Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Article Comments: 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander XLS Full Test

Karen_SKaren_S Posts: 5,092
edited March 2014 in Mitsubishi
The full test results are in! Read the article and tell us what you think.

Full Test: 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander XLS

Edmunds Manager UGC Click on my screen name to send a personal message. Need help navigating? Check out Getting Started in Edmunds Forums.
Need help picking out a make/model, finding inventory, or advice on pricing? Talk to an Edmunds Car Shopping Advisor



  • This is a very nice review. I'm more and more interested about this compact SUV.

    Apparently, the full test period didn't exhibit the front-end knocking problem that is reported by other owners. I am hoping this problem is either partially isolated or it will be resolved/rectified by the time I'm ready to purchase the Outlander.
  • feilofeilo Posts: 128
    Plus, we understand there's a tuned-up Ralliart version just around the corner, which should take things up a notch or two.

    How far "round the corner" I wonder? I'll be all over this ;)
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    I wonder how did the guys at Edmunds stopped the RAV4 60-0 in 120 ft. and the guys at Motor Trend in 130 ft. 10 feet is a big difference. However, both stopped the Outlander in 128 ft. Isn't that wired? Which one to believe?
    On the same note, the numbers for the CX-7 are 113 ft Edmunds and 119 ft. MT. 6 ft difference is again something to wonder about.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    Forgot to ask the author which non-luxury compact SUV other than CX-7, would be happy on the skid pad? If the Outlander is "generally unhappy on the skid pad", the RAV4 must be sad and in tears if you take it there.
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    Another question is total cargo of 69 cu ft as they stated in the road test part and 72.6 cu ft in spec page for the Mitsu. Same thing for rear leg room. They failed to mention that it is 39" (more than RAV4) in LS trim. They really tried hard to find some better numbers for the RAV4. I don't find statement about same price (30K), with CRV and RAV4 to be accurate as well, since equipment levels for that price is not even close on other two with Outlander (Xenon headlights, leather seats, paddle shifters, FAST key, sunroof, 650 W sound system, etc).
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    You are right. I noticed that too, but I didn't bother. I cannot understand why is so hard to compare the manufacturers' specs. They are just numbers, black on white, no room for interpretations. If they know something that we don't know, like Mitsubishi posting fake numbers, just tell us that. I respect Edmunds, but I would appreciate if the author would respond to our postings.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    Another thing form the video review: if 8.2 sec for 0-60 mph is not quick (this being said with a very disappointing tone), I'm curious how would they comment on CR-V's 10+ sec for 0-60 mph? Unacceptable? LOL !!!... There are tones of sedans,not to mention SUVs, with bigger engines, that cannot match the Outlander's performance.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    ... Not to mention that the Bluetooth and FAST key come standard at $25,010 mark.
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,059
    I would appreciate if the author would respond to our postings.

    You can contact the author using the "Email" link on the page where you read the article.

    tidester, host
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm pretty sure that the reviewers read our comments so they could answer if they feel like.
    Out of curiosity I pulled up the 2007 CRV ratings to compare and guess what?
    The CRV brakes from 60 to 0 in 131 ft. and from 30 to 0 in 32 ft. Rating: Very Good (they even made up the rating for the CRV since the ratings are Excellent, Good, Average, etc). Also, the review says " Thanks to the brake assist and electronic brakeforce distribution systems, the CR-V also comes to a stop from 60 mph in a very short 131 feet. " So 131 ft. is a VERY SHORT braking distance ( I guess if it is for a Honda or Toyota only).
    Now the Outlander stops from 60 to 0 in 128 ft. and from 30 to 0 in 31 ft. and the stopping distance is DECENT. The braking rating for Outlander GOOD. Explain that if you can ....
    CRV skid pad 0.77g and slalom 63.4 mph, Outlander 0.8g and
    63.9 mph. CRV handling rating: Excellent, Outlander: GOOD.
    Edmunds' rating is just the regular BS, but thanks for posting the numbers so we can do our own ratings.
  • @dodo: You're like an automotive detective!
  • You have to remember that these guys are completely biased. The sad thing is that for those that don't do the research and carefully compare, will end up and buy a vehicle based on a certain review which in this instance is completely untrue. I know when I bought my Pontiac Solstice that there was a guy that did a review in a magazine and the review was completely wrong. It was as if he had never even seen the car. The solstice forum was livid and they sent this guy e-mails(myself included) to let him know that he wasn't even in the ballpark. Several weeks later he posted an apology in the forum that he was wrong and he was there main auto reviewer. Again the sad thing is how many people may have read his review and decided to buy something else due to his information. I have come to believe that the only reviews worth reading are from the customers that buy them.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    Thanks for the remark. I'm shopping for a compact SUV so for the past few months I was researching in detail this segment. Cars are my hobby too.
    Until few months ago I was reading reviews in general so I did not catch on how biased most of the reviews are. I agree that Honda and Toyota are good cars, but they are far from being unmatched in quality as most of the reviewers suggest. Just read the CRV and RAV4 forums and you will hear this from die-hard Honda/RAV4 owners.
    My previous posts only show how misleading and biased some statements in this review are.
  • rcpaxrcpax Posts: 580
    Thanks for the "fine print" details dodo2. I am sure this Outlander forum has helped a lot of potential owners see the truth in advertising. On one end of the spectrum, there is the purist product page of the manufacturer and on the other the bad reviews from people who kinda "tweak" the figures that will make the Outlander a "so-so" vehicle when compared to the "leading" brands. In the middle are us, informed enthusiasts and the true owners of this vehicle, who drive it everyday, and have truly researched the vehicle.

    So I hope a lot of potential owners would do enough research and somehow have a peek at this forum before they decide on which make and model to buy.
  • rcpaxrcpax Posts: 580
    Plus, we understand there's a tuned-up Ralliart version just around the corner, which should take things up a notch or two.

    How far "round the corner" I wonder? I'll be all over this

    Here's my own version of an "Outlander Ralliart". Small cosmetic mods I did on my Labarador Black Pearl Outlander.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    rcpax, I was wondering where are you?
    IMO, the Outlander is the most balanced package on the compact SUV segment today, but they seem to be afraid to recognize it not to upset Honda or Toyota (bite the hand that feeds them). The Outlander may not be the best in any test - I agree on this with the Edmunds review, but it's always the 2nd or the 3rd at the lowest in any given test. This gives the Outlander a top overall score, not "so-so" like the reviewers often suggest. This is where they fail miserably (on purpose of course). The situation I brought up with the CRV braking rating of "Very Good" is just hilarious and self-explanatory of how these ratings are done. The sad part is, that most people take these BS ratings for good.
  • rcpaxrcpax Posts: 580
    I would agree in all the things you said, plus you get almost everything for a price 2-3K$ less than the competitor at sticker price, and much more if your lucky to get it at/close to invoice from a reputable dealer.

    At this point in time Mitsu does not have the finances to spend in advertising. They even withdrew from the WRC due to financial difficulty. So yes, I can see why the reviews are tipped towards the CR-V and RAV-4.
  • feilofeilo Posts: 128
    Nice mod :) - how many extra hp does it get? ;)
  • rcpaxrcpax Posts: 580
    I can't verify it, but something in range of 50hp ;) :P :shades:
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,059
    but I'm pretty sure that the reviewers read our comments so they could answer if they feel like.

    So go ahead and write to remove any doubt. :)

    brakes from 60 to 0 in 131 ft. and from 30 to 0 in 32 ft.

    Which, BTW, is quite consistent with the expected v2 dependence of stopping distance!

    tidester, host
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    So what should the real stopping distance for RAV4?
    120 ft. it's a doctored figure for sure.
  • rcpax--where do you get the great decals?
  • rcpaxrcpax Posts: 580
    It's actually imported, from my home country Philippines. The emblems and decal I would presume is either from China or Taiwan. Sells for about $8 for a set of 2 small emblems and the big sticker on the windshield is about 3$.
  • gene_vgene_v Posts: 235
    It seems that one cannot get the luxury package on the LS.
    Therefore you need to get the XLS to get a power seat.
    But if I read other reviews right the second row seat tracks on the LS go back further than the XLS thus giving more leg romm than 36.8 inches. Thats what I would want because when I go out with some of my same age freinds athey have leg room in second row.
    I don't give a hoot about the third row seats being 71 years old and grandchildren far away. But I do want a power drivers seat since me and the wife are different size.
    Too bad one can't get a LS with luxury package. Most manufacturers are that way now and it sucks.
    Am I reading the paqckages right? :( :confuse: :cry:
  • Supposedly, you do lose a couple of inches of leg room on the XLS; however both my daughters' boyfriends are over 6 feet and with the second row seats pushed all the way back in the XLS, they have plenty of legroom. The back seats are very comfortable much better than the Rav 4 because the headrests do not hit in the middle of your shoulderblades.
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    "Mitsubishi chairman Takashi Nishioka announced that the company is working on a new 4-cylinder diesel engine for its C-segment vehicles. The engine will be developed with Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, which has an extensive inventory of diesel engines for a variety of heavy- and light-duty industrial applications. Nishioka said the engines will be available for 2010 model year in the Lancer sedan and Outlander CUV". More info y-2010/
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    Is this updated or totally new review, here on Edmunds?

    Also, check pictures and review for new 2007 Lancer. The interior design and packages came straight from Outlander. No doubt both came from the same parents.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    The review at your link is the old one. This thread discusses the full test review below:
  • I hate that article. It sounds like Outlanders are only for middle aged moms.....
  • ubercheapubercheap Posts: 9
    "The Outlander may not be the best in any test - I agree on this with the Edmunds review, but it's always the 2nd or the 3rd at the lowest in any given test."

    Wow, this is exactly the conclusion I came to in my test driving. The only thing where it crushes the competition is the RF audio. Everything else is "above-average" but not necessarily superlative. But there's so much to offer that being above-average in so many categories makes this an attractive product.

    I'm a die-hard Honda/Acura guy from the early 90's, but I was disappointed in Acura's discontinuing the RSX. I was intrigued by the RDX, although I have never considered an SUV. How could an SUV possibly be as fun to drive as the Civic SI I just revved to 7K RPM? But darned if that RDX doesn't come close.

    But... after checking the Outlander on a whim, and crunching the numbers, I think the value just isn't there on the RDX and the comfort and features aren't there on the Civic. It's going to be either the Outlander or the Civic, and it's going to happen soon.

    That I'm seriously considering the Outlander is shocking. I just need a little more convincing as to reliability, and I think I might be ready to take a leap of faith on this one.
This discussion has been closed.