Article Comments: 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander XLS Full Test

Karen_S

The full test results are in! Read the article and tell us what you think.

Full Test: 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander XLS

mr2spyder

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.

feilo

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

dodo2

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.

dodo2

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.

piast

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).

dodo2

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.

dodo2

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.

dodo2

... Not to mention that the Bluetooth and FAST key come standard at $25,010 mark.

tidester

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

dodo2

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.

madisonmini

@dodo: You're like an automotive detective!

spyderone

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.

dodo2

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.

rcpax

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.

rcpax

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.

dodo2

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.

rcpax

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.

feilo

Nice mod - how many extra hp does it get?

rcpax

I can't verify it, but something in range of 50hp :P :shades:

tidester

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

dodo2

So what should the real stopping distance for RAV4?
120 ft. it's a doctored figure for sure.

pennout

rcpax--where do you get the great decals?

rcpax

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_v

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:

ghettofabulous

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.

piast

"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 http://www.autoblog.com/2007/01/09/detroit-auto-show-diesel-powered-lancer-due-b- y-2010/

piast

Is this updated or totally new review, here on Edmunds?

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/new/index.html

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.

dodo2

The review at your link is the old one. This thread discusses the full test review below:
link

clutchguy77

I hate that article. It sounds like Outlanders are only for middle aged moms.....

ubercheap

"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.

toomanyfumes

If you're worried about reliability, it does come with an excellent warranty.

chelentano

I was driving Toyotas for 12 years, and for me considering Outlander was shocking as well. But my simple pragmatism won over my stereotypes. I believe, Outlander is in fact the best car in the class. In fact it’s equipped better then any SUV in $40K range.

Also I was very surprised that this SUV has much better handling and road traction, than all my previous cars. AWD gives me additional safety, which is not available on small/economy cars.

As for reliability, I would not worry about it. Consider these facts:
1. Outlander is build in entirely Japan, unlike Honda Civic/Acura RDX
2. Previous generation of Outlander had good-to very good reliability rating according to Consumer Reports
3. Outlander has much better warranty and roadside assistance then Honda/Acura

bodble2

"In fact it’s equipped better then any SUV in $40K range."

Here we go again..... :confuse: :mad:

tidester

Here we go again...

Perhaps you guys could provide some specifics to back up claims of "better equipped" or "not better equipped."

tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper

bpizzuti

Nono, PLEASE don't encourage him!!! :sick:

He's already incorrect anyway, as there are 3 small/economy cars that offer AWD: the Suxuki SX4, Suzuki Aerio, and Subaru Impreza.

Outlander has an Achilles heel as far as gas mileage...most SUVs in it's class do better, including the RAV4, CR-V, and all of the above mentioned econo-cars. The new Saturn VUE gets something like 1-2 MPG less city, and the same highway (If I remember my research correctly), but has much more power coming out of the 3.6 liter engine.

Mind you all these MPG figures are based on the new 2008 ratings, for consistency.

biscuit_xls

Gas mileage for the US Outlander V6 isn't that bad in real world conditions. Most people get 20 mpg mixed driving and around 25 mpg for pure highway driving, not including the few people in every forum that seem to get unusually high mpg.

From what I've seen, 20 mpg in the real world is above average for SUV's.

The sticker on the window is often not a good indication of what you will end up getting unless you're willing to alter your driving style.

bpizzuti

THat's why I went and got the 2008 numbers off of the EPA's website...they're much more realistic.

Oh, I forgot another compact car in my previous post: the Dodge Caliber. Of course, it's pretty forgettable.

biscuit_xls

The EPA's numbers are not realistic. The 2008 EPA tests will be a little better, but not a great indication of what real people will get in the real world.

CR-V mileage thread

RAV4 mileage thread

If you read through those threads you will see that the CR-V *can* get a little better mileage than the Outlander, but if you've driven both you will know that the 4 cylinder CR-V does not have the same power as the Outlander. To me the CR-V struggled so hard to get going, downshifting, redlining etc. that it was distracting. I own an Accord with the same engine as the CR-V and it's great in the sedan, but I was disappointed with the CR-V.

The RAV4 V6 has a little more real world power and gets about the same mpg as the Outlander. Toyota did a great job with that V6 engine. The 4 cylinder RAV4 is a lot like the CR-V, too much downshifting and redlining just to get it going, felt noisy and unrefined to me.

But anyway, the Outlander V6 doesn't get bad mileage for an SUV with a V6.