Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Article Comments: 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander XLS Full Test
Karen_S
Member Posts: 5,092
The full test results are in! Read the article and tell us what you think.
Full Test: 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander XLS
Full Test: 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander XLS
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Apparently, the full test period didn't exhibit the front-end knocking problem that is reported by other owners. I am hoping this problem is either partially isolated or it will be resolved/rectified by the time I'm ready to purchase the Outlander.
How far "round the corner" I wonder? I'll be all over this
On the same note, the numbers for the CX-7 are 113 ft Edmunds and 119 ft. MT. 6 ft difference is again something to wonder about.
You can contact the author using the "Email" link on the page where you read the article.
tidester, host
Out of curiosity I pulled up the 2007 CRV ratings to compare and guess what?
The CRV brakes from 60 to 0 in 131 ft. and from 30 to 0 in 32 ft. Rating: Very Good (they even made up the rating for the CRV since the ratings are Excellent, Good, Average, etc). Also, the review says " Thanks to the brake assist and electronic brakeforce distribution systems, the CR-V also comes to a stop from 60 mph in a very short 131 feet. " So 131 ft. is a VERY SHORT braking distance ( I guess if it is for a Honda or Toyota only).
Now the Outlander stops from 60 to 0 in 128 ft. and from 30 to 0 in 31 ft. and the stopping distance is DECENT. The braking rating for Outlander GOOD. Explain that if you can ....
CRV skid pad 0.77g and slalom 63.4 mph, Outlander 0.8g and
63.9 mph. CRV handling rating: Excellent, Outlander: GOOD.
Edmunds' rating is just the regular BS, but thanks for posting the numbers so we can do our own ratings.
Until few months ago I was reading reviews in general so I did not catch on how biased most of the reviews are. I agree that Honda and Toyota are good cars, but they are far from being unmatched in quality as most of the reviewers suggest. Just read the CRV and RAV4 forums and you will hear this from die-hard Honda/RAV4 owners.
My previous posts only show how misleading and biased some statements in this review are.
So I hope a lot of potential owners would do enough research and somehow have a peek at this forum before they decide on which make and model to buy.
How far "round the corner" I wonder? I'll be all over this
Here's my own version of an "Outlander Ralliart". Small cosmetic mods I did on my Labarador Black Pearl Outlander.
IMO, the Outlander is the most balanced package on the compact SUV segment today, but they seem to be afraid to recognize it not to upset Honda or Toyota (bite the hand that feeds them). The Outlander may not be the best in any test - I agree on this with the Edmunds review, but it's always the 2nd or the 3rd at the lowest in any given test. This gives the Outlander a top overall score, not "so-so" like the reviewers often suggest. This is where they fail miserably (on purpose of course). The situation I brought up with the CRV braking rating of "Very Good" is just hilarious and self-explanatory of how these ratings are done. The sad part is, that most people take these BS ratings for good.
At this point in time Mitsu does not have the finances to spend in advertising. They even withdrew from the WRC due to financial difficulty. So yes, I can see why the reviews are tipped towards the CR-V and RAV-4.
So go ahead and write to remove any doubt.
brakes from 60 to 0 in 131 ft. and from 30 to 0 in 32 ft.
Which, BTW, is quite consistent with the expected v2 dependence of stopping distance!
tidester, host
120 ft. it's a doctored figure for sure.
Therefore you need to get the XLS to get a power seat.
But if I read other reviews right the second row seat tracks on the LS go back further than the XLS thus giving more leg romm than 36.8 inches. Thats what I would want because when I go out with some of my same age freinds athey have leg room in second row.
I don't give a hoot about the third row seats being 71 years old and grandchildren far away. But I do want a power drivers seat since me and the wife are different size.
Too bad one can't get a LS with luxury package. Most manufacturers are that way now and it sucks.
Am I reading the paqckages right?
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/new/index.html
Also, check pictures and review for new 2007 Lancer. The interior design and packages came straight from Outlander. No doubt both came from the same parents.
link
Wow, this is exactly the conclusion I came to in my test driving. The only thing where it crushes the competition is the RF audio. Everything else is "above-average" but not necessarily superlative. But there's so much to offer that being above-average in so many categories makes this an attractive product.
I'm a die-hard Honda/Acura guy from the early 90's, but I was disappointed in Acura's discontinuing the RSX. I was intrigued by the RDX, although I have never considered an SUV. How could an SUV possibly be as fun to drive as the Civic SI I just revved to 7K RPM? But darned if that RDX doesn't come close.
But... after checking the Outlander on a whim, and crunching the numbers, I think the value just isn't there on the RDX and the comfort and features aren't there on the Civic. It's going to be either the Outlander or the Civic, and it's going to happen soon.
That I'm seriously considering the Outlander is shocking. I just need a little more convincing as to reliability, and I think I might be ready to take a leap of faith on this one.
Also I was very surprised that this SUV has much better handling and road traction, than all my previous cars. AWD gives me additional safety, which is not available on small/economy cars.
As for reliability, I would not worry about it. Consider these facts:
1. Outlander is build in entirely Japan, unlike Honda Civic/Acura RDX
2. Previous generation of Outlander had good-to very good reliability rating according to Consumer Reports
3. Outlander has much better warranty and roadside assistance then Honda/Acura
Here we go again..... :confuse: :mad:
Perhaps you guys could provide some specifics to back up claims of "better equipped" or "not better equipped."
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
He's already incorrect anyway, as there are 3 small/economy cars that offer AWD: the Suxuki SX4, Suzuki Aerio, and Subaru Impreza.
Outlander has an Achilles heel as far as gas mileage...most SUVs in it's class do better, including the RAV4, CR-V, and all of the above mentioned econo-cars. The new Saturn VUE gets something like 1-2 MPG less city, and the same highway (If I remember my research correctly), but has much more power coming out of the 3.6 liter engine.
Mind you all these MPG figures are based on the new 2008 ratings, for consistency.
From what I've seen, 20 mpg in the real world is above average for SUV's.
The sticker on the window is often not a good indication of what you will end up getting unless you're willing to alter your driving style.
Oh, I forgot another compact car in my previous post: the Dodge Caliber. Of course, it's pretty forgettable.
CR-V mileage thread
RAV4 mileage thread
If you read through those threads you will see that the CR-V *can* get a little better mileage than the Outlander, but if you've driven both you will know that the 4 cylinder CR-V does not have the same power as the Outlander. To me the CR-V struggled so hard to get going, downshifting, redlining etc. that it was distracting. I own an Accord with the same engine as the CR-V and it's great in the sedan, but I was disappointed with the CR-V.
The RAV4 V6 has a little more real world power and gets about the same mpg as the Outlander. Toyota did a great job with that V6 engine. The 4 cylinder RAV4 is a lot like the CR-V, too much downshifting and redlining just to get it going, felt noisy and unrefined to me.
But anyway, the Outlander V6 doesn't get bad mileage for an SUV with a V6.