Did you recently rush to buy a new vehicle before tariff-related price hikes? A reporter is looking to speak with shoppers who felt pressure to act quickly due to expected cost increases; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com for more details by 4/24.
Mitsubishi Outlander vs. Subaru Forester
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I love not having to carry around two devices, and there is also a pedestrian mode which I've used. The application runs reasonably fast and I never have to worry about map updates.
Indeed. Same with OnStar. Do you know that if you detour you have to re-load directions again? At least that's how it used to be.
At first we had one Garmin and fought over it, but we now have 3, one for each car.
When I travel I can take one with me, and we do. It's even more useful out of town.
The new Garmins have pedestrian modes, too, for walking and public transport. Cool.
How quickly does it load directions? And what happens if you have no signal?
It loads in about 30 seconds and there is a speech to text function to help you along. The achilles heel of all of these phone nav devices is the lack of signal when calculating routes. The app doesn't need a signal after the route is acquired, but if it has to calculate the route it needs a signal.
Where I have driven, not having a signal has never happened to me, even in the middle of the desert.
What were you doing in the middle of the desert? :P
I like the idea of having base maps stored locally, so you can browse them no matter what, but "live" updates make total sense given how often changes happen.
Think about the POI database - if there are, say, 10 million businesses listed in there, how many failed during this recent financial crisis? 1/3rd of them, maybe?
We also tried to stop for gas and looked for a Shell station (we have a Shell credit card - 5% off) but it had changed owners and was no longer a Shell.
Now the question is, do I give the wife the new one, or keep that for myself and give her my old one (albeit with current maps)?
That's the thing. When I saw that Kenwood only offers CDs as upgrades I thought "they must be non-rewritable." I was and still worried about up to date maps. Compared to being able to download them to your hand held Garmin or Tom Tom, you have to buy CD's that must be upgraded on an annual basis. I never really looked into it to find out if you could load new data onto the Kenwood CD's you already have. I didn't see any tab on the Kenwood site suggesting that either. Live traffic and constant updatability is something I haven't really been able to find in in-dash navigation systems. However I haven't really looked THAT hard, not yet. Most of the time Google maps weren't much help either. At least where I live the maps need some accuracy improvements in terms of location of said building or area.
I've seen people split the $230 cost and one will get the West Coast DVD and the other the East Coast DVD, so the update only costs them $115 (plus the extra shipping).
Why would you want to re-use the old disc?
I felt like they gave a bit of bias towards the RAV4, because the Forester XT had a higher overall rating than the RAV4 V6, and the Forester X was tied with the RAV4 I-4. One win and one tie, and they gave the crown to the Toyota? :confuse:
Any how, Subaru is back on top. :shades:
"SPORT/UTILITY OF THE YESTERYEAR
4TH PLACE: SUBARU FORESTER 2.5X PREMIUM PZEV
With archaic four-speed and basement power, the former champ shows its age.
Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/112_1003_crossover_suv_comparison/specs- .html#ixzz0gPuL4ED8"
Also, from MT March long-term test update of 2009 Forester:
"The Forester seems softly sprung. It bounces up and and down, wallowing over road undulations, and at times feels like a decade-old Buick. The steering lacks linearity and is sloppy, and during 60-mph sweepers, it needs constant correction to maintain a line.The four-speed auto does little to help the average-powered naturally aspirated flat-four feels more than noisy and overworked. Climbing the numerous passes of highway 395 had me desperately hunting for more gears and wanting to downshift for more grunt"
Their avg. fuel economy is 21.8 mpg ( over 22,532 miles), not that great for 4 cyl version.
Interesting. There's no doubt that Subaru isn't winning any points by sticking to a 4-speed auto but picking on its 170hp seems a bit much since it is still competitive (albeit no longer near the front of the pack). However, it's odd that while they did point out that the 2009 SUOTY was a turbo equipped Forester XT, they still felt compelled to judge the Forester X against it, which of course seems less impressive in comparison.
By comparing the 2008 and 2010 reviews, you can tell how quickly the bloom falls off the rose:
2008 - "It rides like a La-Z-Boy" (framed as a compliment)
2010 - "The Forester seems softly sprung. It bounces up and and down, wallowing over road undulations, and at times feels like a decade-old Buick" (clearly not a compliment)
Ironic how the same ride came be interpreted so differently :confuse:
And while the avg. fuel economy in the long term tester of 21.8 mpg may not be that great for 4 cyl version (depending on how and where it's driven), the Forester still had the best fuel economy of the group tested :P
-Frank
Consumer Reports has named Honda and Subaru as class leaders for building the best all-around vehicles.
That previews their April issue.
I will focus on the objective results/specs from their tests. The Forester ranked:
#1 power-to-weight
#2 in torque
#1 in ground clearance
#1 in turning circle
#1 for lightest weight
#1 for best weight distribution
#1 for most towing
#1 for best passing (tie)
#1 for best brakes
#1 for most grip (keep in mind the ground clearance)
#1 for best overall performance (figure 8)
#1 for best fuel economy
Best fuel economy is "not that great"? Hello? McFly? I guess the others were really bad, then?
They say "softly sprung" as if that's a bad thing, yet it also managed the most grip. I see that as great ride and handling, quite a feat.
Did you also notice it has the lowest price? $9,876 less than the GMC Terrain. You call that fair? That is TEN GRAND less. :mad:
They could easily have tested the turbo XT model and the price still would not have been the highest.
More to the point, be honest now, do you really think a 2.4l CVT Outlander would have placed higher? With 168hp?
We can compare the results from the GT:
0-60 7.4
60-0 136 ft
Gs 0.76
MT figure eight: 28.4s @ 0.58g
Forester accelerated in 9.3s, slower as you would expect when you compare a V6 to a base 4 banger. Remember the XT turbo took 6.6 seconds.
But let's give the Outlander the V6 edge, for fun. 1-0 Mitsubishi.
Braking was 114 feet, nothing short of amazing. Best in test, and 22 feet shorter than the Outlander GT. That's well over one car length. In an emergency stop, if the Forester had a near miss stopping at a red light, the Outlander would get in a pretty serious accident.
1-1 tie.
Lateral grip. Surprise, the "softly sprung" Forester holds at 0.81g. Fasten your seat belts. The GT managed only 0.76g on that same exact skid pad. Not even close.
Forester 2-1.
So it comes down to their signature test - the figure 8. This combines acceleration, braking, handling, transitions, and gives one all-around result. Guess what? Exactly tied. 28.4 seconds, 0.58g average. Both figures tied.
Overall: Forester 2-1 plus a couple of ties.
So as you can see, when you look at the subjective scores and measures, the Forester more than holds it own, even in an unfair fight.
In the new C&D David E. Davis reveals he bought a Forester for personal use. Can't get a better endoresement from a long-time motor scribe than spending his own hard earned money on one.
Hasn't he always liked Mercedes and Subarus? :confuse:
My old Forester (1998) had a very wide turning radius - a lot of times I could not squeeze in a U-turn. The neat thing is that the new one manages a tighter radius despite a longer wheelbase.
Good packaging. :shades:
Engine 3.0L/220-hp/204-lb-ft SOHC 24-valve V-6
Transmission 6-speed automatic
Wheelbase 105.1 in Length x width x height 182.7 x 70.9 x 66.1 in
Max Cargo Capacity 72.6 cu ft
Max Towing Capacity 3500 lb
0-60 mph 8.1 sec Quarter mile 16.4 sec @ 86.2 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph 128 ft
Lateral acceleration 0.78 g (avg)
600-foot slalom 62.7 mph (avg)
MT figure eight 28.3 sec @ 0.59 g (avg)
EPA city/hwy fuel economy 19-20/26-27 mpg (old standard)
+ Excellent warranty, excellent safety ratings, great fit and finish, great standard futures, great styling in and out, great previous Mitsu experience.
All that for 22.5K (+tax) and 1.9% financing. Good enough for me.
I don't think Mitsu is discounting like that any more. batman paid $31.2k for his GT/leather, and that's only because he got a $500 loyalty incentive. So nearly $32k without that for the average Joe (plus tax).
I think that's the real reason sales aren't up - dealers (and Mitsu) are holding the line on prices. Someone like you walks in and finds the new GT is nearly 10 grand more than your last Outlander, and they experience sticker shock.
Forester indeed is a Top Pick. Subaru and Honda tie for the overall brand score, though Subaru's average test score beat Honda 81 to 77. Actually, Subaru beat all other brands listed (page 15).
They also report on objective measures like ownership cost and owner satisfaction, areas where the Forester really shines.
Outlander is listed among the "most overlooked" models, and also squeezes in to 3rd in class since they bumped the RAV4 for now. They also show it on the front page of the recommended used cars.
Scenario #1
Dealer: SOMEONE CALL 911! THIS GUY AIN'T BREATHING!
Innocent Bystander: What's wrong?!
Dealer: This guy is having a sticker shock!
Innocent Bystander: OMG!!!!!!!111oneon HOLD ON!
Lol, sticker shock.
We buy and hold. I had my last Forester for 9 years, a Legacy for 7. I don't think I've ever sold a car that was less than 7 years old.
That's good for long-term costs, we've been able to spend our funds in other areas.
Right now our oldest car is a 2007 model and I don't plan to trade it in for at least another 3-5 years.
As piast implied the XLS V6 model is still available for less.
Funny post, though. :shades:
I hope my next car would be able to get 30 mpg combined, without the extra cost of hybrid set-up, and not at the expense of space or AWD capability. Small / medium sized diesel pick-up truck could make my short list as well. Neither would be available in the next few years, so Outlander will stay with me for a while. So far it was a happy marriage.
The base Legacy CVT 2.5i can manage 31 mpg highway, and it's heavier than the Forester. At 80mph they're taching under 2000rpm! The Terrain/Equinox can hit 30 (though those may be FWD) via DI and tall gearing.
Combine those tricks - a tall CVT and Direct Injection, and there's no reason a Forester shouldn't beat that Legacy.
I believe both Outlander and Forester are sold in Europe with diesels, though I doubt either meets CARB emissions. Sigh.
Forester was up 6%, and it that gain sounds small, remember that last Feb was also a record month, with sales up 107% from Feb 08.
Outback was up 159%. :surprise:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Subaru-of-America-Inc-prnews-1229975928.html?x=0&.- v=1
Time to bump the Camry from the SIA plant and start building more Outbacks.
Suzuki is positively dying, though. :sick:
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100302/RETAIL01/100309979/1- 401
I guess its just poor advertising and insufficient dealerships.
I do like the Lancer and feel it has a lot to offer. Sporty styling and a good interior are starters. After checking out the compacts at the auto show last month I was amazed at how cheap the new Focus and current Corolla interiors were by comparison. The Civic was a mess; my wife is short and complained a lot about the dash layout, especially the "hump" gauge on top on the regular instrument cluster. How many cars in the Lancer's class offer knee airbags? The only one we know of is the upcoming Cruze. I haven't price-shopped so I don't know how the cost compare to the competition. Lancer's fuel economy is OK but only OK.
EVO's price makes it a non-starter for all but the sports crowd.
The Galant looks OK but is outdated, especially compared to other non-Camcords like the Sonata and Fusion. And the 4 cyl lags others in the MPG race. My prior car was a '99 Galant so I'm saddened to see the car not be more competitive.
Endeavor is decent. Has good styling but lousy MPG. It also took 2009 off (2008, none for 2009, and back for 2010), which could not have helped visibility.
Eclipse & it's variations have competition from the Altima Coupe, not to mention the reborn Mustang and Camaro crowd who might just prefer RWD in their 2-doors. The Eclipse is also heavy and somewhat slow for a sports coupe.
The Outlander, my current ride, is IMO a very nice vehicle. Clean interior with lots of modern features, not unreasonably priced, aggressive styling with the new front end. IMO it compares favorably in it's segment.
The Lancer sedan & Sportback and Outlander are Mitsu's shining stars right now. And I think they know it as those two (specifically the Sportback & Outlander) are getting advertising support. While I would like to see them in tandem lift Mitsu's sales, I think the reality is that until an all-new Galant that's class-leading in some way is revealed Mitsu will continue to just limp along at these sales levels.
There is the i-MiEV coming in a year or two, but that will be a niche car. EVs remain expensive to buy and the i-MiEV is really just a city car like the Nissan LEAF.
I know in Europe Mitsu OEMs the Outlander to Citroen; perhaps with partnerships, cross-selling, and other options they can grow their presence (if not their brand).
I agree with you about it being foolish to depend on sport coupes - they suffer from "flavor of the month" syndrome. They're hot when they are brand new, but sales drop off quickly as new competitors arrive. So you only get decent volume for a short period.
Galant is how old now? I think it came out in 2004.
Remember when model cycles were 4 years? Now 5 years is par for the course, but the 2010 Galant is in its 7th model year. That's ancient. I doubt they'll have a new one for 2011 so that'll be 8 years.
Endeavor also came out in 2004. It's been ignored as well.
Volume models generate showroom traffic. If dad buys a Galant, he sees a Lancer for his son, an Eclipse for his daughter, and maybe an Endeavor or Outlander for his wife.
Few feel motivated to enter a Mitsubishi dealer to check out an 8 year old sedan, especially when the competition has had one (often 2) full model updates.
VW made the same mistake. Remember when the Golf V came out in Europe, and they kept selling the Golf IV here? The new model was several years late. VW lost touch - they were trying to market the luxury Phaeton and forgot their bread-and-butter volume model.
Since then, the Golf VI arrived and the USA is getting the new model right away this time.
Result?
VW sales up 33% in February, and up 36% for the year.
People are flocking to VW dealers to check out the new Golf. And who knows? They may end up buying something else.
Interesting new volume models = showroom traffic = sales.
The Outlander's biggest problem? The Galant.
And Peugoet as well, all of PSA.
Who wouldn't want to see this replace the Eclipse?
It's just a concept but it will inspire the new Peugoet 407. And it looks H-O-T!
The Outlander has a bold new look, with a snarling, outsized grille and angrily canted headlights. It looks mad. It looks poised to eat the car in front of it. It looks cool. It’s also sporty, with sharp handling. And with one of the longest warranties in its class, it seems like a good deal -- until you run the numbers.
IntelliChoice gives the Outlander a value rating of “Poor.” Its TCO ranges from $38,938 to $39, 545 -- that’s nearly double the car’s base sticker price. Heavy depreciation and high insurance costs are the culprit – and there’s nothing you can do about those.
In comparison, the Forester was recommended as a Better Buy (than a Kia Sportage):
Better Buy: Last year’s Motor Trend “Sport Utility of the Year,” the Subaru Forester is more expensive than the Sportage, but in the long run, will cost less. Its TCO starts at just $30,818, and earns the Subaru an “Above Average” rating from IntelliChoice. Yet the Forester offers more cargo space, sportier handling, and when it comes time to replace it, much higher resale value than the Sportage.
Read the full article here
-Frank
My Outlander GT, the highest trim available, costs under $900 a year to insure with comprehensive that well exceeds state minimums. I can't see the GMC being significantly cheaper such that it would really matter to long-term ownership costs.
Anyway, not to argue the point but Intellichoice's data must differ from other sources. The sidebar on that article links to "Best affordable small SUVs", an article where the Outlander, while behind the Terrain, ranks #6 of 22. The Forester was #7.
I don't care about depreciation, since we keep cars for around 10 years.
As for insurance, it costs us HALF as much to insure the Outlander than it would have cost to insure a Mazda3, and just a bit higher (PA rates) than the figure cited above.
It appears IntelliChoice contradicts itself. According to IntelliChoice and this chart Outlander insurance cost less vs. Forester. Overall 5-year cost of ownership difference is only $118. In any case note that Outlander is much better equipped, so you get more car for the money.
If we look beyond 5 years, Outlander will cost less to own due to lower repair costs: much longer 10 year p.t. warranty and better reliability. Forester powertrain warranty ends after 5 years while it is less reliable vs. Outlander according to the USNews data you promote. In fact Outlander is the second most reliable in that 22-car comparo.
http://www.autoweek.com/article/20100311/CARNEWS/100319961
We should compare the XLS to the less expensive XT Premium.
You have to add packages to the XLS to get all the doo-dads you mention.
Edit: TCO for the 2010 XT Premium is $41,593, so a few grand less.
For reference, a 4 cylinder 2009 Outlander SE 4WD has a TCO of $42,207, and that's not even a V6, no options either. And I bet a 2010 is higher.
source: autos.yahoo.com (linked from the article)
First off, I think I made it quite clear that the article didn't directly compare the Forester to the Outlander. If you don't think the Outlander should headline the "Worst Small SUV Money Pit" category, then you should take it up with US News and Intellichoice.
Secondly, the statement that the "Outlander is much better equipped, so you get more car for the money" is totally subjective and dependent on what factors a buyer considers a priority.
-Frank
If you think about it, you're not really losing any space, unless you were stuffing things up against the headliner, which is doubtful.
I don't know that it would dissuade me from buying one; just something I found to be a little odd.
The cargo floor seems level to me, and that leaves a 42.2" wide (B) by 35.5" long (E) area for your cake. That's plenty.
Pic:
Unless you have a 3 foot wide cake? :surprise:
Maybe the kind that a cute girl pops out of?
It's a little off to the right, putting it farther away from the driver. If anything, it should be offset closer to the driver, for a better viewer and easier reach.
Here's a pic to show what I mean. Top is original. Bottom is my "fixed" position, where it should be. Is this because of JDM models that have the steering wheel on the other side?