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



  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    I couldn't find anything on Borg Warner's web sites last week when I nosed around about them working with Mitsu. And they listed about a half dozen automakers that they do work for.

    There could be licensing agreements floating around but my guess is that Mitsu makes their own system. When they aren't making Nikons and ships.

    Perhaps we can get back to comparing the rest of the features of the cars now?
  • >> Speaking of fools' errands, I checked out the card recommended here (by guess who?), and read the fine print. Did you know that the 3% rebate only applies to the first $600 in monthly purchases? So you're only earning 3% up to $18. Then it drops to just 1%. No thanks, I'll keep my Chase Subaru card.

    But, "speaking of fools' errands,"

    * I have two Freedom cards: Visa and MC so it doubles my generic 3% earnings.
    * The other generic Chase Freedom Rewards 1% rebates have no maximum earning cap anymore.
    * With new Rewards Plus extension program I get additional 2-20% cash back rewards for purchases at hundreds of online retailers including Apple, Sears, Best Buy, Dell, Microsoft, Macys, Brooks Brs, Barns n Noble, Best Buy, JCPenny, Gap, Kids R Us, Bloomingdales, OfficeDp, OffMax, Walgreens, Expedia, United, HomeDpt,, 800flowers, There are big and small, chain and specialty stores, the list of retailers is very long and impressive. The program is loaded with various coupons and free shipping offers.
    * In addition, there is 20% bonus for any accumulated cash rebate: when I accumulate $200 I can order $250 check. This year I have received already 3 checks $250 each and I am on target to get one more this year.

    So you making big mistake as a consumer.

    * The Subaru Rewards card has $500 a year cap, while Chase Freedom card, on the other hand, has no limit and it earns me this year close to $1000, while I have not even started to use the Rewards Plus program.
    * The Subaru Rewards card earns Subaru dollars which you will not see very soon and they decrease in value due to inflation. You become enslaved by Subaru dollars being forced to buy Subaru with its dated 4-speed transmission again and generic stereo. My Chase Freedom card, on the other hand, earns me pure CASH almost instantly. I get check every 3-4 month and I have FREEDOM (name of the card) to spend my cash on anything including automobile of any brand.
  • danielldaniell Posts: 128
    " The Subaru Rewards card has $500 a year cap"

    True, but you can get 2 Subaru Rewards cards, like I did. I own a 2002 Forester, and so far I have paid everything - maintenance and repairs (bills over $100), using Subaru bucks. You get $100 rewards as soon as they accumulate, which for me is every 5-6 weeks. The $100 Subaru bucks certificates have a 4 year expiration date - but you can use them right away. I will soon buy new tires, and pay using Subaru bucks. So if you already own a Subaru, this card is a no brainer.

    That said, I agree that the Outlander is a thoroughly modern, reliable, competitive vehicle in this class :)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Why didn't you reveal the $18 monthly cap earlier when you recommended the card, though? That was misleading.

    As daniel mentioned you can use Subaru Bucks to pay for tires, or service, body shop work, and even accessories. Subaru sells the whole Yakima catalog basically, so you never run out of things to buy, and it's an effective way of lowering TCO.

    It is not like the Ford and GM cards, where you were forced to buy a car of that brand way out in the future. It is an excellent program.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Perhaps we can get back to comparing the rest of the features of the cars now?

    Sure, steve. I know this hasn't been an easy thread to moderate, and I'm sorry about that.
  • occkingoccking Posts: 346
    You guys may not believe me, but I have 4 Subaru Chase Cards & max all four of them out every year. Already this year I have maxed out two of them, by my next statement the 3rd will be full and already working on my 4th. I believe since Jan 2005 I have earned over $5000 in bucks.

    I have used them a few times while purchasing vehicles (had a 2005 Outback, 2006 Tribeca, now have had 2009 Forster since March this year (21,000 miles on now) and have already used four of them on service for the vehicle and by next week will have accumulated seven on them.

    Obviously, have not spent anything on service over the years (except I am not dumb enough to use them on small purchases like oil changes, etc.)

    My biggest problem is remembering to switch one one card to another as I reach the $500 limit allowed for each year. Also have Sears Master Card for wife & I that pays 5% cash rebate for supermarkets, drug stores and gas stations. But the maximum rebate per year for this items is $300 and I usually fill that by September (so have to take that card from wify) Also, have Mobil Card for gas that gives 15 cents off per gallon, so that is the best deal around as long as gas remains less than $3 bucks per gallon.

    Even my dealer (Mastria, in Raynham, MA) calls me the Subaru Bucks King! Never have they seen anyone redeem so many of these.

    It's not that I am very wealthy, or have an extravagant life style. Many of the charges on my card are business related and I get that money back.
  • godeacsgodeacs Posts: 481
    Very impressive - must be a lot of fun shuffling cards... :sick:

    Now, like the moderator asked, can we get back to comparing the cars instead of bragging about accruing points???... :mad:

    Thank you.
  • >> Why didn't you reveal the $18 monthly cap earlier when you recommended the card, though? That was misleading.

    I have not read all the "fine print" at that time, but does not say anywhere, even in a fine print that there is a "$18 monthly cap": it's your own calculations.

    And since you've read all the "fine print", why didn't you reveal that there is no cap on 1% purchases, and there is up to 20% cash back with no cap limit on select merchant purchases? That was misleading.

    The most misleading statement was, however, that "Both Outlander and Caliber/Compass are supplied the same AWD system from Borg Warner".
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I have earned over $5000 in bucks

    You win, that's sch-weet.

    godeacs: keeping this in context, reducing the TCO of the Forester is relevant.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    That was your card, you recommended it. So I went and wasted time researching it, and found that you only get 3% back on the first $600 in purchases (also it's limited to 3 categories). 600 x 0.03 = $18 per month.

    I don't think it's my job to explain that card, and I'm sure there is more fine print when it comes to the merchants you mentioned (2 to 20% is a HUGE variance for starters). I shop, Trader Joe's, WalMart, etc. and I don't see any of those on your list. It may be useful to you if you meet the store and item category restrictions, but I don't see the freedom in all those restrictions.

    Subaru's card is simple - earn 3% til you have $500, then switch cards. Any merchant. That's nearly $17 grand of spending for one card and everything counts, any item from any store.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    forced to buy Subaru with its dated 4-speed transmission again

    Mitsu got their CVT first, kudos, Subaru's is due out soon. Slushboxes are indeed dated - even with gimmicky manual shift modes.

    Remember they offer a stick shift, though.

    But keep in mind our tried-and-true Forester is on CR's most reliable list, and Mitsubishi, while deserving credit for getting their CVT to market, dropped out of that reliable list.

    In fact Mitsu is notably absent - they did not have a single car out of the 48 most reliable per CR.

    Mitsu sales are down, what, 48%? Subaru's sales are up.

    Since you've gone on this tirade against the Forester, sales have basically experienced a meteoric rise. Even comparing the 2010 to the then-brand-new-2009 model, sales are still up. 2009 was way up from 2008. People obviously care about the resulting performance, not the number of gears in a transmission.

    Does that work on the ladies? "My car may be slower, but I have more gear ratios." So smooth. :D

    The Forester is leaner, meaner, greener, safer, and costs less to own.

    Outlander does deserve credit for pioneering many firsts in the segment, a risk that unfortunately did not pay off in sales. People don't shop for spec sheets or options lists the way you do, they take test drives and buy the vehicle that brings a smile to their face.

    Accolades from the press reaffirm their decisions, and sales keep rising.
  • fushigifushigi Chicago suburbsPosts: 1,381
    Yes, lets.

    Mitsu has updated their site with the official 2010 Outlander specs.

    To settle one earlier discussion point, Mitsu makes no mention of there being a premium fuel requirement for the 2010 Outlander V6. I compared against the Lancer Ralliart, which does require premium, and the Lancer specs page does note that difference.
    2017 Infiniti QX60 (me), 2012 Hyundai Elantra (wife)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Either the EPA is wrong, or Mitsu recommends (not requires) premium and the EPA goes according to that recommendation.

    Do they have any other models where premium fuel is recommended (but not required)? Just curious as to why the EPA would say that. I checked again and they still do:

    Edit: Mazda recommends premium for my Miata, and the EPA uses premium fuel for their numbers. Premium is not required in the Miata, so maybe it's the same thing?

    Anyone own a '10 GT yet? What does the owner's manual say? What about the fuel door itself? Usually it'll say something right there.
  • fushigifushigi Chicago suburbsPosts: 1,381
    My guess would be that the EPA is running off of pre-release data. Past Mitsu V6s have wanted premium so maybe the data fed to the EPA was simply old.

    As I noted the Lancer Ralliart "recommends" premium while the other Lancers do not:

    From what I've heard, the '10 models will hit dealers later this month or the first week of December.

    Anyway, I'm not saying this is definitive proof; just that the manufacturer's site does not mention premium as a requirement. I will go test drive one once they're available locally and find out.
    2017 Infiniti QX60 (me), 2012 Hyundai Elantra (wife)
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 399
    "Past Mitsu V6s have wanted premium so maybe the data fed to the EPA was simply old. "

    ??? The current Outlander V6 DOES NOT require premium nor is is even a recommendation (it would be a waste with nothing gained)

    Now maybe the new one goes that way (a mistake IMHO) but it's not something they currently do.
  • >> Mitsu got their CVT first, kudos, Subaru's is due out soon.

    Soon! Who cares for CVT? This is old tech for cheap cars. Mitsu has been already selling cars with modern smooth 6-speed auto, and Dual-Clutch auto-manual, paddle shifters and neutral logic.

    >> But keep in mind our tried-and-true Forester is on CR's most reliable list, and Mitsubishi, while deserving credit for getting their CVT to market, dropped out of that reliable list.

    Well, may be it's not in the top 2 anymore, but top 3 or 5: who knows this still would be great, but actually you forgot to mention, that, looking at overall brand reliability, Mitsubishi brand is ahead of Subaru, Nissan, Mazda and Lexus in CR listing (published on Nov 2nd, 2009): - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - on/

    >> Mitsu sales are down, what, 48%? Subaru's sales are up.

    This is just in one market (US) and one month numbers. Mitsubishi still sells twice more cars/light commercial vehicles worldwide consistently every year vs. Subaru (Fuji):
    And this does not even include Mitsubishi heavy vehicles and buses – by the way this Subaru manufacturing division went out of business in 2003.

    >> Since you've gone on this tirade against the Forester, sales have basically experienced a meteoric rise.

    "Meteoric rise"? Not quite. May be in some markets sales are better, but worldwide Fuji / Subaru sales decline every year (thousands of units):
    2008: 597
    2009: 555
    2010: 508 (projected)
    It will not be easy for Subaru to stop this “meteoric” decline, while dropping behind in key technologies: AWD, transmission, diesel, hybrid, plug-in electric, not even mention toys like modern NAV, streaming bluetooth, FAST key, etc.

    >> The Forester is leaner, meaner, greener, safer, and costs less to own.

    Forester is leaner for sure, leaner in terms of technology. As for safety, and accolades, not Forester, but Outlander won the "Top Safety Pick" by the IIHS:

    Subaru sells "lean" basic cars equipped with outdated but proven technologies. This helps them to stay on the top of reliability charts and move funds from R&D to marketing, but this strategy may eventually backfire.
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,059
    It will not be easy for Subaru to stop this “meteoric” decline ...

    Technically, you're both right. Meteors generally fall and either become meteorites or vaporize completely. Only rarely does a meteor, with sufficient mass and just the right trajectory, reverse its decent and rise to become a meteoroid again.

    Oh, yes, my point! And it is that sometimes people just don't want that much detail in a comparo. :shades:

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I hear you, the EPA is probably just mistaken.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Dual-Clutch auto-manual

    True, but it's a shame the dual-clutch SST transmission didn't make it to the US-spec Outlander GT, though. Keep in mind that vehicle starts at $31 grand, and that's with cloth and no Navi. Plus - Mitsu said it was coming.

    may be it's not in the top 2 anymore, but top 3 or 5

    Actually no, it did not make the top 6 in its class.

    The rest of your post waters things down by comparing Mitsu corporate to FHI. Subaru of America, where both of us live, is on a huge roll. Their market share is up nearly 50%, primarily due to the main subject of this thread - the Forester.

    Mitsubishi should stop selling passenger cars, and stick to trucks and other businesses.

    transmission, diesel

    You don't know about Subaru's diesel? Edmunds even tested it, in the Forester no less. Let's see who can get theirs to the USA first, Subaru or Mitsu.

    And guess what transmission it had? A 6 speed manual. No pretender, the real thing, with a clutch.

    modern NAV

    Really? What you haven't disclosed is the fact that your 2007 model had maps from way back in 2005, and that wasn't updated until 2009. 4 year old map data. That's pathetic. Modern? Try ancient.

    Since 05 Garmin has been through version 6, then 7, then 2008, then 2009, and now 2010, and by the way they've had TWENTY updates to the 2010 maps, currently on v2010.20.

    How can you brag about a system that had 4 year old maps? It can't even match a $99 portable.

    I'm not going to defend Subaru's Navi, in fact I passed on it. OEM Navi is overpriced, even at $1800 it's not worth it. Mitsu's costs more and offers more, but it's still grossly overpriced and has maps so dated it would not include roads built years ago. Not to mention the options costs more and I bet the updates cost a couple hundred bucks, too.

    Get a Kenwood instead. You called Subaru's stereo "generic", no realizing that's actually an advantage. It's a standard double-DIN opening. Anything fits, generic size, like you said. Get one of these for 1/3rd of the cost of OEM Navi:


    And since it has Garmin maps, you would have been able to get dozens of updates in the time you were waiting for just one. And the updates cost $99 for life. That head unit is about $700 with Bluetooth, and you can add a backup cam for $99, too.

    So this is about 1/3rd the cost. Still less than half even with the backup cam and installation.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    As for safety, and accolades, not Forester, but Outlander won the "Top Safety Pick" by the IIHS

    Not true.

    Forester was actually the FIRST small crossover to be named a Top Safety Pick, well before Outlander caught up several years later.

    Here is the complete list for 2009:

    Even now, the Forester gets the top score of "Good" in every single test IIHS performs, and the Outlander does not.

    Outlander scores "Average" in the roof strength test:

    Forester's roof is so much stronger that it can take all the weight that crushed the Outlander's roof, and the Outlander itself, crushed roof and all, and still the roof would not fail! :shades:

    You keep falling back on the options list, but I will note that the Outlander GT starts at $31 grand, for cloth and no Navi. The Forester XT tops off at less than that even with Navi and heated leather. So the Outlander simply goes in to a much higher price range, where luxury brand competitors exist.

    This is why sales won't pick up. People are not looking for an economy-branded compact crossover for more than $30 large. At that price it makes more sense to buy Mercedes, BMW, or some other luxury make. The Outlander GT with leather and Navi costs $33 grand, and by then people aren't even considering Mitsubishi.

    No wonder you leased a Benz, at that price I would have, also.

    We finally agree on something.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I see yours has no text-to-speech either!

    Neither does Subaru, but clearly neither of these is what I'd call "modern".

    I've had text-to-speech in my portables for half a decade now.

    C'mon folks, get out of the stone ages.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    Y'all will be pleased to note (or perhaps disappointed ;) ) to learn that the fuel costs between the Forester and Outlander are almost identical.

    Goodbye Miles per Gallon, Hello Monthly Fuel Cost
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Pleased - I've said all along that while the XT uses premium fuel, it uses less of it, which offsets the higher cost per gallon.

    Edmunds got it right - this is how it should be done.
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 399
    "Edmunds got it right - this is how it should be done"

    Edmunds made no statement to that effect at all (one way or another)

    That is how YOU think it should be done. Everyone has their opinion

    My preference for a CUV is for running the more available weasel pi** gas with lower compression. I'm sure someone else would prefer a supercharger over a turbocharger too. (with complexity can come expense and it's one more thing to add in for less potential reliability over time )YMMV.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587

    I don't understand your response, the article (by said:

    We think it's time to get on with the changeover to something better.

    A figure that reflects monthly fuel cost makes much more sense

    That was their opinion. I merely agreed with it.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    Here's another blurb about it:

    ", parent of AutoObserver, late last week submitted a recommendation to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation to make fuel-economy information on new-vehicle window stickers more useful by shifting to a cost-of-energy figure rather than today's emphasized miles-per-gallon numbers." Recommends Shift From MPG Emphasis (AutoObserver)

    The background story is all the electric and hybrid cars on the horizon (and on the street) that don't have "normal" mpg usage.
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 399
    OIC. You were referring only to the way fuel costs are measured, Not that Edmunds was passing judgment that turbocharging "is the way it should be" (a matter of opinion!!! ) :shades:
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I did put that comment in a seperate paragraph. I meant Edmunds got it right when it comes to measuring fuel cost instead of MPG.

    How can you measure MPG on an electric car if it doesn't use Gallons but rather kilowatt-hours?

    I didn't even get a turbo, ours is a PZEV naturally aspirated engine. Clean and green. :shades:
  • fushigifushigi Chicago suburbsPosts: 1,381
    The current 3L V6 does not, but it did in the past. For instance, I currently drive a '99 Galant with the 3L V6 and this generation of the engine recommends/requires premium. As near as I can tell the current 3L V6 is an updated version of my car's engine and not an entirely new design. BTW my car runs fine on regular but gets about a half MPG less so in the end it's just as cost effective to burn the expensive stuff.

    Also, IIRC the 3.8L from the Galant and Endeavor used premium. That's prior to the current Galant and when they sold the Endeavor. The current Galant is only offered with a 4 cyl.

    Finally, there was a discussion in the earlier posts going back and forth about the 2010 Outlander V6 requiring premium. My posts were an attempt to provide at least some finality to the question by noting that Mitsu does not state premium is required.
    2017 Infiniti QX60 (me), 2012 Hyundai Elantra (wife)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Was the Endeavor discontinued?

    I test drove one a while back. That 3.8l was really torquey. They also set the engine nice and low in the engine bay. What happened to it?

    Also, I wonder what they did to the 3.0l to move from 220hp to 230hp. Did all models get that boost? Or just the GT?

    Switching gears a bit...

    Automotive News had a timely article, echoing Edmunds sentiments, here's part of a headline:

    Nissan North America says the Nissan Leaf all-electric car will get 367 mpg. No, it won't. General Motors Co. says the plug-in hybrid Chevrolet Volt will get 230 mpg. No, it can't...

    Energy cost per mile would work, and some folks already use that for gas vehicles.
This discussion has been closed.