel costs that way.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    1 liter tank size difference is pretty small to make it a big advantage
  • dcm61dcm61 Member Posts: 1,567
    IMO, this topic is getting to the point of basically just wasting bandwidth.

    Has ANYONE involved in this bickering match actually driven BOTH the '08 Outlander AND '09 Forester?

    If not, please refrain from posting "armchair" opinions on the actual features that require at least a short test drive. Driveability, handling, etc. Please only post real world, meaningful, seat of the pants experience.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    It's not 1 liter, it's actually about 4.2 liters.

    Plus I'm talking about range, so you also have to account for the better gas mileage.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    No, the discussion is about Forester and Outlander, not about your minivan or his Suburban. The Forester/Outlander tank difference is just 1L.
  • comem47comem47 Member Posts: 399
    IMO, this topic is getting to the point of basically just wasting bandwidth.

    Has ANYONE involved in this bickering match actually driven BOTH the '08 Outlander AND '09 Forester?

    If not, please refrain from posting "armchair" opinions on the actual features that require at least a short test drive. Driveability, handling, etc. Please only post real world, meaningful, seat of the pants experience

    Agreed!!! I'd like to hear from someone who's driven both for their honest opinion. (not that I'm in the market, just curious). In the mean time I can provide experience info on an 07 LS AWD Outlander if that helps anyone. (essentially the same as '08)
    I think the '09 Subaru is a step in th right direction from the smaller wagons that you really can't call a CUV. (an '08 Forrester would not have been on my check out list because of that, while a non-premium fuel ''09 might have)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I am talking about the Forester. The 2009 models have a 16.9 gallon tank.

    Are you sure you saw the 2009 Forester at the Chicago Auto Show? Did you even pick up a brochure? You have no idea what you are talking about.

    1.1 gallons more capacity = 4.2 liters extra.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    Oh, my apologies. That's what i meant: 1 G not 1 L. It's a typo and I have these correct numbers on my chart. Still 1.1 gallon is small difference on 16G tank. And of course I saw Forester at the show.
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles