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
chelentano
Member Posts: 634
This discussion has been closed.
chelentano
Member Posts: 634
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
>> We are now shopping for my wife and I will look at another Subaru. I will consider an Outlander but I'd like to see if it can pass the ramp test, i.e. if the AWD is truly capable of distributing power to each wheel, enough to get it to climb in those slippery scenarios.
Of course Outlander is truly capable of distributing power to each wheel. According to Mitsu site, the Outlander delivers up to 60% of power to rear wheels in Lock mode. According to the NY Times article, 4-speed automatic Subaru can do only 50%:
Subaru with manual transmission can deliver up to 100% only to rear axel, but not to the front axel. Anyway I assume you shopping for a car with auto transmission?
So if we apply NY Times classification the comparo looks like this:
Outlander 6-speed auto: normal split 60/40; extreme split 100 to 0/40 to 60
Forester 4-speed auto: normal split 90/10; extreme split 50/50
It appears the Outlander numbers look better in both normal and extreme conditions.
.
>> Personally, we've owned one Mitsu and 2 Subarus, and had a better experience with the Subarus, but I'm open minded.
The Mitsu you’ve owned probably was a Chrysler build in Illinois with Mitsu label, which explains quality issues. The Outlander on the other hand is build entirely in Japan.
>> I could care less that you dismiss those videos. I certainly don't.
These Subaru marketing videos can not possibly qualify as independent objective tests. Marketing is biased by nature. Car salesman is the last person I would trust. And the results of these “tests” are way too black and white to be true: every AWD system there is bad except for the “great Subaru”. The NY Times article is a little more independent. Subaru there does not even look that good compare to Audi Quattro, Volkswagen 4mothion, Mitsubishi Super Select II, and Volvo TRACS: all four can deliver the extreme 100 to 0/0 to 100 torque split. Best AWD systems can even drive a car on a single wheel – Subaru can’t do that! And both of your Subaru-made videos advocate Subaru’s distinctive superiority over Volvo and Volkswagen? No way. Anyone with some common sense would dismiss Subaru’s marketing setup.
>> Nope, the XT Sports has VDC, but the one on the ramp is a basic X model, with no traction control. There are many ways you can tell - the lack of a hood scoop (not a turbo), the wheels, the mirrors are smaller, and a few other differences.
Nope, every 2008 Forester model has traction control. You did not even check your specs again!
The video in question isn't really a marketing video, it's a dealer training video. It wasn't intended for a general audience, but rather for dealers to learn about Subaru AWD so they can speak intelligently about it to customers.
I guess I don't see a motive for them to rig the test. Plus, how would they even do that? I can see how they could use a FWD CR-V for it to fail, but not how the Forester could succeed by cheating - you clearly see the rollers and wheels moving.
That NY Times chart would be nice if it were accurate, but it's riddled with mistakes, which I'll discuss in a seperate post.
Nope, every 2008 Forester model has traction control. You did not even check your specs again!
Sorry, but no, not all models have traction and stability control, straight from Subaru.com:
http://www.subaru.com/shop/specifications.jsp?year=2008&model=FORESTER&trim=25XT- LIMITED&command=features
"Optional VDC stability control"
"Traction Control System (TCS) : Optional"
The Sports XT Limited model gets it, the X model that we saw on that ramp does not.
Audi Quattro cannot do a max of 0/100 to 100/0. Audi uses a Torsen limited-slip center differential with a bias ratio of 2 to 1. By design, the limit of that system is 33/67 to 67/33. It's just plain wrong.
Even if the bias ratio was 9 to 1, it would be 10/90 to 90/10. A Torsen is completely incapable of sending 100% to one axle. It's just impossible by design.
Here is a good source from an engineering point of view:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/differential6.htm
Also, the A3 doesn't use a Torsen at all. It's Golf-based so it uses a Haldex part-time system.
Chrysler Group minivans don't even offer AWD. How old is that chart? Mama-mia.
If it is indeed old enough to include AWD Chrysler vans, then they are also wrong about the Audi TT. Back then the Audi TT actually used VW's system of AWD, since it was a Golf-based system built by Haldex. That defaulted to a 100% FWD split, not 50/50.
Lexus RX300? OK, that gives us an idea about how old the chart is. The RX330 replaced it, and the RX350 has since replaced that model. The last model year for the RX300 was 2003.
Back then, the Audi TT did have a Haldex. So the "Audi all" part is definitely wrong. It's wrong even today - the A3's system is different than the A4's.
The Hyundai Santa Fe's AWD was not full-time back then, either. In fact the traction control only functioned on the front axle, because it was an on-demand part-time system. Don't ask for a source because I didn't seriously shop the Sante Fe at the time.
Volvo uses a Haldex that is not full-time, it also defaults to FWD, like the Audi TT. In fact they use the same supplier. Not surprisingly, Haldex is Swedish. Here's a little write-up about them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldex
Now, let's specifically look at what they say about Subaru's systems.
First they list the 5 speed manual, call it 50/50 default and 0/100 max. The 50/50 part is actually correct. The 0/100 is not.
Why? Very simple. There is a viscous coupling center differential. It's fluid-filled, and as the two axles move at different speeds, the fluid hardens and locks the two axles together. It's not a thinking system, it is purely mechanical. The 0/100 claim makes it seem rear-biased, but it's not biased at all - it just locks the axles at the same speed. In other words, if it can send 100% to the rear, it can send 100% to the front. The Times should have said 0/100 to 100/0.
Personally, I owned one of those, VC equipped with 5 speed manual, 1998 model. It still uses the same system today. For MY2009, they will add traction and stability control to that model.
How did it work in the snow, out in the real world? Great. Add too much gas in a turn and you could feel the system cycle power fore and aft. If you forced it to oversteer it would send all the power to the front wheels and it would pull me out of the skid. If power were 50/50 I'd be in the weeds because the rear wheels would still be spinning, but that didn't happen. It went to 100/0, i.e. all power to the front wheels, and pulled me safely out of the skid. It was very controllable and a hoot to drive.
Next, the Active AWD system, found on the low-price automatic models. They say 90/10 default (which is correct) up to 50/50 max, which is incorrect. If the front axle was getting 50% of the power or more, the front wheels would have spun like crazy on that ramp. Remember it didn't spin at all. So the front axle was getting 0 power. It should be 100/0 to 0/100.
Third, for the VTD system, 45/55 default is correct (for USA models, some JDM models send 62% to the rear axle by default). 50/50 max is incorrect.
The VW Passat is also wrong, by the way. The latest model uses a Haldex and would not be full-time. The previous model used a Torsen so the limits were 67/33 to 33/67, i.e. same 2 to 1 bias ratio for the Torsen as Audi's.
Any how, for Subaru, they have a bit of an AWD identity crisis, because they are marketing 4 different AWD systems (if you add the STI). They label them all under "Symmetrical AWD", but the truth is each system is different. Effective, but different.
PS I've witnesssed, in person, a Benz 4Matic and a BMW successfully climb those ramps, and also watched a Lexus RX and an Audi A4 (torsen) fail. Yet another error by the Times because they say the Audi can climb one.
-mike
Motorsports and Modifications Host
Bob
Yea, right! Bashing other manufacturers for “training” purposes. And then o-o-ps: the “traning” video shows up on youtube and who knows where else? Probably on computers screens of those Subaru sales people so they can show it off to car buyers.
.
>> I guess I don't see a motive for them to rig the test.
Motive of car marketing: selling more cars. It’s that simple.
.
>> Plus, how would they even do that? I can see how they could use a FWD CR-V for it to fail, but not how the Forester could succeed by cheating - you clearly see the rollers and wheels moving.
I don’t even want to go there: they’re so many ways to fix the “test”, especially in a movie.
.
>> That NY Times chart would be nice if it were accurate, but it's riddled with mistakes. Scary that they even published that.
Well, when I see two contradicting opinions: one by the independent New York Times and the other one by biased Subaru enthusiast, which opinion do you think I should trust? The article is one of the best I’ve seen about the AWD systems, the guy definitely knows what he is talking about. In order to dismiss his article, you’d have some credentials. It’s also tough to be wrong for NY Times: they can get sued big Times!
That’s what I am saying, not every person really qualified to dismiss expert opinion. I guess you probably just don’t know the complete picture. Even the http://wikicars.org/en/Quattro says about Quattro: “up to 100% of torque can be transferred to either axle”. It says it there twice. So the guy from NY Times is right.
.
>> Chrysler Group minivans don't even offer AWD. How old is that chart? Mama-mia.
This 2002 or 2003 article is still newer then that “proof” of yours, which you posted to me in the other thread, which was dated by year 2000 and hosted on some noname site which even could not afford to buy a domain name.
And since we primarily talking about the Subaru, the 2002 Subaru info is almost as good even for the year 2014. According to your own words, Subaru’s AWD system in 1998 was the same, as it’s today. [“I owned VC equipped with 5 speed manual, 1998 model. It still uses the same system today”]
Anyway, Subaru is little slow on new technologies and on innovation. The brand new 2009 Forester uses same-old-same-old 4-speed auto tranny, which means they going to sell that car with dated AWD and dated tranny probably at least through the year 2014! Also Subaru is coming up this year first time ever with its first diesel engine: welcome to 21 century!
.
>> Now, let's specifically look at what they say about Subaru's systems. First they list the 5 speed manual, call it 50/50 default and 0/100 max. The 50/50 part is actually correct. The 0/100 is not. Next, the Active AWD system, found on the low-price automatic models. They say 90/10 default (which is correct) up to 50/50 max, which is incorrect. If the front axle was getting 50% of the power or more, the front wheels would have spun like crazy on that ramp. Remember it didn't spin at all. So the front axle was getting 0 power. It should be 100/0 to 0/100.
The NY Times guy is probably right again. In his other article “Introduction to All Wheel Drive systems” he actually calls this auto transmission Subaru’s AWD system “part time”:
“Subaru has for many years been quietly offering radically different AWD systems in the same car, depending on the transmission choice. The manual transmission Legacies and Imprezas use a full time system that is split 50-50 with viscous couplings for limiting slip. In the automatic transmission versions, however, the system is a part time”.
I mean really: 10% of rear axel torque you can barely call full-time. Is it really even 10% or he just rounded the number? I’d call that a fake full-time AWD. Again, there is too much marketing from Subaru, too little technology.
-mike
Motorsports and Modifications Host
-mike
Motorsports and Modifications Host
That's the granddaddy Wikipedia started by individual volunteer contributors Nature is talking about, not the wikicars thing that was started by Internet Brands to tout their own material.
Correct me, if something is not accurate, but the Outlander appears to be a much better deal.
I'm more of a base model guy and would go for the manual tranny non-turbo Forester and the ES Outlander (in real life I might just go for the FWD Mitsu, but for comparison purposes, I looked at the base AWD). Plus there's a stop order on the Forester turbos (Stop Sale).
No premium fuel requirements on the base engine Subie either. EPA MPG is 20/26.
Best thing the Mitsu has going is the 10 year drivetrain warranty, although the 60k part of it isn't quite as good as the 7/70 I had on my old Voyager. Actually my current Quest came with a 5/60 drivetrain, and I hit 60k during the third year, so Mitsu really should stretch that out a bit to correspond more realistically with typical miles driven a year. Definitely a better basic warranty on the Mitsu.
Not sure about the CVT transmissions. I miss having a stick. You'd think a CVT would easily last those 10 years, having fewer parts and all. I'd like to drive one for a couple of days.
Crash ratings aren't out for the Forester yet afaik - Outlander does well.
Both of them have 16" tires - have you priced tires lately? I don't want to even think about the cost of an 18" or bigger tire with the price of crude these days.
I don't tow, but that could be a deal killer for tire kickers.
People still use CDs? :P
The 4 cylinder Outlander was not available last year, otherwise I would consider it, since I do a heavy urban driving in Chicago, but I’d get the Special Edition - you can get so much car for your dollar.
.
>> Plus there's a stop order on the Forester turbos
Technical issues, perhaps.
.
>> Not sure about the CVT transmissions. I miss having a stick. You'd think a CVT would easily last those 10 years, having fewer parts and all. I'd like to drive one for a couple of days.
CVT is shiftable on the Outlander. I believe even paddle shifters are present. The V6 Outlander suppose to get a twin clutch tranny next year, which would be cool.
.
>> Both of them have 16" tires - have you priced tires lately? I don't want to even think about the cost of an 18" or bigger tire with the price of crude these days. I don't tow, but that could be a deal killer for tire kickers.
Not a concern for me. By the time I need new tires, I get a new car. Otherwise if we commit to drive SUV, be prepared for higher costs of gas, tires, etc.
.
>> People still use CDs? :P
Some do. Also these are CD-Rs with MP3 capability. You can stuff so much music into 6 CDs, or you can get the single DVD version Outlander with build-in MP3 music server, Sirius radio and iPod connector.
Ordinarily I wouldn't think too much about this class of vehicle unless you're willing to call them tall wagons, but my sister got a used Forester a year ago and I've enjoyed driving it. It seems a bit more versatile than my Outback in some ways and almost could take the place of our minivan.
None of them really get the mpg I'd like to see - I'd really like to get ~25/26 in town and over 30 on the road while still being able to tote bulky camping gear around.
The Outlander's tailgate looks interesting too btw.
CDs = moving parts = last century. I want an AUX type jack that will accept an MP3 player or USB stick. Give me steering wheel controls that integrate with it too. Oh yeah, while I'm dreaming, make it standard, lol.
Not to get too far afield, but have you done a similar comparison with the new CR-V?
Yea, and give me a music server with LCD playlist management, which streams my music collection wirelessly off my home PC or off my online storage account. Voice activated, please.
No. I have done it with RAV4 though.
Outlander vs. RAV4
This one should really live on the Outlander and Forester boards.
That should generate more traffic. Thanks.
That's impressive.
>> FWIW, CR listed the Outlander under their list for highest TCO in its class.
Forester was on the list for the lowest TCO.
Got a link to this Consumer Reports info? I got mine: according to Edmunds.com True Cost of Ownership for the 2008 Outlander XLS AWD is $47,686. http://www.edmunds.com/new/2008/mitsubishi/outlander/100952924/cto.html?vdp=off&- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - setzip=60610&change=Change
TCO for the 2008 Forester XT Lmt is 48,982:
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2008/subaru/forester/100887346/cto.html?vdp=off&setzi- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - p=60610&change=Change
Note the Outlander's low repair costs due to a better warranty, and note its great depreciation. So by going with the Outlander, you get much better equipped car for less money.
.
>> And yes, folks, chelentano is extremely pro-Mitsubishi, have no doubt.
No doubt, folks, extremely pro-Mitsubishi: what a great car!
.
>> While I'm replying to you - have you found a video to prove the Outlander can climb one of those ramps that simulate driving on ice?
I was not looking for any video. That video “test” you are so proud of is made by Subaru on Subaru dealership. That fact and tooo black-and-white results of the “test” make for me no reason to respect the “test“ results. According to the video, Subaru’s AWD is great and everything else is junk. Car salesman is the last person I would trust in respect to a car he sells.
Subaru’s AWD systems are not created equal. Some are great, but not the best though. Some are mediocre. The 2009 4-speed auto Forester is practically a part-time AWD car: the car is front axle biased with 90/10 front/rear torque split under normal driving conditions. Subaru had to cheat using this nearly part-time AWD system to deliver some reasonable gas mileage. The Outlander on the other hand has true full-time AWD and it is more balanced with 60/40 torque split.
you get much better equipped car
Really? No moonroof, no leather, no CD changer, and it's better equipped? It is cheaper, but that's because more things are options rather than standard, as on the Forester XT.
CR has the TCO for Outlander at around $42k, so Edmunds numbers seem way high. Forester's numbers are even lower. You have to subscribe to their web site for any link to work.
Subaru’s AWD is great and everything else is junk
Nobody made that claim. In fact, you did the opposite - you keep saying the Mitsu's AWD system is better.
Subaru had to cheat using this nearly part-time AWD
I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. It is full time and constantly adjusts the torque split, constantly.
Not your fault, though you didn't cite a source for us to try to contact them to correct all their mistakes.
Anyhow, right off the top of my head, here are some of the many, many mistakes that chart makes:
* it uses the old EPA number for the Mitsu, 19/26, revised down to 17/24
* it overlooks the SportShift trans on the Subaru (this is a matter of preference)
* trailer wiring exists for the Forester, that chart implies it does not
* Bluetooth is indeed offered on the Forester, that chart says its not
* the chart says no DVD player, also wrong, Forester will play DVDs on the NAV screen
* no mention of Forester's Sirius satellite radio capability
* no mention of ability to play MP3 and WMA files
* no mention of ability to play CD-Rs
So basically it looks like that list was made by a Mitsubishi dealer who has never even seen a Forester, much less driven one.
Also, there are a few things the Forester has that the Mitsu does not:
* dual exhaust outlets (vs. single)
* hood struts (vs. a cheap prop rod)
* better visibility (especially around the D-pillar)
* perforated leather standard on the models compared
* moonroof standard, and also 3 times the size of Mitsu's optional one
* seat heaters standard
* 10 way power driver's seat standard (pkg on Mitsu)
* more power
* more torque
* extra power and torque still yields better city gas mileage, +2mpg
* bigger gas tank for better cruising range
I'm not sure if the Outlander XLS also includes heated mirrors and wiper de-icers but those are also standard on the Forester XT.
Manual transmission Foresters have a unique Hill Start Assist feature. Not to mention the option of a manual transmission, for those who prefer it over a slushbox.
Honestly, toss that chart in the trash. They got more things wrong than they got right.
(pun intended)
The lesser mileage offsets any savings from buying a lower octane.
More importantly, you lose range. 15.8 gallons times 17mpg city equals just 267 miles. You'll be getting gas pretty often.
The Forester XT gets 19 city with a 16.9 gallon tank, so you'll enjoy 321 miles of range. That's more than a 20% advantage.
Mitsu should really consider a much bigger gas tank, at least, 20 gallons plus. Subaru made the same mistake with the Tribeca.
It would have been easier to go for a Subaru, dealer wise (largest dealer in US is just 3 miles away and they have an excellent reputation, but I liked the larger size of the Outlander over Forrester and Forrester was more, let alone Tribeca (I'm glad they at least got rid of that horse collar grill) Let's call it personal taste. As I mentioned before If it wasn't the Outlander it was going to be a Hyundai Santa Fe for this size vehicle with warranty and price. My LS AWD with Sun and sound package (Rockford Fosgate 650 W with power Sunroof )listed for a hair over $25K
(I believe the 2007/8 Forrester is at least $2K more and I paid less with incentives and got more for my trade in than elsewhere. (also the warranty is far superior on the Outlander and I keep my vehicles for several years).
Honestly, the mileage isn't too bad, it's the tiny little gas tank. Mitsu should put in a 20+ gallon tank to give you some better range. 15.8 gallons for a V6 model?
Outlander is bigger, but to me it's too small to compete in the mid-size arena, yet too big to be as efficient as the best compacts. Call it an inbetween-er.
Also, I took a tape measure to the auto show, and the cargo area was something like 37" wide, the narrowest of all the compact crossovers I measured. Perhaps they had to make room for those 18"s, or the suspension just isn't very compact. Length and height were good, but you may have to stack things up.
Sante Fe is a great value but it doesn't meet my fuel economy targets. FWIW, I would shop the 4 cylinder Outlander CVT, the normally aspirated Forester, not the V6 or the turbo.
I checked again in CR, both vehicles are "Recommended", and both have "Much Better than Average" reliability. Kudos to both.
Outlander does "Average" on ownership cost and owner satisfaction. Forester does "Much Better than Average" on ownership cost and "Better than Average" on owner satisfaction.
Honestly though if you love one more than the other I think you should pay more to get what you want. :shades:
Or, just pay to get what you want, regardless of whether it is more.
That’s wrong. 6-CD changer is standard on Outlander.
.
>> 'you get much better equipped car 'Really? No moonroof, no leather, no CD changer, and it's better equipped? It is cheaper, but that's because more things are options rather than standard, as on the Forester XT.
Take a look: Outlander XLS with 3 packages TMV $29,414 (it's actually less: Mitsu dealer usually does not charge destination), which includes leather, sunroof, nav, premium stereo, Xenons. The Forester with all main packages TMV $31,882. The Forester costs more yet this higher price does not include paddle shifters, Bluetooth, FAST Key, keyless start, music server, 18” wheels, Xenons, 650-watt amplifier, LED, Skid Plates – everything the Outlander has got. In addition Subaru has less capable transmission and AWD. So with Outlander for less money you get much better equipped car.
In addition to the purchasing costs, the Forester has higher maintenance costs due to more expensive premium gas and shorter warranty.
>> Subaru had to cheat using this nearly part-time AWD- I don't even understand what you're trying to say here. It is full time and constantly adjusts the torque split, constantly.
The Forester is only technically a full-time AWD car: the car is front axle biased with 90/10 front/rear torque split under normal driving conditions. It would pass more torque to the rear only when a slippage occurs: it’s reactive, but not a proactive system. The Outlander would pass 40% to the rear under normal driving conditions and it will pass more when the slippage occurs. In addition the Outlander owner has a choice of 2WD mode, but the Forester’s owner does not.
No, it’s my fault, if there is inaccuracy.
>> Anyhow, right off the top of my head, here are some of the many, many mistakes that chart makes:
* it uses the old EPA number for the Mitsu, 19/26, revised down to 17/24
You are right. I will fix it.
.
>>* no mention of Forester's Sirius satellite radio capability
>>* no mention of ability to play MP3 and WMA files
>>* no mention of ability to play CD-Rs
>>* it overlooks the SportShift trans on the Subaru (this is a matter of preference)
It overlooks all these features on both cars. The chart attempts do display only unique reasonably substantial features which differ among both cars. Otherwise chart would get too long.
.
>>* trailer wiring exists for the Forester, that chart implies it does not
This trailer info posted according to Edmunds.com. Post your link, if otherwise.
.
>>* Bluetooth is indeed offered on the Forester, that chart says its not
Yes, it just became available for the Forester as dealer installed kit, I will correct it. Note, that factory installed bluetooth is standard on the Outlander.
.
>>* the chart says no DVD player, also wrong, Forester will play DVDs on the NAV screen
Edmunds.com says “DVD player is not available”. Post a link, then I will fix the chart. Note, that on Outlander you can get the second rear DVD.
.
>>Also, there are a few things the Forester has that the Mitsu does not:
* dual exhaust outlets (vs. single)
That’s wrong. The Outlander has dual. Not a big deal though.
.
>> * hood struts (vs. a cheap prop rod)
>> * perforated leather standard on the models compared
>> * more power
>> * more torque
>> * mention the option of a manual transmission, for those who prefer it over a slushbox.
These are insignificant. Outlander could counter these with odor absorbing interior, standard leather shifter, aluminum roof, faster hard drive navigation, GPS Diamond Lane Guidance system, speed adjusted radio volume, second rear DVD player, optional multicolor HID lights, dual stage turn signal, digital multi-info display, etc.
.
>>* extra power and torque still yields better city gas mileage, +2mpg
You forgetting the weight difference and practically part-time AWD on Forester.
.
>>* better visibility (especially around the D-pillar)
Subjective and insignificant. I would counter it with better handling and styling on Outlander
.
>>* seat heaters standard
>>* Manual transmission Foresters have a unique Hill Start Assist feature.
>>* bigger gas tank for better cruising range
True. I will make the update these. Hill assist is not unique: it's on RAV4 and others, and will be on 2009 Outlander model with twin clutch tranny.
.
>>* moonroof standard, and also 3 times the size of Mitsu's optional one
Not 3 times. May be 50% larger, but I will make the update
.
>>* 10 way power driver's seat standard (pkg on Mitsu)
The chart already says that it's standard on Forstr. Double check please.
>>I'm not sure if the Outlander XLS also includes heated mirrors and wiper de-icers but those are also standard on the Forester XT.
You better make sure
When you go to sell them a 2009 will be worth more than a 2008.
You also dismiss the extras that the Forester has (how convenient). The hood struts are very cool, pop the hood and it raises itself. I do my own maintenance and this important to me. The cheap prop rod clip on my Miata has broken twice, a real nuisance.
You dismiss SportShift but your chart lists paddle shifters, so it should list the tap shift feature on the Forester. Some prefer them on the steering wheel, others prefer them on the shifter itself. Personal preference. But if the chart lists one, it should list the other, if you want to be fair.
Subaru does recommend premium fuel but it doesn't require it, plus remember the EPA city is 2 mpg better, so you'll likely use less fuel. You will not see any cost advantage. The Forester does enjoy more range, though.
Subaur's AWD is proactive, it adjust constantly even before there is slip. In fact in 1st and 2nd gears it defaults to 50/50. Only when cruising does it default to 90/10.
How do I know about trailer wiring. See photo below. The harness is there, just plug and play.
The NAV system will play DVDs, but I have yet to see any technical spec on it. In fact I'm looking for those because we are considering getting that option. My main concern is that these built-in units have a safe mode where it does not let you enter a destination while on the go. You have to pull over and put the vehicle in Park.
So let me ask, how does the Outlander's GPS system work? Will it let you enter an address while moving?
Most don't. To me this is a deal-killer. If you can't use it while on the go, even when a passenger occupies the seat next to you and can enter it, well, that just stinks.
A few more things...
You mention the Outlander's standard air filtration but the Forester has that too.
According to my Consumer's Guide (not the same as CR, by the way) Auto 2008, the Outlander only has a tilt wheel. The Forester XT's tilts and telescopes.
Also according to that same book, heated mirrors and wiper de-icers are standard on the Forester XT. It makes no mention of those on the Outlander, that's why I asked you to make sure, since you own the car and should know.
The rear seats on the Forester can also recline. They even make a bed with the front seats.
You mention the leather steering wheel and shifter on the Outlander but the Forester has those, too.
The newer 2009 Forrester is something I might have looked at were it available at the time (looking more like an Outlander! ;-) ,but Subarus, Hondas and Toyotas all are riding on past reputation and refusing to deal on price/warranty. I feel I got a better value for my $(with quite a few features standard) but everyone will have their personal preferences, price aside.
I'm sure Subaru has a similar chart, somewhere, just as biased, listing things from their perspective.
The Mitsu warranty is great, but then you have to ask yourself if you trust the company behind it. I simply don't.
It was the base model that had the 90/10 split, even then not in 1st, 2nd, or Reverse, it's 50/50 in those cases, and constantly adjusts.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/112_0806_2009_subaru_forester_xt_quick_- test/
Actually Edmunds TMV of $29,414 for the Outlander does not include incentives. Normal street price for Outlander in this configuration is $28,000K which includes incentives. With additional rebates (student, previous Mitsu owner or veteran you can get additional $500 off). But even regardless incentives, MSPR price for Outlander is also lower vs. Forester MSPR.
.
>> Of course the price will be higher. 2008 Forester XTs are still available, if you wanted to compare same year models.
Actually I did a favor to Subaru fans. 2008 Forester is so obsolete - it cannot compete with 2008 Outlander.
.
>> You also dismiss the extras that the Forester has (how convenient).
Like I said these extras are insignificant but if you want to fight for every cup holder, we can add all minor extras, no problem, though Outlander has more extras.
.
>> The hood struts are very cool, pop the hood and it raises itself. I do my own maintenance and this important to me. The cheap prop rod clip on my Miata has broken twice, a real nuisance.
While owning last two cars, I had never opened my hood (my mechanic did), so I don’t care and I don’t even know the difference to tell what kind of “struts” it got.
.
>> You dismiss SportShift but your chart lists paddle shifters, so it should list the tap shift feature on the Forester. Some prefer them on the steering wheel, others prefer them on the shifter itself. Personal preference. But if the chart lists one, it should list the other, if you want to be fair.
Outlander also has Sport Shift. Like I’ve said, the chart does not list features available on both cars in the same way (standard/option). So, for instance, if both cars have Tire Pressure Monitor, or power windows, then we don’t put in this chart, otherwise chart gets too long. But in addition to the Sport Shift, Outlander has paddle shifters, which is listed as a separate feature even on Edmund.com. So I believe it’s perfectly fair.
.
>> Subaru’s AWD is proactive, it adjust constantly even before there is slip. In fact in 1st and 2nd gears it defaults to 50/50. Only when cruising does it default to 90/10.
Yea, so Subaru owner gets quality ride only in 1st and 2nd gear. That’s what I am saying: Forester is practically a part-time AWD.
>> How do I know about trailer wiring. See photo below. The harness is there, just plug and play.
Well, Edmunds.com says there is no wiring. They do make mistakes, but your photo is taken out of contexts from who know where, and looks like from old car, not 2009. Don’t you have a link from Subaru site or some car site which would say that it has the trailer wiring?
.
>> let me ask, how does the Outlander's GPS system work? Will it let you enter an address while moving? Most don't. To me this is a deal-killer. If you can't use it while on the go, even when a passenger occupies the seat next to you and can enter it, well, that just stinks.
Yes, you can enter, change, and delete destinations while running at any speed. So to my knowledge the Outlander is the only a car in this segment, which has this capability. Besides, the navigation on Outlander is faster due to its hard drive based design. It also equipped with unique for this price category GPS Diamond Lane Guidance system.
.
>> You mention the Outlander's standard air filtration but the Forester has that too.
That's not what I meant, not just filtration. Outlander has air purifier and interior part of the roof is made of special odor absorbing material.
.
>> According to my Consumer's Guide (not the same as CR, by the way) Auto 2008, the Outlander only has a tilt wheel. The Forester XT's tilts and telescopes.
I know, and Forester already got credit for it in the chart.
.
>> Also according to that same book, heated mirrors and wiper de-icers are standard on the Forester XT. It makes no mention of those on the Outlander, that's why I asked you to make sure, since you own the car and should know.
2008 model of Outie has heated mirrors, but not de-icer. De-icer available on Outie in other then US markets, but we will give Forester a credit for it.
.
>> The rear seats on the Forester can also recline. They even make a bed with the front seats.
Same here.
.
>> You mention the leather steering wheel and shifter on the Outlander but the Forester has those, too.
Yea, but on Forester it’s a dealer installed option, and on the Outie it’s factory standard feature.
No one could surprise us these days with more horse power and more torque. Mitsubishi, for instance, got spectacular 405 hp out of its Evo 8 MR FQ400, which had only 2 Liter turbocharger! It makes 0-60 in 3.5 sec.
Surprise is, when you can get a combination of high power, low gas mileage and low emissions. The Outlander is attempted as balanced power/emissions/milage car. It has smooth regular gasoline V6 engine, which deliver appropriate power, but low emissions and reasonable for full-time AWD milage.
It depends on what incentives you mean. TMV takes into account any current manufacturer-to-dealer incentives for the vehicle. Manufacturer-to-consumer rebates aren't included since they don't affect the actual transaction price. You negotiate your best deal and then you choose whether to get cash back or whether to apply the rebate against the sales price. TMV
Just curious, how do you check your oil without raising your hood? :shades:
Edmunds TMV is not quite accurate for Mitsubishi cars. Edmunds TMV is above invoice, but if you read "Prices Paid" forum, everyone gets the Outlander below invoice. $28K below invoice price is possible exactly because of dealer incentives from Mitsubishi, which lack transparency and not publicized. Consumer incentives take price even lower. Most people don't get consumer incentives picking a low financing instead. Additional consumer incentives such as student, veteran or loyalty $500 rebates each are also available. So you can get this car stuffed with technology and 5/10 warranty for quite cheap. I'd say it's the best deal in any car segment.
>> Just curious, how do you check your oil without raising your hood?
I don't! As I mentioned in my post, my mechanic checks my oil
Why should I? While they change my oil, they do that free 20-point inspection, tire pressure, etc. And if I get a flat tire I have free road side assistance from Mitsubishi.
Also if I get low oil level, I'd get the Oil Warning signal on my multi-information display, so no manual oil check is really needed by consumer.
I think TMV is accurate. Remember, it's reporting what people are paying for a car in your area.
People who participate on the forums here are more car savvy and informed than the typical buyer, so naturally they tend to beat TMV. :shades:
You might be right.
>> People who participate on the forums here are more car savvy and informed than the typical buyer, so naturally they tend to beat TMV.
So it pays to visit these forums :--)
Forester got credit for more torque, bigger tank, wiper dicer, sunroof, standard heated seats, and standard leather. Also mentioned shiftable transmission, hood struts, and perforated leather. Hill Assist feature is not added, since this turbo model is not equipped with it.
Indeed, it does.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
"Surprise is, when you can get a combination of high power, low gas mileage and low emissions. The Outlander is attempted as balanced power/emissions/milage car. It has smooth regular gasoline V6 engine, which deliver appropriate power, but low emissions and reasonable for full-time AWD milage."
What's funny is that the Subaru Forester XT with its turbo seems to do a better job of meeting that sweet combination of high power, low mlieage, and low emissions. It produces higher power and makes more efficient use of it (due in part to the Forester's lower weight). It has better fuel efficiency than the Outlander and meets the same emissions standards (both LEV II with PZEV models available for sale in some states). It looks like Mitsubishi needs to go back to work on its V6.