Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Mitsubishi Outlander vs. Subaru Forester

13567…32

Comments

  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    OK, the 2008 model had a 15.9 gallon tank, which is close to the 15.8 gallons of the Outlander. I thought you may have been looking at a 2008 Forester.

    You did use "L" two times.

    No harm, no foul.
  • jvainejvaine Member Posts: 34
    You and chelentano should get a life.
  • rcpaxrcpax Member Posts: 580
    All these discussions... :) well, anybody who is in the market for an SUV surely wouldn't be won over by threads like this one. I bought the Outlander for several reasons, and quite frankly, I don't give a shoot what others think, because I can decide for myself and I research on my own, and have my own preference. But still... Outlander FTW!! :shades:
  • suvsearcher1suvsearcher1 Member Posts: 23
    I test drove Outlander 3 times when I shopping for a new car last december. The first time was not a good experience. I test drove a fully XLS 2wd model and there was significant torque steer. In 15 mins of my test drive I got little hang of it but still the torque steer was present while taking a fast turn.

    Second and third time I drove the AWD ones and the experience was better. I some how liked the interior of it. Clean layout especially the dashboard without the navigation. The interior material was little plasticy but overall it was pleasant. Front seats even without lumbar support and with less cushion were still very comfortable. One of the best probably in its class.The back seats were just opposite. Felt like a park bench with no cushion at all.

    What I did not like was the engine. It was loud and rough for a V6. I test drove RDX same time and found the turbo V4 of it smoother and quieter than the V6 of Outlander. Even 4 cyclinder Rav4 engine was quiter and smoother.

    Also the Outlander is a very good looking small suv, but it looks better in pictures than in reality I felt. I was turned off by its width from the backside when I saw in person. Its just too narrow. I wished Mitsubishi had made it little bit wider.

    Overall its a very nice car and I rate it highly and the only reason I did not buy the Outie was because of its brand.

    Last weekend I did get a chance to sit inside the 2009 Forrester. Its a nice car as well. It looks more like an SUV now instead of a wagon. Regarding interior I would say the material used in Forrester is a better quality than the Outlander, but overall interior appeal is same for both the cars.

    If the Outalnder was built by Subaru and Forrester by Mitsubishi and if I have to buy one then I would most likely buy the Outlander. The biggest drawback with Outlander I see is its brand name and thats probably the reason why they are moving so slowly from the dealer lots.
  • rcpaxrcpax Member Posts: 580
    If the Outalnder was built by Subaru and Forrester by Mitsubishi and if I have to buy one then I would most likely buy the Outlander. The biggest drawback with Outlander I see is its brand name and thats probably the reason why they are moving so slowly from the dealer lots.

    Now this one I had to reply to. I was a previous Mitsubishi owner, and I am highly satisfied when it comes to reliability. I don't think I would have bought another Mitsubishi if I had bitter experience with the brand. What is it specifically that you don't like about Mitsubishi?

    Look at Outlander's ratings from the people who bought the vehicle. I don't think they will rate the Outlander highly if it was a piece of crap.

    Over at Edmunds: 9.1 (with 13 reviews) for the 08 Outlander, 9.1 (120 reviews) for the 07 Outlander, and 8.6 (with only 8 reviews) for the Forester? That should tell you something.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Motors#Vehicle_defect_cover-up
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Subaru turbos have been around for ages, which is why I didn't hestitate 1 new york second and took the plunge. I don't let the car idle before shutting it off and I change the oil every 3.5K. Seems a reasonable tradeoff to having something that blows the doors off everything else and is extremely reliable, and safe. The Forester has been clocked at 5.3 to 60 with the manual. Whatever turbo problems you allude to or know of, I'm not worried, the $500 extended warranty covers the turbo and more for 70/7. Obviously Subaru isn't worried either. And, it's a friggin' car.

    The styling of the car is odd. If I were buying a BMW it would make a difference. The odd styling didn't faze me for a second on the Forester, because I view it as a utility vehicle with a great AWD system that for right now serves a useful place in my garage.

    So far the only mechanical issue has been the back-seat pull down latch failure.
  • psychogunpsychogun Member Posts: 129
    If you're going to bring that up you also need to mention that Subaru was caught doing the same thing in 1997. They ended up recalling 1.47 million vehicles with defects.
    Since this occurred while the internet was still relatively new, there are virtually no news stories about it to be found.
    If you go about half-way down the New York Times article linked below, you'll find a mention of it, just so you know I'm not making this up.

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E00EEDC1631F930A1575BC0A9669C8B6- - 3&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

    Either way, both companies have emerged from these critical misjudgments with better better products.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    If I were to buy a turbo vehicle, I would buy a car - WRX, Mazdaspeed3, STi, Evo, etc. I don't really see the point for a mainstream turbo SUV. It will handle like an SUV regardless so the straight-line acceleration it's just a waist of time.

    Your post is a great illustration of why there are thousands of varieties of ice cream. I wanted a CUV. I wanted a CUV that was economical. I wanted a CUV that was utilitarian.I wanted a CUV that was safe. I wanted a CUV that was fast. I wanted a CUV with some minimum of creature comforts. I wanted a CUV with a class leading AWD system. If I'm gonna have something that handles like a dog. I want it to be a very fast dog. Subaru with it's Symmetrical AWD has very neutral handling for what it is.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Both companies have done something but Mitsu has been doing it for 23 years, doesn't say about Subaru.
  • h2k2f2h2k2f2 Member Posts: 44
    http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=330

    Chelentano:
    Can the Mitsubishi Outlander claim to this honor? No? I didn't think so!
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    That is a huge pick. But some may not place any weight on it and instead focus on its 4-speed tarnny, nearly part-tme AWD and shortage of modern gadgets...sic The sheet metal has been much improved for 2009.
  • comem47comem47 Member Posts: 399
    Chelentano:
    Can the Mitsubishi Outlander claim to this honor? No? I didn't think so!

    This is really getting old (give up nitpicking) The Outlander scored 5/5 for everything except rollover and it got 4/5 there.

    You really should get a life!!!

    http://www.motortrend.com/cars/2008/mitsubishi/outlander/safety/
  • comem47comem47 Member Posts: 399
    Interesting article I haven't seen before. Business week test driver claims 0-60 in 7.6
    (just shows testing varies). I didn't think theV6 outie felt slow regardless of whether something else is faster :

    You can even get the Outlander XLS with steering-wheel-mounted paddle shifters.Such add-ons would be laughable on many family cruisers, but the V6-powered Outlander is surprisingly quick. I clocked it at 7.6 seconds in accelerating from zero to 60 mph, noticeably faster than the sporty Mazda CX-7, which I clocked at about 8.5 seconds. The Outlander isn't as fast as the V6-powered version of the Toyota RAV4, but it isn't far behind.

    Full article is here: http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/mar2008/bw20080321_373437.htm
  • h2k2f2h2k2f2 Member Posts: 44
    We didn't start tthis. You might want to talk with Chelentano about "nitpicking." It's not an apples-to-apples comparison to compare the Outlander's NHTSA ratings with the Forester's IIHS ratings. The IIHS tests are more rigorous than those used by the NHTSA.
  • comem47comem47 Member Posts: 399
    Well I guess I gotta rule out the standard that most everyone goes by (NHTSA) and get rid of my Outlander. Oooooh it's so far off the mark!!!. Get real!!!!

    really tired of "my pee-pee is bigger than yours by a micron" regardless of who started it.

    As another person wrote it's really ridiculous to engage in armchair quoting specs .
    I actually test drove and actually bought according to my tastes and needs.

    Anyone listening to all this needs to do the same and let their own test drive tell the truth of what can be very subjective reviews and armchair wanking..
  • h2k2f2h2k2f2 Member Posts: 44
    How can you claim to speak for so many people, i.e. "most everyone"? I don't think anyone appointed you to be their representative. If you don't like this, then, by all means, don't keep reading. Nobody is forcing you.
  • piastpiast Member Posts: 269
    Here, one more from Cars.com
    "..The automatic transmission is almost as smooth as the new CR-V's, while the engine provides considerably more power. The combination is far superior to the RAV4 despite the Toyota's higher horsepower figure, the Outlander is a better highway companion overall.... the Outlander handles steeply banked highway onramps with superb control and minimal body lean, giving the driver a sense of confidence not found in many SUVs — compact, car-based or otherwise.The ride was also car-like. Bumps were softly muted and road noise was minimal...Available with an optional manual four-wheel-drive system, the Outlander is one of the more affordable four-wheel-drive SUVs on the market, ...Surprisingly, the new Outlander seems to outclass its competitors on just about every front, although the RAV4 does offer more power with its optional V-6 engine (269 horsepower)."
  • piastpiast Member Posts: 269
    In OCT MT issue Ron Kiino wrote: "Interior quality is premium and design contemporary... 3.0 liter with MIVEC is a refined and robust unit... New Outlander has an air that's all SUV enhanced with such luxury as standard LED tail lamps, available Xenon headlamps and 18" wheels...Outlander can easily hang with the best in it's class...delivers excellent balance through high-speed maneuvers."

    Mazda CX7 and Mitsubishi Outlander, both offering better performance and premium features (Xenon headlamps, navigation, DVD, premium sound systems etc) than any other CUV in this class. Mitsubishi standard V6 uses regular, has more rear leg room (39") and cargo room (39 cu ft) better warranty and price.

    From DEC Motor Trend issue:
    " ...once you get past the stellar V6, The RAV4 is a bit ordinary and doesn't offer the same value as its competitors" (A.Harwood)

    Mitsubishi got high ratings in performance and safety with rest of them being equal to RAV4. The interior in Mitsu received four stars, RAV4 got three. Both cars can tow 3500 lbs, both using regular fuel.
    Handling:
    Outlannder......RAV4
    Braking ft........ .... 128..............130
    600ft slalom mph ... 62.7.............60.6
    Lateral acceleration g 078..............0.75
    MT figure 8 (sec) ....... 28.3.............28.6
  • tidestertidester Member Posts: 10,059
    Petty bickering and personal slams aren't particularly helpful. Let's steer away from that and stick to the designated topic.

    Thanks!

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper
  • h2k2f2h2k2f2 Member Posts: 44
    Please define precisely what constitutes the boundaries of the designated topic. To me, these posts fall within those boundaries.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Mazda CX7 and Mitsubishi Outlander, both offering better performance and premium features (Xenon headlamps, navigation, DVD, premium sound systems etc) than any other CUV in this class. Mitsubishi standard V6 uses regular, has more rear leg room (39") and cargo room (39 cu ft) better warranty and price.

    They touched upon everything that is unimportant to me and more importantly they do not have better performance then the XT. The RAV4/Outlander/CX7 will see the tailights of the XT in a "street race", peformed on a track of course. :) Of importance to me.

    - First on the list. Good performance, the XT has great performance and will smoke all other CUVs in this class with a reported 5.3 to 60.
    - Second. Great AWD. Subaru fits the bill.
    - Third. Earned safety awards from IIHS.
    - Fourth. Okay handling. The Symmetrical AWD has about the most neutral handling and is okay for what it is and better than it's competition in this class.
    - Fifth. Minimum of creature comforts. XT Prem fits the bill. Don't care about anything mentioned above...and this coming from a loaded 330i.
    - Sixth. A car where the warranty wouldn't matter because it was reliable.
    - Seventh. The Forester is modable. My mechanic made his old one into a twin turbo.

    So while other CUVs have a more upscale attitude, the Forester gets down and dirty, which is what I wanted.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    We can conclude that no car is perfect, and no car company either. What matters is how they handle the problems that inevitably come up.

    That's common sense, I'm sure we can all agree.

    SoA (Subaru of America) did a good job handling the head gasket issues for the pre-2002 models, fixed them free of charge even for those out of warranty, and even extended the warranty.

    The latest engine issue affected 0.17% of turbo engines in a different country (no US models have been affected), yet Subaru took the initiative to order a stop-sell until the problem is completely resolved.

    Clearly they are taking the intiative to address any problems that come up.

    One would hope that Mitsubishi would do the same thing today, as well.

    Unless anyone really thinks the Outlander is 100% perfect? No car is.

    A couple of Mitsubishi fans are trolling the Subaru threads blasting the Forester, so that's why the tone has become so negative. Unless they are unhappy with their Outlanders, I have no idea why they'd be in a Forester thread in the first place, yet they are and they refuse to leave.

    The same people are also in the Pilot vs. Tribeca vs. Murano vs. Highlander thread, again why are they even there? If a Mitsu were added to that topic, it would be the Endeavor anyway, not the Outlander.

    These folks are baiting people to get in these arguments, and the tone inevitably goes bad.

    I am sorry that I fell for that "bait".

    Most of you seem like nice folks and your posts are balanced and reasonable, it's just a couple of bad apples that increase the noise ratio.

    Certain people have come to the Subaru boards using words like "lemon" to describe a turbo engine that they don't even know whether or not is affected, calling Mazda and Toyota owners "Subaru patriots" (I personally own a Miata and a Sienna, so go figure). Even here a certain person implied I was enslaved.

    Clearly they are inciting arguments.

    Any how, forgive me to stooping down to their level.
  • tidestertidester Member Posts: 10,059
    To me, these posts fall within those boundaries.

    Personal shots do not fall within these boundaries.

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper
  • piastpiast Member Posts: 269
    At the time of those reviews, 09 XT wasn't available. Old one wasn't even in the same category. Please, fill free to post any performance numbers to compare, other than 0-60 time, which is great by the way.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    They're still trickling out.

    Here is a good first drive from Edmunds:

    http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FirstDrives/articleId=124405#1

    Highlight (for me):

    we could throw the Forester into corners without worrying about throwing it into the trees at the same time. A vehicle so high off the ground should not be able to corner like this, yet it does. It should roll and dive, yet it doesn't. We just couldn't get over it. :shades:
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Old one wasn't even in the same category

    I disagree with that. Sure the '09 has been improved over earlier models, but it's a real stretch to say older models weren't in the same category. Clearly each competitor has their strengths. Where Subaru bests the competition, and has been doing so for years is under the sheet metal. If that doesn't matter to you....cool, buy an Outlander. I wanted a utilitarian vehicle that had some get up and go. One drive in an XT sold me.
  • piastpiast Member Posts: 269
    I hope you are not talking about me. I never went to Subaru forum, and since this is a comparison, it is displayed under both makes. And since we are comparing Outlander with Forester (check this tread title), we can voice our opinions on either. You can always start new tread: “Why I love my Forester”, and you won’t see any of us from Mitsu site.
  • piastpiast Member Posts: 269
    What I meant, other cars were just released new, improved models (RAV4, Outlander, CX7, RDX, Edge), bigger, faster and more refined than few years old Forester. It was more like a small station wagon than SUV, and there is nothing wrong with that. Many people bought it for it size and AWD alone. Personally I trust Subaru and Mitsubishi equally. I love Evo vs. STI fight. Unfortunately I don't like Subaru designs of recent years.
  • suvsearcher1suvsearcher1 Member Posts: 23
    A couple of Mitsubishi fans are trolling the Subaru threads blasting the Forester, so that's why the tone has become so negative. Unless they are unhappy with their Outlanders, I have no idea why they'd be in a Forester thread in the first place, yet they are and they refuse to leave.

    The same people are also in the Pilot vs. Tribeca vs. Murano vs. Highlander thread, again why are they even there? If a Mitsu were added to that topic, it would be the Endeavor anyway, not the Outlander.

    These folks are baiting people to get in these arguments, and the tone inevitably goes bad.

    I have to agree with you on this one. I have been following this forum for past one year and I have seen this attitude from some of the Mitsu fans. These people go and open threads comparing Outlander with X3 and RX350 and dissing other people's opinions. They try to bait you in a discussion and then start parroting about the fast key, paddle shifter, music server, 6 speed and so on but fail to understand that people might have different set of priorities. Some people will just not buy Outlander because of Mitsu's prior record and low resale no matter what and that is not going to change over night. Some people would have had good experience with a Honda and Toyota or a Ford and want to stick with that Or some people just do not care about the paddle shifters and fast key.

    If these things things were so important to people then I would like to ask why are 2007 Outlanders still sitting in the dealer lots with dealers ready to sell it for nearly $4500 below invoice price. Obviously something is missing with the Outlander. Mitsubishi wanted to make a good small SUV and it did but still Outlander has to go a long way to become a mainstream SUV.
  • rcpaxrcpax Member Posts: 580
    Indeed it still has a long way to go, and fans, and I'd say that will include me, are giving the Outlander the exposure it needs (for free :P ). Sadly not too many people in the US realize the true value of the Outlander, or even consider Mitsubishi as an alternative, always overshadowed by Honda, and Toyota. Go to Europe, and the thing sells at a premium.

    Some would even say it's pointless to be discussing the motorsports achievements of Mitsubishi, like the Lancer Evo helping Tommi Makinnen win the driver's title 4 times in a row, and the Pajero Evo winning the Dakar rally 7 times straight (beating Volkswagen and BMW by a stretch), 12 in total for the whole history of Dakar. But without the famed reliability of the Lancer Evolution winning all these rallies, I don't think there'd be too many enthusiasts wanting to buy the car.

    The Outlander's poor sales is not a result of poor engineering or poor reliability. It's lack of exposure, and poor dealership support in some cases. Speaking for myself, having owned the Outlander 1 and a half years, I'd say I made the right choice. Subaru was of course in consideration while I was deciding, but I refuse to pay extra when I have a cheaper option that offers me what I needed a lot more extras.

    It will take years before Mitsubishi's sales gets anywhere near its Japanese rivals in the American market, no arguments with that one. But makes you wonder why owners rate the Outlander much higher than owners of the 09 Forester do for the Forester.
  • acesoverkingsacesoverkings Member Posts: 3
    It will take years before Mitsubishi's sales gets anywhere near its Japanese rivals in the American market, no arguments with that one. But makes you wonder why owners rate the Outlander much higher than owners of the 09 Forester do for the Forester.

    I heavily considered the '08 Outlander before eventually selecting the '09 Forester. I agree that the Outlander appears to be an excellent value and has some fantastic features. I'm a huge fan of the hatch/tailgate combination -- brilliant idea. Rockford Fosgate stereo? Hell yes. Paddle Shifters -- gimmicky but fun. Ability to select the 4WD mode? Cool. 10 year warranty? Perfect.

    Combined, the '07 and '08 Outlander have 133 reviews averaging out at 9.1 overall on Edmunds. Impressive.

    The new Forester has 8 reviews. I hardly think that's a fair comparison. I won't even get into statistical significance, because I think it's plainly obvious that 8 data points isn't an adequate comparator. If there was only 1 review for the Forester that was a perfect 10, would that make it better than the 133 reviews averaging 9.1? I don't think so.

    We'll need to give it a little time before you start pointing to Edmunds reviews as evidence of superiority either way.
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Member Posts: 194
    - First on the list. Good performance, the XT has great performance and will smoke all other CUVs in this class with a reported 5.3 to 60.


    Where are you getting that 5.3 second number from? It seems unlikely that a 3440 lb CUV with a 4 speed automatic and 224 HP can get anywhere near that number.

    The RAV4 has 269 HP and goes 0-60 in the 7 second range. It should take more than 300 HP to get a CUV under 6 seconds.

    Either way, it's a CUV/people hauler not a dragster.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    No, not you, but there are 2 Outlander fans in the Forester thread (why?).

    One of them is also in the Tribeca/Pilot/Highlander/Murano threads. Those don't even compete with the Outlander. They are Endeavor competitors.

    suvsearcher1 is telling me they are also in the X3 and RX350 threads. Sad.

    rcpax wrote: "it's pointless to be discussing the motorsports achievements of Mitsubishi" yet a certain Outlander owner is doing exactly that in the TRIBECA thread. For cryin' out loud! :mad:

    The previous Forester was an IIHS Top Safety Pick, so in in safety terms, it certainly was in the same league.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    makes you wonder why owners rate the Outlander much higher than owners of the 09 Forester do for the Forester

    Ballot stuffing? ;)

    But seriously, certain passionate owners? I think that's a good thing. And sharing your passion in a relevant place, like a public review of the Outlander, is the appropriate place to do so.

    Not a Forester thread. Not in Tribeca/Murano/Highlander/Pilot thread. Not in BMW and Lexus threads by a long shot.

    Yet that's exactly what is happening. And that's why the tone became so negative.

    The folks posting now are a whole lot more reasonable, so it's been a pleasant exchange of different opinions. The way it should be.
  • swirl_junkieswirl_junkie Member Posts: 8
    Are you sure it's not a thread that shows in the Mitsubishi forum also? Some comparison threads are cross linked into several different forums, and can be seen in from several different models. If not, and they are actually seeking a fight in a thread that has no mitsubishi relevance then that's downright flaming.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I don't see how "2009 Subaru Forester" would be linked to the Mitsubishi Outlander.

    It should not be in the comparison thread, either, because those are larger SUVs, but if it is, it's because that person asked the Edmunds hosts to add it there, incorrectly so.

    Edit: OK, I checked. Here are the vehicles cross-listed for that discussion:

    What is this discussion about? Nissan Murano, Toyota Highlander, Subaru B9 Tribeca, Honda Pilot, Acura MDX, Volkswagen Touareg, SUV

    Not sure if you can subscribe to the entire SUV category, but even so, Outlander is clearly not in that discussion.

    that's downright flaming

    Thank you, so now you understand why I was upset. I've already apologized, and I'll do so again. Just be aware that I was baited, big time.

    There is, in fact, an appropriate discussion called "Outlander vs CX-7 vs Tribeca" which has been inactive since Sept 07. At best he should have posted the Dakar results there.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Here's a 5.9 number.
    More info

    Either performance is important or it's not. Performance and handling are very important to me more so than a carful of electronic doo-dads.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    But makes you wonder why owners rate the Outlander much higher than owners of the 09 Forester do for the Forester.

    That is easily explainable. I would give the Forester a 10 for everything it does well, performance, handling, AWD system, reliability, gas mileage, a lot of car for the price paid. The things that bug me however, would lower the score into the 8s. Four speed tranny, no steering wheel controls, no passenger electric seat, interior cabin noise at highway speed.

    The real question is knowing what I know today would I do it again. Well if I was buying the car today it would be a 335i, don't need another CUV today. Back when I bought the car I needed a CUV and I would make the same decision again.

    Bottom line, what the vehicle does well it does very well. What it doesn't do well is not as important as what it does well. But what it doesn't do well would knock a few points off the score.
  • comem47comem47 Member Posts: 399
    I don't see how "2009 Subaru Forester" would be linked to the Mitsubishi Outlander.

    It should not be in the comparison thread, either, because those are larger SUVs, but if it is, it's because that person asked the Edmunds hosts to add it there, incorrectly so.

    Edit: OK, I checked. Here are the vehicles cross-listed for that discussion:

    What is this discussion about? Nissan Murano, Toyota Highlander, Subaru B9 Tribeca, Honda Pilot, Acura MDX, Volkswagen Touareg, SUV

    Not sure if you can subscribe to the entire SUV category, but even so, Outlander is clearly not in that discussion.



    FYI: I'm reading this thread (and always have) under a title in the outlander group called "Mitsubishi Outlander vs. Subaru Forester" and this crossposting thread has existed there for quite some time. I can only speak for me, but that's how I found this discussion and read it out of curiosity as an Outlander subscriber.Just go from the top Forums / SUVs / Mitsubishi Outlander and you will see it (and has been
    a daily active thread for some time among many of the Outlander threads now idle)
    There also is a currently inactive thread called the reverse (Subaru Forester vs Mitsubishi Outlander)
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Comparison topics get linked between the make/models being compared (although we overlook the linking now and then).

    This discussion should show up in both the Outlander and Forester boards when you look at the topic list.

    The '09 Forester discussion only has the Subaru listed as a make/model, although it also picks up Future Vehicle and Wagons categories.

    It's ok to talk about a car even if you don't own one or even if you have an irrational hate of the manufacturer. Just keep it civil, and on topic is all that's needed. That cross-ventilation does seem to temper the rah-rah effect you sometimes find on a model specific forum where you have to drink the Kool-Aid or go away.

    Someone showing up in this discussion and saying the CR-V is better than either the Outlander or the Forester would be off-topic (but if they were making a relevant point, even that would likely be tolerated by the community).

    So ... anyone test driving this weekend? The local radio spots are loaded with car ads this past week - more than usual. I think the dealers are hurting a bit.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> It's ok to talk about a car even if you don't own one or even if you have an irrational hate of the manufacturer. Just keep it civil, and on topic is all that's needed. Someone showing up in this discussion and saying the CR-V is better than either the Outlander or the Forester would be off-topic (but if they were making a relevant point, even that would likely be tolerated by the community).

    Well said, Steve.

    >> So ... anyone test driving this weekend? The local radio spots are loaded with car ads this past week - more than usual.

    Yea, I am going to test drive the Forester :--)
  • dcm61dcm61 Member Posts: 1,567
    Yea, I am going to test drive the Forester :--)

    I hope you don't take too big of a hit on your trade-in. :P
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    So ... anyone test driving this weekend?

    Yes, in fact we just test drove a 2009 Subaru Forester LL Bean. :shades:

    I had test driven a Forester X Limited earlier, but the LL Bean model was not in stock because it's been the most popular one. Demand is so high they can't keep them in stock. It's the loaded model with the naturally aspirated engine, basically the fuel miser with all the options. They found a single one and called us in for a drive.

    Plus, the first time I went by myself, this time the whole family went along. The wife drove (we're shopping for a car for her).

    It was nothing new to me, but the Forester has impressively little body roll, and somehow manages to deliver a smooth ride as well. We drove over some train tracks and barely felt them.

    The engine is more than adequate, and moves it along nicely. Fuel economy and range are a priority for her, so she was satisfied with the base engine.

    Loved the perforated, heated leather. Much nicer than the cloth I sampled earlier, which felt durable but not very plush. The LL Bean is very plush, with door inserts that feel like micro-fiber and soft suede at the same time. All 4 doors have padded arm rests, plus arm rests for both rows. The kids loved the fold out bin in the back, which also houses 2 cupholders.

    The 3 of us fit nicely in the back since the salesman came along as well. Both seat backs have map pockets. The moonroof is HUGE, absolutely panoramic, and serves the front and back rows. Outlander owners would be very envious.

    Complaints? The NAV system was not set up properly, I guess you have to select one of 5 Regions. Any how, it did not have an intuitive interface at all. It also said the nearest Exxon was 5 miles away, while I know there were 2 close by that have been there for decades. It also could not find my address, though again it may not have been setup completely.

    Still, I brought my Nuvi widescreen along, mounted it with a clip mount, and the screen is closer to it appears almost as big (4.3" vs. 6.something), and for $199 vs. $1600 or whatever Subaru charges, it would be my choice by a long shot.

    We decided we would not opt for the NAV system, basically. When you get it you also get only a single CD instead of a 6CD changer. We'd rather have the 6CD and a Nuvi for about $1400 less.

    Other nit-picks? The thin-spoked rims on the XT are nicer looking. If I find an XT owner willing to trade, I would. Personal taste. I'm sure the wife could not care less. :D

    One thing that really stood out was how great the visibility is. The wife backed it up in to a tight spot between a row of other Foresters. No problem.

    I remember when we test drove an Expedition in 2002, she got out and asked the lot attendant to park it. With no blind spots and a tidy size, parking the Forester is no problem at all, even for her.

    She might have bought it on the spot if it didn't have the GPS option. Instead we asked the dealer to look for an LL Bean model sans NAV, in one of the two silver colors, or the medium blue, her preferences. She said she would settle for the sage green or maybe the red as well.

    We saw the Outlander at the DC Auto Show but I could not interest her in a test drive (not sure why, she owned a Mirage in the past). I may go on my own, mostly out of curiosity. I would sample the new 4 cylinder CVT model since that's the one that would most closely match her preferred Forester.

    So still no purchase yet, but we're close. Very close.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    Make sure you look at the SE trim; that's the trim to have for the I4 models.
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Member Posts: 194
    Here's a 5.9 number.
    More info

    Either performance is important or it's not. Performance and handling are very important to me more so than a carful of electronic doo-dads.

    Those numbers are for the previous generation Forester with a 5 speed manual. The new model has more weight and a 4 speed automatic, so those numbers are not accurate.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Those numbers are for the previous generation Forester with a 5 speed manual. The new model has more weight and a 4 speed automatic, so those numbers are not accurate.

    The numbers are accurate for my Forester. I still suspect the XT even with the auto will blow the doors off the rest of the segment. Which by the way have a quick nimble performing CUV would still be important over doo-dads.
  • 10years10years Member Posts: 48
    Thanks Juice for your write-up.

    What do you think about the CRV and Rogue ? Edmunds and CR rate the CRV at the top.

    It will be interesting to see your test drive impressions on the Outlander and chelentano's on the Forester.

    Thanks guys,
    Ted.
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    The '09 XT turbo's rated around 6.5 sec from 0 - 60 on one Canadian site I visited. Performance specs have been hard to narrow down.

    Like the LL Bean commented on here, my '09 XT Forester goes around curves pretty much as if on rails. Most bumps are well handled though speed bumps may leave you with "tail hop" or tossing. The seats are comfortable, and the turbo is far more responsive than earlier Subaru turbos I've driven (including the softer riding '08 Outback XT which offered the standard, annoying-in-town turbo rush). Mileage in city/suburban traffic is not great (around 19 mpg so far). Aside from annoying creaks from upper light console (fixed by wrapping foam around internal wiring) the interior's quieter than past Foresters and reasonable on Oregon's coarse freeways.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    All performance discussions evolved around the XT model, which without doubt would be faster than most SUVs in any class, including the Outlander.
    However, the volume seller will most likely be the naturally aspired H4 with a 4 A/T, which hasn't been known for its straight-line performance or fuel economy.
    According to EPA, the fuel economy for the 2009 Forester non-turbo H4 4A/T is at par with the I4 Outlander, CRV, RAV4 I4 and slightly less than the Rogue which has the best fuel economy out of all of them.
    I haven't seen any performance numbers for the non-turbo 2009 Forester, but MT tested the 2008 Impreza with the same powertrain and it was sloooow!!!!! (9.5 sec to 60 mph). Could the Forester, which is heavier, higher off the ground and boxier, be any faster? I don't think so, at least not until I see some real numbers.
    In this case, how a non-turbo 2009 Forester compare to the 2008 Outlander I4? It’s not going to be any faster or fuel-efficient so what’s next?
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles