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



  • suvsearcher1suvsearcher1 Posts: 23
    edited March 2010
    "The fuel economy difference is small considering the GT is quicker and it is using real deal AWD system."
    Fuel economy difference is significant. I think you are comparing a 2009 Santa Fe with a 2010 Outie GT. Not a valid comparison. 2010 Santa Fe has a 3.5 L 275 HP engine giving 20/26 in AWD configuration better than Outie which gives 18/24 that too on premium and only produces 230 HP. Both have a 6 speed AT. I wonder how would Outie fair if it did not have a 6 speed AT. Fuel economy will suffer even more. I consider fuel economy and power as an important factor especially in economy vehicles, but some may disagree.

    "Outlander beats Santa Fe according to Edmunds InsideLine tests:
    0-60: GT 7.9 sec vs. SF 8.7 "
    Again you are comparing a 2010 Outie with a 2009 Santa Fe
  • fushigifushigi Chicago suburbsPosts: 1,381
    Re: Premium. I can't tell a difference between premium & regular. It may be there but it doesn't impact day-to-day driving. Maybe after I've got 5K miles on it I'll run a month of premium followed by a month of regular to see if a difference crops up. I'm betting premium will net 0.5MPG better economy but there won't be anything noticeable WRT performance. I just don't floor it frequently; I'm not that kind of driver and Chicagoland traffic rarely allows for it.

    I wonder how would Outie fair if it did not have a 6 speed AT.

    Personally, I wouldn't waste time on such thoughts. It has one, so why worry about it? Similarly, the SF has a less sophisticated AWD system that only does 95% FWD or up to 50% to the rear; I'd have preferred something better but it is what it is.

    The GT's power is plenty for a vehicle in it's class. Others have more, but it doesn't seem to buy you much; for instance the SF can't tow more. The SF has more power but is heavier by 340 pounds (SE V6 AWD @4120 pounds v. GT AWD @3780). The Outlander reaches peak torque 1250 RPM (3750RPM) lower than the SF (5000RPM), which I'm sure helps it's performance since it's really torque that helps when doing 0-60.

    HP is more for passing power and even there, while I haven't had enough highway miles/opportunities to try it again and again, a few 60-80 punches have satisfied me. Can others beat it? Possibly, but why should I care? It's a highway, not a race track.

    We drove the SF last summer. Now, this was an 09 so it's not a truly fair comparison but while the drivetrain was smooth and powerful enough it also just came across as boring. Much like the rest of the car; it checked off everything on the list and was competent but there was no emotional response, no passion for the vehicle.

    Out of curiosity, is there a review of the 10 SF SE V6 that includes acceleration times? I checked Edmunds, MT, C&D, and Autoblog but couldn't find anything. Anything less than around 8.5-9 seconds is plenty fast for every situation bar racing so as long as it meets that criteria I'd be satisfied. Seriously, even when it comes to acceleration for collision avoidance the driver's response time, situational awareness, and skill are much more important than raw power to the wheels.

    Lest you think I'm bashing, I'm not. The SF is a fine vehicle but it just doesn't stir my soul. And while I have the Outlander, my wife drives and loves her 01 Elantra so I'm already in the Hyundai family.
    2017 Infiniti QX60 (me), 2012 Hyundai Elantra (wife)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    FWIW C&D liked the Tiguan and CR-V as well.

    Honda boosted power and made improvements on the interior. I haven't seen the new one in person. I don't like the underbite on the front grille, plus it has blind spots.

    I agree about VW, friend who have owned them either love them or hate them. The ones that hate 'em swear they will never buy another again.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited March 2010
    MT wasn't really fair, the Forester they tested was $10 grand less than the Terrain, yet look at the rankings:

    #1 power-to-weight
    #2 in torque
    #1 in ground clearance
    #1 in turning circle
    lightest weight
    best weight distribution
    most towing
    best passing (tie)
    best brakes
    most grip (keep in mind the ground clearance)
    best overall performance (figure 8)
    best fuel economy

    The figure 8 was excellent, it tied the performance for your Outlander GT!

    Remember, that was not a turbo XT model.
  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    edited March 2010
    >> The F-XT has Active AWD, too, in fact that's what they call it in a brochure. You'd still have to score 1 instead of 0.

    You kidding right? Subaru “Active AWD” is just a marketing label. We don’t give score for a label. The Forester XT does not have active differential. It does not even have a basic LS differential since 2009 Forester was downgraded.

    >> HIDs are new, and you should have known about it because I mentioned it before and you even responded.

    Don’t recall the conversation, but if you go to Subaru site and do “build your Forester”, the HIDs are not available. Perhaps it is a new accessory from catalog for extra bux. The GT has it as standard equipment.

    >> Who wants to pay for Sat Radio? BMW makes HD Radio standard and there's no monthly fee to pay. The chart should give more points to HD Radio.

    I pay for Sat radio. It is commercial free with excellent programming. HD radio offers the same channels as FM radio full of commercial garbage. The sound quality is not much different from FM. I have HD radio in my home receiver and I don’t care for it. Still the HD radio is in on the chart already, you missed it.

    >> You gave 0 points even though the Forester's rear seat reclines. That would have been 1/2 point. Then add the lumbar and telescoping steering wheel, +2 for Forester.

    ½ point is not an option, lumbar is not available (per Edmunds comparator) but telescoping steering wheel +1 is added to the chart for Forester.

    >> batman47 paid $31,200 and only because he got $500 owner loyalty, so that would have been $31,700. Street price for an F-XT Navi is about $28.6k. Different price class.

    We can argue all day long who paid what, so I will update all 4 cars to an Edmunds TMV price. This would be fair.

  • chelentanochelentano Posts: 634
    edited March 2010
    >> Fuel economy difference is significant. I think you are comparing a 2009 Santa Fe with a 2010 Outie GT. Not a valid comparison. 2010 Santa Fe has a 3.5 L 275 HP engine giving 20/26 in AWD configuration better than Outie which gives 18/24 that too on premium and only produces 230 HP.

    Car and Driver is quoting 8.2 sec for 2010 Santa Fe 0-60 acceleration test. Motor Trend estimates it at 8.2-8.6 sec.
    According to Car and Driver the Outlander GT’s number is 7.1 sec. Motor Trend: 7.4 sec.

    So the Outlander GT is still much faster even though 2010 SF has more horses. Outlander slalom number is even more impressive: it beats any crossover at any price but X6. So for extra 2 mpg + premium gas (not required) you get sportier crossover with real deal AWD: full time, 2 active differentials, side-to-side torque vectoring. In comparison SF is equipped with grandmas awd.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Subaru “Active AWD” is just a marketing label

    If the Outlander's AWD system is so much better, why did Autoblog get stuck in the sand? Isn't that the ultimate failure? Given Mitsubishi's Dakar heritage that's embarassing.

    Plus there was Warren Brown's near death experience in an XLS. So autoblog wasn't the only bad experience.

    Why does the base 170hp Forester run through the figure 8 just as fast at the Outlander GT, despite a 60hp deficit?

    Why is the new 180hp Honda CR-V quicker than the GT in the slalom by 1.6mph?

    Sounds to me like "Super-All Wheel Control" is just a marketing label, too.

    lumbar is not available

    My Forester has power lumbar and it's a lower-end model. Edmunds (and your chart) is plain wrong.

    The chart's also missing the dual mufflers, 4-setting heated seats, not to mention important items like residuals and safety scores.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Forester X vs. Outlander ES 4WD

    $36,344 to $39,880

    Forester X Premium vs. Outlander SE 4WD

    $37,377 to $39,806

    Forester XT Premium vs. Outlander XLS 4WD

    $41,593 vs. $43,355

    This is from

    As you can see you'll save a couple of grand with a Forester. And remember a 7 year bumper-to-bumper warranty costs $715 so you save enough to buy 2 or 3 of those.

    Looking at the Outlander on its own, the SE model appears to be the best value, as it is cheaper to own than the ES.

    Premium package Foresters are arguably the best value in that lineup, because you get heated power seats and a moonroof.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    On all Premium (note the cloth seats) and Limiteds:


    Should remove all doubt.
  • p0926p0926 Posts: 4,423
    Remind me again why you're comparing a Mercedes and a BMW to a Mitsubishi and a Subaru :confuse:

    Yes all four are considered small CUVs but the first two and second two are in different classes. You can build all the flawed comparison charts you want to but the truth is that luxury European makes and non-luxury Japanese makes are rarely cross-shopped.
  • suvsearcher1suvsearcher1 Posts: 23
    edited March 2010
    I will still take the Santa Fe's 2 mpg savings in gas with a quieter smoother ride and way better interior rather than race to the next stop light in 7.1 seconds with the Outie. And for the AWD system in GT I heard similar claims about XLS too few years back in the same board. I have yet to read any professional review from any magazine that rates XLS AWD system better than Forrester.
    Infact I remember seeing a video comparison of XLS AWD and GT some time back on youtube and XLS system just sucked.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Read your review...

    FWIW the Forester has a sunglasses holder and hooks for grocery bags in the cargo area (plus roof rails), three items from your wish list.

    My 1998 Forester had TWO spots for sunglasses, so bring that back Subaru!
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 399
    edited March 2010
    "The chart's also missing the dual mufflers, 4-setting heated seats, not to mention important items like residuals and safety scores."

    OK I see Bele and Lokai are back at it again but something in that sentence I can't let go.Dual mufflers a benefit? We're not talking sports cars folks, it's CUVs!! And while I don't know for sure I'm guessing each muffler does not have a separate pipe running the length of the car, but is "Y'd off" somewhere along the line. 2 mufflers is twice the maintenance costs in the practical CUV world and some of these mufflers can be very expensive. The heated seats is one thing I think is not fluff, unlike something like chrome toothbrush holders ;)

  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    It was chrome door handles, actually. ;)

    I like symmetry and the exhaust certainly makes it look better, if nothing else.

    Then there are little things that don't appear on spec sheets, like LED interior lighting that fades in and out slowly, sound that also fades in and out slowly when you hit mute, struts that lift the hood when you pop it open, and yellow lids on all the fluids under the hood to make routing fluid level checks a no-brainer.

    Lemme predict the response:

    1. Anything the Forester does better is not important or will not be acknowledged until proven in a court of law.

    2. Everything the Outlander does better is vital, even if that only applies to models that are beyond the prices/TCO of the Forester.

    It's so predictable.
  • Don't look now (especially since you can't get to them!), but Forester '10 consumer ratings are plummeting, verses Outlander '10 ratings. :surprise:
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    edited March 2010
    Ballot stuffing?

    Edit: if those are important the Sante Fe gets a 9.2. Game over.

    Watch, the SF's ratings will drop significantly by tomorrow.

  • fushigifushigi Chicago suburbsPosts: 1,381
    My wife's $14K Elantra has a holder for sunglasses. Really, it isn't a big thing, just a convenience item I'd rather they make room for. Where the holder would normally go is where the dual-mics are for the BT connectivity, a place that works quite well for calling. So were they to include a holder they'd have to move those around.

    I have places where glasses fit and won't get scratched - in the upper console compartment or in front of the gear shift - but would prefer a dedicated holder instead. For the moment I'm using one of those clips that goes on a visor.

    All of those are features I've never had before but recognize they have some utility and add some value to day to day usage. Like you said, it's the little things sometimes. They don't worsen my ownership experience by not being there, but they would add a little if they were.

    Thankfully, that sort of thing is the extent of my "problems" so far.

    BTW, after finishing the JDP survey I got a survey from AutoPacific who apparently does some of the data gathering for Intellichoice. So another 20 minutes to answer questions. At least JDP sends you a buck for doing the work. And I was honest. A few perfect scores, lots of "very goods" and a couple of slams (3rd row seat design). I strive for honesty in the hopes that it contributes to better products; I don't do the surveys to feel good about my purchases.
    2017 Infiniti QX60 (me), 2012 Hyundai Elantra (wife)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Definitely not a biggie, just one of those things that's nice to have.

    I'm sure both of these have subtle features that you may not even notice until you've owned them for a while.

    My fave: the cargo cover for the Forester fits under the floor, neatly tucked away. A golf umbrella fits there also.

    I also like my puddle lights. It's saved a dress shoe or two.

    Lots of stuff that won't appear on Edmunds spec sheet, basically.
  • fushigifushigi Chicago suburbsPosts: 1,381
    I use my door handle as a mini storage bin; it has a bottom to it. It's perfect for holding my wallet when I'm hitting a drive through or ATM. Holds bills, change, receipts, etc. until I get a moment to put them away.

    The nav system only speaks directions through the speaker on the driver's door. If the stereo is on it quiets the other speakers some so the nav directions can be heard.

    The nav has 1-touch map scaling (dedicated hard button) and the maps are detailed enough to show the retention ponds around a lot of the local subdivisions.

    The rain-sensing wipers simply work. And you can adjust how aggressive they are; it's setting replacing the intermittent so the rotating knob that would normally set intermittent speed sets rain-sense aggressiveness. I now leave them on all the time.

    The outside rear-view mirrors are large. I really like that in this kind of vehicle since you don't always have good visibility. Blindspots are IMO greatly reduced.

    The fan on the automatic climate control doesn't blast you with cold air if the engine hasn't warmed up; just a gentle circulation. Once the first bar on the temp gauge lights up, the fan kicks in high gear to warm up the cabin.

    You can set up Euro-style 3 blink turn signals if you want. I would but my wife doesn't like it.

    On an average day I don't touch that many controls. Lights are automatic. Wipers are automatic. HVAC is automatic. You can fiddle if you want to but I'd rather spend my driving time enjoying the ride or cranking some tunes. Maybe even listen to a little Sirius channel 99 from time to time. :blush:
    2017 Infiniti QX60 (me), 2012 Hyundai Elantra (wife)
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I didn't get Navi so I can't comment on Subaru's (you know my opinion about OEM Navi).

    Our automatic climate control does the same thing, i.e. smart fan speeds. Early version from Subaru we nicknamed HAL but they've improved greatly.

    Forester also has automatic headlights, indeed a cool feature. Even my old '98 had that.

    I think the funny thing is that you guys haven't even named the two most common complaints Forester owners list:

    * cup holders are square
    * passenger seat is low and not height adjustable
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Posts: 5,751
    One holder for my street glasses, one for my sunglasses.

    Phone nav plays through my Bluetooth (well technically not a car feature, but I can take it with me in pedestrian mode)

    Never touch HVAC except to adjust temperature. Only comes on full blast after engine warms up. However, if you set it to manual warm air comes out before the end of the block.

    Lights are controlled by ignition.

    Gigantic moonroof is great...wish it read my mind so I didn't have to press the button.

    Windshield wiper heater element works wonders in winter.

    Heated seats in the winter are the best.

    If I really get bored I'll listen to one of the 1,000 channels I get on the internet radio on my phone.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    It's been taken care of.

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper

    Can you also check in to the sudden flood of horrific reviews for the Forester? This is blatant ballot stuffing. They are way out of line with the prior 50 reviews.

    One guy scored it at 4.8. There's not a car on the market that is that bad.

    3/10 for interior design? Please. If you tossed a grenade in a Pinto it would score higher.

    Are these login accounts verified?

    Rattled, f650gs, and canuck have never once posted in the Forester threads. And those are the 3 lowest scores.

  • At the end of the day the Outlander is being badly outsold by almost all of its competitors. We can continue to brag about some of its trivial features like 12 cup holders and LED tail lights all day long but that still does not change the fact that people don't consider those features when buying a small SUV.
    If the mighty Outalnder is so good then its sale volume will reflect that and its been out there for 3-4 years now.
  • Mitsubishi owners are SPECIAL, and our membership is EXCLUSIVE! ;)
  • comem47comem47 Posts: 399
    Well at least around this area one reason for lower Outlander sales could be the lack of dealers. It's just not mainstream enough for many buyers.

    I got 2 local dealers, but each is about 15 miles away. VS say a Chevy dealer on every block. There is one of the highest volume Subie dealers in the country (#2) about 3 miles from my house (we got 3 in the area). Just maybe if the 2009 Forester existed in 2007 I might have thought longer, but needing the turbo 4 in order to tow 3500 lbs doesn't do it for me even in 2010. Honestly speaking, for me, if I was looking at lower power 4 bangers I'd probably look elsewhere. (I'm still not sold on CVT transmissions screaming away) I do however love the 6 in the Outie along with the warranty.
  • fushigifushigi Chicago suburbsPosts: 1,381
    Good point on the dealer count. In 2008, Mitsu had 440 dealers according to NADA. Subaru had 600. 1235 for Toyota. Over 13000 for GM (all brands). 1030 for Honda. And 3787 for Ford/L/M. I didn't see data for 2009.

    Obviously volume is huge at Honda & Toyota dealerships; I think they skew the average.

    Even scaling Mitsu up to, say, Ford's dealer count wouldn't bring the sales volume up to parity, but then I'm going to guess that the more pervasive a brand is, the more sales traffic it will generate. IOW with 440 dealers Mitsu will average x cars a month per, but with 800 dealers they'd probably average x + y sales a month. With more raw sales there would be more brand recognition & perception, more advertising dollars to spread the word, and more R&D capital for vehicle development.

    I see a fair number of Mitsu's in my area, but my dealer is the largest in our region so there's obviously somewhat better market saturation around here. I saw a "Quartz Brown" '10 Outlander today. No roof rails & a black grill so I think it was a GT. No time to try & figure it out, though.
    2017 Infiniti QX60 (me), 2012 Hyundai Elantra (wife)
  • authurdentauthurdent Posts: 82
    edited March 2010
    Sort of glad that over the few months we've had the Outlander, I've only see 2 others on the road, and I actually know one of the owners. Exclusive club indeed!

    What drew me to Mitsubushi from the start was that there were so few on the road. Of course, they also make fabulous engines. Not exactly the best business model, but at least I can readily find my car in the parking lot.

    Originally I really wanted the GTS Sportback. Now that club is ultra exclusive, since I haven't seen ANY anywhere. But the visibility on that model seriously sucked. Too bad, since car was excellent for utility & gas, and quite a perky performer.

    Glad I didn't get the Forester. Decent looking, but that lack of seat adjustment would've pissed me off. I need a high perch!
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I'll give you credit, man, that was hilarious. :D

    We all need to have a sense of humor like that once in a while.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    Outback can tow that and you can get a 3.6R for Outlander GT money.

    Subaru has got that covered, it's just with more than one model.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    What drew me to Mitsubushi from the start was that there were so few on the road

    The original Forester was like that. Everyone was buying the 120hp CR-V and wimpy 2.0l RAV4, and Subaru came out with a 2.5l 165hp model that didn't fit the mold at all. It just never sold well. Sales took off when they introduced the 2009 model, so America simply loves it.

    lack of seat adjustment

    That was passenger seat height only I was referring too. The driver's seat has tons of adjustment, in fact in the highest position it's too high for my liking. Plus it towers over the passenger seat.

    My wife likes that, I'm taller but if she's driving she can get up to my eye level.
This discussion has been closed.