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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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."
Oh No!!! That would lower Subaru down to the same level as Misubishi
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.
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.
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.
Oh really? When I see proof of how excellently the Mitsu system operates, I'll believe it. Until then it's all theory.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Needs feedback from the wheels, not people.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I needed/wanted a good cargo space (with the rear seats up) and this is one of the things that the Outlander offered.
This is why I'd say 36.5" is safe with the floor mat and without touching the ceiling.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
The Forester can tow more.
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.
I got my info here:
http://www.cars101.com/subaru/forester/forester2009.html#dimensions
Can you provide a link to your data?
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.
By having the option, I think you can say the Forester can tow 2400 lbs (at a cost you have to factor in).
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...
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.
It beat the CR-V, RAV4, Murano, and Vue Greenline.
Too bad the Outlander wasn't invited.
Subaru lets you sign up and download an owner's manual. Unfortunately that option isn't available for Mitsubishi.
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.
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
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.
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!