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

1235732

Comments

  • piastpiast Member Posts: 269
    "So it seems torque to the rear end is either a nominal 15% or 40% under full acceleration. "
    No, it is anything between, and depends on the throttle position, ASC sensors, etc, same as it is in a Subaru, only % is different. Those numbers are 50% higher in 4WD Lock mode. But you already know that.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    No, it is anything between, and depends on the throttle position, ASC sensors, etc, same as it is in a Subaru, only % is different.
    That is not what I interpeted, I noticed full throttle is used a few times in the description. In my owners manual it says acceleration, deacceleration, slippage and other factors.

    I've seen FWD bias AWD vehicles spin out in the rain. I have yet to spin the tires in my XT when I step on the gas. Different strokes for different folks.

    Subaru is clearly a niche manufacturer, but what they do they do excellently.
  • matrsoskinmatrsoskin Member Posts: 32
    ...but what they do they do excellently.

    You sound like Bill Gates talking about Windows Vista. Tell it to the guy who badly oversteers in the corner in his 2008 Outback. Why do you think Subaru switched to a different AWD system in the new Forester?
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> 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.

    I did not say “37 to 30 height”. These is approximate vertical clearance for two different vehicles. The 35” was your number.
    .

    >> First of all, I measured with the seats up, not lowered. I did not measure volume, I measured the minimum width, height, and length. I made that very clear.

    It does not really matter to me what you’ve measured. It might be was one of few “hyperbolic” statements of yours. We could argue all day long about inches here and there, so I simply posted the official cargo volume number: it’s hard to argue with the official data: the Outlander has 16% more cargo volume with rear seat lowered. Period.
    .

    >>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.

    No, go back and read my post: the $240 number was from fueleconomy.gov: the annual difference in fuel consumption between 4 cyl and 6 cyl Outlanders. The second $200 a year difference was just my estimated rounded number for two versions of Forester (turbo and regular).

    Apparently the extra $40 a year is a giant deal for you: with economy concern like that Honda Fit would really help out.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> Why do you think Subaru switched to a different AWD system in the new Forester?

    Subaru keeps lowering bar for its AWD standards. Current step: nearly part-time on-demand 90/10 system. The next step: 2WD cars:

    Subaru considering non-AWD, non-boxer powered models
    "In order to comply with new emissions and fuel economy standards, Subaru could be forced to offer all-wheel drive and boxer engines as available options rather than standard equipment."
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    Subaru keeps lowering bar for its AWD standards. Current step: nearly part-time on-demand 90/10 system. The next step: 2WD cars:

    Oh No!!! That would lower Subaru down to the same level as Misubishi ;)
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    The way I'm interpeting your explanation this is normal traveling bias is about 15% to the rear wheels, under full throttle acceleration additional torque can be transferred to the rear wheel. So it seems torque to the rear end is either a nominal 15% or 40% under full acceleration.

    It is not my explanation, but Mitsubishi's official description of the system. There is nothing to interpret; it's written in plain, simple English. If you don't get it or you don't want to get it, it's fine by me.

    AWD is optional, if they didn't specify all one can do is wonder.

    The 4WD system is not optional in the Outlander 4WD; it is standard. However, the system has three driver selectable operating modes: disabled (2WD), 4WD Auto and 4WD Lock. If you choose to reject the common sense and wonder instead, you are free to do so.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    I have been telling him the same thing over and over: he just does not get it. Here is the simplified Outlander AWD description for the second grade (UK Mitsu site):

    2WD MODE

    2WD mode allows the driver to select front-wheel drive for fuel efficient everyday driving.

    4WD MODE
    On-demand 4WD mode provides stable performance on a wide range of surfaces. It will automatically send variable power to the rear wheels, depending on driving and road surface conditions.

    4WD LOCK MODE
    Immediate torque is available for the rear wheels with a 50:50 split between the front and rear axles. The superior traction is specially useful for gravel paths, towing and driving on slippery and snowy roads.

    http://www.mitsubishi-cars.co.uk/newoutlander/4wd.asp
    The way I see it, the Outlander has the most advanced, effective and versatile AWD system in this price category.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    I don't think Subaru is lowering their "standards" by any means. I think they are only aligning their offering with the current market trends. They are moving toward mainstream instead of being a niche player and the Forester is a very good indication of this direction.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    "Same level as Mitsubishi"? 12 Dakar rally wins? You wish...

    Subie now has to explore the old 2WD category and new technologies. The 6-speed auto transmission, or at least CVT would be a good start. The Twin Clutch SST (which installed on current Lancer MR) would be a Subaru's dream.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    I wonder if they have a different setup in the UK for the 4WD Lock mode. The description clearly states 50:50 split which is first time I see it.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    I wonder the same thing. Either this is a simplified description ("the Outlander AWD for dummies"), or they made an adjustment for the 2008 model. The AWD description for 2007 Outlander you referring to is not available any more on US site.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    You sound like Bill Gates talking about Windows Vista.

    Oh really? When I see proof of how excellently the Mitsu system operates, I'll believe it. Until then it's all theory.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    It is not my explanation, but Mitsubishi's official description of the system. There is nothing to interpret; it's written in plain, simple English. If you don't get it or you don't want to get it, it's fine by me.

    I'm not seeing it, so let's drop it.

    The 4WD system is not optional in the Outlander 4WD; it is standard.

    Yes, and in the Outlander 2WD it's non-existent. So on the Outlander, AWD is optional.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    The way I see it, the Outlander has the most advanced, effective and versatile AWD system in this price category.

    The way I see it, they had to offer this hodge-podge of options in order to keep the gas mileage competitive.

    "when is a full time AWD drive system not a full time AWD system"

    On an Outlander of course.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    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.

    Time for english lesson: increasing the amount under full-throttle acceleration. very clear. Says increases amount under full-throttle acceleration, not half-throttle acceleration or partial acceleration.

    At steady cruising speeds, up to 15 percent of available torque is sent to the rear wheels.

    Up to 15 percent. The bias is 85/15. It does not say automatic torque transfer under partial accleration, similiar to the Forester.

    Hency my conclusions.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    I think that would broaden the appeal, just don't put hokey switches into the thing like the Outlander. Subaru can build an efficient AWD system that's kicks the competitors butts without having the driver look out the window to determine if it is raining.
  • rcpaxrcpax Member Posts: 580
    Subaru can build an efficient AWD system that's kicks the competitors butts without having the driver look out the window to determine if it is raining.

    How does your Subaru "efficient" AWD then knows when to adjust torque, slippage, etc? You make it sound Subaru has a thinking AWD system that doesn't need feedback from the wheels.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    We're bogged down in details that frankly, 90+% of the buying public doesn't care about (or may not even realize that there's a difference).

    So, let's move the talk back to the rest of the rigs and take the 4WD/AWD stuff over to 4WD & AWD systems explained. Paisan's up on the new Forester in there, plus he's well versed on Mitsu as well. He can settle all the arguments. :shades:

    thanks.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    You make it sound Subaru has a thinking AWD system that doesn't need feedback from the wheels.

    Needs feedback from the wheels, not people.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Moved your post:

    dodo2, "4WD & AWD systems explained" #1041, 29 Apr 2008 8:40 am

    KD also posted over there so I cut him some slack on the wheel feedback post. But we've moved on in here. :shades:
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I did not say “37 to 30 height”. These is approximate vertical clearance for two different vehicles. The 35” was your number.

    You said the Outlander had 37" vertical clearance, and the Forester had only 30".

    My tape measure read 35" for the Outlander, 32" for the Forester. So you overstated the advantage by more than double.

    Now you back off and say "approximate". Yeah, approximate as in off by 2 inches. :D

    I will take a tape measure to the Mitsubishi dealer. I'm curious to see if I can jam a 37" tall item in a 35" opening. ;)

    You didn't even address the part where you said the Outlander's cargo area was wider and I measured a 4" advantage for the Forester.

    But let's go back to how all this began. I took a tape measure to the Auto Show and measured those dimensions and commented that tall cargo areas (best example: RAV4) are not as useful as they seem because you have to stack things tall.

    Things like grocery bags do not stack well, you would crush groceries.

    In that context the Forester has a very usefully shaped cargo area - a big, square cargo floor. Sure it's not as tall, but you have more width and may not have to stack things up as much.

    Outlander has 16% more cargo volume with rear seat lowered

    Yes, by EPA volume, that's correct.

    But that still doesn't make the cargo area wider, which is what you said.

    And you would probably need a Sawzall to cram in that 37" tall box.

    $40 per year is not a giant deal but $240 per year over 10 years is $2400 in gas savings, likely higher due to ever increasing gas prices.

    I just found out the PZEV Forester makes 175hp, more than adequate for such a light crossover and $2400 buys a lot of toys. :)
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    My tape measure read 35" for the Outlander, 32" for the Forester.

    I just measured the cargo dimensions this morning to figure out if the box Subaru demoed in one of their videos would fit in the Outlander (it seems like it would).
    The cargo vertical opening is between 36.5-37". You can jam a 37" object in, provided that you remove the floor mat (if you have one like I do) and perhaps don't mind rubbing the ceiling a bit.

    The Outlander's cargo is also significantly deeper - aprox. 39 inches from the top of the seatback in the most forward position (Outlander's rear seats slide back and forth few inches) and with the seatback up (it reclines too).
    From this link, 2009 Forester Dimensions, I see that Forester's floor is shorter - 35.5" at the base of the seat. That dimension in the Outlander adds another 1-2" so it would be around 41-42".
    Where the Outlander lacks is the distance between the wheel wells, where it’s about 37" vs. about 42" in the Forester.
    However, I think the Outlander would fit anything that the Forester would if you change the orientation of the object to use the depth of the cargo instead of the width.
    If you have a 36"x36"x36" cube you are out of lack with the Forester, but OK with the Outlander (just an example). Still, the Forester's cargo space is pretty good too.

    Another observation, from the Forester's cargo picture it seems like the narrower floor dimension is right behind the rear seats (the side panels don't seem to run parallel) and not where the measurement was taken (E). I may be an illusion though due to the picture.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Does yours have a moonroof? That could explain the difference. Mitsubishi had 3 Outlanders on display at the DC Auto Show and all 3 were loaded up V6 models. Both the ones I sat in had the moonroof.

    2 of them had the black interior and one was that lighter color, beige-ish.

    What about a cargo liner? (edit: you answered that, yes)

    Are the 2007s any different than the 2008s?

    I will measure again on my test drive and note the presence or lack of a moonroof and liner.

    Subaru only had one Forester on display, and it was an LL Bean model with a moonroof. Without that option you actually gain a few inches in cargo height, but we're still getting a moonroof anyway.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Found some good specifics for the Forester, if anyone has a similar site for the Outlander please share.

    http://www.cars101.com/subaru/forester/forester2009.html#dimensions

    They measured 34.5" for the Forester, 2.5" taller than I measured, though they measured in the middle. I think I measured at the lowest point, towards the side, hence the lower figures for both models.

    Can you double check that? Measure 2" or so in from the outer edge of the door.

    If not I will when I finally get out to a Mitsu dealer.

    A little further up on that page they say the model with the moonroof has 5.3 cubic feet less space, but in reality that's way up at the roof level so you don't really sacrifice usable space.

    I don't jam things up against the roof liner because that would dent it and leave ugly indentations. That actually happened to my previous car. :(
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    I don't have the moonroof, but as far as I know, the moonroof only affects the headroom for the rear passengers, but I'm not sure - this was one of the reasons I did not care for the moonroof (plus the fact that it would've come bundled with the RF audio and the subwoofer in the cargo space.
    I needed/wanted a good cargo space (with the rear seats up) and this is one of the things that the Outlander offered.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    I don't jam things up against the roof liner because that would dent it and leave ugly indentations. That actually happened to my previous car.

    This is why I'd say 36.5" is safe with the floor mat and without touching the ceiling.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Someone please go buy a few thousand ping pong balls and visit your local dealers this weekend.

    Failing that, I suppose we could consider how many cases of beer will fit behind the seats as a suitable substitute.

    Don't forget to number those ping pong balls before you fill up the interiors. :D
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I keep the seats up, too. Too much of a hassle to remove the kiddie seats and then put them back. If it doesn't fit, it goes on the roof! :D

    Forester's moonroof is different. It's huge. It goes over the back seats, so when you retract it, it has to go somewhere - so it eats up that 5 cubic feet or so of space at the ceiling of the cargo area.

    For me that doesn't matter. Like Steve said, I'm not piling up ping pong balls. I just want to know if that Big Box item is gonna fit.

    So that's how I measured - minimum clearance for a boxy item.

    You sure about that 36.5"? It's probably taller in the middle, and tapers down at the ends. I was measuring the lowest point, so that could explain it. I'm just measuring in a different place than you.

    For the Forester I can't recall if the lowest point was where the middle seat belt mount goes, or the indentation for the moonroof. But it's the opposite of the Outlander - it's shorter in the center, because of that indentation. Towards the outer edges, it's actually a bit taller.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    I measured... The highest point in the middle of liftgate opening is36.75" on the sides 36".
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    I'd say 35.5" on the sides is safe, with some room to spare.

    Ateixeira: 36.5" I measured in the middle (where the the measurement for the Forester was taken).

    Also note that due to the fact that the Outlander's cargo floor is significantly lower, you could pile up more stuff behind the rear seats. This is another thing I liked about the Outlander's cargo space. I think this has a lot to do with the fact that the rear seats fold and tumble instead of fold the seatback alone.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I got 35", chelentano got 36" the 2nd time, you got 35.5". Let's call it 35.5". Fair enough.

    Any how, there's no 7" advantage as chelentano originally stated. It's less than half that.

    I don't want to split hairs, but the usable space is closer than the EPA volume would make you think, because the Forester has a nice, wide floor behind the 2nd row.

    These are supposed to be compacts, after all. What I expect is something light, fun, efficient. I can buy most big box items at Costco and still fit it inside.

    Plus, I have the minivan. 148 cubic feet of space. And that's before I fold the front passenger seat flat. Even behind 2 rows and 5 passengers I have 99 cubic feet. That's what I consider "big". :shades:
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    You looking into hypothetical situation of transporting a single 36" x 36" almost cubical box. How often we actually have to do that? Typically we have to transport several smaller then that boxes/items. Costco and Ikea are good examples. At Ikea most of the boxes are flat and long , but not of a cubical shape. So EPA volume is actually very useful number, besides it's objective and independent, so we don't have to argue our half-inch measurement differences. The Outlander has 16% more EPA volume space, even after accommodating folded 3rd row kiddy seat and it also has better payload/tow ability.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Most boxes are not that tall, they are wide and long, for stability. The Forester's cargo area is ideal for those.

    I'm looking at the more fuel efficient 4 cylinder models. Among those, the Outlander is rated to tow a maximum of 1500 lbs, while the Forester can tow 2400 lbs.

    So for me the Forester actually tows more.

    Among the base engines the Forester also has a few more pound-feet of torque pulling about 300 lbs less weight, so it should be better able to haul a heavy payload.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    By the way, I find it more than a little amusing that when it comes to cargo volume you find the EPA "objective and independent".

    Whenever I mention the 17mpg EPA city fuel economy number you dismiss it completely and proceed to offer your own observed fuel economy results that are clearly not independent.

    You want to have your cake and eat it.

    If we accept the 16% extra EPA cargo volume, then we should accept the 18% better EPA city fuel economy for both the base 4 cylinder models.

    The 17mpg EPA city fuel economy number for the V6 Outlander is, as you stated, objective and independent.

    I'm not telling anyone not to choose the V6, all I'm saying is you should respect the desires of those who choose more fuel efficient models for whatever reasons they may have. It's not just about the $200-240 per year savings, it's also increased range per tank, fewer stops at the gas station, fewer emissions, and less imported oil.

    If you don't care about those things, that's your perogative, but I do care.

    The Honda Fit, yes, I know! My mom owns one. They're nice. Love them. We just want a designated snow vehicle, so a Fit does not fit our needs.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    No LLBean Forester can only tow 2400 lbs. but with trailer brakes.

    Otherwise, without the brakes it's only 1000 lbs. The 4 cylinder Outlander can tow 1500 lbs. with out the brakes.

    The Outlander trailing capacity would also be higher with brakes though it's unknown.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I don't think so...they state max towing capacity at 1500 lbs for the 4 cylinder. C&D listed standard and maximum in their review at 1500.

    The Forester can tow more.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> Whenever I mention the 17mpg EPA city fuel economy number you dismiss it completely and proceed to offer your own observed fuel economy results that are clearly not independent.

    I am not sure what you mean. You probably confuse me with someone else. I am fine with EPA fuel economy numbers. Yes, the Forester has slightly better fuel economy, but don't forget that Outlander is heavier and it delivers more power to the rear axle.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> don't think so...they state max towing capacity at 1500 lbs for the 4 cylinder. C&D listed standard and maximum in their review at 1500

    I got my info here:
    http://www.cars101.com/subaru/forester/forester2009.html#dimensions

    Can you provide a link to your data?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison_test/crossovers_and_suvs/mud_pupp- - ies_comparison_test+page-7.html

    That's the review itself. The on-line copy does not include the towing data, but the print copy does.

    So my source is Car & Driver, "Mud Puppies - Comparison Test", February 2008 issue. Article starts on page 38. I could scan it in but that would be violating a copyright.

    1500 lbs towing, standard and max, for the 4 cylinder model.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    Subaru.com says 2400 lbs when properly equipped. It tells you to check the owner's manual for details.
    By having the option, I think you can say the Forester can tow 2400 lbs (at a cost you have to factor in).
  • psychogunpsychogun Member Posts: 129
    Link to Outlander specs: http://media.mitsubishicars.com/detail?mid=MIT2007111569457&mime=ASC

    The sheet doesn't specifically say "maximum" towing capacity.
    However, since the Outlander V6 including the towing package can tow 3,500lbs (according to the Accessories page), I would say 1,500lbs is the max for the 4-cylinder.
    I think the Outlander Owner's Manual may be best source...
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I will check the owner's manual when I can get to a Mitsu dealer.

    Honestly, the 1000 lbs limit without trailer brakes is pretty industry-standard. Even full-size pickups have that restriction.

    I doubt the V6 Outlander can tow 3500 lbs if the trailer doesn't have trailer brakes.

    As for the "when properly equipped" issue, all you need is the tow hitch and harness, the rest is plug and play. I know some Hondas (specifically, the Odyssey) require oil coolers and power steering coolers, but that's not the case for Subarus.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    June 2008, just came out.

    It beat the CR-V, RAV4, Murano, and Vue Greenline.

    Too bad the Outlander wasn't invited.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    How To Find Your Car Owner's Manual Online

    Subaru lets you sign up and download an owner's manual. Unfortunately that option isn't available for Mitsubishi.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    Correction: Rogue instead of Murano.

    Not that it really matters, but remember we were talking about 0-60 mph expected to be rather slow on the non-turbo models (at least this is what I was anticipating)? The MT comparo just confirmed that the non-turbo Forester is the slowest out of all the Japanese cute-ute? I'd blame primarily the 4-speed tranny for that as the car is lighter and the engine slightly more powerful than the rest.
  • psychogunpsychogun Member Posts: 129
    Though don't have much respect for the auto rags, I'm glad to see that the Forester won.
  • p0926p0926 Member Posts: 4,423
    the 1000 lbs limit without trailer brakes is pretty industry-standard

    True enough. However as much as it pains me to agree with Chelentano, if towing 2-3k lbs is a regular requirement, a V-6 is going to be the better choice. As the old saying goes, there's no replacement for displacement. But for everyday driving and occasional towing, the Forester XT will run circles around the Outlander :)

    -Frank
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    if towing 2-3k lbs is a regular requirement, a V-6 is going to be the better choice.

    In the past I had two beefy suvs with big V8s and trailer hitches. I used the hitches exactly zero times. If I was going to tow that much as a lifestyle I would get something that could actually handle it. Towing the max load in the Outlander is going to send the gas mileage and performance in the tank.

    If I was going to tow that much weight on occasion, I would rent a SUV. In the long run it will come out cheaper with gas at $4 bucks a gallon.
  • comem47comem47 Member Posts: 399
    In the past I had two beefy suvs with big V8s and trailer hitches. I used the hitches exactly zero times. If I was going to tow that much as a lifestyle I would get something that could actually handle it. Towing the max load in the Outlander is going to send the gas mileage and performance in the tank.

    If I was going to tow that much weight on occasion, I would rent a SUV. In the long run it will come out cheaper with gas at $4 bucks a gallon
    .

    Now that last statement is real silly (Why are you driving a Forrester then, as it doesn't get much different MPG than Outlander?) Sure my mpg goes to hell when towing, but when not towing I get the same mpg as you. Renting a real gas hog
    is not economical for me the number of times I go snowmobiling in winter. If I wanted real gas mileage then we're talking some 30-40 mpg FWD econobox and I would have kept my old Dakota and Durango for towing (Not Forrester or Outlander in the 20's mpg range). For me this is the best all round solution. The Outlander provides the tow power when needed, but is reasonable on MPG considering it's a 4WD vehicle. (the 1000 lb tow capacity 4 cylinder 160 or so HP AWD vehicles can't cut it and may get a little better MPG, but I would not want to try to merge on the highway towing with them with an 18 wheeler bearing down on you!
This discussion has been closed.