Mitsubishi Outlander Seats
bobj14
Member Posts: 8
in Mitsubishi
I am looking at leasing a new vehicle and after much research the Outlander is one of the ones I like. After checking it out there are a couple of areas of concern, one being the comfort of the 2nd row seating (I would not go for the 3rd row).
I have not been able to find any info in the forums. Can anyone comment on their comfort during a long drive of over 4 hours?
Thank you.
I have not been able to find any info in the forums. Can anyone comment on their comfort during a long drive of over 4 hours?
Thank you.
Tagged:
0
Comments
I find them firm, but comfortable. One good thing about the backrest is that it's high enough (for me at least - 5' 7") to support the back. I sat in the 2nd row in a 07 CRV and I found the backrest too low, but just enough to make them uncomfortable for me.
The other thing I was concerned about was noise from the freeway during long trips. The dealer I use is quite a distance from the freeway and I haven't driven it there. Any comments?
We hadn't even considered a Mitsu when we started to look as we didn't even know they sold them in BC. (two years ago on Vancouver Island). I was familiar with the Evo and its rep.
We compared the Subaru and would rate the handling of the Subaru as a little better but two things got in its way - one the lack of space dictated by the old platform and secondly I wont wear a Tilly Hat for anyone even under a giant sun roof!
The Subaru dynamic all wheel drive like the Audi Quattro system is far superior to the Mitsui on demand sort of system if that is a major factor for you. A difference you wont notice unless you drive at nine tenths in very wet conditions or on very sandy roads.
No the Mitsu is a great value and way better than anything Toyota can offer in the price range even with a little higher road noise. By the way as to that - I have always run 4 studded snow tires on my Audis and have a set of 16's all set for the Outlander - talk about noise test! But then maybe that is the reason for the Fosgate booming sound system!?:) For a little background - my other cars are Audi Quattros since 1984 and still keep my '90 Audi Coupe in the garage. That is my comparison baseline.
Also FYI, I live in Sunnyvale, CA and I went to Capitol Mitsubishi in San Jose to purchase my 2008 XLS with all three packages. I paid $100 UNDER invoice. So I think you can bargain a little more.
I am not a hard driver so I haven't noticed a lean while cornering. However, I will try to check that out as it could be a problem while travelling to go skiing.
Also, which year Outlander do you have?
I started out looking at the Outlander and the Santa Fe was a late contender for me. Each have their advantages over the other but I think, for my type/style of driving, that I would be happy with either one. The main reason I am leaning towards the SF is I am not that confident in the Mitsubishi dealership. Their knowledge is not the best and their place of business is quite run down so I worry that they may go out of business. If that happened it would be another long drive for maintenance.
What is the % dial in for the Mitsu, have you had it in any snow and, if so, how did it handle?
Also, thanks for all the info the dealers would never tell me.
Subaru and Audi have proven their AWD setups are better where again? I know it is diffrent in real world cars, but I think they've got the chance to learn how to build good 4X4 system by now ( beating Audi and Subaru 7 times in a row ).
".. 4 wheel drive system that allowsyou to occasionally travel on unpaved roads, to campgrounds, picnic sites, and similar locations. But it is not suitable for heavy off road use or towing in rough conditions" That's a quote from page 3-96 of the owners manual and doesn't read like a vehicle one would enter in the Dakar Rally.
I am very interested to see how the low % torque transfer operates in hill climbing in heavy snow conditions without the lock - probably wont notice the dif but I am curious.
I p.o'd a friend who owns the local Subaru dealership when I bought the Outlander instead of the Subaru - it was because of him I got to try out all the competitors at the launch of the Tribeca a few years ago at Whistler. The difference was noticeable in heavy Whistler mud and gravel but not enough to concern me obviously. The new Outlander was not available for that comparison of course and the last version sucked by design etc. so was never on my radar. The Tribeca I thought would be a fair comparison by size and amenities but the price took it to another level. The Mitsu is a great package / value!
I am really looking forward to getting out into "it" - I bought this for long touring to the NWT and Yukon next year - I only have one road left in BC that I haven't driven in the winter The Cassiar Hwy so that is on my list and I will let ya know how it goes.
If we were comparing the Evo AWD system I would say absolutley they are a mechanical equal, even the Endeavour I would accept a comparison as they use a very similar centre differential and or viscose coupling system as one or other.
So I hope I have helped you understand my view. But if you wish to use winnings as a criteria you must than also consider Audi's 24 hr 3 Lemans wins, and the Audi European Sedan domination for over 10 years and so on. These are AWD winnings not 4x4 dirt track winnings. AWD is all I am discussing I hope you appreciate the difference.
And a big difference is all the drive systems Audi uses in these wins are the same as the ones you buy in the Q7, A8, A6 and so on.
I like the Mitsu. Its a cute little thing - I just will hold my final judgement on it until I have travelled and survived a couple of thousand km on snow and ice as I have the past 176,000 km of winter in my Audi CQ - as a car fan you may wish to visit - 20v.org -if you don't know the car.
Well, in your post you've said "...Audi and one of the Acura's$$$ have true awd, but the Mitsu was the best compromise". So you were saying that the Audi is a “true” thing but the Mitsu is the “compromise”. I am glad though now you are offering your clarification, that you do not think that Audi is better than Mitsubishi. I surely understand: it would be hard to think so, considering that the "compromised" Mitsubishi beats the Audi Quattro to the punch in a direct competition.
.
>> the Outlander that does not have the same drive system as any of the Dakar Mitsubishis a big difference is all the drive systems Audi uses in these wins are the same as the ones you buy in the Q7, A8, A6
I’ve never said that the Outlander uses “the same drive system”, but you are saying that the Audi you drive has the same AWD as this Lemans million dollar racing car Audi R10? You kidding, right???
.
>> if you wish to use winnings as a criteria you must than also consider Audi's 24 hr 3 Lemans wins, and the Audi European Sedan domination for over 10 years and so on.
Sure, Audi builds great cars, and it has some good race achievements within the scale of insignificant regional European races, where Japanese and American cars are rare participants, and were AWD is not banned. The FIA Super Touring bans AWD, and Formula1 bans AWD, but some Lemans race allows it.
In 1995 Audi entered its A4 w/ AWD Quattro in Super Touring race (TOCA) for BTCC and dominated the races (as you’ve said). This raised many complaints from other teams fielding front-wheel-drive cars. All season Audi won repeatedly throughout most of the series, with rear-wheel-drive BMW finishing in a close second continuously. But the FIA realized that an AWD car in a field of Front Wheel Drive cars was an unfair advantage so they outright banned AWD. Audi responded to the ban in 1998 with a Front Wheel Drive A4 ... and it sucked compared to other FWDs pretty much proving that AWD gave them an advantage.
Otherwise, in a fair fight the quality of AWD system is a smaller factor in a race like Lemans, since it’s going on this dedicated perfectly build racing track. The quality of AWD is a much bigger factor in a legendary 2-week Dakar rally in a desert where the "compromised" Mitsubishi dominates 7 years in a row. And, by the way, a German team did win the Dakar rally in 2001. But they did not pick one of German-build Audi/Tuareg/MB/BMWs. Germans won the Dakar rally on a "compromised" Mitsubishi!
The compromise is only the Outlander 35% system nothing else.
Yes the race Audi's do use precisely the same "technology" as one buys in the street cars (albeit with more exotic metals as the stresses are less in the A8 and A6's) just as some of the Mitsu products use the same "technology" as the Dakkar vehicles in other units than the Outlander, also with less exotic materials.
The Endeavour I believe has a sequential or distributed torque system that would be close to the race units and close to those of Subaru and Audi - I cannot find any web site that outlines the Mitsubishi engineering specs, but once again this is not what is used in the Outlander and that is my point. The Outlander's awd is a compromise system as compared to a 100% electronically or mechanically distributed system that is standard in all Subaru and most Audi products. A German equivalent to the Outlander system would be the 2002 - 4 Volkswagen 4 and the early Mercedes 4 Motion.
This is an interesting discussion of interpretive values isn't it?
Some people still think (not suggesting you) that a 4x4 is an awd and vis versa. Even some manufacturers try to sell based on the use of both phrases bringing about more confusion in the market place - not unlike my all time favourite "All Season Tires". The same people who think of their 4x4 in 4 lock as an awd rocket also think their all season tires on their 4x4 will rewrite the laws of physics. They are usually the first in the ditch up side down
I wonder why the Outlander team went to the low percentage split - is it for the mom shopping in the snow covered parking lot? I understand the small saving possible in fuel usage with the selector switch and that's fine but not the low % transfer even when in full lock.
I have tried to find some technical literature on their systems but to no avail. There is nothing in the owners book either. If you have any links that you know of I would appreciate them.
Still waiting for some snow to test..
http://outlander.jp/drivers_feeling/dri_04.html#start
The older Montero system was similar to this and allowed for the split to be 33% front and 67% rear so I am wondering now if those few who have written about the Outlander are not mistaken about the split being the reverse as that stated for Montero? The rate of under steer, with a 70 front 30 rear would increase and has been my underlying reason for questioning the Mitsu O awd.
The 2.4l w/ CVT is available as of the 2008 model year.
http://media.mitsubishicars.com/detail?mid=MIT2007111569722&mime=ASC
To complement last year's standard V6 engine, a new four-cylinder engine debuts for the 2008 Mitsubishi Outlander. It's offered on the base ES trim level only and comes standard with a continuously variable transmission (CVT). Other changes include the discontinuation of the sliding second-row rear seat feature on ES and LS trims (it's still on the XLS).
Could someone elaborate further in the understanding of “Other changes include the discontinuation of the sliding second-row rear seat feature on ES and LS trims”? Will this mean that the second-row rear seats will fold flat into the vehicle floor or something else?
You may also DIY by ordering the workshop manual for the 2007 Outlander CD-ROM at a price of $180. Order on line www.helminc.com
According to the 2008 Mitsubishi Outlander brochure, the first row seats are supposedly able to fold flat. Now, I was able to fold flat/tumble the 2nd row seats and all I can figure out with 1st row is how to recline it. 2nd row seats have straps that when you pull, the seats fold/tumble. How do you fold flat the 1st row? Is it even possible or is this a print mistake in the brochure? Any help would be greatly appreciated. This would make Outlander even more useful as it would allow me to transport very long items.
http://www.cargurus.com/Cars/Overview-t32328-2008-Outlander-ES.html
So again, maybe people don't know the difference between fold flat seats and reclining a seat or maybe it's some another omitted from US market feature or maybe it's not that easy to fold it flat and actually requires some effort???