Options
Mitsubishi Outlander vs. Subaru Forester
This discussion has been closed.
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Just this past year two local Mitsubishi dealers closed their doors. So, too few dealers in my area, and a questionable future in this country do not make for a good situation. No, I'll pass thank you.
Bob
-Frank
-Frank
??? (explain). There is something like 2 foot beyond the tailgate compared to 6 feet within and the load is securely strapped and weight biased inside. The lights are all visible if you care to run flashers. That load was going nowhere (If on the roof I could see it land on the hood of the car in an emergency stop it the straps broke). Maybe the picture doesn't clearly show the multiple straps around and across.
Now here is something I wouldn't attempt!!! :sick:
http://www.autoobserver.com/2009/12/automakers-see-glass-half-full-after-flat-no- - - vember-sales.html
Yeah, I know they've got a neat electric car coming, but it may be too-little-to-late.
As Frank said, longevity means nothing. It's the current sales slide that concerns me.
Bob
Yes, but remember it's not in the top 5 any more, and my Forester (non-turbo) is.
As to long cargo, you can slide the front passenger seat forward on a Forester, recline the front seat, remove the front head rest. Voila. Put long items in the footwell. Just put a blanket over the seats for protection.
Pretty simple solution.
I'd still rather use the roof. 175 lbs is a lot. Plus no scratches on the interior.
The Outlander with roof rails can handle 4 on the roof.
Both models can also handle plywood inside with the hatch open.
The Forester (surprise) actually has more width between the wheel wells. dodo2 (an Outlander owner, FWIW) measured 37" for the Outlander, vs. 42.1" for the Forester (cars101.com).
Both can easily accomodate 48" wide plywood at an angle. The Forester is just 6" shy of handling it flat.
Still, I'd be afraid to scratch the interior.
Bob
So far it seems they can't build Outlander GTs fast enough. When I bought mine the other one they had gotten in sold at the same time. People on the Mitsu Facebook site are bemoaning the lack of GTs at their local dealers. No one is complaining about closing dealerships, poor quality vehicles, and so on.
3 challenges were issued. The bed challenge. The long lumber challenge. And the 48" wide plywood challenge.
Bed: works as I thought. Slide the front seat forward. Remove head rests. Lay it back, it's even with the rear seat. Recline the rear seat. Bed. PASS
Long cargo: seats in the same position. Tape measure from the bottom of the foot well to the rear hatch (closed). Total length was well over 10 feet. With the hatch open, tied down properly, you could easily get a 16 foot long deck plank. They don't make them any longer than that. PASS
Wide cargo: can it clear a 48" sheet? Yes, with a couple of inches to spare, actually. PASS
This test takes *nothing* away from the Outlander's versatility, but it does show that just because the Forester looks small on the outside, doesn't mean it's not big on the inside.
***
Disclaimer: I'd still use the roof rack. because I'd want to lie heavy cargo like that laying flat. Or I'd use my minivan.
Edited for spelling.
The Lancer is their bread & butter sedan and it's sales decline isn't bad considering the economy.
The Outlander was rolling out a new model year. Many people, like me, probably held off for a '10 instead of an '09 since the '10 has numerous improvements. I was ready to buy in July but waited 'til December.
The Eclipse I couldn't say. Sport coupes are very cyclical in their sales and right now the Altima coupe is probably the hot seller. That's a guess, though, as I don't follow that market much (I can't fit in those things comfortably).
Yes, The '08 on up Forester is a great improvement. I can't take anything away from Subies as a great all season vehicle, except the earlier cars were a bit too small for my needs (and more expensive to boot). Kinda like Goldilocks and the 3 bears
Some SUVs were too big(gas$$ too) and some too small but this CUV is just right for me. YMMV
......
I'd still rather use the roof. 175 lbs is a lot. Plus no scratches on the interior.
Well to each their own but I'd rather not risk slipping and denting or scratching the roof. A blanket on the inside will do nicely for me (saw a "Renovation Realities" episode where some bozos massively dented the roof of their friends borrowed pickup because they didn't secure things)
As for the Jetta: in case anyone was wondering it is real, not photo-shopped.
How the Home Depot employees ever allowed it to be loaded (disclaimer or no) is criminal
http://www.snopes.com/photos/automobiles/lumber.asp
You, of course, don't need to go to the dealer for service. If the inconvenience was that large I'd probably just go for warranty/recall work and leave the scheduled stuff to a trusted local shop. My local Meineke, for instance, can do timing belts and just about anything else. And as long as you do the maintenance, by federal law you cannot be denied warranty coverage if you don't use a dealer for the work. Just keep your receipts.
I was just clearing out the file on my Galant this morning so I can sell it. I removed the non-service info (sales contract, insurance, emissions tests, credit card stubs) so I can provide a detailed service history to go with the car & show how well it's been maintained. I know my annual mileage was down a lot, but I've only gone about 5K miles since March.
Any loose items in the car could become dangerous projectiles. :sick:
Here's a link, but it looks like the site where the images were hosted isn't working any more:
http://204.16.221.2/direct/view/.ee94ff9/8131#MSG8131
He had sod up to the roof. The rear suspension was sagging it was so much.
CR-V is now the #1 seller. Coincidence?
Even worse, their sales volume has dropped over 80% from the 1999 level:
Decade's Winners & Losers
-Frank
Edit: whoa, just noticed Subaru did pass VW to make the top 10. :shades:
You can watch DVDs while in Park. If you shift out of Park you can continue to listen to the DVD's audio track but the video is replaced by a message saying it won't display video while the vehicle is in motion.
So, something that I frankly considered to be a novelty feature we've now used & enjoyed. I can't say it'd be something we'd do every week, but having having the option means added flexibility not only to the coffee shop but on trips. Stopping for a break from driving can also mean watching some video.
I put a 12" aftermarket DVD player in my van, and the kids love it. They have headphones, but if I pick a musical of some sort I'll actually listen in on the audio. Pretty neat.
Of course there is the option of the rear-seat entertainment but I don't see much value in that for us. And it's expensive.
We have a portable DVD player that I use on our exercise bike and naturally our laptops can play DVDs - my wife's can do Bluray even. So she has video options if we think ahead & put the player in the car. But IMHO anything that isn't bolted down creates a theft target (I do IT security for a living and I do reports about laptops getting stolen from cars far too often). The MMCS has everything built-in. Nothing extra to pack, no wires or cords, and it's integrated into the dash.
Check out aftermarket, you can get a built-in one cheap, with a much bigger screen.
We paid $900 (installed) for a 12" one. The screen is HUGE. We chose it because we wanted people in the 3rd row to be able to watch the movies, too. A 4 hour drive becomes a Double Feature. :shades:
At the time a normal sized screen was $600 installed. I bet they're even cheaper now.
Toyota came out with a whopper of a 16" widescreen in the 2011 Sienna. It can play widescreen format, or two movies side-by-side, if your kids cannot agree on what to watch.
To be honest I think the rear-seat entertainment systems are cash cows for the manufacturers, with big profit margins.
Link in case CarSpace is acting up:
http://www.carspace.com/ateixeira/Albums/misc/AirHockey%26Pool.jpg/page/photo.ht- - - ml#pic
Note the table is 39.75" wide, and instructions specifically tell you not to sit the table on its side.
That means our Forester can move this table face down (that is how it is assembled in fact), with the hatch open.
The Outlander could not, unless you disassembled the legs. Bring a ratchet set, adjustable wrench, and a hex key set. You'll need another adult to help and probably about 20-30 minutes to disassemble (another 20-30 to put it back together).
It's also way, waaaaay too heavy to go on either roof.
Rudolph must have really broken a sweat! :shades:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Vl-AqrU2g4
I'm from Brazil so I can translate:
Mitsubishi Outlander GT Race
A track with various terrains
Two drivers
The new Mitsubishi Outlander GT
And you will decide the winner
[text: Vote at http://www.outlandergt.com.br]
The new Mitsubishi Outlander GT
The sport luxury 4x4 from Mitsubishi
[text: if you drink, don't drive]
The front wheel burnout is hilarious. Shouldn't they be trying to show the opposite?
My brother sent me the link. He just bought a Forester and wants another, different compact crossover.
Cargo behind f / r seats in cubic feet---------73 / 36 ...................63 / 31
Beer cases seats up / folded--------------------19 / 39 ..................18 / 38
Length of pipe-----------------------------------------130.5".......................126.5
Sheet of plywood---------------------------------68.3 x 40.5................70.0 x 42.3
Source: Car & Driver
Now, can we put our "my is bigger than yours" discussion to rest?
One of the couples had driven over from out of state in a borrowed pickup truck. Though they were experienced pickup drivers they really didn't like the lack of traction and fishtailing they had to deal with on the drive over. I showed them that in snow/thick slush you just hit the gas & go. No loss of traction. No sliding sideways. No drama.
They're comparing an Outlander with no moonroof and no subwooder to a Forester with the moonroof.
They put 73 for the Outie, 72.6 is actually the maximum (no moonroof, no subwoofer). The sub alone pushes that number down to 69.8. We don't know what the moonroof takes away because it's in a package, so the EPA doesn't list that capacity. Per Mitsu, the moonroof eats up 2.3 inches of headroom, so surely at least some cargo space is lost.
The Forester actually has a max of 68.3 cubic feet. That 63 number is with the panoramic moonroof. So they compared Mitsu's maximum with Subaru's minimum, hardly fair. Not to mention the moonroof takes up space near the ceiling, where you least often use it. Look at the sheet of plywood to see how big the cargo floor is - something you use all the time.
I'll add one more source we've used a lot: Consumer Reports.
In their cargo volume test:
Outlander LS: 33.5 cubic feet
Outlander XLS: 33.5 cubic feet (sub is tucked away, no effect in their test)
Forester 2.5X: 35.5 cubic feet
Forester XT Ltd: 35.0 cubic feet (because of the moonroof)
Also, I don't see how you can fit a 40.5" width of plywood when dodo2 measured the width between the wheel wells at 37", so something's up there. Maybe C&D put the plywood on top of the shock towers?
And while the Outlander has more EPA cargo space, the Forester has more EPA passenger space.
Combine both and the maximum total interior volume for the Forester is 141.1 cubic feet, while the maximum for the Outie is 139.4 cubic feet. Surprise.
So, which is bigger? Depends on how you measure, really.
Call this one a draw.
I looked back, because I also measured that when I test drove it. I was actually more generous and called it 38".
I don't see how C&D got 40.5". I thought they had to lay the plywood flat on the floor, and unless they changed the rear suspension there's no way you have 40.5" there.
Again, not criticizing piast here, but rather C&D, for not doing their homework properly.
That was my point.
Regarding the earlier volume measurements, I just don't see how the sub-woofer could be eating up 3 cubic feet. Take the 10" diameter, add a little added housing all around - no more than 2-3 inches in any given direction - and account for it being maybe 6-8" deep total and you have a box approximately 14 x 16 x 8 inches. 1 cubic foot = 12in x 12in x 12in = 1728 cubic inches and the dimensions I'm roughing are 14 x 16 x 8 = 1792 cubic inches so the sub-woofer is right around one cubic foot +/- 4%.
Maybe it's less with models with the 3rd row, and it's not the sub after all? :confuse:
If that's the case, I say ditch the tiny 3rd row and save the unneeded weight and cost. There are no airbags to protect passengers there, nor is there much crumple space. I realize the Outlander gets around with no drama, but what if you're rear ended by an overconfident teenager in a pickup or SUV?
I ruled out the Subaru Tribeca for similar reasons - 3rd row too small, no airbags there, tiny cargo volume when the 3rd row it in use. For my needs a van was simply better. You do compromise on the drive, but it rides great and offers acres of space.
It's possible that the 3rd row seat is what's accounting for the volume difference. I think (but am not positive) without it there's a cargo area that's covered to maintain the flat seat.
Anyway, it's come in handy once so far. It may again but I'm sure it won't be often. I don't mind the cost but do wish the seat was removable to add a little hidden cargo area & save a few pounds.
What surprises me is that the EPA would allow that. Or maybe those are just numbers from Mitsubishi?
Foresters have similar storage under the cargo floor. The cargo cover has a custom-sized spot, or you can remove the foam tray entirely and fit a flat tire in the spot where the spare resides.
We keep a spare winter jacket there and a long golf umbrella.
"I used cargo volume numbers from the Mitsubishi brochure for the 2008 Outlander, listed as 36.2-39 cu ft. Maybe I'm interpreting it incorrectly, but what else would account for the difference? "
The difference accounts for the min/max cargo space due to the sliding/reclining rear seats.
FWIW, my Outlander is still going strong after almost 3 years with no problems other than regular maintenance.
Mitsu is doing rather well in Canada, opening up more stores and selling pretty decent numbers - Outlander and Lancer that is; the Galant and Endeavor have been dead for a long time in Canada and the Eclipse is not far behind.
Both the Outlander and the Lancers are now pretty common sights in Toronto area.
In Canada, Subaru and Mitsu sales are very close, especially if you compare Impreza/Forester vs Lancer/Outlander. With the addition of the new Legacy and Outback, Subaru will probably take the lead overall.
That could explain the difference as well.
From the article:
* Every Mitsubishi model showed an increase in sales compared to the prior month (November 2009).
* Lancer sales were up 13.9 percent compared to the prior month and up 16.9 percent compare to December 2008.
* Outlander sales were up 81 percent compared to last month. (emphasis mine) It was Outlander’s third highest monthly sales total in 2009, and sales were up 11.4 percent compared to December 2008.
* December was Galant’s second best sales month of 2009, up 162 percent compared to last month and up 32 percent compared to December of 2008.
* Endeavor sales were up 15.9 percent compared to the prior month.
* Lancer Sportback sales were up 5.8 percent compared to the prior month.
My guess that Outlander sales might have been depressed based on people waiting for the new model may just be accurate based on an 81% jump in sales. Although to be honest I'm not sure what drove the Galant sales boost.