Howdy, Stranger!

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

Mitsubishi Outlander vs. Subaru Forester



  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Have you driven both vehicles?

    Have you personally and impartially timed both vehicles at the track?

    Show me this magical Subaru torque curve.

    Here ya' go! :shades Click here. I really think people can be less lazy about finding things, instead of expecting people to do their research.

    You can't take a spec from a completely different vehicle with a completely different transmission and expect the new Forester to be similar.

    Yes you can, it's the same motor with some tweaks. Not only that in 2010 the V6 RAV4 will be up against the same motor with a manual transmission. Note the 5.3 seconds to 60.

    There is only one number for the Forester 2.5XT published on the internet, 6.6 seconds, and after driving the vehicle I don't believe that is an accurate number.

    You can believe what you want, Unless you come up with something more credible, it is what it is. Forester rules!
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Posts: 194
    So what you're saying is that you haven't driven the 2009 Forester 2.5XT and the RAV4 V6.

    Those dyno charts don't impress me. I see a relatively stock one with 190HP and 218 torque at the wheels, but the curve spikes early and then goes down quickly. Maybe you can tweek it with mods and make more power, but is that what we're comparing? I wasn't.

    I stand by my bet, a stock RAV4 V6 will smoke a stock 2009 Forester 2.5XT.
  • 10years10years Posts: 48
    0 - 60 MT has:
    07 RAV4 V6 @ 6.7
    09 Forester XT @ 6.6

    At the finish, the RAV4 driver would see the back of the head of the XT driver while the Outlander would hardly see their tail lights through the swirling dust.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    07 RAV4 V6 @ 6.7

    It's hard to tell the exact times unless the vehicles are actually tested side-by-side. But the Forester can be slightly faster, to much, much faster.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    I stand by my bet, a stock RAV4 V6 will smoke a stock 2009 Forester 2.5XT.

    You're on.

    Those dyno charts don't impress me.

    300 lbs torque at the wheels don't impress you? Okay it doesn't have to. You don't even have to believe it, but that won't change the fact the XT is faster and has been faster since 2004.
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Posts: 194
    That 300 ft-lbs of torque is on a modified vehicle, not stock, so quit confusing the issue with completely different cars, transmissions, and modifications. The 2009 Forester 2.5XT does not come from the factory with that much torque.

    The RAV4 V6 feels significantly faster than the 2009 Forester 2.5XT. Go drive them and see for yourself, I did.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    The RAV4 V6 feels significantly faster than the 2009 Forester 2.5XT. Go drive them and see for yourself, I did.

    Your butt dyno is inaccurate. It's not how it feels, it's how it measures. Even though I'm making a point the XT is easily modable, the stock XT by all accounts has been faster, is faster and will be faster in these two manufacturers configurations.

    While the host at some point will probably say we are bench racing, not to mention way, way, off-topic, and we are, there is nothing of substance or credibility to indicate the RAV4 V6 stock to stock is faster than any model XT since 2004.
  • KDShapiro, I don't know why are you so caught up in 0-60 times in SUV/CUVs for gods sake. Difference between the Rav4 V6 engine and the XT engine is a fact that when you actually push those cars to its limits the mileage of the XT will go to the crapper compared to Rav4, thats how turbo engines work. I would never buy a relatively small displacement 4 cylinder turbo engine inside a SUV/CUV, the cars are rather heavy and they strain smaller displacement engines more. Look at Mazda CX-7, while it gets good reviews all over the place, the reliability of that car is actually very bad due to it's engine and unreliable turbos.

    Anyway, to me an SUV/CUV is NOT a sports car, I will be perfectly happy with an 8 second 0-60 car, and I think thats plenty quick. Car manufacturers/magazines here in US get caught up in all the 0-60 times but reality is that with low US speed limits whats the point of 0-60 time when most roads have a 45MPH limit. Here in NJ a 6 lane turnpike has a 65MPH limit for gods sake. It's all just an enthusiast/marketing crap. SUV/CUV are supposed to give UTILITY/versatility/capacity first. If you want a sports car buy an STI/Evo/Corvette, no SUV/CUV will ever handle like a real sports car, laws of physics have a lot to do with it.

    Anyway, back to the Outlander vs Forrester topic, both cars are rather nice in this category but in my opinion Subaru really ripped off Mitsubishi design this time but in my opinion Outlander looks more sporty and elegant, interior wise its a wash, Mitsubishi offers a better warranty and better incentives, you can get an Outlander for $2000 below invoice. Reliability wise they are about the same. And those are the things that would push Outlander over Forrester in my purchase decision. What kills Mitsubishi in US is brand perception, but brand perception and brand reality are two different things. Look at how well Mitsubishi is doing in Europe (in the largest continental car market in the world).
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    I agree 100%. At $4/ Gal for regular gas who cares about 0.1, 0.5 or even 1-2 sec difference in 0-60 time. Why are you in such a hurry anyway? Slow down, hug a tree or something. Seriously, 8 sec from 0-60 mph in Outlander is just fine.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    Different strokes for different folks. Subaru as a brand has the most sporties CUVs in this price range, IMO. So I am biased toward performance, handling and drivetrain. Bluetooth, HID, harddrives would be nice to haves for me, but less important than the aforementioned. As far as gas mileage, when you push these cars to the limits, gas mileage is irrelevant and the EPA ratings for the 2009 XT are better than the V6 RAV4. Turbo engines use less resources to make and manufacturer as well compared to their V6 bretheren.

    Regarding reliability, can you point me to any credible source of information, showing Subaru has systemic problems with it's turbos?

    When you actually drive these cars, differentiating from them driving you, you realize there is a lot of difference in handling capability.

    I can't compare against Outlander yet, but I can compare against RAV4, there is a wide gap. You may not notice it, but I do.

    Since the 2009 looks like a much more handsome version of the 2008, I can't see where Subaru ripped off Mitsubishi.

    Mitsubishi may offer better warranty and incentives, but at the end of the day, I don't drive a warranty and incentives down the NJ turnpike or up the Garden State. The performance, handling, utlity, versatility and brand would push the Forester over the Outlander in my purchase decision.
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 399
    KDShapiro, I don't know why are you so caught up in 0-60 times in SUV/CUVs for gods sake. ....... SUV/CUV are supposed to give UTILITY/versatility/capacity first. If you want a sports car buy an STI/Evo/Corvette, no SUV/CUV will ever handle like a real sports car, laws of physics have a lot to do with it.

    At last. someone the GETS it !!!. the U in CUV/SUV is UTILITY. Otherwise this conversation is like track racing Kenworths and Peterbuilts (people do it, but what's the point?)

    I would never try to boast the Outlander is the best at any one thing, but I feel it represents great value for the $ ("utility").

    I think KDShapiro would be happier in a Subaru WRX with wheels that are 1.252 times nicer looking than the competition (as evidenced on the internet) :P .
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    would be happier in a Subaru WRX with wheels that are 1.252 times nicer looking than the competition (as evidenced on the internet) :P

    Your requirements/needs/wants vs mine are different. With the Forester XT I can have my cake and eat it too. I has good handling, good performance, good reliability, great drive train, good gas mileage, and the space to stuff a lot of junk if needed. What I compromise on, if compromise is the right word are the tech toys which I don't care about.

    All of this talk about how non-important performance and handling are has me laughing. Performance is always important, what happens when you mash the pedal and turn the wheel and/or step on the brakes to me are the single most important aspects of a car. More than bluetooth, sunroof and hard disc drives.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I have that same Toyota 2GR V6 in my minivan. It's a very nice engine but it tends to perform best fairly high in the rev range. The turbo in the Forester makes torque much sooner and would be long gone by the time the V6 really got in to its sweet spot.

    The 2GR is still a wonderful powertrain, FWIW.

    0-60 according to Motor Trend for all 3, then:

    Subaru Forester XT: 6.6
    Toyota RAV4 V6: 6.7
    Outlander V6: 8.1

    And MT's Outlander was quick - Motorweek took 8.9 seconds.

    Mostly, though, it's funny that to challenge the Forester in acceleration you call in...Toyota! :D
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    You're bustin' my chops for a half inch?

    Why aren't you giving chelentano a hard time for stating the cargo height advantage was 7"?

    At the opening it's 2" (36.5" you measured vs. 34.5" from cars101). Inside it's 35.5" to about 32.something, I don't feel like looking it up again. Call it 3".

    Where is the 7" advantage?

    I'm not the one making gross exaggerations.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    You're bustin' my chops for a half inch?

    LOL .... I'm not. I'm just looking for apple-to-apple comparison and using correct numbers and statements. That's all.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    "And MT's Outlander was quick - Motorweek took 8.9 seconds."

    For what is worth, Edmunds clocked the Outlander in 8.2 sec in their Full-Test. Any other review I can remember posting 0-60 mph times, was up to 8.3 sec. This, plus my first-hand experience driving this car for more than a year tells me that Motorweek time is an anomaly so I discard it.

    Oh, and if you are still seeking high acceleration numbers for the Outlander in your quest to prove whatever, let me help you out. Edmunds had posted 9.0 sec. in their CUV comparison they had few months back. However, in that test they used their Long-Term vehicle, which had totally worn tires to the point I wouldn't drive that car on a road with the slightest mist (see the Outlander LT blog where they post a picture of the tires shortly after they posted the article). The other vehicles were supplied by the manufacturers and I think is fair to believe they were in very good condition. As far as I'm concerned, I also discarded that instance from my books as not relevant for the stated reasons.

    I still use the numbers posted by MT in their 2007 Truck of the Year event as a reference when comparing some of the these SUVs performance numbers (CX7, RAV4 V6, CRV, SantaFe, etc.) since they were obtained in fairly equal testing conditions during the event.

    Whether you accept it or not, the Outlander V6 is a low 8 sec. car to 60 mph (8.0-8.5 sec). Feel free to attach your own attributes to it (e.g. slow, fast, average, adequate, sloppy, etc.), but this is what it is.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    Mostly, though, it's funny that to challenge the Forester in acceleration you call in...Toyota!

    I think that's because some made claims that the Forester XT would smoke any other SUV, ignoring the RAV4 V6.

    The V6 in the RAV4 (and other Toyotas ) is an outstanding engine by any means. I'd take it over the Subaru's turbo in Forester application and Outlander's V6 any day. For me, the RAV4's problem is the rest of the package, but this is a different topic.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I am not seeking high acceleration numbers at all, I'm seeking an AWD crossover with the best possible fuel economy (while meeting my other needs, of course), so none of the V6s or turbos even made my short list.

    kdshapiro is, and for him the Forester XT (or RAV4 V6) would be the top two choices.

    Remember, I drove the Outlander 2.4l CVT and felt it performed OK.
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Posts: 194
    Exactly, the Toyota engine is best in class, the rest of the vehicle is just ho-hum.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    Not a problem. I was just commenting on the Motorweek 0-60 mph time which I think it's not representative.
  • Yep, different strokes for different folks, performance is not the highest priority in this segment, thats why Honda only released a 4 cylinder 2.4l CRV, thats why Nissan released a 4 cylinder 2.5l Rogue, Toyota released two engine versions and from what I know the 2.4l is a better seller.

    Anyway, as far as performance cars go, Mitsubishi and Subaru are pretty much neck and neck, the new EVO X is a better car than the new STI, the AWD system is superior in Evo X, the SST tranny is more advanced, in 4x4s, few cars can compete with the drivetrain of Montero/Pajero, basically my point is that if there would be a demand for a performance oriented Outlander, you can be sure it would be competitive with Rav4 and Forester.

    As far as handling is concerned, Outlander XLS (0.80g) has a slightly higher lateral acceleration score than the 2009 Forester (0.78g), but thats probably due to the higher center of gravity because of the higher ground clearance of Forester, so handling is pretty much a wash. What really kills it for the Forester is the outdated 4 speed auto transmission, this shouldn't be even available in a 2009 car.

    And as far as Subaru turbos go, I know they are more reliable than Mazda turbos partly because Subaru uses Mitsubishi turbos :P Thats where Mitsu shines, in turbo and AWD technology. As far as CX-7 goes, it was just an exaple of a car who gets very good reviews in all the car magazines but as a daily driver the mileage really sux because a 2.3l turbo engine has to haul a over 3900lbs car. On paper the HP and torque look great but in reality it is an inefficient car that doesn't offer the utility of Outlander or CRV.

    As far as the exterior design goes, just search around various forums in regard to 2009 Forester and Mitsubishi Outlander design cues pop up a lot so I am not the only one to see this.

    Anyway, to me Outlander is a better car for the money. And if price/incentives are not an issue for you then you should just get a Cayenne :P What makes the Outlander so attractive this days is the price, you can really knock it down some. You can get a much better equipped car than the Rav4 or CRV for thousands less.

    Anyway, sports cars as a whole are a niche market at best and sport SUVs/CUVs are a small margin of car sales, just shows that most people care more about the usefulness of the car rather than obscene 0-60 times.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    The lateral grip is probably due to the low profile tires, but you probably trade-off a bit in terms of ride/impact harshness. I say "probably" because the Outlander I test drove had 16" rims and much taller tires.

    Subaru uses a different turbo now, read the Edmunds review for more details. The old ones did use a Mitsubishi turbo but the turbocharger itself was nothing to write home about.

    The 4 speed auto is about to be replaced with a CVT next year, I just hope it feels more connected than the other CVTs I've tried. Personally, I'd rather get a proven 4EAT than gamble with a v1.0 of any brand new transmission.

    For instance, I'm glad my Sienna has the 5 speed auto vs. the new 6 speed auto, because Toyota's 6 speed is more problematic (hunting for gears, slippage, etc). So more ratios is not automatically better. In fact, if you buy a Toyota, the U151E 5 speed is a far better choice than the U660E 6 speed. Consumer Reports went as far as listing some models with the U660E as unreliable.

    I only found out afterwards, but I was very relieved that my van has the older U151E.

    The Outlander has been reliable so far, but the 6 speed only came out in 2007, so it hasn't really been tested long-term. Hopefully they remain reliable, we'll see.

    GM also had problems with their 6 speeds autos in the Lambdas, first year models mostly.
  • Lateral grip gives us an approximation of cars handling, of course things such as tires/size of rims, stiffer/better balanced chassis will all play a part in cars handling characteristics.

    Well, if Subaru is not using Mitsu turbos then I don't think thats actually a good thing. To put in in perspective even BMW came to realization that Mitsu makes one of the best in the world and guess which manufacturers turbo you will find inside a 335 or X6?

    As far as transmissions goe, the Outlanders 6 speed auto tranny so far hasn't been problematic which is a very good sign considering its an all new unit, usually if there is a defect in a part such as a transmission, you would hear about it within few months of Outlanders release. Also, if car companies would settle on what only works, we would still be driving cars with a 1940s technology. Technology has to evolve in order to get better/more efficient with each new generation. First year releases are prone to problems but Subaru will have to release a more modern transmission sooner or later anyway. Better sooner to just get all the kinks out.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Posts: 1,798
    The RAV4 w/ V6 has advantage of intake and exhaust valve timing .vs. the Subie XT's intake only valve timing. RAV4's highway mileage is better (26 .vs. 24) while city mileage is same as Forester.

    However, the Toyota burns regular, while the Subie needs premium.
    Still, given how much gas costs now, that difference between fuel grades is about 5% - not huge, but an expense Subie owners pick up.

    The Toyota has torque steer and feels very heavy at front end when driving (my experience, anyway - Edmunds found it too). Subie has no torque steer.

    The Subies' 4 speed trans seems to work better with turbo engine .vs. natural one, perhaps because the turbo torqueband is broader and covers the gear spread more effectively.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    Speaking of Outlander's 6-speed tranny. I was talking to the tech at my dealership just as he returned from a Mitsu training session on this transmission and he told me that there is only one error code the mechanics at the dealership would deal with. For anything else, they will replace the tranny all together.
    I don't really know what this means, but my impression was that he implied that the tranny is too high-tech for them to attempt to repair at the shop. Just a word from the street..... The good thing is the tranny has 10 years/160km warranty on it and it's been trouble free so far.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I checked on the MT figure 8 and the V6 Outlander was ahead of the base Forester (non-turbo) by half a second (28.3 vs 28.8) which is pretty close given it gives up 50 horsepower to the V6.

    If anything, dynamically, the handling actually compensates somewhat for the significant power deficit.

    I bet the Forester XT would be the quicker since it would accelerate out of the turns a whole lot faster than the base Forester would. Hopefully MT takes the time to do a full test of the turbo - they really only mentioned the 0-60 time as far as specs go.

    Any how, doesn't matter, as the base Forester performs just fine in the real world.

    You speak very condescendingly of the Subaru automatic, so let me remind you that the XT performs better, period. Flip those paddle shifters all day long, and it won't matter, the XT will still outrun you.

    Plus a CVT is on the way. Subaru has a 5 speed auto but wanted to wait to sort out the CVT instead. We decided not to wait - the 4EAT is proven reliable, handles 300hp in modified WRXs, and performs smoothly. The SportShift actually works very well - shifts are completed in a split second. I'd actually rate the transmission highly.

    Honestly? Mitsubishi should have taken another year or two to sort out its own CVT. Between those two I'd pick the 4EAT by a wide margin.

    A CVT has an infinite number of gears, yet by all indications the 6 speed auto is a whole lot better.

    If I race my 21 speed bicycle against Lance Armstrong and his bike only has 3 speeds, he'd still win. You have to look at the entire powertrain, not just the number of gears.

    Plus you don't want to see me in biking shorts. :D
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    It's not really fair to just dismiss both Motorweek and Edmunds.

    You accept 8.5 seconds and 8.0 seconds, which means a margin of error of 0.5 seconds is acceptable.

    If that's the case the 8.9 and 9.0 second results fall within the same margin of error.

    It's pretty convenient to just ignore the two slowest 0-60 results, though. ;)
  • Well, you have to remember that Forester is also a lighter car than the Outlander. Also, Outlander is pretty much a 2006 model (Japan got it first) release where Forester is a 2009 model release, meaning Outlander is basically at least a 4-5 year old design where Forester is maybe 1-2 years old, so I would expect Subaru to be a better engineered car simply because it's more modern. Thats the way it is in car business. Car companies overlap each other time and time again.

    As far as CVT goes, Nissan has the most experience with this as they really started doing CVTs in affordable passenger cars and already have a second generation CVT in their cars. Mitsu is on their first. What makes you think Subaru will get it all right on the first try, I highly doubt it, the first batch of cars will be guinea pigs, thats the way it is with all-new tech. But when CVT is done right it optimizes the engine to its best performance/efficiency at all the speeds.

    Again, to me Outlander is simply a better bargain, right now you can get a new 2007 Outlander XLS for $21500 if you shop around. Price plays an important role, especially in todays tight economy. In reality Forester and Outlander are fairly similar cars, its not like either blows other one away in any category. One may be attractive in this category and the other is more attractive in another. It all comes down to tastes and personal interest as well as final price. Both brands don't have a high brand perception in US hence their relatively low sales numbers.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    The slowest result is not relevant, for any car anyway. Anyone can go slow, but not everyone can go fast. Simple common sense. The best result is what shows the actual car's capability.
    You seem to accept MT results and use them as a reference for the Forester's performance so let's just go by their numbers. In this case, the Outlander V6 is a 8.1 sec. to 60 mph.

    Did you miss my explaination as of why I personally dismiss a specific set of numbers posted by Edmunds? I'll tell you again - they had bold tires on the car. However, when they did the usual Full-Test, they posted 8.2 sec to 60 mph, which is in line with what other magazines have posted. So, no, I don't dismiss Edmunds, just that particular test that was done under unfavorable conditions. It's not the result was not favorable, but the test conditions were. I hope you get what I'm really trying to say.

    Again, you can believe what you want and consider whatever numbers you want. It doesn't really matter anyway and it doesn't change the facts.
  • dodo2dodo2 Posts: 496
    It's pretty convenient to just ignore the two slowest 0-60 results, though.

    I was trying before to explain you why I don't go by Motorweek for 0-60 mph as they are in general slower than any other publication, so they don't show the full abilities of the car. This time I'll use the 2006/2007 Subaru Forester XT (both 5-speed manual) example so perhaps you'll be more open to my argument.

    Car and Driver: 5.9 sec
    Motorweek: 6.6 sec.

    It's a pretty significant difference between the two numbers for the same car. Which one would you go by?
This discussion has been closed.