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
This discussion has been closed.
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I have a Sienna so I know some Toyotas can be tomb-like in their silence, so you may have high standards. I haven't been in a RAV4 lately so I can't really compare directly.
Overall we like our Sienna and the nearly 150 cubic feet of cargo space it offers, but the Forester is a whole lot more fun to drive, easier to manuever/park, and has better visibility. In the snow it's not contest at all, of course. The Sienna hauls 8 adults and/or tons of cargo, plus it has a pillow-soft ride and is extremely isolated.
Best way I can summarize it is this way:
Some times we need the Sienna, but we always want to take the Forester.
As for this whole Outlander vs. Forester topic, while I know I have considerable bias, the Outlander seems to exceed on a number of fronts
- greater utility, larger cargo space
- regular gas, 6 cyl non-turbo vs. 4 cyl turbo
- less frequent maintenance (oil/fiter) with non-turbo
- 6 speed vs. 4 speed
- better premium stereo
- much better warranty
- turning circle and ground clearance are nearly the same
- IIHS rating are nearly the same
Subjectively I prefer the inside and outside looks of the Outlander. And I know for sure I like the seat comfort of the Outlander. I know full well the Outlander suffers for resale, but if you keep cars for 10 years of so (like many Sube owners), it doesn't matter.
I know this is all old news, but Outlander seems to be the better pick.
If that doesn't work for you, I can post a pic of my dash as taken from between the front seats.
* the 230hp V6 is now tuned for premium fuel
* you trade off some passenger space, especially 2nd row headroom
* the F-XT gets better results in accelerating, passing, and top speed even w/4EAT
* you can still get a 5 speed manual with the X (and great mileage)
Did you know that the base Forester actually has more total interior volume? Less only if you add that moonroof, because it takes up ceiling space. Point is, overall they're very close in size.
Mitsu offers more content but keep in mind the price points push deep in to Outback 3.6R territory, and Subaru offers Harmon-Kardon at that price, too.
The warranty is nice - if you think MMNA will remain in business for 10 years. Mitsu just shuttered Ralliart, so don't think they're not willing to close unprofitable divisions. Sales are down 80% in the past decade!
I just priced a 7 year bumper-to-bumper warranty from Subaru for $715. That splits the difference between Mitsu's B2B and powertrain warranties, so call it roughly even. I won't pay out of pocket because I have a Chase Subaru card and my rewards will pay for the warranty - zero out of pocket. I also got $1600 off the new purchase with accumulated rewards. That lowers my TCO even more.
Mitsu was offering a $500 loyalty incentive, FWIW, but there just aren't deals like there were a couple of years ago.
Forester has the best small SUV ride and it the least expensive SUV to own, including FWD and hybrid competitors (Consumer Reports, April 2010). It's their Top Pick. CR also put in the Top 10 Values, the only SUV to make the list.
So their best costs the cheapest, hard to ignore.
Even if we ignore the subjective scores, they survey owners about satisfaction and the Forester scored higher than the Outlander. If we're happier than you guys are (and I'm not saying that you aren't), try to imagine just how satisfied Forester owners are. :shades:
As you hinted it's an IIHS Top Safety Pick, more ground clearance, and while that difference seems small, the approach/departure angles stretch that advantage (18 degrees vs. 25 degrees on departure). Check out suspension articulation in some of the videos shared recently.
Forester earned ALG's best residual award. And don't forget my favorite features - that huge moonroof is more than twice as big (26" vs. 11.5").
I realize we each have different priorities, and that's why we have so many choices. Outlander may indeed have been the best pick for you, but you won't convince me to spend more to be less satisfied in a car that isn't quite as safe.
I'll end by noting that Forester wins loyalty awards and the reason is folks like me come back to buy our 3rd Subaru, but not our last.
Look at the 3 HVAC buttons below, use the middle one as a center line. The stereo is offset to the right.
Here is Motor Trend's shot:
http://image.motortrend.com/f/9213764+w750/112_0610_02z+2007_mitsubishi_outlande- r+interior_dash.jpg
A different shot from Car gurus:
http://www.cargurus.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/2010-Mitsubishi-Outlande- r-interior.jpg
If you draw a straignt line up from the center button, you'll see most of the screen is on the passenger side.
Maybe it was due to the adaptive transmission that hadn't learned your "snappy" driving style. If the car you demo'd had been driven by a lot of people, the transmission learning may have gotten a bit foggy trying to find a mean.
Anyway, more recent experiences sitting in 2010 Foresters and Outbacks have me preferring the latter for comfort, looks and utility. For the record, here are my counter-counter points
- we have a 2009 Outlander V6, so can still pump regular, although, for no good reason I choose 89 octane. As a leftover year, we got a better loyalty incentive. After 2 good Mitsu products, we keep coming back for more.
- my immediate and extended family are all short, so headroom is rarely a factor, although interestingly, I prefer to have my driver fore-aft position set furthest back
- not too worried about MMNA disappearing, since they sell quite well beyond the States, and Mitsubishi is a much broader/diverse company than just cars (like Fuji Heavy)
Not knocking Subes. I really don't see that either make is comparatively far off for performance and safety. Its just preference, born out of experience and loyalty. Who knows, someday I might just have to DRIVE a Subaru, so I have some idea what I'm talking about!
Maybe I should have taught that new dog some new tricks! There were other sounds and feelings coming from the 2010 XLS we didn't like. Plus the new front end was a little too aggressive for me. I like the softer, gentler looks of the old model.
BTW, regarding the nav screen not being centered over the HVAC controls, I was wrong; it's true the controls go slightly towards the driver. But it took this being pointed out and me climbing in to the second row seats for me to notice it. Not a big deal at all.
In fact, with it normally set on full-auto on a daily basis I don't touch those controls at all.
Oh, I got my JD Power survey yesterday & will be completing it tonight.
A couple of new Forester owners on Edmunds were shopping for Outbacks, but got a Forester because that's all that was available. One special ordered an Outback way back in December, but it had not come in yet, and the dealer could not promise a delivery date, so he got an F-XT.
Earlier I was talking about an aging Galant hurting Mitsu sales, the case here is the opposite - a popular Outback is helping the Forester.
Mitsubishi won't go away, but I think MMNA may reorganize and end up selling PSA cars if they buy a stake in Mitsubishi Motors. Check out the concept photo above, and that may not be a bad thing.
Then again, you've got me curious, so I'll take a level to my Forester's cargo area to see if it really does incline back significantly.
I'm guessing it's close enough to level that a tennis ball will not roll back.
Sweeeet! I'm 3 for 3. Miata, Sienna, and Forester all make the list. :shades:
Outlander Sport will be interesting when it comes out. Could be good competition for the Rogue & Tucson.
I don't mind the HVAC not being 100% centered under the nav screen; the controls are canted towards the driver a smidge and if you need to turn on the defrost or do other quick changes to the controls, the driver will be the one to make them so it makes sense. Leaving the nav centered works well since my wife, as the front passenger, does most of the fiddling with the nav/stereo.
As to the level cargo area in the Forester I probably would never of noticed it if we weren't inside at the auto show. I don't usually consider outside areas level, including garage floors.
"More agile"? Who is more agile here?:
Edmunds Inside Line
slalom test 6 x 100 ft (mph):
BMW X6 M.................68.6
2010 Outlander GT.........66.2
Mercedes C Class.........65.8 (sedan)
RDX.......65.7
Cayenne Turbo X.......65.2
MB ML63 AMG.......64.4
BMW X3.......64.4
07 Outlander XLS.......63.9
BMW X5 M.......63.5
MDX.......62.6
LR2.......62
Audi Q5.......61.9
RAV4 LTD.......61.6
MB GLK.......61.3
Forester 2.5XT.......60.3
Murano LE.......59.2
MB ML350.......57.5
Lincoln MKX.......57.3
totally subjective:
Thank's for proving my point :P
The categories chosen and point values assigned reflect the individual bias of whomever designed the comparison tool (Is that from a MItzu website?). I'm sure I could comb thru the brochures of any of the other models and come up with a dozen features not listed (and which the Outlander doesn't have).
As for the values, while the reviewer may consider LED tail lights as more important than a 3rd row seat, there are plenty of buyers who would disagree. A chrome accent shifter knob has the same value as 3-years of free maintenance? Yeah right. And those are but two examples of individual score-weighting bias. Oh and the Outlander has the best AWD system? Puh-lease!
-Frank
Cars in that class don't tend to do much volume here, though. Let's see.
Agility should incorporate accelerating and braking as well, so Motor Trend's Figure 8 is a better measure of agility IMO:
Forester XT: 28.1 sec @ 0.60 g avg
Forester X: 28.4 sec @ 0.58 g (avg)
Outlander GT: 28.4 sec @ 0.58 g (avg)
All are good, but the base Forester matches the upgraded Outlander GT, and is actually quicker than the Outlander XLS they tested.
The GT has AFD (active front differential), but not ARD. That's according to Mitsubishi themselves. So why a score of 2?
You don't score for price. That factor should actually carry the most weight.
You don't score for mileage either. All the things where the Forester shows the advantage carry no weight.
All the things where Mitsu does well carries lots of weight.
You list handling but not braking, and no lateral grip. So you omit the results where the Forester does better.
Your towing number are just plain wrong. You listed the Outlander's towing for a braked trailer and the Forester's towing for an unbraked trailer.
That's already 6 errors in the first 9 lines.
Subaru offers a hill holder clutch on the X models. And I doubt the Outlander has a true metal skid plate.
Forester is pre-wired for towing, another error. I know because I installed a hitch.
Forester has a reclining 2nd row, love mine! Works like a charm. Another error.
HIDs are available now.
Rear view camera is available in the JDM catalog, and don't say that's not fair becaue the green HIDs you shared pictures of earlier are from the JDM Mitsubishi catalog.
Outlander has LED rear lights but Forester had LED interior lights. Omitted.
Subaru offers XM and Sirius, BOTH, and the chart gives it a score of 0? 2 for Subaru, 1 for Mitsu for not giving you a choice.
You gave points for the rear DVD entertainment system but did not include that in the price of the GT. At the $30k you quote it lacks leather and Navi, and you give it tons of points for those options. The amp and audio too, 3 points for an option not priced. That GT would be more like $35-36 grand!
Even my cheaper Forester has chromed door handles, another error.
CR Reliability forecast for the Forester is "Much Better Than Average". For the Outlander it's one step lower, "Better Than Average". This is from the brand new April car issue.
Forester's powertrain warranty is longer than the 3 years you list, another error.
Toss out the entire chart and start over, you had more things wrong than you got right.
While we're at it, include important things:
IIHS Top Safety Pick
JD Powers Durability Study
ALG residual value awards
Unless you really believe chrome door handles are more important than safety, price, residuals, and durability?
If they can delivery good economy it could be at least a minor hit. Rogue is 22/27 and Tucson is 22/30. Inside Line/MotorTrend are reporting an average of 30 which would imply something like 27/33 or thereabouts. If that holds true then it could sway those looking for an efficient mini-ute.
I like the styling as well, and it might even sway my wife from getting another compact sedan. Neither of us drives all that many miles per year - her car turns 9 in May and has about 74K on it and I'm just over 2300 on my Outlander after 3.5 months. So while the forthcoming Chevy Cruze is on her list, it's 40MPG highway really doesn't make that big of a difference in the long run.
Of course, size & utility of the cargo area will matter as will crash results.
I don't know what I'd do with one of these with a 6 speed auto. :confuse:
(I don't miss my previous 5 sp manual tranny at all) :shades:
But ateixeira covered those issues much more eloquently.
I have to see it in person to get a better idea of the scale.
Cruze just had a stop-production to fix a quality glitch. Hopefully that's not a bad sign. Chevy needs a good compact car to draw young people to the brand.
I guess you don't feel it's important with an automatic, but if so it's another thing to take off that chart.
That plus I forgot to mention roof rack capacity and total interior space (again, he only mentions the things the Outlander does better). May as well add ground clearance, angle of approach, angle of departure.
Point is there are pros and cons to both, if you're not wearing blinders that is.
Outie GT produces 230 HP with premium which is barely enough for any vehicle to have a GT badge and it gives 18/24 which is again poor when you compare it to say Santa Fe which gives 20/26 in AWD configuration with 275 HP all with regular fuel. Not to say that there is a night and day difference in smoothness and quietness in Santa Fe's V6 as compared to Outie. Hyundai spent lot of money in developing their new engines 2.4 I4, and 3.5V6 and Mitsu spent money on gadgets some of them are just lame for an econobox. Their V4 also fair poorly against its competitors
Check Mitsu other models and their engines and it seems that the company has yet to produce even a decent V6 that compares well with its competitors in terms of fuel economy, power and smoothness.
Also I don't hear nowdays about the consumer rating for Outie being better than other models. I guess in that department too Outie lags. With 8.5 rating for barely 5 reviews against 8.7 of Forrester with 57 reviews, there is nothing to brag about it here too.
The GT gas two active differentials: front and center. The other 3 cars have none. The GLK ghas inferior braking-based side-to-side torque transfer. That’s why.
>> You don't score for price. That factor should actually carry the most weight. You don't score for mileage either. All the things where the Forester shows the advantage carry no weight.
This is comparo includes 2 "luxury" cars so I don’t see price/mileage difference to be appropriate. However the GT vs. XT price difference is small compare to what GT offers.
>> You list handling but not braking, and no lateral grip. So you omit the results where the Forester does better.
You may be right here about braking and we I will make the adjustment. However the skid pad difference it tiny: 0.75 vs. 0.76.
>> Your towing number are just plain wrong. You listed the Outlander's towing for a braked trailer and the Forester's towing for an unbraked trailer.
You are right and I corrected this. Forester can do 2400 lbs, still it is way below Outlander’s 3500 lbs, so score would not change.
>> Subaru offers a hill holder clutch on the X models. And I doubt the Outlander has a true metal skid plate.
This is just your speculation about skid plate and the skid plate type data is not available. Edmunds says that the XT has no hill holder:
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2010/subaru/forester/101174059/VehicleComparison?op=2- - - - - - - - - - - - - - &tab=features&maxvehicles=5&basestyleid=101174059&styleid=101201397&vehicleindex- - - - - - - - - - - - - - =1&removestyle=101201397&styleid=101243830
>> Forester is pre-wired for towing, another error. I know because I installed a hitch.
Edmunds comparo (above) does not agree with you.
>> Forester has a reclining 2nd row, love mine! Works like a charm. Another error.
But Forester's 2nd row not sliding. It says there "sliding / reclining". Not quite as charming as on Outlander?
>> HIDs are available now.
Edmunds comparo (link above) does not agree with you.
>> Rear view camera is available in the JDM catalog, and don't say that's not fair becaue the green HIDs you shared pictures of earlier are from the JDM Mitsubishi catalog.
Outlander Green/multicolor HID option is not used as advantage in this comparo either. And you did not share here Subaru catalog.
>> Outlander has LED rear lights but Forester had LED interior lights. Omitted.
We just don’t have enough info on what type of interior lighting is used in all 4 cars. On the other hand the Outlander GT has advantage of having rear Reading Lights which Forster does not and it is not mentioned in the chart.
>> Subaru offers XM and Sirius, BOTH, and the chart gives it a score of 0? 2 for Subaru, 1 for Mitsu for not giving you a choice.
XM and Sirius are the unified company after the merger. No point to offer both: Subaru just offers older receivers. We have already discussed this: Outlander Sat. Radio is well integrated into entertainment system and part of the package, while satellite radio is only an optional accessory on XT and cost extra. Availability is also limited: I called my local Subaru dealer and among over 20 cars NONE had it installed.
>> You gave points for the rear DVD entertainment system but did not include that in the price of the GT. At the $30k you quote it lacks leather and Navi, and you give it tons of points for those options. The amp and audio too, 3 points for an option not priced. That GT would be more like $35-36 grand!
Nope, the street price $30k includes audio, leather and navi. Check out the “Outlander prices paid” thread or Edmunds TMV. Rear entertainment is not included (it says "street price w/main packages") but still it’s an advantage to have this as option. Rear entertainment is not included in X3 and GLK pricing either.
>> Even my cheaper Forester has chromed door handles, another error.
You are right, let's remove this "advantage".
>> CR Reliability forecast for the Forester is "Much Better Than Average". For the Outlander it's one step lower, "Better Than Average". This is from the brand new April car issue.
Not the XT turbo version: this one is below average:
http://s215240594.onlinehome.us/cr_small_cuv.gif
>> Forester's powertrain warranty is longer than the 3 years you list, another error.
The powertrain warranty was not specifically mentioned for the XT, however it’s only 5 years vs. 10 years for the Outlander: either way a huge Outlander advantage.
>>While we're at it, include important things:
IIHS Top Safety Pick
So is the Outlander
>> JD Powers Durability Study
However JD Power gives the Outlander higher design and manufacturing quality
http://s215240594.onlinehome.us/Outlander_Forester_kbb1.jpg
>> ALG residual value awards
These “residual value awards” are meaningless since they are based on an artificial MSRPs price, but not on a real TMV price
So after all the corrections the standing has not changed much (see above) .
Most of these advantages/disadvantages (telescoping steering wheel, lumbar support, memory seats, power passenger seat ) reflected on the chart.
.
>>Outie GT produces 230 HP with premium which is barely enough for any vehicle to have a GT badge and it gives 18/24 which is again poor when you compare it to say Santa Fe which gives 20/26 in AWD configuration with 275 HP all with regular fuel. Check Mitsu other models and their engines and it seems that the company has yet to produce even a decent V6 that compares well with its competitors in terms of fuel economy, power and smoothness.
The fuel economy difference is small considering the GT is quicker and it is using real deal AWD system. But “power and smoothness”? Outlander beats Santa Fe according to Edmunds InsideLine tests:
0-60: GT 7.9 sec vs. SF 8.7
Slalom: GT 66.2 vs. SF 61.3
So Outlander V6 power is adequate. The GT also beats Land Rover LR2 in 0-60 by far (LR 9.3 sec) and few others. BTW, note Santa Fe’s bad braking:
60-0: GT 130 ft vs. SF 140 ft.
And speaking of smoothness, SF’s has older 5-speed auto transmission and just basic AWD with no active differentials and no toque vectoring.
>> Also I don't hear nowdays about the consumer rating for Outie being better than other models. I guess in that department too Outie lags. With 8.5 rating for barely 5 reviews against 8.7 of Forrester.
Outlander has good ratings in Consumer Reports reliability survey (link from the above post): http://s215240594.onlinehome.us/cr_small_cuv.gif , and it beats Forester in autos.msn.com 2009 consumer rating 9.3 vs. 8.8. Santa Fe gets only 8.6.
Unless one focuses on one specific vehicle trait in a make or brake decision (such as ground clearance or slolam numbers), the Forester XT comes out on top in agility and safety. The rating of CR is irrelevant as a good rating does not guarantee you a stellar ownership experience and a poor rating does not mean the car is ready for the junk yard. Many people fail to understand what these ratings mean and buy a car because CR predicted a stellar ownership experience only to have the opposite.
What people want is form and function coming together. The Forester, IMO, does that much better than the Outlander.
Each car has it's pluses and minuses and I will be the first to admit, there probably is someone on the face of the earth who would base the buy decision of Outlander vs Forester to the Outlander because it had rear reading lights. It just wouldn't be me.
Realistically, so are all ratings. Reliability ratings mean little if you get the lemon or the cream puff of the crop. Economy ratings can be wildly different from what people get in real-world driving. Safety ratings only apply to the specific tests conducted and do not reflect all potential real-world accident situations (for instance, uneven road surfaces precipitating a crash will change the suspension compression and chassis flex & alter the exact angle of momentum). Reviewer A's criteria for a desirable vehicle only matters to those who share A's POV. Mazdas, for instance, often rank high in the reviews for their sporting nature but they're never volume leaders in the US.
Even hard metrics aren't always relevant. Different reviewers get different acceleration & braking times. To compare, we always say you need similar weather & track conditions. Which, of course, means YMMV when it comes to how well you or I will be able to win the stoplight drag race.
In fact, YMMV is about the truest saying possible when it comes to auto ownership. That's why is so important for people to make a list of what matters to them & their situation. With their personal needs, really-wants, kinda-wants, don't-care-abouts, and don't-want-at-all defined, you can narrow your focus & do actual car-to-car comparisons.
In my personal case ..
Ground clearance, while nice to have, isn't a need to me. I won't be off-roading and if the snow is so deep that 8.9 v. 8.5 inches of clearance matter, I'm probably not even going to be driving. I trust my driving ability but casual observation reveals that trusting the ability of the other drivers on the road would be a mistake (I realize they might think the same about me).
I also don't care to modify my vehicles from stock so having a really good factory audio system is important to me. I'll never buy a convertible but always want a sunroof. I'll always opt for the most powerful engine offered and usually opt for the highest trim line; my ownership pattern tends to be for 8+ years so I want as many comfort & convenience options as I can get. In that same vein, resale doesn't matter to me at all. Versatility matters. Style matters. My brand experiences as well as those of friends & family matter. Dealership experience barely matters in that I won't buy from an arrogant retailer (auto or otherwise); otherwise I know I have options for service. And so on.
BTW, while ranting about how none of these ratings matters, sitting in front of me is the 90 day JDP survey. :P
I shopped 4 bangers (normally aspirated) so for me Outlander offered 1400 lbs towing capacity and Forester, 2400 lbs. To be honest the safe amount to tow is limited by brakes anyway.
HIDs are new, and you should have known about it because I mentioned it before and you even responded.
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.
street price $30k includes audio, leather and navi
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.
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.
CR puts the Outlander between the two different Foresters (in that older chart, 2010 Forester XTs will show improvement and CR forecasts Excellent reliability now), plus JD Powers puts the Forester ahead. I don't see that as advantage Mitsubishi.
Your chart is worse than my brackets for March Madness, and I had Kansas over Goergetown in the final.
It wasn't as close as it sounds, though. Forester won all 3 subcategories, and the subjective Fun to Drive as well.
I do agree I tend to ask people about cars. It's more important to me to have a car I can virtually throw around than a good sounding stereo system, and I opt for the moonroof as well. I can't live with a car with a lot of goodies that doesn't have some vestige of performance and handling. Unless I'm buying a BMW style matters less to me. Form and function have to come together.
While different reviewers tend to get different results that is why test drives are important.
In the end "the grid" that has been floating around is a bit useless for me, since it emphasizes things I don't care about and ignores things I do.
1. I just got a quote for a 7 year bumper to bumper extended warranty for $715. Keep in mind that the up front cost difference is more than that. Also keep in mind the TCO difference is also enough to pay for that warranty. And it doesn't increase TCO by $715 because it would eliminate the "Repairs" column entirely for the first 7 years.
2. As we researched, the reason the realibility rating for the 09 model was "Average" (hardly bad) was that there was a small batch of bad con rod bearings, a problem that has been addressed. Consumer Reports felt comfortable enough to give the Forester lineup a "Much Better than Average" reliability forecast now for new 2010s (April issue, they no longer separate X and XT).
Factor those two things, plus the JD Powers Durability score, and even a skeptic should feel fine about buying an XT.
The 7 year warranty for my Forester is $715. So that increases TCO by just $53.
And at the end of those 5 years, you would still have 2 years of bumper-to-bumper warranty left over.
The Outlander bumper to bumper warranty would have expired, though it would still have the 100k powertrain.
Keep in mind when Subaru has had engine problems, they've extended the powertrain warranty on affected cars to 100k anyway, including in the case of the con rod bearings.
All that proves is it may be worth getting such an inexpensive extended warranty. The value of the warranty has been overstated - it would cost me a $53 increase in TCO over 5 years.
Different reviewers get different acceleration & braking times. To compare, we always say you need similar weather & track conditions. Which, of course, means YMMV when it comes to how well you or I will be able to win the stoplight drag race.
And to be unbiased, I'll show 2 very contrasting results.
Edmunds 0-60 for the GT was on the slow side, but Car & Driver managed 0-60 in 7.1 seconds in this comparo:
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/484f036- 98b354b558bc433d7f1964c72.pdf
Edmunds slalom for the GT was extremely quick, OTOH. But Car & Drive only managed 58.9mph in theirs.
So the slow sample had a quick slalom, and the quick sample had a slow slalom.
The CR-V actually ran a quicker slalom than the Outlander, and it was the slow poke of that bunch. The Tiguan also beat the GT's slalom, and the RAV4 tied it.
So the reigning slalom champ lost the crown. This test was a direct comparison, same day same driver. Edmunds' car was tested by itself, so conditions could have varied.
Forester managed 57.6mph, stability control inhibited. That's close (just 2% slower), and I wonder what would happen if they switched that off.
The Forester's departure angle is 39% better (25 degrees vs. 18 degrees), and if anyone thinks that doesn't matter ask autoblog how fun it was to dig out of the sand when they got stuck in their GT.
Point is this: 2% is nothing.
Back to C&D, Forester got off the line the quickest to 30mph, and was in 2nd for 0-60, 2nd in the 1/4 mile (Outlander was 4th).
Any how, you said it - YMMV.
Pretty funny.
The RAV4 it was towing is filled up with cargo all the way to the ceiling. The vehicle by itself is well over 3000 lbs so with the overloaded payload, we're talking 4500 lbs or so (with 165hp, it was not a turbo).
The back window said they were going to Guatemala, so I imagine he was driving to Miami to take a boat there.
Side note: the guy who bought our 1988 Mitsubishi Mirage was also taking it to Guatemala. So that must be where old imports spend their golden years.
I'm not sure how accurate this measure is, since its takes Edmunds WAY too much time to post customer reviews. My 2009 XLS review took at least 2 months to post, and reviews of older cars are still to post some 4 months later!
More interesting, for me, is the precipitous drop off in ratings for the Forester between old/new model years 2008/2009. The Outlander didn't seem to suffer the same fate from old/new model years 2006/2007.
Also, Edmunds editors seem to favor the Outlander revision over the Forester (and Outback) revisions. Granted, their rating system is a bit broad, and some measures in question are quite subjective, but 7.6 (and 7.5) to 8 is considerable.
To-date, and with delayed ratings, Forester seems to be fairing better with consumer ratings this year. Outlander stayed consistent 2007-2009, and I believe as 2010 progresses, the Outlander ratings will rise.
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2010-mitsubishi-outlander-1.htm
It scores 55/110, one point up from the 54 that the 4 cylinder models score. A bit below class average. Just 17.1mpg for their GT. Ouch.
Forester XT Limited scores a 71, and earns their Recommended stamp. X Premium gets 70, X Limited 69 points. Class average is 58 so all models do well.
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2010-subaru-forester-1.htm
Interestingly, the turbo got 22.4mpg, nearly matching the non-turbo, likely due to the taller gearing. Plus the turbo makes torque way down low, so no need for high revs.
Also, Outlander scores actually dropped a little compared to their 2008 model ratings, while Forester scores improved significantly.
Note: Consumer Guide is not related to Consumer Reports. CG partners with howstuffworks.com and is owned by Publications International. CR is owned by Consumers Union.
Anyway, I find some of the comments odd, like not having anything negative to say about 2nd row seating (and neglecting to mention it slides for/aft and reclines) yet apparently dinging it for the 3rd row design when many competitors don't offer one at all. Seems disingenuous.
The "raucous engine" is probably limited to the 4 cyl model. I've not experienced that. The 6 does have some growl under heavy acceleration but under normal or light it's muted as well as anything this side of a Lexus. And the growl is just what you want to hear; it isn't thrashy like the Ford Vulcan V6.
They didn't get the memo that the leather on the dash is fake.
The touchscreen is hard to use for 2 or 3 things, like entering playlist titles, but for everyday things like switching channels/input sources and the like, I find it to be quite intuitive. For instance, Mode - FM - Preset Button gets you to your favorite FM channel. Mode - MusicServer - Playlist takes you to your list of playlists. Without dedicated buttons for each mode it literally can't get simpler. Well, it is a tad simpler; when you change modes it picks up where you left off with your last station setting or song playing from the CD/HD.
Their specs are wrong if you go to the compare function. They list the GT at 17/23 MPG v. the official 18/24. They lose credibility in my book if they can't even cut-n-paste properly. Makes me wonder if their data & review are a mix of '09 and '10 models.
Also, while lots of cars have automatic headlights nowadays, they neglect to mention the Outlander's are load-levling. They also skipped the rain-sensing wipers, a safety/control feature that few vehicles in this class have. I'm not even sure if any competitors offer it.
Interesting that the CR-V and Tiguan are their Best Buys. Literally everyone I know who has ever bought a VW swears they'll never buy one again. And the CR-V fails the test when it comes to max towing capacity, ground clearance
No Outlander in this one but the Forester has, in their opinion, not kept up with the competition. It came in last.
I find it best to balance a decently written review against consumer findings. Edmunds has a reasonable number of consumer reviews, but their timeliness has REALLY fallen off. Maybe they need to hire more staff!
Another knock against CG is VW. VW is pathetic for reliability. I have also known WAY too may owners that have sold their VWs in disgust. Honda is fine, but not very interesting. A Honda is basically an appliance.
As for Subarus, I don't care much for the cars, but the owner loyalty borders on fanatical, which is somewhat appealing.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper