Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Getting a new Outlander, CR-V or RAV4

brown99brown99 Member Posts: 3
edited May 2014 in Honda
We are going to replace our Civic with some small SUV. My husband considers the Outlander. He likes all the features and the steering. For me reliability is a key factor, so I'd like to consider RAV and CRV. Has anyone done a similar comarison?


  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    I prefer the CRV. Check out the swinging gate on the RAV. It seems much less convenient than the CRV liftgate and looks "old" next to the CRV.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    I guess, don't know enough about CRV, but I have done the RAV4/Outlander comparison and I pick the Outlander. I am just one guy, but check out the owner ratings at Edmunds, Yahoo and MSN: Outlander owners are happier on all three sites. Also check out this list of advantages for both cars:


    Optional dealer installed accessories for Outlander: Outlander catalog
    Consumer Reports ratings: CR Best and Worst

    And I agree with the previous poster: swinging gate on the RAV is not good for curbside loading.
  • leeharvey418leeharvey418 Member Posts: 38
    Not to sound like a troll here, but let's dissect this comparison.

    Powertrain- All the gears and "tri-mode" 4WD systems in the world don't change the fact that the RAV4 has more power and gets better mileage.

    Handling/Braking- I'll grant you the Outlander had a better slalom time, but even Motor Trend would have to admit that 0.3 seconds in the figure 8 and 2 feet of difference in stopping distance from 60 are far less than the vehicle-to-vehicle variability that you would see on either model. Yeah, 18 inch wheels look nice, but when the tires are 25+% more expensive to replace, you realize that every design choice has its benefits and detriments.

    Safety- Since when are wheel locks and a car alarm safety items? This section is where it starts to become pretty obvious that this comparison was generated by someone who is trying to sell you a Mitsubishi.

    Features- Here we continue the salesmanship. Paddle shifters? My guess is that after the first month of ownership, 99% of owners will put the transmission in drive and forget about the paddle shifters. My sister used to have a first-generation Dodge Stratus that was one of the first manumatics on the market. AutoStick was also really cool- for the first week. If you're looking for fun, involved driving, your dealer likely has a Miata on the used lot that you should consider. Yes, keyless operation is nice, but do you really think it would be a deal breaker for most buyers? Skid plates- Yeah, you need skid plates on a FWD based, unit-body SUV. Dealer installed wood trim? Do I really need to expand on this one?

    Entertainment- Funny, there's no mention here of the standard 6-disc changer or optional rear DVD system in the RAV4. As for the Hard Drive Music Server, my RAV4 has something similar. It's the iPod jack, and you can take it with you and listen through headphones, unlike the Mitsubishi's.

    That final 31-7 score looks pretty convincing, until you stop to consider where it came from...
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    Cut to the chase. Just get the CRV. Wait till the next model year so you can get an AVTEC I4. :)
  • psychogunpsychogun Member Posts: 129
    I'd have to agree that the comparison above is not really an objective one.
    However, instead disecting his comparison, offer your own, more objective comparison.
    The other guy put some effort into what he presented (biased as it may be)... ;)
    In my humble opinion, each of the three vehicles is equally competent. I think that the prospective buyer should test drive each one (which car "feels" best) and then consider the value (what do I get for what I'm paying).
  • mnfmnf Member Posts: 405
    Here is CR view as you can see they liked the outlander but but dont recommend it.


    Highs: Powertrain, handling.
    Lows: Ride, road noise, fit and finish, radio controls with optional navigation.

    Ratings Snapshot (see below for detail)

    NEW Predicted reliability Fuel economy
    NEW Owner satisfaction Acceleration
    NA Predicted depreciation Ride
    Accident avoidance Front seat comfort
    NA / NA Crash protect w/wo side air bags

    The redesigned 2007 Outlander uses a new, larger platform that allows room for a tiny third-row seat. An all-new 3.0-liter, 220-hp V6 provides a lot of punch and is smooth and refined. A four-cylinder engine will likely be offered later. The slick transmission is a new six-speed automatic. Handling is fairly agile, with restrained body lean and quick, well-weighted steering. It is also secure and capable at its handling limits, due in part to its standard electronic stability control. The ride is fairly stiff and road noise is pronounced. Interior fit and finish is a bit disappointing.

    Quick Picks
    For all-around competence:
    Toyota RAV4 Limited (V6)
    Toyota RAV4 (base, 4-cyl.)
    Subaru Forester Sports 2.5 XT
    Honda CR-V
    Subaru Forester 2.5 X

    Both RAV4s are refined and capable. The Forester is a practical and affordable vehicle, but it has stability control only in the Sports XT trim. The CR-V is fairly agile, with good fuel economy and a roomy rear seat.

    For off-roading and towing:
    Nissan Xterra

    The Xterra’s strong V6 and truck-based platform allow it to tow 5,000 pounds. It is also good for serious off-roading.
  • leeharvey418leeharvey418 Member Posts: 38
    Absolutely true. That's why I'm an engineer and not a car salesman. It's my job to figure out how to cheaply and effectively build what the marketing people figure that John Q. Public wants and needs in his next vehicle. For my car payment, the RAV4 does the best job of giving me what I want and need. Your mileage may vary... ;)
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    My comparison includes only unique features on one car vs. the other (except for CR rating). Therefore other options available on both cars equally (standard/optional) not mentioned: MP3 6-CD changer, optional DVD player, iPod jack, and a lot of other equipment.

    Your response includes only excuses. Nice big tires, but “25% more expensive to replace”. No wheel locks and security system – ‘Safety’ is a wrong category! (alright I should call it ‘safety and security’). Paddle shifters and autostick – useless! Skidplates – useless! “Looking for fun, involved driving” – get Miata (not the RAV, I guess)! No music server – use iPod! No navigation system - use a map! No car – walk!

    You call my comparison biased, but I listed the all hard facts. You could not deny a single one and you have not found any unique RAV4 feature, which I did not mention. You response is more biased, since you provide only excuses. As Psychogun said, “offer your own, more objective comparison”.

    RAV4 is a nice car, but the Outlander is better. RAV4 has more powerful and efficient engine, but Outlander beats RAV in everything else: warranty, features, handling, AWD system, transmission, safety and security, entertainment, value. Outlander is better all-around car. If you have a conspiracy theory, that I am a Mitsubishi salesman, who are the other hundreds of people, who rated Outlander higher and RAV lower on major consumer ratings sites? Are they salespeople too?
  • blufz1blufz1 Member Posts: 2,045
    So,then,why does the CRV outsell them both combined? What effect do you think that will have on the resale of your Outlander?
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    RAV’s mileage is just slightly better, but the car is more expensive and the warranty is much worse so be prepared for all these repair expenses. Also, I get a lot more car for my money.
  • leeharvey418leeharvey418 Member Posts: 38
    okay then...

    Most of your standard/optional/not available information on the RAV4 is just plain wrong. I'm not going to go into detail, because you obviously don't care. If you did, you would have checked the facts before posting your original comparison.

    Paddle shifters on an automatic transmission? They're absolutely useless without the proper software package. Don't kid yourself into thinking that you're in control because you have the shifter paddles- the powertrain controller is. Skidplates: You're seriously going off-roading in an Outlander? Good luck with that. Maybe there's some advantage to the music server that I haven't seen yet, but it smells like a pure gimmick to me. If navigation had been a deal breaker for me, I obviously wouldn't have gotten a RAV4. Walk? Now you're just being silly... This is a car forum, not Zappos.com.

    I'm not going to change your mind about the Outlander, and frankly I don't want to. You're happy with your vehicle and that's fine. My intention was simply to point out that you may be trying to look objective, but you're doing a very poor job of it.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> So,then,why does the CRV outsell them both combined?

    Do you have a link for this kind of statistics?

    RAV has lately more problems (read feedback from real owners on Yahoo Autos) so it could be that the CRV is ahead. Outlander can not equally compete in sales figures due to much smaller dealer network in US. But I’ve read that Outlander outsells RAV in Japan 3 to 1. Another factor: until 2005 Mitsubishis sold in US was also made in US, were based on Chrysler powertrain, and on parts, which was made by Detroit suppliers. The result is mediocre reliability, damaged reputation and lower resale values.

    After the 2005 Mitsu has nothing to do with Chrysler. Outlander is made entirely in Japan. As a result, it beats both CRV and RAV in major owner ratings. This should also improve resale values.
  • leeharvey418leeharvey418 Member Posts: 38
    At the risk of opening another can of worms here, I'd like to point out that some CR-Vs and all RAV4s are built in Japan.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> ...plain wrong ...useless ...it smells like a pure gimmick to me...

    More excuses for a lot of missing features. And no comment on warranty and poor owner ratings.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> I'd like to point out that some CR-Vs and all RAV4s are built in Japan.

    Really? Perhaps those sold in Japan?
  • cbmortoncbmorton Member Posts: 252
    ALL RAV4s are built in Japan. Always have been.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    Good. I thought they also make them in Woodstock, Ontario?
  • cbmortoncbmorton Member Posts: 252
    They will be, but not yet. The factory is still under construction. It will join the two other Toyotas and one Lexus model already being built in Canada.
  • leeharvey418leeharvey418 Member Posts: 38
    Basic warranty is important to some people, and the Outlander clearly has a better standard warranty package than the RAV4. Touche.

    Do you seriously think that Yahoo and MSN are even remotely scientific? People who don't really care about cars post there when they have a gripe about their car. JD Power and some other come closest to being scientific in quality surveys, so if you want to quote them feel free.

    I am waiting with baited breath to see what happens next.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> You're seriously going off-road in an Outlander?

    No, Outlander is not build as serious off-road vehicle, but interesting to note, that 07 Outlander is the direct descendant of the Pajero Evo 2+2 Concept. The same concept where the current Dakar Rally champion Pajero MPR13 was derived from. From a glance you can see right away that the Pajero Evo MPR13 looks strikingly similar to the Outlander rather than the production Pajero/Montero:

    Evo Dakar video

    12 Dakar wins, 7 of those in a row, there's no mistaking about quality of engineering, technology, and reliability.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> Do you seriously think that Yahoo and MSN are even remotely scientific? People who don't really care about cars post there when they have a gripe about their car.

    To me the real owner's feedback is more important vs. test of brand new car, fresh from dealership by an "expert" who is not always independent: some of them indirectly paid by car manufacturers. You would never read from an "expert" this:

    Over-sized, over-rated and over-priced.
    by Hennie B. from San Francisco (4/27/07)

    Pros: Good power (V6).
    Cons: Please read the review.

    My wife and I decided to test drive the RAV4 to see why Consumer Reports rated it highly. First of all, the 2007 model should not even be classified as a "compact" SUV as it has become quite large (it should be considered a mid-size) and, consequently, so has its price tag. Paying nearly $30K for this is just silly. Yes, it has the most power (V6) in its "class", but it just has that trashy, tin-can feel. The exterior is overdone and rather ugly, while the interior is cheap-looking and toy-like. It has come out that "Tokyotas" have exaggerated gas mileages and, sure enough, we have heard consumers grumble about the RAV4's lower-than-advertised mileage. We feel that the quality and reliability ratings are also quite exaggerated as we've read reports that Japanese manufacturers have not been fully open with their safety recalls and repair reports. All in all, we believe that this SUV has some good points, but it's plain over-rated and over-priced. There are better bang-for-your-buck domestic and European compact SUV's in the market.


    by Gerome Smith from Geauga Ohio (4/11/07)

    Pros: Peppy on the highway. (with extreme loss of fuel economy)
    Cons: Loud interior. Cheap materials, bumpy, can't here poor quality of stereo when driving Overpriced

    Don't waste your money on this overpriced vehicle. We bought a 07 Rav limited V6 loaded six monthes ago. Traded it in for a Honda EXL loaded Pilot. Gets the same gas mileage as the Rav. Why not get the bigger nicer car for a little bit more money, than the compact gas guzzler. Get's about 13 mpg city when 4wd is engaged in lock out mode.


    by Kisnell from NY (3/27/07)

    Pros: I traded it in for JEEP Liberty
    Cons: Ride is rough, engine noisy and not that powerful

    I bought this car it was great for the first month and then the engine became very noisy and less powerful. The car also seemed to hydroplane easily in wet weather. As wel I experinced numerous quality problems; trim falling off and transmission shifting funny. Regretful purchase!

    Sketchy so far
    by Zach Masters from Newport, Maine (11/17/06)

    Pros: the cubby hole undeneath the back floor
    Cons: the quality has been sketchy

    Been to the dealer several times for ongoing problems, they cant seem to either fix it , or by the time its fixed there is another problem. They dont offer a loaner car or hours that work with my schedule. I think in hindsight there are better alternatives on the road than the Rav4, mine also gets way below the MPG on the sticker said and eats oil.


    by Rick from Columbus, Ohio (11/16/06)

    Pros: None
    Cons: Poor quality of vehicle and the toyota 800 3 is a joke and sad

    own new RAV with less thatn 10,000 miles had numerous trips for roof squeks, suspension problems, paint chips, not starting and Toyota's suggestion was "see the dealer" even after I have seen the dealer so much I know every single person there on first name basis.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    Although a happy Outlander owner, I don't share the extreme arguments here.
    One thing to note thought - I would take any day 2 ft. less braking distance of the Outlander over 1+ sec. more to 60 mph (@ 8.1-8.2 sec to 60mph, the Outlander is not slow at all). Braking is safety related and Outlander's advantage should not be overlooked. 2 feet is the difference of being into and accident or not.
    I read CRV and RAV4 forums and both cars seemed to have more severe initial quality issues compared to the Outlander (one minor mechanical problem fixed shortly after launch). Outlander's predicted reliability is the main reason the CR did not recommend the Outlander (yet), although Mitsubishi as a manufacturer, is on the 9th place on the 2007 Predicted Reliability Report published by CR few month back (very honorable IMO) only surpassed by Honda/Acura,Toyota/Lexus/Scion,Subaru, Hyundai and Infinity.
    In the US, the price gap between the Outlander and the RAV4 and CRV is smaller, but in Canada is huge ( MANY thousands of dollars more for less equipped vehicles). This makes the Outlander a much better value for the buck. The looks is a factor too, but this is a personal preference. Personally I wouldn't buy the CRV based on the exterior looks, engine, interior design, and I would have to bite my tongue to buy the RAV4 if this would be the only choice (cannot stand the bland in/out design, swing rear door and lack of features for the money).
    In all fairness, Toyota's V6 in the RAV4 is an outstanding engine, perhaps one of the very best out there.
  • cbmortoncbmorton Member Posts: 252
    What I always find funny about these "my car is better than yours" threads is that a lot of people can't wrap their heads around the concept that what's better for them isn't necessarily better for someone else, who may be looking for different things out of a vehicle. Each of these vehicles is superior in some areas, and part of the buying process is deciding which of those areas are most important to you.

    Yes, the Outlander XLS is sportier overall, looks better outside (but not in, to my eye), is cheaper, has a better warranty and offers more "stuff". On the other hand, the RAV4 is much more powerful (this can also be a safety feature) AND better on gas, larger inside, doesn't make me take a third row I don't need, and comes in a colour combination I prefer. I'm not really into techno gadgets and I don't mind paying more for a vehicle I like better, even if it's not as good a value. Ultimately, the RAV4 is closer to what I'm looking for. Someone else with different priorities might choose the Outlander, or CR-V, or... The perfect car doesn't exist, so it's all about what compromises you're willing to make to get what's closest to what YOU want.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    The only thing I defend is that the Outlander is no longer a second grade vehicle and it's an equal competitor for the CRV and RAV4. Depending on what a person values most in his/her car, any one of them could win. They are all very good vehicles in their own way.
    What I would argue is that most people have the perception that the Outlander's quality and reliability is inferior compared to CRV or RAV4. I say this is a very wrong assumption and I can back up my point if needed. I dare to say that, based on the number and severity of the issues reported so far, surprisingly, the Outlander seems to have better initial quality than both CRV and RAV4.
  • jflorjflor Member Posts: 20
    Yes, I totally agree with your point of view. Most people have this silly perception that the Outlander can not match CRV or RAV4 in terms of quality and reliability. On a long term basis, the first generation Outlander's quality and reliability has been excellent. My wife uses a 2003 model as her daily commute for the last four years and is totally satisfied of owning one since so far it has not given her any problem at all.
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Member Posts: 194
    The main thing for me was that the 4 cylinder CRV has to work MUCH harder to get going. When going up hills, merging onto the freeway, carrying 4 people, the transmission has to kick down more often and the engine gets noisy as it revs higher. It's just nowhere near as refined of a drivetrain as the Outlander and V6 RAV4.

    I own 2 other Hondas, so the CRV was my first choice going in, but the Outlander won because it has a lot more features that fit my needs. Honda needs to put the Accord V6 in both the CRV and Element if they want to get my business.

    RAV4 has a little more real world power, basically the same fuel ecomony, but didn't look as nice to me and is missing a lot of key features for me... Nav, 10 year warranty, 6 speed, Xenon headlights, PZEV engine, 3rd row with leather etc.

    After 4,000 miles I give my Outlander 2 thumbs up.
  • leeharvey418leeharvey418 Member Posts: 38
    by Gerome Smith from Geauga Ohio (4/11/07)

    Pros: Peppy on the highway. (with extreme loss of fuel economy)
    Cons: Loud interior. Cheap materials, bumpy, can't here poor quality of stereo when driving Overpriced

    Don't waste your money on this overpriced vehicle. We bought a 07 Rav limited V6 loaded six monthes ago. Traded it in for a Honda EXL loaded Pilot. Gets the same gas mileage as the Rav. Why not get the bigger nicer car for a little bit more money, than the compact gas guzzler. Get's about 13 mpg city when 4wd is engaged in lock out mode."

    Thanks for finding this to me. I alluded to it the other day in another post but didn't feel like searching for it again. My problem with most of the poor RAV4 reviews on MSN, et al, is that this seems to be the typical intelligence level of the posters. This guy is complaining that he only gets 13mpg with 4WD lock engaged. 4WD lock is a system that's there to get you unstuck should the need arise, it's not for trunding around town on dry pavement. I would expect to get 13 mpg if I were keeping it engaged whenever possible.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    Who wrote that post is indeed a bozzo. Personally, I don't take those reviews seriously either. Same goes for the "expert" reviews. Instead, read the dedicated owners forums and you get a pretty good picture of the car.
  • comem47comem47 Member Posts: 399
    Some people are just plain brand loyal and that's fine if it floats your boat. I considered the RAV-4 and the CRV but found the V6 AWD Outlander able to tow my snowmobile trailer and while the RAV-4 could do the towing, the refrigerator door with the tire on the back was a deal buster (gets in the way unloading at curbs). While Toyota and Honda won't deal price and have a lesser warranty(riding on past reputation), they are dealing on Outlanders with price and the 10 yr/100k driveline and 5 yr /60K bumper to bumper with roadside assist warranty is superior. (Mitsubishi willing to give more to gain some market share and prove the reliability). V6 Mileage on the RAV and Outlander are very close and the 166 hp CRV was not enough ooomph for towing. (probably great for good mileage, non -towing vehicle) I do believe the Outlander is the largest interior of the 3 also. I'll give that the interior finish may be nicer on the Honda and Toyota, but I love my Rockford Fosgate sound system. I tend to keep cars for several years and the extended driveline and bumper to bumper warranty was enough to take the chance. No regrets so far. If it wasn't for my AWD winter towing needs I'd probably not be looking any any of these vehicles and just going for FWD economy car. (best compromise under these constraints) Actually the closer match for me was with the Hyundai Santa Fe (Santa Fe is even larger than the Outlander, but personally the scales tipped towards the Mitsubishi for me with things like selectable 2WD/FWD and 6 speed auto.and the sound package. I have gotten 27 mpg in FWD on hwy, but mid 20's is typical.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Shoot, I was reading the comparison stuff yesterday and thought the drivetrain warranty was 10/60k. 10/100k is pretty impressive.
  • ghostdogghostdog Member Posts: 1
    well I was looking into the Rav4 because of the V6 rating has more power and better mileage than the Outlander.... I started by visiting the Rav4 forums and sampled what was being discussed by regular users... http://rav4world.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=23 it seems there are some problems with the latest generation of rav4... tranny slipping, noise in the front hood for v6 when turning that sound like popcorn popping and currently no fix in sight, windows cracking due to design... now I know rav4 outnumber the outlander by a lot so you will get more exposure to people's complaints as compared to a lower volume selling suv like the outlander... however the older outlander gen got really good reliability rating so I hope the newer gen is built the same way or better ... i hope... still looking to see which suv to buy... subaru, honda, toyota or mitsubishi...
  • sm685sm685 Member Posts: 4
    After owning my 06' Rav4 for 2 years, I can say - it's my last Toyota for a long time. I traded in an 01' Celica for the Rav with the V6 after 70,000 miles of no trouble with the Celica. With the Rav, it's been a continuous string of mysterious problems. I'm on my third stereo, second set of rear window trim, a mysterious "clunk" in the front end that has never been diagnosed and two dealerships that seemingly could care less. For the amount of money paid for this car and the "Toyota" name, I expected a lot more. Buy a Honda -
  • cbmortoncbmorton Member Posts: 252
    I've also had an '06 RAV4 V6 for almost two years and I've had the opposite experience. Very pleased with the overall quality of the vehicle. Fuel economy has been excellent given the big engine and I've had zero problems with it save the radio, which was replaced a year ago under a Toyota service bulletin (applicable to '06 and early '07s). Still feels as solid as new. For me this one's a keeper.
  • piastpiast Member Posts: 269
    Here, one more Outlander review from Cars.com:
    "..The automatic transmission is almost as smooth as the new CR-V's, while the engine provides considerably more power. The combination is far superior to the RAV4 despite the Toyota's higher horsepower figure, the Outlander is a better highway companion overall.... the Outlander handles steeply banked highway onramps with superb control and minimal body lean, giving the driver a sense of confidence not found in many SUVs — compact, car-based or otherwise.The ride was also car-like. Bumps were softly muted and road noise was minimal...Available with an optional manual four-wheel-drive system, the Outlander is one of the more affordable four-wheel-drive SUVs on the market, ...Surprisingly, the new Outlander seems to outclass its competitors on just about every front, although the RAV4 does offer more power with its optional V-6 engine (269 horsepower)."
  • piastpiast Member Posts: 269
    In OCT MT issue Ron Kiino wrote: "Interior quality is premium and design contemporary... 3.0 liter with MIVEC is a refined and robust unit... New Outlander has an air that's all SUV enhanced with such luxury as standard LED tail lamps, available Xenon headlamps and 18" wheels...Outlander can easily hang with the best in it's class...delivers excellent balance through high-speed maneuvers."

    Mazda CX7 and Mitsubishi Outlander, both offering better performance and premium features (Xenon headlamps, navigation, DVD, premium sound systems etc) than any other CUV in this class. Mitsubishi standard V6 uses regular, has more rear leg room (39") and cargo room (39 cu ft) better warranty and price.

    From DEC Motor Trend issue:
    " ...once you get past the stellar V6, The RAV4 is a bit ordinary and doesn't offer the same value as its competitors" (A.Harwood)

    Mitsubishi got high ratings in performance and safety with rest of them being equal to RAV4. The interior in Mitsu received four stars, RAV4 got three. Both cars can tow 3500 lbs, both using regular fuel.
    Braking ft........ .... 128..............130
    600ft slalom mph ... 62.7.............60.6
    Lateral acceleration g 078..............0.75
    MT figure 8 (sec) ....... 28.3.............28.6
  • figtreefigtree Member Posts: 7
    I looked at the Outlander and CRV and decided to go with the 2008 CRV. I have no idea about the RAV4, I haven't even considered it.
    -I hate the cramped third seat on the Outlander. Is anyone really gonna sit back there? They might as well just sit in the cargo area, they'd be more comfortable.
    -The Mitsubishi salesman put down the back tailgate, sat on it, and described that it would be a great place to sit. Is that a feature? I am not buying a $26,000+ car so I can sit on the tailgate. The CRV's cargo area is low and looks really easy to get stuff in and out of. It has a nice clean look to it without the third seat and tailgate messing it up.
    -CRV has a full spare in the back, Mitsubishi has a donut.
    -Salesman stated how good the Outlander looked compared to the CRV. It's personal opinion, but I think the CRV looks way better.
    -Mitsubishi had remote start, but call me old fashioned, I like a key. Besides, I can get remote start on the CRV if I want.
    -I like the no frills, clean look on the interior of the CRV. I also liked the exterior color choices better. Hey, color matters.
    -I don't think Mitsubishi measures up to Honda Reliability and Safety.

    This is my first SUV and my first Honda. I checked out a ton of reviews, consumer reports, forums, etc...and the CRV looks fantastic to me.

    Granted, I did like the little push out cup holder on the Outlander Driver's Side, but it still didn't convince me to buy it. ;)
  • comem47comem47 Member Posts: 399
    I considered the new CRV (without the spare on the back) and agree it looks nice and would give better MPG than the Outlander I ended up buying. The swinging door on the RAV gets in the way when unloading at curbs and Honda did well to get rid of it. (RAV really should for 2009)

    A requirement for me was winter towing (can tow 3500 lbs with 4WD V6 Outlander) Too bad the CRV doesn't have a little more "ooomph" on the 4 cyl engine. (if not towing this wouldn't be an obstacle, but it was for me) I also liked the greater warranty on the Outlander (Honda has a good reputation, so they and Toyota aren't competing on warranty or knocking off $$) As for safety, the Outlander gets high marks (5 rating) on everything except rollover and it gets a 4 on that). I agree that you should be happy based on Honda history.
  • figtreefigtree Member Posts: 7
    Yah, it pretty much is no contest if you need the vehicle for towing. I can't deny that the Outlander has a lot of other excellent features as well.

    I wish the CRV came with a better warranty also. I admit reputation has a lot to do with my purchase, but I would still love a better warranty. I don't think any company wanting to be the best should get by solely on reputation, they should offer a competitive warranty as well.
  • piastpiast Member Posts: 269
    -I did not see any advantage of buying CRV over Outlander. I hate how new CRV looks, and I'm not the only one. It looks like its feminine character suits well tastes of many women in the other hand.
    - Low tailgate is a great feature for loading heavy cargo, plus I sit on it when changing my ski boots for example. It is not a car; it is CUV, with "U" for utility.
    -Mitsu has a donut and 5 year road side assistance, so you would not have to worry about getting dirty changing it.
    - Mitsubishi measures up to Honda and anybody else Reliability and Safety. Period.
    We own Accord, we owned another Mitsubishi for 7 yr before. Outlander is made in Japan, and is as solid and reliable as it can be. Recent Toyota (engines) and Honda (transmissions) problems proved - it is just a reputation. We love our Accord, we love the Outlander. I think you will be happy with CRV. Point is it is not any better than Outlander. It is down to personal choice.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    I agree, the CRV is girly looking car. It's a good vehicle, but the Outlander is just better in almost every category: styling, warranty, roadside asst, equipment, interior volume, AWD. According to Consumer Reports, the Outlander has best 2008 predicted reliability in its class, beating both RAV4 and CRV.
  • figtreefigtree Member Posts: 7
    Hey, I am a girl, so there! :P
  • thomasw98thomasw98 Member Posts: 29
    I was originally planning on a RAV4, but then I started looking at the Outlander. Just about convinced myself to go for it, but then read about some problems:

    1. My head is still spinning from reading 15 pages of complaints about a serious paint chipping problem on the Outlander. There were lots of well-documented reports in the thread, but there were also two "troll-ish" posters repeatedly jumping in to unfairly pick apart and criticize the complaints. It really gave me the impression that the problem is real (at least for some owners) and the trolls were simply Mitsubishi dealers trying to crush the idea. This is now my number one concern about the Outlander.

    2. JD Powers reliability report only gave Outlander a 4 out of 10 for reliability based on past 3-4 years of reports from consumers. Not sure why this is so different from the Consumer Reports results others have mentioned earlier in this thread.

    3. Nav system: I was going to go for it, then read about some big problems with it...bad maps, lack of street name announcement, etc. So then I figured I would just go without it, and get a third party GPS later. But it seems as if this Nav system is a very integral part of the entire car system, with many functions being controlled or adjusted on this Nav screen. So, now I am wondering what to do???
  • comem47comem47 Member Posts: 399
    I do not know what to say about the paint thing. I don't have the problem on my '07 LS , but that doesn't say it hasn't happened to others. As for JD powers, you really can't base the 3-4 year survey on a car that has only been out since '07 (the earlier Outlander is not the dame beast). I understand from reading from others that the package groupings are different in '08, making one package dependent on another, or so it is said( forcing you to buy maybe much more than you want). I got an LS (didn't want the paddle shifters, low profile tires or 3rd row seat of an XLS), but did get the Sun and Sound package (Power sunroof, Sirius radio, 6 CD player with Rockford Fosgate sound) and really like it . (except for the fact you can't read the LED display in sunlight). I also considered the RAV-4, but I absolutely do not like the swing door with tire on the back (try unloading at curbside with a car behind you). I went with the Outlander for the good value for the price when you consider warranty,discounts and features, etc. Actually a Hyundai Santa Fe was my #2 (it's a bit bigger and a bit less economical on fuel, but also carries a good warranty). If you don't think mudflaps will solve the paint problem then there probably is not much more to be said. (otherwise the warranty should ease fears on other things with the 5 yr bumper to bumper and 10 yr/100K drivetrain)
  • thomasw98thomasw98 Member Posts: 29
    Did you get get Nav system?

    If so, how is it working? Does it announce street names? (I read that the older versions do not announce the street name, i.e. they do not have "text to speech" function.)

    If not, are you still able to manage and customize the other aspects of the car without a screen? I read somewhere that there are a lot of customizations that can be done on the Nav screen to control various aspects of the car. So I am wondering what can be done if there is no Nav screen?

  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Member Posts: 194
    I have the Nav on my 07 Outlander XLS and I like it. It announces freeway names but not individual street names. So it announces "Exit south on I-5 in 0.5 miles." If your route has an upcoming turn, the street name is highlighted in a large green box with information on how far away it is... "Turn left on Culver in 1.2 miles" etc. For me it is very easy to see and use.

    The paint thing is not a universal problem. My paint looks great after more than a year of driving, including a trip to the snow last winter. But any car can be damaged in harsh conditions, get behind a rock truck for just a few seconds and everything gets wiped out, including the windshield. If I lived in areas with salt and rocks then I would install mud flaps.

    If your'e in SoCal I'd be happy to show you my Outlander and all of its cool functions.
  • piastpiast Member Posts: 269
    You can easily check this yourself. Just stop at your local Mitsubishi dealer on Sunday (or any other day they are closed) and closely examine any used Outlander they may have on the lot. If you see any chips on them, that what you can expect on yours after year or two. Take a note if those affected ones, did have mud guards installed or not. Longer mud flaps stopped my problem. I ended up with few chips after very bad winter here in Chicago area. If you wish, I can post pictures of those areas on my vehicle, 07 XLS.
    To answer your second Q, I don't have Nav, just standard 6CD head unit, and I don't think I'm missing any adjustments. At least not the important ones. The only problem with it - red LED display is hard to read in the direct sunlight.
  • thomasw98thomasw98 Member Posts: 29
    "You can easily check this yourself. Just stop at your local Mitsubishi dealer on Sunday (or any other day they are closed) and closely examine any used Outlander they may have on the lot. If you see any chips on them, that what you can expect on yours after year or two. Take a note if those affected ones, did have mud guards installed or not. Longer mud flaps stopped my problem. "

    That's a good idea. I will definitely have a look.

    From what I read in the main Outlander thread, the cracks (oops, I mean "chips") are not completely avoided with mud flaps unless they are really large, which do not look very good in my view.

  • piastpiast Member Posts: 269
    "From what I read in the main Outlander thread, the cracks are not completely avoided with mud flaps unless they are really large, which do not look very good in my view."

    I never heard about any cracks. What some of us experienced are tiny spots (1/32 to 1/64 in size), visible only from short distance on washed car, and only at the bottom of the rear doors, right above rocker panel. They are easily avoided with mud flaps, provided they are about 5-6" longer than standard plastic mud guards. If you don't live in the area where sand is used in winter, you will be safe even without any mud guards. I can tell how effective my extensions are every time I drive on wet or dirty roads. Horizontal dirt spray pattern from front tires to the back is completely eliminated now. Some other owners installed running boards, they will do a trick as well, but those usually cost from $400 to $500.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    1. If you are really interested about the car and seriously consider buying it, I think you should read the posts about the solution to the paint chipping on the bottom of the doors and rear door flares. The long and not so good looking mudflaps is not the only solution, you know. This is a real issue, but it can be resolved and some had worst experience than others. However, some posters mix up this issue with the regular paint chips caused by the road hazards. Claiming that other cars' paint doesn't chip is just foolish. I have another fairly new car (2005) form another Japanese brand and I have paint chips on the hood, fenders, roof and doors. It hurts in the beginning, but it's just a matter of life.
    You have a big advantage by reading these posts to become aware of the problem and have the chance to properly protect the car before any chip happens. Some of us learned about the problem the hard way. If I were to buy the car again, which I would BTW, I would protect it from day one and move on.
    2. The Consumer Reports rates the current Outlander model only, based on the data available for this model alone. In the end, this is the car you are buying not the previous models.
    3. I don't have it so I can't speak about it.

    If you are scared to buy the car, just don't do it. Plain and simple.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> 1. My head is still spinning from reading 15 pages of complaints about a serious paint chipping problem on the Outlander. This is now my number one concern about the Outlander.

    I don't have any paint chipping issues. I think the paint issue is overblown on this board. If you check the 2007 and 2008 Outlander owner reviews/ratings on MSN Autos and on Yshoo Autos, this issue is mentioned there 0 times out of 93 owner reviews. Only Edmunds owner ratings mention it 7 times out of 143 reviews, which makes me think that some of the forum posters did the job.

    >> 2. JD Powers reliability report only gave Outlander a 4 out of 10 for reliability based on past 3-4 years of reports from consumers. Not sure why this is so different from the Consumer Reports results others have mentioned earlier in this thread.

    JD Powers samples much smaller data. Also JD Powers paid by car manufactures so they have obvious conflict of interest and their "ratings" and "car of the year" awards don't mean much: they have to "manage" to please its biggest donors. On the other hand, Consumer Reports is the only major US car publication, which claims that they are not paid by manufacturers. The excellent Consumer Reports rating for the Outlander are completely consistent with Outlander owner ratings at all three major consumer rating sites. Take a look at 2007 owner ratings data:

    MSN Autos
    Outlander: 9.5, RAV4: 8.6

    Yahoo Autos
    Outlander: 4.5, RAV4: 3.5

    Outlander: 9.2, RAV4: 9.0

    JD Power on the other hand is not consistant with real world owner ratings.
This discussion has been closed.