By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
True, and that's one of the reasons this "mine's better than your's discussion" is not very meaningful.
Question. What is the most commonly sold Outlander? 4 cyl/CVT or V6/AT? FWD or AWD?
So anyway, going back to the Outlander, according to the numbers from the dealership here in NJ it seems that 2WD LS/XLS is the better seller than the 4 cyl version. Thing with the new 4 cyl Outlander is that the only thing you really save is about $2000 MSRP on the 2.4l engine vs 3.0l but the gas mileage rating is actually about the same, so if you are looking for fuel efficiency in a 4 cyl Outlander you may as well opt out for the 6 cylinder and have a more responsive car as Outlander is an over 3500lbs vehicle and the 2.4l engine seems to be a bit overwhelmed by the mass of the vehicle.
The BMW is at home on the streets and that heritage shows. The fact the Evo lost is a testament to how well BMW builds it's cars for street use.
BMW doesn't have such an advanced system,
You are right. But the best AWD system in the world doesn't make the Evo a good street car or even a great street car.
Anyway, the only real competition Evo X has is the new STI and so far in most of the tests well, you know how it is :P Doesn't look good for the Subie, does it?
I don't know, how many Evos are sold and how many STIs are sold. But if I were to pick one, I would go for second best. My dollars would be casting my vote. The STI always has been better for street use.
All in all, you contradict yourself all the time, first you say that you don't need the space or towing of a CUV but then you say that you don't want a real performance car such as Evo/STI because you need more space and towing capacity, really confusing, thats why Subaru XT is a niche product at best I guess.
Honestly, why I have multiple vehicles is my business. And if you already didn't know, most of the sales in this segment are the 4 cylinder models. The Outlander V6 is a niche vehicle as well as the XT.
And your Outlander.
SAME HERE. You leave it in 4WD and it does. But when you WANT to be in 2WD (I do) you can have it. Maybe AT is too complicated as well for you. All those letters and numbers. Why not just P and D?
Maybe it was too complicated for Mitsubishi, I don't know.
Or it could be the other way around. A good car is one thing, driving skills is another.
You are right of course. But with people yapping on the phone, I wonder about defensive driving and driving skills.
Are we talking about the US market alone or worldwide? Worldwide the 2.4l version is the better seller as Mitsubishi initally offered the 6 cylinder version for US market only. But now the 6 cylinder is available in Japan and Russia and other markets will follow.
And if you are talking about US market alone then Mitsubishi introduced the 2.4l engine just this March so V6 is a better seller here and it looks like it will continue to be a better seller as the 4 cylinder engine doesn't offer significant MPG advantage over the V6 and the car is not as responsive as with the V6. But for anyone that wants to save $2000 on the purchase price the 4 cylinder is a good choice I guess. The 2.4l 4 cylinder engine offers about the same performance as the 4 cylinder 2.5l (non-turbo) Subie engine so no one has any real advantage there maybe except the lesser weight of the Forester.
Also, with todays economy, most people want the best bang for the buck, one person doesn't really need more than one car so people look for versatility in one vehicle. If you want to have multiple cars then its your choice, one for good mileage, one for performance, and one for some towing. But most people want the middle ground in one vehicle.
I didn't think it made a difference. I would think the 4 cyl models in this segment would be the best sellers.
If you want to have multiple cars then its your choice, one for good mileage, one for performance, and one for some towing.
There really is no middle ground, it's sort of skewed as performance, fuel economy, towing ability and vehicle size are all mutually exclusive. The Outlander and Forester are both compromises, except each compromise in different areas.
Actually, you can choose FWD. Just insert a fuse. It's less convenient but it is indeed possible. I've attached a photo below showing the fuse, clearly labeled. It even comes with spare fuses and a tool to insert them. Note you insert a fuse, you don't take one out.
Actually, he was right. It can tow 1500lbs, just can't stop
ROTFL!
Even when he is proven wrong, chelentano does not want to admit it.
As for the 4 cylinder towing, can someone please check their owner's manual? I asked the dealer when I test drove one but it was not in the glove box and the salesman could not locate it.
The V6 ratings are lower for unbraked trailers (3500 drops to 1400), so it's likely the same is true for the 4 cylinder model.
We should not make assumptions - people who did were wrong about the V6 towing.
On the dash this AWD light turns on to indicate it's disabled:
In this mode the Subie would be 100% FWD, with 0% power going to the rear axle.
So the 90/10 limitation theory is bogus. It can go 100/0 just like the Outlander. :shades:
Exaclty!!! Count me in here.
I gout rid of my 13 mpg Dakota (stepdaughter now has my wife's Durango still going stong at 180K). Both of these vehicles were great in winter and both would alternately tow our sled trailer. Back in '98 gas prices were a whole other thing. In looking for a replacement I found too that you don't lose a whole lot in MPG with the V6 vs the 4cyl, but you sure do in tow ability. Other vehicles like the RAV-4 are in the same league (I just didn't care for the swinging rear door and higher price). The new Forrester was not out yet (older Subies too small) and I wouldn't care to feed the turbo premium fuel. So the V6 Outlander is a nice compromise for one vehicle to do all. My wife now has a V6 Malibu that gets 30MPG (worth it vs going to a smaller box that gets say 35 mpg). If I didn't tow in winter I'd also be looking at FWD in this economy. With the warranty offered and considering insurance cost to keep around the old vehicle, it just made sense to have one vehicle that does it all.
Google it and you'll get all sorts of hits.
So the 90/10 limitation theory is bogus. It can go 100/0 just like the Outlander.
So the inserting/removing of the fuse is better/quicker than flipping a switch!!!
I see !!!! :confuse:
It's not about the method, it's about what the hardware and software of the Subaru AWD system can support.
It's not about the method, it's about what the hardware and software of the Subaru AWD system can support.
Oh for gods sake, if Subaru wanted the user to manually switch between 2WD/4WD then they would have designed a proper switch just like the Outlander has but they probably didn't because it would actually cost more to design a switch inside the car which would obviously increase the MSRP. Car companies when they design specific cars they need to match certain price points and have restricted R&D budgets (cost of car development/design/built materials etc etc). To you a switch might not be a big deal but to Subaru and every other car company to design/implement that switch you are probably talking couple of millions of dollars in development and manufacturing costs. So car companies need to decide which features need to be cut back.
And the average Joe doesn't even know what a fuse is inside of his car so thats not an argument. Again, if Subaru wanted that feature to be available they would have properly designed it. I could say the same with Outlanders engine, if I wanted to do a 0-60 time of below 6 seconds all I have to do is add a supercharger (Evolander :P ).
Normal people buy AWD vehicles to use the AWD, not FWD. :confuse:
If the AWD system is designed intelligently, the vehicle will automatically and instantaneously adjust traction for you.
For crying out loud, it's not about the method, it's about the theory. Subaru vehicles don't need to cripple their AWD to save gas, it's efficient enough. But if someone wanted to do it, for whatever unlikely reason (excepting a flat), there is a way.
I have a full-size spare inside of the vehicle. I don't know if the Outlander has donuts or full-size, and if it has a donut what has to be done to the AWD system. Can someone please look it up. I do not believe the AWD will function properly with a donut due to rotational differences between the tires.
kdshapiro...
Have you driven a 2009 Forester 2.5XT?
This is basically a difference in philosophy. All of Subaru's cars sold here have full-time AWD, and customers are happy with it that way. No switches to mess with, just drive off and it works. No worries.
I shared the pic to show that the system is capable of sending 100% of the power to the front axle, another thing chelentano was wrong about.
The Ford Escape had a lock mode for its rotary blade coupling system, I don't see you guys raving about Ford's AWD.
We have very little info on the Outlander's AWD system, most of it from Mitsubishi. Who is the supplier? What type of AWD is it?
I will try a search myself. Information is scarce, and mostly regurgitated from Mitsubhish press kits.
Sounds very similar to Ford's old system, actually, switches and all.
That's what I said.
That sounds unpleasant. But unlike Subaru where there's nothing much to regurgitate about its AWD system.
Sounds like the Outlander in 4WD Auto mode.
http://blogs.edmunds.com/Straightline/44
Mitsubishi decided to offer that option to their customers by conveniently placing a dial inside the cabin, rather than reaching for some fuse somewhere. :confuse:
Oh, boy. I'm going to say it for the last time, and slow this time:
Intelligently designed AWD system in Mitsubishi does the same thing as Subaru AWD system does. Period. Now in addition to that, it gives its owners the choice to switch to 2WD if they DESIRE.
Yes, I've driven a 2009 2.5XT, I posted my review a few pages back.
I suggest that you go drive an Outlander V6 and a RAV4 V6 so at least know a little bit about what we're discussing.
Do you disable your ABS in "nice" weather?
I personally bought an AWD car for safety, so why would I want to pay extra for a switch to disable a safety feature?
I personally bought an AWD car for safety, so why would I want to pay extra for a switch to disable a safety feature?
AWD on a nicely paved dry pavement is pretty much useless in everyday driving. Notice how difficult it is to buy a 4WD version of Outlander in summer states such as Texas, Florida, Arizona.
Also, switching to constant 2WD mode is useful here in NJ during summertime as it saves you about 2-4MPG depending on driving conditions. Subaru has a different philosophy but I like Mitsubishis philosophy better. Sure the computer can sort the AWD system for you but computer is a computer, there are always glitches and no AWD system is perfect. So all in all I like th eoption to disable 4WD as I please just like I like the option to disable stability control. I actually like when car allows for human input and is not all computer controlled.
And speaking of AWD systems, while I realize Subaru has been developing them for a while, currently it's the Mitsubishi that offers a better AWD system in it's Evo X (Subaru has nothing better) and Subaru also has nothing on Montero/Pajero SuperselectII 4x4 system. All those systems are Mitsubishis. So I am more than sure that the AWD system found in the Outlander is more advanced than Fords.
Look at the EVO - it has summer tires, yet AWD is a core part of it. Would you buy a FWD Lancer EVO?
AWD is more balanced that FWD. You have less tendency to understeer, better balance, and it reduces or even eliminates torque steer.
So I am more than sure that the AWD system found in the Outlander is more advanced than Fords
So let me get this straight - the EVO and Pajero are great cars, so the Outlander has a good AWD system? Only if they are the same can you make that claim. They're not the same, though.
The Lexus LX/Toyota Land Cruiser have awesome 4WD systems but the one in the Toyota Sienna is lousy.
I wouldn't base AWD's all-encompasing safety ability on who buys what where.
Just because the hot states go cheap because 'everyday' driving doesn't include snow, does not mean that you can't power out of an 'oh hell' situation on dry pavement.
Try cutting a hard left around a deer/car/child that just jumped in the road at point blank and then steer back right on course by adding power with FWD. Bye.
Sometimes driving involves dodging things and cornering harder than one had expected to at that precise moment. I would never drive an AWD vehicle in 2WD mode if I could help it.
A properly tuned AWD system is just as useful for getting you out of trouble on dry pavement as it is for a performance enhancer.
Look at the EVO - it has summer tires, yet AWD is a core part of it. Would you buy a FWD Lancer EVO?
AWD is more balanced that FWD. You have less tendency to understeer, better balance, and it reduces or even eliminates torque steer.
First off, the AWD system in Evo is a bit different than anything in this class, Evo X AWD system can compare to cars costing twice as much. Second of all, AWD on a dry pavement matters only if you are driving "enthusiastically" on a nice twisty road. 99% of drivers drive on straight highways/streets. AWD helps with traction in bad weather such as sleet/rain/snow but on a nice summer dry day with average Joe behind an average errand from home to work and vice versa AWD system is almost useless...
So let me get this straight - the EVO and Pajero are great cars, so the Outlander has a good AWD system? Only if they are the same can you make that claim. They're not the same, though.
The Lexus LX/Toyota Land Cruiser have awesome 4WD systems but the one in the Toyota Sienna is lousy.
The Evo and Pajero comment was a response to someone comparing the Outlanders AWD system to outdated Fords AWD with a dial. So I brought up two Mitsubishi cars to show that when its all said and done Mitsubishis best AWD systems are superior to Subarus. Subaru enthusiasts think that Subarus AWD systems are the best in the world when in fact they are far from it. They build their image around AWD systems but that does not mean they are anywhere near the top. I can name at least 3 other systems that are better than anything Subaru makes, namely S-AWC (Mitsu), ATTESA (Nissan), SH-AWD (Honda).
So before you will criticize Outlanders unknown AWD system read up on what Subarus AWD systems are really about. It's just like Audi, they built their brand recognition in the 1980s with the Quattro AWD systems and people to this day remember it and think its the best in the world when in fact it's outdated and Audi is no where near best AWD systems these days (they mainly use Haldex/Torsen AWD systems which are FWD biased). I am not saying that Subaru makes bad AWD systems, I am just saying they are not as advanced as the mentioned competition.
Wrong, I'm discussing the Forester, except where noted for a specific model. The issues we've been discussing, in case you missed it, are outside of the realm of a test drive. Skidpad, 0 to 60, AWD inner workings and capabilties, etc. Exactly which item is the test drive going to elucidate. So let's not call the kettle black.
It does do those things you mentioned, but it also helps with accident avoidance. You can consider accident avoidance very similar to 'enthusiastic' driving. The connection is very easy to make actually.
When someone on here claims AWD is a safety aid, it is not because they expect to be on a straight, flat, well-paved road without any disturbances or driver errors. It is because all of a sudden, for no reason at all, there is a dog in the middle of that straight, flat road and not enough time to stop.
Gotta swerve? You shoulda gotten AWD. Your options are understeer into the dog, or get caught in transitional understeer and not be able to recover before going off the road completely and rolling over in a drainage ditch and drowning.
It works in more vehicles than the EVO. Different systems, same objective. Its not useless by any means.
Wrong, I'm discussing the Forester, except where noted for a specific model. The issues we've been discussing, in case you missed it, are outside of the realm of a test drive. Skidpad, 0 to 60, AWD inner workings and capabilties, etc. Exactly which item is the test drive going to elucidate. So let's not call the kettle black.
Yeah biscuit, what's wrong with you? It's not whether the thing works in real life, it's all about armchair racing and spec quoting from the internet. The nerve !!! :P
When someone on here claims AWD is a safety aid, it is not because they expect to be on a straight, flat, well-paved road without any disturbances or driver errors. It is because all of a sudden, for no reason at all, there is a hippopotamus in the middle of that straight, flat road and not enough time to stop. Gotta swerve? You shoulda gotten AWD.
It works in more vehicles than the EVO. Different systems, same objective. Its not useless by any means.
Well AWD does help in accident avoidance but again, last time anything that jumped on me on a straight road was a few years ago and the last accident I avoided was like never. There are so many FWD cars that do just fine in bad weather or unfavorable circumstances, reality is that no AWD system can compensate for bad driver judgement. It's always nice to have AWD system in your car (but it's not a necessity for 90% of drivers out there) but it won't compensate for anyones incompetent driving skills.
Sorry, a bit different sounds like an excuse. Either AWD is integral to the vehicle or it's not.
Mitsubishi cars to show that when its all said and done Mitsubishis best AWD systems are superior to Subarus
But Mitsubishis best is not on the Outlander. So what?
ATTESA (Nissan), SH-AWD
Yes, and the STI will kick butts for these systems on road and gravel. In practice the STI has a better AWD in bad weather, snow than SH-AWD and probably ATTESA.
I am not saying that Subaru makes bad AWD systems, I am just saying they are not as advanced as the mentioned competition.
So before you will criticize Outlanders unknown AWD
Accelerator pedal position?...enough said.
I am not saying that Subaru makes bad AWD systems, I am just saying they are not as advanced as the mentioned competition.
The STI has the best all-around system for all types of surfaces and weather. The STI will obliterate any SH-AWD based system on rallye trails. More sophisticated does not make it better.
Well, "1%" drive on twisty, hilly roads in ME, NH, VT, MA, NY, PA, VA, NC, SC, TN, UT, CO, MN, AZ, CA, NV, OR, WA, AK, ...
Do the other 99% drive in Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas? :P
I couldn't have said it better. :shades
You just described a Forester XT buyer, basically.
We should focus on the Outlander and the Forester. Talking about the Pajero only waters down our discussion, it's basically not relevant.
Ford basically had a very similar setup, knob and all, even with the lock mode. They use a Rotary Blade Coupling. That's why I'd like to know more about who the supplier is and what mechanical system Mitsubishi uses for the Outlander specically. Is it a Haldex-type? RBC? Clutch-type? Who makes it?
Pajeros are awesome but that doesn't mean anything here.
I agree that Audi is no longer the best, in fact a Torsen differential fails completely and acts like an open differential when there is no traction. Great for a dry track, terrible for slippery conditions. That's why they added traction control.
Keep in mind Nissan and Subaru share the same technology for traction/stability control, in fact they even use the same name for it.
S-AWC is neat but the the "S" is for super but Hyatt Mitsubishi says the Outlander has "All Wheel Control" (minus the Super).
So if the EVO is Super Man, the Outlander is just Clark Kent without the super powers.
Necessity is relative to the user I guess. I was thinking more along the lines of another driver's incompetence getting in my way with little reaction time.
I've avoided quite a few deers by braking, but once where there was absolutely no option but to swerve. That was in a RWD, and I had a free lane so I didn't have to transition back, hence, no oversteer. But I guarantee in that instance had I been in a FWD, Bambi and I would have gotten to know each other a lot better.
LOL, best all around based on what???? All the current evidence suggests that Evo X S-AWC is better in all situations whether snow, sleet, gravel, or paved track.
Do the other 99% drive in Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas?
If you live in some remote area then yeah you should get AWD or better yet a 4x4 vehicle. But anywhere there is a pavement, AWD becomes less relevant. I don't know the exact statistics and I exaggerated with the 99% (just like most people exaggerate on this forum) but I am more than sure that over 50% of drivers don't really need AWD, especially here in USA.
When did it get tested under those conditions? If there's some evidence of that I'd like to see it. Not trying to sound condescending, I really would.
I thought that Mitsu essentially said the EVO IX was their last attempt at an all-purpose rally-bred car. And that the X was street-performance only. STI will still be a dirt-devil.
Anyway, to me Outlander represents a better value than the new Forester and I don't think anything will change that unless Subaru brings in a NA 6 cylinder into the equation along with a more modern transmission. Then maybe we can talk. As far as AWD systems are concerned, the one that Outlander has is more than adequate for everyday driving conditions.
I don't really consider 4x4 a 'better yet' to AWD. Its just not worth the extra weight, rollover risk, poor fuel mileage, and 0% usefulness on the dry twisties.
Up to 2' of snow on the road proper (rare), an Impreza/Outback/Forester/Legacy is every bit as useful as an F350, if not moreso. From experience.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=109902
Configurable 4WD, on/off ASC, shiftable A/T. To me, these were net advantages for the Outlander as I appreciate to have a little more control over the car systems. I get some flexibility to chose the configuration instead of going with the vehicle's defaults or find a cumbersome work around to change those defaults.
No, we were specifically comparing the speed of the 2009 Forester turbo to various vehicles, that's why YOU quoted the optimistic 6.6 second 0-60 time.
Go drive them, the Forester 2.5XT has adequate acceleration but it's not "quick" feeling and suffers from an outdated 4-speed automatic.