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
http://www.carspace.com/ateixeira/Albums/misc/Backup%20Cam.jpg/page/photo.html#p- ic
Imagine a 10" screen with 3G, or tethered to your iPhone or BlackBerry... :shades:
Go to Gallery - Interior and look at pictures 9 & 10 to see the Outlander's backup screen. The green & red lines make lining up a snap. The green hash marks are at 1 meter intervals & the red line is about 18" from the bumper.
I won't launch another price argument, but suffice it to say that the best-selling CR-V wins the sales race by keeping a lid on prices (under $30k fully loaded).
Heck, fog lights are a $327 dealer-add and not part of factory equipment. Which has me wondering ..
Take a 4WD EX-L and make it as close to my GT as possible: Add a trailer hitch, hitch ball (sold separately), body side molding, chrome exhaust, front splash guards (I guess the rear tires never fling rain/snow/mud??), fog lights, cargo net, backup sensors (no camera apparently) and remote start. $32,726 is the price Honda's builder is quoting. That's around $2500 or so less than the sticker on my GT.
To me, the Mitsu's better warranty, V6 power, better AWD system, better stereo, and so on are easily worth the extra cash. For that matter, the Turbo engine and other Subaru niceties would have me getting it over the CR-V as well. The CR-V does get better economy but that's the only major feather in it's cap that I can see.
Still, buyers don't seem to care much.
I think the "Sweet Spot" for compact utility pricing is mid 20s, though. Once you cross $30k I would not be looking at compacts, and I bet a lot of other buyers think the same way.
The Outlander streches the "compact" part, but I think it more than steps on the Endeavor's toes. Why the Endeavor doesn't have a 3rd row and the Outlander does is beyond me.
The result is a compact with a mid-size price, and a mid-size that is lacking the 3rd row expected in that class, a double faux pas IMHO.
You mentioned there are 440 Mitsubishi dealers, so that means each dealer sells about 2 Outlanders per month, and even fewer Endeavors. Hence the cob webs and crickets chirping at many dealers.
The Outlander Sport can occupy the compact segment, so I say grow the next Outlander (2012 model) to be a true mid-sizer and phase out the Endeavor completely.
Subaru needs to grow the Tribeca or phase it out as well, which is also selling at a rate that simply isn't sustainable.
I cross-shopped the Outlander against the Santa Fe, though some would argue the Tucson is more appropriate. But when I looked at the Tucson's cargo area I dismissed it right away. Likewise, the Murano got too expensive ($41K+ with similar equipment to my GT) but the Rogue was too small (didn't look too hard since the wife really dislikes their styling). So I can see the blurred line between compact & midsize.
Personally I think we're just going to have to wake up and accept higher prices. We've been somewhat spoiled the past 15 or so years in that car prices have not risen that much compared to other consumer goods (electronics aside). In fact, for similar or only slightly more money the cars we get today have lots more to offer than those of the mid 90s.
That engine is torquey. Plus it sits very low in the engine bay, like Subaru boxers do, for a low center of gravity. Nice packaging.
The center console, OTOH, is a train wreck. It looks like a giant Ghetto Blaster from the 1980s.
Edit: photo added, plus I actually like those contrasting seats.
The higher prices/content may work in Mitsubishi's favor if the economy picks up and more people seek that sort of stuff.
If we see a double-dip recession like many are predicting, they could be in trouble.
That's well behind even most compacts, including both the Forester (35.5) and the Outlander (33.5).
Ridiculously small for a mid-sizer. Rogue offers a pathetic 24.5 cubes, the Infiniti EX even less at 24.0. The FX is not much better: 25.5.
Curvy bods KILL utility.
And the second row doesn't fold flat, which you may recall was a deal-killer for me.
We went to the newly inaugurated Harris Teeter grocery store last night and it got me thinking.
Forester has standard grocery bag hooks, so I don't see how this could be a problem?
I coach a hoops team and a flag football team, but I have a large mesh bag for all the balls and equipment, and the net can be secured to the same hooks as well.
The Outie has the liftgate, but once you start driving the melons would be rolling around inside. I'm sure they offer accessories like nets, cargo dividers, etc. to secure them, else you may end up with a fruit salad.
Great, now I'm hungry again.
Hungry too, but craving a Butterfinger Blizzard from DQ.
Now that we can agree on. :shades:
I'd wager there are more compartments on the Outlander to hide that Butterfinder
(aka Nobodys Gonna Lay A Finger On My BUTTERFINGER®)
Apparently designed by people from another planet, which uses square cups.
Cups actually fit, it's just a bizarre layout. A simple insert/liner would work wonders.
I finally crossed 3K miles yesterday. The Outlander's quite nice for highway cruising. All too easy to go way too fast if traffic allows. MPG is inching up slowly as it gets fully broken in. We should also be getting off winter blend gas, although I'm not sure exactly when that happens.
We grilled out in front of my in-laws' place. I backed in the Outlander & used it for tailgating. Ran satellite radio for about an hour & a half before I decided to start the engine & prevent battery run-down. Afterwards, my father-in-law asked me if I wanted to start the car so it wouldn't run down; the engine is quiet at idle.
We picked up some box furniture before heading home. One of those LCD TV stands with a post in the back for mounting the TV. It laid perfectly flat with the second row 60% seat folded . Not something I'd have wanted to do in, say, an Equinox which lacks the flat cargo area. I'd have been worried about stress on the glass shelves and/or bowing the wood pieces. Anyway, even with that in there & the other seat not folded, there was room for our suitcase & other stuff without having to stack anything or compromise visibility.
There's less energy content so mileage inevitably drops.
It angles towards the back a bit, but there is no seam and it is flat.
The shortest in their plywood length measure is the Honda CR-V, at just 54". So that's not a very big box, yet the Honda can barely fit it. And that's at the floor, not up high.
I doubt the CR-V could get the hatch closed if that was a tall box.
All the others are 60" plus so they would have room to spare. The Forester is actually the longest of those 8, with a full 70" of length.
Without solicitation, there were excited proclamations about seat space and comfort, quiet and refined ride and attractive looks inside and out. Our friend was so moved that after 3 generations of Foresters, he might convert!
I should say, out of an obligation for full disclosure that said friend is currently driving the 2006 model, but he has extensive experience driving Foresters, often driving some 30,000 miles per year. He has also spent some saddle time in the newest iteration, whilst having his 2006 repaired.
Nothing conclusive, just somewhat illuminating to hear what those on the other side of the tracks have to say about the lowly Outlander.
It's night and day in terms of space. I've owned old and new Foresters.
At 6'2" I'm surprised he didn't find head room tight in your back seat. Do you have the moonroof?
We were going to put the booster & the car seat in the 3rd row but the 1 year old refused to go quietly unless one of her parents was next to her.
Due to a family health emergency I drove something over 700 miles between Thursday & last night. Predominantly highway though there was some city driving & crawling through construction zones. Best MPG: 24.1; worst over this trip: 22.1. The highway driving was usually between 75 & 85 MPH and included one burst to 97 (before my wife caught on..). Very nice, stable ride at higher speeds and the engine always seems willing to go faster.
Nah, the few times I've used the 3rd row are isolated instances. This past weekend we could have taken two cars instead but the family hadn't seen the Outlander yet and the trip wasn't that long.
I'm finding that the 3rd row can be handy for these short trips with lots of people, but I could still easily live without. Included in an option package I like having it but I'm doubtful I'd have specified it as a separate option.
BTW I know minivans and vans in general are superior people-haulers. But 99+% of the time it's just me or my wife & I so even then the 2nd row isn't necessary.
For instance, some manufacturers have moved the battery to the rear of the vehicle (under/around the trunk) from the engine bay. It adds flexibility for engine mounting, probably leads to less battery overheating (better air cooling and no engine heat to worry about), and may allow for a smaller/shorter front end. Of course, the eventual battery replacement will be harder but that's the owner's problem, not the manufacturer's.
A neighbor asked for help to swap batteries in his Saturn. The battery was held down by three bolts, all in knuckle-wrapping positions, all in metric. I can actually understand metric, but most other bolts in the very same car were NOT metric! And there was simply no excuse for the poor positioning of the clamp bolts.
I quickly went to look at our Outlander battery placement and bolts. Great position, with easy access bolts. Crisis averted!
You could do like we did - got a van and threw one seat away, and now have a 5 seater with a big empty. We rarely use the 2nd row either, but it sure is a handy rig for toting stuff around.
I do need a Miata.
Next time you go to an auto show try to catch a glimpse of a Subaru cut-away or chassis. The whole drivertrain sits below the top of the tires.
Edit: found a Forester cutaway pic. The engine sits extremely low, just in front of the front axle, rather than on top of it like most engines. This allows a low hood, a low cowl, and good forward visibility. It also doesn't interfere much with the cabin:
Check out the engine block - all that weight sits ultra-low, helping keep the center of gravity nice and low.
In Motor Trend this is why the Forester ran the quickest Figure 8 despite having the most ground clearance, a bit of a paradox.
The Forester's roof rails are also aluminum. Less weight up high.
Mitsu uses an aluminum roof on the GT for the same reason - to help lower the CoG.
Yep, all gone. They helped keep pillars thin (for visibility) and reduce weight but people complained about wind noise, so window frames across the board now.
The van has up to 149 cubes! I think I could park the Miata inside.
Even with 5 seats in place, I have 95 cubic feet. Acres and acres for people and cargo.
Overkill at times but I can lay a 4'x8' sheet of plywood flat, inside, and close the hatch. Width to spare, too.
So the Miata is tiny and the van is huge.
Forester is a nice "medium" size that hits the sweet spot. Fun to drive, easy to park.
I sold my tablesaw the other day, so I think my plywood toting days are over. Something like the Outlander or Forester would be plenty big enough now I think. Or maybe I could get into ultralight backpacking and just get the Miata. Probably would have to walk 10 miles just to get the trailhead though.
Peugeot announced good sales results this week. I bet plenty of execs at Mitsu wish a closer tie-up had worked out.
Bring sunscreen.
It looks sweet plus they could easily fit a Mitsu "face" on it.
Of course, I want this one.
Here's the URL for those who can't:
http://www.lincah.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/2010-5-by-Peugeot-Concept-Front- -Angle-View-588x441.jpg