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
A test drive of course!
The Forester doesn't feel slow at all, FWIW. Your time for the Impreza is the slowest I've seen. C&D reached 60mph in an Impreza in the 7 second range. The Forester is slightly heavier but that should still put it in the 8-9 second range.
As for the CR-V and Rogue, the wife didn't like the styling on either one, she especially disliked the Rogue (looks like an egg, she said). I like it, but it is very small inside, especially the cargo room, due to the shape. Form over function. Forester is the opposite.
Her 2nd choice after browsing at the auto show, behind the Forester, was the RAV4.
We definitely want something smaller and more fuel efficient than our minivan (otherwise what's the point? We'd just take the van).
You wrote:
It’s not going to be any faster or fuel-efficient so what’s next?
Not sure about that - the Forester is a lot lighter than the Outlander, and has a couple more HP and lb-ft of torque. The CVT might make up for some of that difference, so a test drive is overdue.
Looking now...Forester is rated 20/26, Outlander 20/25, close enough. The van is rated 17/23, so both meet our criteria. Forester would have the edge on max range due to the slightly bigger tank and Hwy mpg.
I guess the seats shape is the same, but the SE has a unique leather-upholstery combination. It also has few other unique appointments.
Weight: My recollection from looking at the specs is that both, the Forester and the Outlander I4 AWD are between 3500 and 3600 lbs. (same range as the CRV and RAV4 I4 AWD models); the Rogue AWD is a bit lighter in the 3,400-3,500 lbs. range. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Impreza 0-60 mph: C/D tested the manual Impreza though. The Impreza was only 0.2 and 0.1 sec. faster than the 2.0L Lancer and 1.8L Civic. Still not very impressive for a 2.5L engine with more HP than both and about the same weight as the Lancer. The Civic is significantly lighter though.
If you like the Forester better, this is all that matters. My point is that it comes down straight to the personal preference to pick any of the Japanese compact SUVs of today. They all have pluses and minuses, but overall they are very good vehicles. Which one is the best, it’s a personal choice really rather than a standing from a car magazine.
The only thing is that some people live in the past (or ignorance) and they discount the NEW Mitsubishi models based on irrelevant arguments (resale value, Mitsubishi performance in the US, its past models, its history, etc.).
That Lancer and Civic do not have AWD, so it's hard to draw any conclusions from that. Any how, we've driven it on 2 occasions and neither of us found it lacking. It's not bullet quick the way the XTs I've driven are, but fuel economy is our priority right now.
it comes down straight to the personal preference
Sure does, and in my case my wife's personal preference, not mine!
She liked her Mirage, so no beef with Mitsubishi from her perspective. What I did not like about that car is it didn't even have power steering. :sick:
Some excerpts from that article:
new model is larger in every dimension, without being too big
We like that, as this will be the vehicle we take when we do not need the acreage our minivan offers.
it is easier to park and manoeuvre - and in the real world it was lighter on fuel than its rivals
Big plus. I mentioned the parking issue on my test drive. Lighter on fuel is key with oil at $112/barrel. They tested the 4 cylinder models, so it was the best of the best.
the safest car here
:shades:
Rear vision is best in class
I think I've made that point more than once.
Any how, they mention a lot of the positives that drew us to the Forester in the first place, and of course it won that comparo.
FWIW, they have a lot of positives to say about the Outlander, too. Not sure if they ranked them officially, but it sounds like it would have come in 3rd, ahead of the RAV4 and CR-V.
I would still buy the Outlander today as the V6 is a must for me in this type of vehicle (granted that it's powerful and fuel efficient enough, which the 3.0L V6 in the Outlander is). If I were to buy a 4-cylinder SUV, I would definitely consider the Forester as a top contender since I don't like the CVT in the Outlander. On the other hand, if the Outlander SE would have the 6A/T in the V6 or even better the new SST, it would be the clear winner for me.
Like I said, as far as I'm concerned there is no clear winner in this class as it's all about the personal preference. However, it’s fun to compare and rank them based on measurable criteria.
Safety features also appear to be quite different from US specs.
I too think a vehicle this large needs a V6. Thrashing a 4 cylinder to get the vehicle moving doesn't usually provide very much real-world advantage in mileage. The Outlander V6 feels and sounds much more upscale than any of the 4 cylinder CUV's I drove last year. My V6 is rated PZEV here in California and gets 25 mpg on the freeway and about 20 mpg in my daily driving mix. I don't think a 4 cylinder is going do be much more efficient/clean than that, just slower and rougher.
They did use US-spec enginesm, though. The JDM Forester gets a 2.0l, and they tested the US-spec 2.5l.
20 around town and 25 highway is not bad but to be honest my minivan does better.
That raises a red flag for me - why is demand so low?
Also no SE models.
I'd hate to have to go to Rockville Mitsubishi due to a prior bad experience. I may have to.
The mileage is highly relative. You may do better or worse than that depending on the driving conditions. In my experience, the Outlander's fuel economy doesn't brake any efficiency record, but it's acceptable for this type of vehicle. Out of all V6 compact SUVs on the market, the Outlander is second best to the RAV4 V6, which has an exceptional engine. I would rate Outlander's fuel efficiency as average.
On the safety front, I looked at the IIHS ratings for the Outlander and the obvious reason it's not a Top Safety Pick is because they haven't tested it for the side impact. For frontal and rear impact it scored "Good" plus it has ESC standard so if it would score "Good" (which I'm pretty sure it would) in the side impact test, it would qualify for the "title".
The van does its job well, we want something smaller and more efficient for the wife to commute in and for when the extra space isn't necessary.
So we're looking for something efficient, not merely average. We do want AWD because it will be the only vehicle on our fleet for snow duties.
For what it's worth, we ruled out the Forester XT as well. My wife would just rack up a ton of speeding tickets.
Edit: oil just hit $119 per barrel. I remember when it was $20.
In my case, I wanted more power and I was willing to pay the price for it. Again, a matter of personal choice. I did the same for my other car, Mazda3, when I opted for the 2.3L engine versus the 2.0L. The difference in gas price is a rather small price to pay for me compared to the daily driving experience.
I wish I could get a car designed by Mitsubishi (Outlander), with a Toyota engine (3.L V6), Subaru AWD (I'm not sure about this one as the setup in the Outlander is good enough) and built by Honda, but I can't.
The Outlander, as it is, was the best overall package for me and it still is today.
I also test drove a Rondo but that V6 wasn't much peppier. It was also too small to be our trip car.
We have a big car so now we want the in-town runabout that does double-duty as our only snow car. We're not going to be climing any mountains while towing a trailer behind us - the van would take care of those duties anyway.
The Outlander was just right for me. Wishful thinking: ideally, the Outlander would have a 3.2L, 240-250hp with the same or better fuel efficiency.
The Forester does have nearly 20 more horsepower.
We test drove it with 5 people in the car, 2 of them kids. So we actually had a heavier load than we expect to have most of the time (family of 4). It felt fine even loaded up.
Again, the feel is a very personal thing. I drove a 2008 Impreza with the same powertrain and it felt slower compared to both Mazda3 and Outlander. I imagine the Forester would feel even slightly slower with 300 lbs extra and boxy shape.
Regardless, I'm sure the Forester feels as good as a 4 banger compact SUV could be.
When are you picking up the Forester? When I'll have a chance, I'll go drive one just to get a feel of it. They only went on sale few days ago in Canada.
This is bizarre - they told me it's the best selling model, yet Subaru announced the deal with LL Bean will expire in June. The new model will be called the Limited instead. Weird.
I'll try to find an Outlander SE model in the meantime. They don't have those either.
Is that bad (no selection) or good (popular models sell out fast)?
The SE might be hard to find as I suspect is taking the spot these days. Many buyers seem to be more attracted to the 4-cylinder models due to fuel economy concerns. Plus, it's a new trim this year and by far the nicest in 4-cylinder lineup.
Are you still considering the Outlander as an option or are you test driving for fun?
You were wondering why there are still 07 Outlanders in the dealer lots. Well, because, given the choice, anyone would pick up a later model, plus the 08 models have few updates (new door panels, heated mirrors, etc.) and perhaps people are that scared of the V6s (all 07 were V6). Mitsu sales have dropped too with the general US car market drop over the past few months.
Mitsu had 3 models on the convention center floor, all XLS, all V6s.
The platinum light gray interior was pleasant, though some plastic “silver” details looked a little too cheap. Also looking now at pictures, I see that door panels have no leather accents (installed on Outlander). I liked the gray leather seats perforated in the middle vs. side perforation in the Outlander, though my Outlander’s cream color leather seems to be of a higher grade. Overall I liked my Outlander‘s “wormer” beige interior better vs. gray/platinum of the Forester. Also I saw the cloth version of Forester in light gray/platinum, which felt nice.
Seats seemed to have OK comfort though the Outlander’s seats are more comfortable to me.
The Forester has one glove compartment vs. two on the Outlander. The sunglass holder is also twice bigger on the Outlander. One Forester feature I really liked is sun roof which is almost twice larger vs. the Outlander‘s sunroof.
The Forester rear seats fold down flat using some floor space resulting a vertical cargo clearance at the liftgate area of about 30 inches. The Outlander’s seats fold vertically to the back of front row seats, and also the spare tire attached lower to the bottom of the Outlander. Vertically folded seats and low spare tire location allow for large Outlander vertical cargo clearance of about 37 inches.
Unlike on the Outlander, the Forester steering wheel has no Bluetooth/phone controls. While it’s standard on the Outlander, the Forester Bluetooth kit available only with optional Navigation. Forester iPod aux jacks was located more conveniently vs. the Outlander. I liked the door opening protector matching the car color (Outlander does not have those: I had to buy DIY kit from Japan). The rear seat has cleverly designed center consol with cup holders.
The Forester power steering is more effortless then Outlander‘s, which makes it easier to park, but I felt that, while driving, steering is little too loose for best handling. While driving on highway I could hear distinctive rattling wind noise on the top of the wind shield: odd place for the noise - it seems there is should be no cause for the noise.
The tested vehicle had no optional navigation installed. Premium stereo sounded good in high and mid frequencies, though I felt absence of optional subwoofer. My Rockford Fosgate stereo sounds definitely better though.
Sales person said that Subaru is known for best AWD because Subaru “invented AWD”.
Forester felt good on the road in terms of road traction, however the big disappointing surprise was the powertrain performance. The transmission was quite rough. The 4 cylinder non-turbo engine was very weak on pickup/acceleration while working very hard. I thought may be all 4 cylinder CUV perform similarly and I just was too spoiled by my Outlander’s smooth and effortless 6-speed V6? But then I don’t recall that the 4 cyl RAV4 test drive experience as unpleasant. I haven’t had change to test drive the 4 banger Outlander to compare though.
What’s the point of 4 cyl engine on CUV with this kind of performance? Fuel economy? You don’t get substantial economy. According to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ gas would cost you annually only $240 more on V6 vs. 4 Cyl car (based on 2.4L Outlander vs. 3.0L Outlander comparo on 45% highway driving, 55% city driving, 15000 annual miles). And the V6 Outlander LS with leather and premium stereo would cost you about as much as 4 cyl LL Bean.
We know Subaru didn't invent AWD. What they did do is make it standard on every vehicle and give a refinement so that these vehicles handle better than their competitors at a price point.
I agree with the comments about 4 cylinders. Rav4, CRV all feel underpowered compared to the XT. I also agree with the comments about the interior noise and sunroof. My transmission shifts smooth as butter, sounds like some programming needs to be ironed out in the '09.
Lack of steering wheel controls is a ding against the Forester in my eyes. The interior could be more upscale. Glove compartments, cup holders, side pockets for maps are individual preferences.
Steering is very neutral and precise, coming from a 330i I have a decent frame of reference of what constitutes good handling characteristics.
The XT is a completely different beast. I view the more "upscale" interior of the Outlander as less of a draw than the performance and AWD of the Forester, which is why one is in my garage.
I see that door panels have no leather accents
They are suede or microfiber, but they actually feel quite nice. I bet the trim on the Outlander is high grade vinyl, not leather, on the doors. Individual preference, but I thought the Forester's material was very plush.
Just how big are your sunglasses? :shades:
Outlander's cargo area is taller, but the Forester's is wider. I took a tape measure with me to the Auto Show.
You didn't mention SportShift. Tap the shifter and it shifts gears in a split second, very quickly. Some autos with manual control take a good 2 seconds or so to complete the shift.
I keep my vehicles a long time. Had my last car 9 years, the one before that for 7 years. Over 8 years the fuel savings adds up. A couple of grand at least. Plus insurance costs less, and you get more range from each tank.
Each person has different priorities, but more and more people are taking fuel economy in to consideration when shopping for a new car.
You must be kidding.
Surprise? You have been criticizing the 4 speed auto on the Subaru repeatedly. How is this now supposed to be a surprise?
We've test driven 2 Foresters and neither was rough at all. Nor was performance weak. The Outlander V6 0-60 performance is closer to this Forester than it is to the turbo Forester.
Face it, your opinion of the powertrain was formed long, long before you took that test drive. In fact you've criticized it extensively, calling it oudated, old, antique, and many other insults. Many.
Tell me exactly how this is now a surprise?
Please.
I'll give you one thing, you are a master of hyperbole.
Outlander’s “sunglass holder” is a symbolic name: it’s located next to the dashboard and could hold a bunch of stuff, not just sunglasses.
.
>> Outlander's cargo area is taller, but the Forester's is wider. I took a tape measure with me to the Auto Show.
Your hands were shaking. Outlander is wider by about an inch: check the official specs. So much for the “master of hyperbole” talk.
.
>> You didn't mention SportShift. Tap the shifter and it shifts gears in a split second, very quickly. Some autos with manual control take a good 2 seconds or so to complete the shift.
Excuses The point of having auto transmission is a convenience and safety of keeping your hands on your steering wheel. Outlander’s 6-speed SportShift option at least has steering wheel control: paddle shifters. Foreser does not steering wheel transmission controls and it’s only a 4-speed SportShift.
.
>> I keep my vehicles a long time. Had my last car 9 years, the one before that for 7 years. Over 8 years the fuel savings adds up. A couple of grand at least. Plus insurance costs less, and you get more range from each tank.
Honda Fit would give you even more savings over 9 years, so you don’t just have to count $200 a year.
.
>> Surprise? You have been criticizing the 4 speed auto on the Subaru repeatedly. How is this now supposed to be a surprise? We've test driven 2 Foresters and neither was rough at all. Nor was performance weak. Face it, your opinion of the powertrain was formed long, long before you took that test drive. In fact you've criticized it extensively, calling it oudated, old, antique, and many other insults. Many. Tell me exactly how this is now a surprise? I'll give you one thing, you are a master of hyperbole.
I expected the non-turbo Subaru to have at least OK acceleration, similar to the experience I’ve had with 4-Cyl Toyota, but Subaru’s acceleration was unacceptable to my driving habits. Sure, I call the 4-speed tranny outdated, but in my attempt to trust reports produced by some subaru’s “masters of hyperbole”, I expected it to be not great and not up to the modern technology, but at least OK, and I did not expect my driving experience to be that rough and disappointing. That’s why it was a surprise.
Some subaru’s “masters of hyperbole” say things like Subaru can transfer “100% of the power to either axle.”, “Subaru AWD is the best on the market”, while Forester’s is nearly a part-time. Or they say that Forester’s “moonroof is 3 times bigger”, or Forester’s “transmission shifts smooth as butter”. So much for the “master of hyperbole” talk.
The Outlander's owner however has the whole 3 great choices between:
1. 2WD
2. 4WD Auto (a la Forester system)
3. 4WD Lock: true full-time AWD (with 50/50 split, according to the latest info on the Mitsu UK site).
1. Full time AWD.
2. Able to vary the bias from about 90/10 to 45/55 (maybe more in earlier models).
3. Varies the bias based on slippage and accleration.
4. In fuel economy mode uses a 90/10 split.
On the Outlander. You have to flip a switch, to put it into AWD mode? How low tech is that? Hit a puddle..., wait... hold on car while I put this into AWD mode. The reason Mitsubish didn't design full time AWD is the gas mileage would go into the toilet even more than it is. System is the same one on an Explorer if I recall correctly, which wasn't a great system either.
Those are three great choices? The Forester can have full time AWD because Subaru has figured out how to do it right. Even Mitsu Motors website describes the AWD system on the Outlander as "on-demand" to save on fuel consumption.
This is way over the top. (how do the vast majority of people ever survive in FWD vehicles going through a puddle? The Horror!!! :confuse:
I like selecting FWD on dry roads. If I see threatening weather AWD is there very quickly (you make it sound like you gotta stop and get out of the car and lock the hubs for Pete's sake) How can you say Subarus get equal MPG in AWD as with a FWD car? I always accepted that Subarus got worse MPG the FWD cars of the same weight/size because of the AWD.(price you pay) There is always some frictional loss. Next claim I'm waiting to hear is how you find more gas in you tank than when you started your trip (only Subarus can defy physics)
That what's make the Subaru AWD an inherently better system. No switch flipping. :shades It may not make a difference to you, but the drivetrain made a difference to me.
With the capability to dynamically shift torque load between front and rear based on acceleration and braking the 90/10 split under light throttle at highway speeds makes for saving fuel. Nail the gas and torque switches to the rear to move the car forward without spinning the wheels or torque steer. Or flipping a switch.
If it's raining I don't have to make a choice between saving gas or AWD. The AWD system makes the best choice best without driver intervention.
Different strokes for different folks. For me the drivetrain and engine was a priority more than the gadgets and doo-dads.
I always accepted that Subarus got worse MPG the FWD cars of the same weight/size because of the AWD.(price you pay)
Even if there is no frictional loss in 2WD mode the Outlander is still carrying around the excess weight of the AWD system so there is a fuel penalty. AWD will get slightly worse mileage than FWD, but is a much safer ride than FWD especially in bad snow conditions. You can argue any car can make it through almost anything and I'd agree. But the Subaru thankfully doesn't know the difference between two feet of snow and dry pavement. It operates exactly the same.
You said the Outlander had 37" of cargo height clearance vs. just 30" for the Forester.
Maybe we measured in different places, but the mininum clearance for the Outlander I measured was only 35". For the Forester I got 32".
So you claim a 7" advantage, but by my tape measure it's just 3".
Then you say the cargo area is not wider - well, again, when I measured width between the wheel wells, I got 42" for the Forester and just 38" for the Outlander. 4" wider, in fact, for the Subaru.
For length I measured 38" for the Mitsu and 37" for the Forester, a small advantage for Mitsubishi. You can recline the seats and make up that inch, if you really needed to.
Your summary was 37" vs 30" and you left it at that. I find that very misleading.
Forester is 42"x37"x32". (min. width x length x height)
Outlander is 38"x38"x35".
Honda Fit isn't even in the same class.
Do we really need to measure the moonroof, too? :P
First of all, I said that about the TRIBECA, not the Forester.
Also, I said that in a Tribeca thread, which doesn't even include the Outlander.
Why were you even in that thread in the first place? Lost? Unhappy with your Outlander? :P
Besides, David Sullivan of SoA, Product Manager for the Tribeca, confirms the Tribeca has that capability, so I stand by what I said. I've also shown videos to prove it.
I won't share the link here because this thread is about the Forester and Outlander, not the Tribeca.
You don’t have to flip a switch. If you wish, you can drive Outlander for the years in just AWD Auto economy mode, which is the same as Subaru’s front biased on-demand system (90/10 – 45/55). And you don’t have to switch ANYTHING, unless you want to.
Or you can drive Outlander for years just in the AWD Lock mode with 50/50 split, which is a true full-time AWD mode (unlike Subarus’ on-demand system). On Subaru you can’t do that: on Subaru all you’ve got - is a front biased proactive system which is dependent on computer ability to react to road conditions.
Outlander gives its owner more choices:
the Forester-like dynamic AWD Auto mode and the true full-time AWD Lock mode. You can drive either system of your choice for years and no flip switch is required. I drive AWD Auto mode 90% of the time, but in a heavy rain or snow I could use the magic switch and select the AWD Lock, while Subaru’s owner could not.
.
>> How low tech is that? Hit a puddle..., wait... hold on car while I put this into AWD mode.
No “wait” and “hold” needed. Outlander can switch instantly between 3 modes at any moment and at any speed. No need to stop, “wait” or “hold”.
According to Subaru site, the Forester has 63.0 cu. ft. with rear seat lowered.
And the Outlander has 73.0 cu. ft. with rear seat lowered.
So the Outlander has 16% more cargo volume with rear seat lowered. That's the official numbers with no "master's of hyperbole" shaking hands involved.
You’ve said in this very thread about the Subaru’s Active AWD, that
“the Active AWD system, found on the low-price automatic models. They say 90/10 default (which is correct) up to 50/50 max, which is incorrect . It should be 100/0 to 0/100.”
.
>> Why were you even in that thread in the first place? Lost? Unhappy with your Outlander?
As our host Steve fairly said “It's ok to talk about a car even if you don't own one”. So I don’t need anyone’s advice which thread I should be in, nor I suppose to report my reasoning. Also personal attacks are not encouraged by this forum.
Data gathered by Carmichael Lynch (the new ad company) has "determined that most automakers, including Subaru, “were trying to out-argue each other based on rational reasons: features, benefits, the deal,”
“Certainly, rational reasons are important, but it has to be more of a blend to get people to put us on the list.”
I think the ad company must have been following this "out-argue" discussion for a while and decided to take the opposite tack. :P
Factually incorrect. The Subaru is a full time AWD system with no switch flipping involved. You are right on the Subaru you can't lock the split, but, it's not needed with variable torque shifting between front and rear. The Subaru is not FWD biased like the Outlander. To conserve fuel it puts itself into a FWD bias torque split. As soon as the accelerater is nailed, torque immediately shifts toward the rear.
Contrast that to the Outlander. FWD and good gas mileage or AWD and less gas mileage. The Outlander as far as I can tell does not dynamically shift torque unless slippage occurs.
As it it the Outlander gets worse gas mileage than the Forester under all conditions. At $4.00 gallon you do have the leather. :shades
I did not measure volume, I measured the minimum width, height, and length. I made that very clear. Think of the largest box you could fit inside.
You stated it was 37" to 30" height. That is misleading. If the opening is 35" tall, how are you going to get a 37" object inside? You can't.
Then you underestimated the height of the Forester's cargo bay.
You went on to say the Outlander had a wider cargo area. You said nothing about volume, you said it was wider! Between the wheel wells, it's a few inches more narrow, actually.
So you also underestimated the width of the Forester's cargo bay.
These are not opinions, they are measurements anyone can verify for themselves.
You also said I could save $240 per year on gas with the 4 cylinder Forester, your numbers, not mine. A little later you say it's $200. You misquoted yourself, apparently.
So now you are understating the fuel savings, as well.
3 strikes, you're out. :P
You refuse to accept those as legit. How convenient.
Then again, by your logic, a 37" tall box fits in a 35" space. Convenient.
$240 fuel savings adds up to $200. OK, if you say so!
38" is wider than 42". Sure!
Hyperbole: when 35 > 37, when 240 = 200, when 38 > 42.
3 solid examples.
2007 Mitsubishi Outlander 4WD System Explained
When in FWD mode, the power goes to the front only. This is supposed to be the economical mode, but in my experience, the fuel saving is marginal - around 1 mpg or so. Going by how some are hooked on 1-2 mpg fuel economy gain, it may make sense to use it.
When in the "4WD Auto" mode - AKA "normal" mode, the power goes to both front and rear, so I think it’s as full-time 4WD as the Forester. The percentage varies depending on the driving conditions, up to 15% of the power goes to the rear in normal driving or up to 40% under certain conditions like full throttle acceleration or slippage.
When in "4WD Lock" - true, the label is misleading, 50% more power is sent to the rear for up to 60%. This mode is recommended for low traction conditions or maximum straight-line acceleration. According to Mitsubishi, this mode does not lock the torque distribution in a 50-50 split. The split could go as high as 40/60 as needed.
Note that you can switch between the modes at any speed and it holds the setting regardless of the speed. You have three setups to choose from, but 4WD Auto is all you really need most of the time.
I keep mine in 4WD Auto all the time, and I did not have to use the 4WD Lock mode even when I was driving through 1ft. of show last winter (on stock tires). In several occasions last winter, I took the Outlander through deep snow, with ice underneath, on hilly side roads, to test its limits, but I couldn’t get it stuck or even close. I stopped in deep snow and started off from a stand still, but I had no problems. This tells me that the setup works very well for its purpose.
Now, I haven't seen a Subaru OFFICIAL, detailed explanation of the AWD system in the 2009 Forester so I cannot really comment on (do you?). If you have an official description please share the link.
However, on the Forester vs Outlander 4WD system debate, unless we see them tested under the same conditions and by a third-party, any claim about which one is better is just another “mine is better than yours” discussion.
No offense taken, I'm always willing to learn. Seems there are some who don't understand the Symmetrical AWD either or don't care to find out. Thanks for the link.
The Symmetrical AWD doesn't need to have full throttle acceleration to transfer power to the rear as the article states for the Outlander. Stepping on the gas from a stop causes torque to be rear biased on the Forester. In addition, one doesn't have to choose economy FWD mode as under constant throttle torque bias settles to the front. Step on the gas, make a turn or de-accelerate and torque will shift. So there are some similarities and some differences between the two.
My comment and I stand by it, is if AWD full time were the only option gas mileage on the Outlander would be even worse than it is. It's a klunky design to boost FE. Some people may not care, some do.
If anyone knows of a local 4x4 club, they often have access to those to test their locking diffs.
Theory is great, but the bottom line is can it perform in the toughest of conditions - an uphill climb with traction to only a single wheel.
Run 'em both up, and put the AWD debate to bed.
I’m not sure if you purposely misinterpret the information, but the article clearly states that under normal driving conditions, up to 15% of the torque is sent to the rear. So no, you do not need full-throttle to send the power to the rear. Under full-throttle, more power, like in more than 15% is sent to the rear, up to 40%. The amounts above are 50% higher if the car is in "4WD Lock" mode.
My comment and I stand by it, is if AWD full time were the only option gas mileage on the Outlander would be even worse than it is. It's a klunky design to boost FE. Some people may not care, some do.
No. The Outlander's EPA numbers for the 4WD models are in 4WD mode and for the 4-cylinder model are at par with the Forester (and the rest of the compact SUVs). The V6 version is lower by about 2 mpg combined, as any reasonable person would expect.
The 2WD setting on the Outlander is only meant to slightly improve the baseline (in 4WD Auto mode) and not to accomplish the EPA published fuel economy. I would say it's nice to have all these settings although personally I chose to use 4WD Auto all the time. I know some Outlander owners drive around in 2WD during the summer time to further save some gas.
When "4WD Auto" mode is selected, the Outlander 4WD system always sends some power to the rear wheels, automatically increasing the amount under full-throttle acceleration. The coupling transfers up to 40 percent of available torque to the rear wheels under full-throttle acceleration, and this is reduced to 25 percent over 40 mph. At steady cruising speeds, up to 15 percent of available torque is sent to the rear wheels. At low speeds through tight corners, coupling torque is reduced, providing a smoother feel through the corner.
Nope don't think I misinterpeted anything.
Additionally, how do you know with what mode the testing was done?
If you would read the whole sentence, you would understand that:
"When "4WD Auto" mode is selected, the Outlander 4WD system ALWAYS SENDS SOME POWER TO THE REAR WHEELS, automatically INCREASING the amount under full-throttle acceleration."
Plus:
"AT STEADY CRUISING SPEEDS, UP TO 15 PERCENT OF AVAILABLE TORQUE IS SENT TO THE REAR WHEELS."
Additionally, how do you know with what mode the testing was done?
Basic common sense. EPA publishes fuel economy numbers for the following Outlander models:
2.4L 4-cylinder 2WD
2.4L 4-cylinder 4WD
3.0L 6-cylinder 2WD
3.0L 6-cylinder 4WD
Why would they test a 4WD vehicle in 2WD mode when they tested the same 2WD model?
The question I don't have an answer to would be which of the two 4WD modes did they test. If you assume they tested the worst-case scenario for fuel economy, it would be the 4WD Lock. If they tested the "normal" mode, it would be the 4WD Auto. In any case, the logic would say they tested one of the 4WD modes for the 4WD models.
Why would they test a 4WD vehicle in 2WD mode when they tested the same 2WD model?
You tell me. Sounds like you don't know either. AWD is optional, if they didn't specify all one can do is wonder.
That would be me. I drive most of the year in 2WD, and switch to 4WD only on wet, slippery or icy roads. That's the way I drove my old, real 4X4 SUV for 8 years, that's the reason I selected Outlander - to have a choice and save on gas, not the space or utility. My friend is driving 4 cyl Outback, with fuel economy of my wife V6 Accord. Many people, including me, don't see any need to drive in AWD all the time. This must be the reason Subarus are not selling that well in southern part of the country. People are refusing to pay premium for AWD system they don't need. Traction & stability control + ABS should take care of any wet road in FWD vehicle. Since here in Chicago we may have snow just a few times in winter (except last winter :mad:) , 4WD Outlander with 2/4WD selector make perfect sense.