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

1…6791112…32

Comments

  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I looked these up for the AWD/4WD thread, but they are relevant since we seem to be comparing everything under the sun:

    Angle of approach: Forester 24.8 degrees, Outlander 21 degrees
    Angle of departure: Forester 24.8 degrees, Outlander 18 degrees

    The concern here would be the Outlander's angle of departure. You may get the front bumper past an obstacle, but it might get hung up on the rear bumper.

    The Forester's identical numbers are a smarter design - if the front bumper can get past, you are good to go. :shades:
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I was poking fun because you picked an arbitrary number.

    I was shopping 4 cylinder models, so the towing capacity for the Outlander, to me, was 1500 lbs.

    So let's call my trailer 1600 lbs. ;)

    Even with your make-believe 2500 lbs trailer, I'd feel comfortable towing with my base-engined Forester, with trailer brakes of course. Just take a few things out of whatever you are towing.

    With the 4 cylinder Outlander, I'd be way over capacity and could not do it.

    So for me, your example shows that I made the right choice - the Forester.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    Although I haven't seen the official approach/departure angles from Mitsubishi, I can see how the Forester may have an advantage on some very particular off-road conditions. However, this has very little importance for me (and I guess for 99% of the Forester and Outlander owners) as I guess I will never be in the situation where a higher approach/departure angle would matter.

    Remember, I never said the Outlander is better than the Forester I was just challenging those saying the opposite ignoring or misinterpreting the data. My personal preference doesn't mean that the Outlander is better than the Forester for everybody not I ever made such a claim. The Forester bests the Outlander in some respects and the Outlander bests the Forester in others. At the end of the day, what matters is which car is best for each individual.
  • rcpaxrcpax Member Posts: 580
    So I'd be very suspicious that the Outlander can tow 1,500 pounds without trailer brakes. Again, check the owner's manual to see if in fact that's true. If it is, then great, but I highly doubt it.

    For the 3.0L US Outlanders, it's 1400lbs. How about this for proof, the owner's manual itself:

    image

    Really? I'd check the owner's manual on that. I don't know of any Japanese brand that can tow more than 1000 pounds without trailer brakes. That includes full-size Toyota and Nissan pickup trucks.

    My Mitsubishi Outlander can, I don't know about the Subaru Forester.

    In fact, properly equipped, the 4WD Outlander XLS can tow 3500lbs, while the Forester 2.5 XT can only do 2400lbs max?
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    I was poking fun because you picked an arbitrary number.

    I picked a number higher than the maximum towing capacity of the Forester. I could pick 3400 lbs. or anything in between for the purpose of illustration. Would you really tow above the maximum limit? You are brave in this case. I wouldn't tow anywhere near the maximum limit with any vehicle never mind over the limit.

    My point is if you need to tow over 2400 lbs, you need a V6 and the Outlander could fullfill this need, but the Forester cannot.

    As far as I'm concerned, I don't tow at all so it doesn't matter to me, but others may (this is an utility vehicle). The Forester turbo is faster to 60 mph, but it cannot tow as much as the Outlander V6. I guess you cannot have it all.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    Oh and another thing you did not comment on is that from what I read in the Forester forum here on Edmunds (linked provided in a previous post) it doesn't seem to be a trivial (or cheap) task to prep the car to use the maximum specified Forester towing capacity of 2400 lbs.(see the frustration of the original poster).

    Disclaimers:
    1. The discussion was about a pre-2009 Forester. Question: did this change for 2009?
    2. I did not read the whole discussion (only the first few pages) to find out what the solution was. Question: can any Forester-knowledgeable member shed some light on this topic?
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    No argument here as I'm aware of that and you clearly stated the conditions - equivalent engine, high altitude. I wasn't as clear as I should have been when describing my scenario.
  • blitzkrieg79blitzkrieg79 Member Posts: 36
    I looked these up for the AWD/4WD thread, but they are relevant since we seem to be comparing everything under the sun:

    Angle of approach: Forester 24.8 degrees, Outlander 21 degrees
    Angle of departure: Forester 24.8 degrees, Outlander 18 degrees

    The concern here would be the Outlander's angle of departure. You may get the front bumper past an obstacle, but it might get hung up on the rear bumper.

    As I mentioned in my earlier post, I would expect the 2009 Forester to be a better engineered car simply because it's a 3 years younger design than the Outlander which came out in Japan in 2006. If Subaru wouldn't balance the car to the newest standards then they would have a big problem. I also expect the 2012/2013 Outlander to be a better balanced car than 2009 Forester, thats the nature of business.

    As far as Approach/Departure angles are concerned, it's meaningless. Those are not real offroaders. 24.8 degree approach/departure angle is pretty much below average for an offroader anyway, cars such as Mitsubishi Montero, Jeep Wrangler, or Land Rover LR3 have approach angles of 35-40 degrees, where Hummer H1 has over 60 degrees. Outlander and Forester are good to drive by some small stream (not too deep river), drive on the beach, or play around in some mud, but I would never dare to go rock climbing or drive into some real steep angles with either two.

    Reality is that Forester and Outlander are two rather evenly matched cars and it all comes down to brand perception, aesthetic/ergonomic preferences, and price.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    That's good to know—and I am surprised. Thanks.

    On another note... and going by that image posted, the Forester can carry either 165 or 175 pounds on the roof (I think it's been increased to 175 for the '09 Forester), whereas the Outlander can only carry 110 pounds. So, you can continue with this silly "mine-is-better-than-yours" discussion. ;)

    Bob
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    I guess with that 2500 lbs trailer I'll take 100 lbs out of it and load it on the roof, then. :D

    This discussion should be renamed "V6 Outlander vs. Forester XT", though, because those are the models everyone seems to refer to.

    Has anyone besides me even driven a 4 cylinder CVT Outlander? :confuse:

    Seriously.

    I was shopping the base 4 bangers. Maybe I need my own thread: "Outlander vs. Forester for people who are aware of the price of oil". :D
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    OK, I read up on that thread about the guy trying to find trailer brakes.

    You'd have the same problem with your 2500 lb trailer, though. So what's your point? :confuse:

    The Forester is pre-wired for towing, but the factory harness uses a 4-pin connector. Does the Outlander have a 7-pin connector?

    This is what I mean:

    image

    If so it would be a little bit easier, but he would still need electric trailer brakes, a controller inside the car, etc.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Reality is that Forester and Outlander are two rather evenly matched cars and it all comes down to brand perception, aesthetic/ergonomic preferences, and price.

    At the 50,000 foot level all cars in this segment are basically the same. When it comes down to the details there are huge differences, which is what this discussion is about. It also comes down to how you want to spend your money.

    Towing is meaningless to me as I have a real vehicle to do the towing, but departure angles are useful information for those who may take their vehicle off the paved surface just might need the even departure angles the Forester has.
  • piastpiast Member Posts: 269
    This discussion will never end. There are a few enthusiasts of a 4cyl turbo engines, and nobody will convince them, there are better choices for SUV/CUV type vehicles. This discussion should move to XT vs. CX7 vs. RDX forum. There you can compare apples to apples. Here, we should concentrate on Forester and Outlander with a base engine. For the majority of people your 0-60 sprint is not that important. Just look at statistics, combine sales of all CUV with turbo engine, and compare it to sales of Honda CRV alone. Most people will say no to premium fuel, complex turbo engine or expense of permanent AWD. Subaru strength used to be standard AWD in all of its cars. In a CUV/SUV segment it is not an advantage any more- every make and model can be AWD/4WD, plus many are better off road, most will have more cargo capacity or towing capacity. Add to this (subjective) not so great styling, and lack of drive train choices. Is this a reason, why Subaru is looking at Toyota parts bin?
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    There are a few enthusiasts of a 4cyl turbo engines, and nobody will convince them, there are better choices for SUV/CUV type vehicles.

    Better according to who? To me the RAV4 is not better, neither is the Outlander, neither is the RDX (too expensive for what it is), CRV (underpowered)..etc. Better is in the eyes of the beholder. I do agree this is a never ending theoretical discussion.

    As far as AWD systems and drive systems, they are not created equally and Subaru has a reputation for going where a CRV can't. For some this may make a difference, for others not.

    plus many are better off road, most will have more cargo capacity or towing capacity

    Which ones are better off-road? Those that are better off-road are worse on-road. More towing, great, take it. Bigger cargo area, fine, you can have it. No other vehicle in this segment can match the overall prowess of the XT, which was important to me.

    I do agree, previous to 2009 Foresters were ugly, you know what. I didn't care. High end gadgetry in the cabin was never Subarus strong point and frankly I'm not a fan of it either. Lack of drivetrain choices, if AWD wasn't important on the Outlander there wouldn't be such a huge debate. So criticizing Subaru for lack of drive train choices and then beating the details of AWD operations for these two vehicles to death is laughable.

    If you want to start a separate topic for Outlander 4 cylinder vs Forester 4 cylinder, please feel free to do so.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    You'd have the same problem with your 2500 lb trailer, though. So what's your point?

    How do you know I'd have the same problem? FWIW, I can find out by asking the Outlander owners who installed the tow hitch and towed trailers - I think there few of them on the Outlander forums.

    If so it would be a little bit easier, but he would still need electric trailer brakes, a controller inside the car, etc.

    Again, how do you know you need a controller inside the car? Have you really researched the Outlander in this respect, or you just assume .... or just because the Forester needs one the Outlander automatically needs one too.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Roof load capacity is sort of important to some of us. My canoes range from around 65 to 80+ pounds, and my racks are set up to carry three at once. Plus a couple of kayaks hanging on ... :shades:

    And you got nervous driving behind utility trailers - I do tie my boats on very securely. :blush:
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    I guess with that 2500 lbs trailer I'll take 100 lbs out of it and load it on the roof, then.

    LOL.... You are funny! Are you going to chop off you horse, boat, ATVs, snowmobile, bike, furniture, or other heavy or bulky items you may need to tow in ONE piece and put the balance on your roof ?....

    What are you going to do with your Forester if you have to tow 3000 lbs.?

    Seriously, jut give it up and accept that if you need to tow more than 2400 lbs you need a different vehicle that can do the job. The Outlander is only one out of many. The Forester is a great vehicle, but it just can be everything and it's not the only one that can do what it can do.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Here, we should concentrate on Forester and Outlander with a base engine

    At least one person agrees with me.

    (subjective) not so great styling

    The Forester is pure function over form. It's designed from the inside out, with good visibility in mind. It came out conservative looking, but very functional. I prefer this over, say, a trendy car like the Rogue. Fits nothing and can't see a darn thing either.

    lack of drive train choices

    Huh? With the base engine you can choose between the 4 speed slushbox and the 5 speed manual. Mitsubishi has a CVT only for the 4 cylinder.

    If it were for me, I'd get the 5 speed manual, which is better than *any* automatic IMHO, but it's the wife car.

    Is this a reason, why Subaru is looking at Toyota parts bin?

    The opposite is true - Toyota will build their next Celica based on the Impreza platform (which is shared with the Forester). That's the only shared vehicle planned so far.

    So Toyota is the one borrowing from the Subaru parts bin.

    To be honest I would not mind at all if Subaru got HVAC, stereo/entertainment, that kind of stuff from Toyota. I'd like to see them keep their powertrains distinct, however.

    Kei cars excepted.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Again, how do you know you need a controller inside the car? Have you really researched the Outlander in this respect, or you just assume .... or just because the Forester needs one the Outlander automatically needs one too.

    Because I've researched trailer brake kits.

    If the Outlander has a standard 4-pin connector, this is what the setup would look like:

    image

    Note the adaptor that takes the 4 pin input and produces a 7 pin output.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    My minivan can tow 3500 lbs, so I'd be fine actually.

    What are the odds that you need more than 2400 lbs and less than 3500 lbs and that your trailer has brakes and you have a 7 pin connector and if not you have a 4 pin connector and trailer brake kit and a brake controller installed inside the car? :D

    If you meet all those criteria then the Outlander (V6 model only) has an advantage, yes. Happy?
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    In fact, here's a pic of the 4 pin connector from Mitsubishi:

    image

    That's from Mitsuaccessories.com.

    4 pin, just like I thought. So you'll have the same set of problems.

    Found a 2nd source showing just the hitch harness, clearly a 4-pin:

    image
  • phdhuskyphdhusky Member Posts: 112
    Yes I have driving both the 4 banger Outlander SE. I found the car overall to be heavy and not really responsive. That's just my perception and I drove it two separate times. I also didn't like the interior even though it had more gadgets.

    I now own the 09 forester which I find has a much more comfortable interior and as everyone says better visibility. I also like the handling of the forester and powertrain even though it is a 4speed.

    As i was in the market for a economical CUV I chose the Forester because I personally found it more comfortable when driving it. Hope this helps anyone deciding between the two.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    So that makes 3 of us, out of a hundred or so.

    No wonder oil prices keep going up. :(

    skeleton just reported 31.5 mpg on a trip in his brand new Forester, now that's what I'm talking about. :shades:
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    As happy as before. ;)

    I'm not the one trying to prove that the Outlander is better than the Forester, just challenging those who try to prove the opposite. ;)

    Oh, and as I said before, I think the Forester is a great CUV by any means, but the Outlander is as well and this is what some have hard time to acknowledge.
    It really comes down to personal preference.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    just challenging those who try to prove the opposite.

    What a coincidence, I'm doing the same thing.

    It was chelentano that bragged about the towing without making any disclaimers about trailer brakes.

    Link: http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f185114/240

    He wrote:

    The 4 cylinder Outlander can tow 1500 lbs. with out the brakes

    That's not true, in fact the V6 Outlander can only tow 1400 lbs with out trailer brakes. So even the V6 cannot do what he claims.

    So he was bragging that the 4 cylinder can do more than the V6 can actually do.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    He made a 2nd questionable claim as well:

    The Outlander trailing capacity would also be higher with brakes though it's unknown

    The owners manual only says 1500 lbs, but it says 3500 lbs for the V6, with no mention of the trailer brakes until you read the manual.

    The sentence should read "would be lower without brakes", not "would be higher with brakes".

    Also, the FWD V6 model is limited to 2000 lbs, but let's overlook that.

    Can someone that owns a CVT Outlander please check their owners manual to see what it says about towing?
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    http://answers.edmunds.com/ViewQuestion.aspx?questionId=14662&
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    They're both built in Japan, maybe they tried to squeeze the bigger glass from the Forester's moonroof. ;)
  • piastpiast Member Posts: 269
    "Better according to who? " A:Better according to people with checkbooks.
    "Which ones are better off-road?" A: The ones with low range transfer case, stronger powertrains and chassis, the ones which wins rallies. Do your research and tell me how many times Subaru won anything off-road, or at what place they finished it. Name one Subaru SUV. Good as they are, wagons are not build to be tough. Can they handle snow/sleet and back roads? – Definitely. Are they reliable and well build? Yes. AWD is very important to great number of people, to me too. Probably 40% of buyers select 2WD on their sales contract, and that's what I call lack of choice for Subaru. Don't get me wrong, I like and trust Subaru as a brand, I just could not find the right package in their offer: selectable 4WD, V6 engine, good looks, good warranty, good price, good cargo room. I don't care much about hi tech gadgets, some of them are good to have in the other hand, like blue tooth or keyless entry/start.
    To tell you the truth, Outback was on my short list as well. Then, for the same money, you are getting more room, more choices and features with Outlander or Santa Fe...
    Enjoy your ride.
  • piastpiast Member Posts: 269
    Selectable 2WD/4WD lack of choice.
    Whose FWD chassis is then Subaru looking at, to use in their future vehicles? Do some research, many Subaru fans are afraid this move can do as much harm to the brand, as Patriot/Compass did to Jeep. It is tough decision, but those higher mpg standards are coming, all manufactures will need small, light efficient cars in their mix.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Then, for the same money, you are getting more room, more choices and features with Outlander or Santa Fe...

    Your priorities are way different than mine, I don't need more room, I have a SUV, which has plenty of room and a trailer hitch with a beefy engine. I don't have any delusions about powering the Subie on the Rubicon. I wanted something that went when I stepped on the gas and that handles in a respectable manner. For me the Forester XT fit the bill. At the end of the day I don't drive bluetooth or keyless entry. I don't have to worry about which AWD mode I'm in. The Forester is reliable and excellent IIHS ratings. Subaru doesn't have a lot of fancy gadgets, what it has is under hood and in the chassis. Before I bought the XT I tested cars left, right and center including the X3.

    /ot someone mentioned the EVO earlier. R&T pitted the EVO against the 135. Interesting article, both were track tested and road tested. In the interest of not getting bogged down in details the 135 was picked as number 1. Recommended reading for the details.
  • piastpiast Member Posts: 269
    "It was chelentano that bragged about the towing without making any disclaimers about trailer brakes.
    He wrote:
    The 4 cylinder Outlander can tow 1500 lbs. with out the brakes
    That's not true"
    Actually, he was right. It can tow 1500lbs, just can't stop. ;)
  • blitzkrieg79blitzkrieg79 Member Posts: 36
    Your priorities are way different than mine, I don't need more room, I have a SUV, which has plenty of room and a trailer hitch with a beefy engine. I don't have any delusions about powering the Subie on the Rubicon. I wanted something that went when I stepped on the gas and that handles in a respectable manner. For me the Forester XT fit the bill. At the end of the day I don't drive bluetooth or keyless entry. I don't have to worry about which AWD mode I'm in. The Forester is reliable and excellent IIHS ratings. Subaru doesn't have a lot of fancy gadgets, what it has is under hood and in the chassis. Before I bought the XT I tested cars left, right and center including the X3.

    /ot someone mentioned the EVO earlier. R&T pitted the EVO against the 135. Interesting article, both were track tested and road tested. In the interest of not getting bogged down in details the 135 was picked as number 1. Recommended reading for the details.

    So wait wait, you already have an SUV/CUV and don't need another one? Last time I looked at the new Forester, that thing was not small, it looks about the size of Outlander. I just don't get it, you said you don't need a CUV but you bought one for performance??? Cuz the new Forester, anyway you look at it, basically competes with the Outlander/Rav4/CRV crowd which are utility vehicles.

    And as far as the R&T article regarding the Evo X to BMW 1 series comparison, it was obvious the dude was biased. Look at all the numbers, for gods sake Evo X beat the 1 series by 4 seconds around the track (4 seconds on such a short track is a LOT). What else an EVO X has to do to show that it's a better track performer than the BMW? The comparison is crap, it should have been a tie (actually it shouldn't have happened in the first place as the only real competition in US that Evo has is the STI), if you want an all out performance, get an Evo, if you want everyday comfort get a bimmer.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    So wait wait, you already have an SUV/CUV and don't need another one? Last time I looked at the new Forester, that thing was not small, it looks about the size of Outlander. I just don't get it, you said you don't need a CUV but you bought one for performance???

    Our family has more than one vehicle, but I needed a shlepper vehicle, bingo..XT was it.

    Look at all the numbers, for gods sake Evo X beat the 1 series by 4 seconds around the track (4 seconds on such a short track is a LOT).

    The Bimmer won the straight-line acceleration, I would expect the Evo to win on the curves with the AWD. Further to the article, the Evo "rattled" or however it was put in the article, on the streets and was devoid of any creature comforst. Bottom line, the 135 was the faster, more solid and better feeling car on the streets. Want to track a car, get an Evo.
  • piastpiast Member Posts: 269
    "Your priorities are way different than mine,"
    What a surprise. Does it really shows? With Outlander I don't need two SUV's to do the job. That is what you call versatility.
    "something that went when I stepped on the gas and that handles in a respectable manner."
    I think most cars would fit that bill. STI, Evo, and any BMW for sure.
    "I don't drive bluetooth or keyless entry"
    Me neither. Sometimes I have to answer the phone while driving, or open the hatch with my hands full, while parked. I don't have to worry about AWD mode ether. I would worry if I couldn't switch it to 2wd for the most of the year, and back to 4WD when it snows. Think about those poor guys with manual transmissions. Would you prefer to lock their boxes in 2nd, no more guessing when and what gear to choose...
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> It was chelentano that bragged about the towing without making any disclaimers about trailer brakes. He wrote: The 4 cylinder Outlander can tow 1500 lbs. with out the brakes.That's not true, in fact the V6 Outlander can only tow 1400 lbs with out trailer brakes.

    You keep bragging about this 100 lbs. difference. I got my 1500 lbs. info from edmunds.com. Even 1400 lbs. is still 40% more vs. Forester, which can tow without brakes only 1000 lbs. according to cars101.com.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> Sometimes I have to answer the phone while driving

    For me the integrated Bluetooth is a huge convinience and safety feature. I can be on the phone forever while safely driving.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    What a surprise. Does it really shows? With Outlander I don't need two SUV's to do the job. That is what you call versatility.

    Yeah, but the compromise is on-road performance and my other vehicle totes a bigger load than the Outlander as it's on a truck based frame. So you could say I've got more versatility. :shades

    I think most cars would fit that bill. STI, Evo, and any BMW for sure.

    We're not talking about those types of vehicles as it can't haul stuff, the same way these CUVs can.

    I would worry if I couldn't switch it to 2wd for the most of the year, and back to 4WD when it snows.

    I don't have such worries, as the AWD system figures it out, with good f/e to boot. Good comparison to driving a manual, maybe you can compare selecting the right AWD mode with finding a station on the radio.

    Me neither. Sometimes I have to answer the phone while driving,

    I don't talk while driving even on my b/t handsfree, someone has to be focused on the act of driving and not talking. Don't worry, I have your back.

    Your priorities are different than mine. You like the tech, the multi-position selector and the towing. I like the no nonsense bat out of **** acceleration, AWD, big sunroof, reliability, great IIHS ratings, roominess, the feeling of a very spacious interior and great visibility.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >>>> Toyota will build their next Celica based on the Impreza platform (which is shared with the Forester). That's the only shared vehicle planned so far. So Toyota is the one borrowing from the Subaru parts bin.

    Can you provide a credible link or you are just twisting rumors?
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Can you provide a credible link or you are just twisting rumors?

    Well you can provide a credible link and refute it. The information is easily available online.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> And as far as the R&T article regarding the Evo X to BMW 1 series comparison, it was obvious the dude was biased. Look at all the numbers, for gods sake Evo X beat the 1 series by 4 seconds around the track (4 seconds on such a short track is a LOT). What else an EVO X has to do to show that it's a better track performer than the BMW? The comparison is crap

    Yea, these comparos by car magazines are crappy most of the time. The magazines cannot have independent opinion since they are paid by car manufacturers.
  • rcpaxrcpax Member Posts: 580
    Well you can provide a credible link and refute it. The information is easily available online.

    We can all make claims, this and that, blah blah blah. But between the Outlander group and the Forester group, who made efforts to provide OFFICIAL, valid and credible links?

    So far, I mostly hear nothing but hearsays. If you have to prove a point, provide an official link. If you wish to make a credible claim, back your statements up. And always if you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> If you have to prove a point, provide an official link. If you wish to make a credible claim, back your statements up. And always if you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you.

    Well said!
    .
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Member Posts: 194
    kdshapiro, what year Forester do you own?
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    A recent previous gen XT, why does the year matter? It's not a 2009 obviously.
  • dcm61dcm61 Member Posts: 1,567
    Yea, these comparos by car magazines are crappy most of the time.

    These comparos by Edmunds posters are crappy all the time. :sick:
  • dcm61dcm61 Member Posts: 1,567
    A recent previous gen XT, why does the year matter? It's not a 2009 obviously.

    They're going to have a field day with this one.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    They're going to have a field day with this one.

    Let 'em have at it. One thing for sure, they'll keep laughing at my tail lights in rain, sleet or snow.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaWqgVDtxQw&feature=related or why I love the Forester.
  • blitzkrieg79blitzkrieg79 Member Posts: 36
    The Bimmer won the straight-line acceleration, I would expect the Evo to win on the curves with the AWD. Further to the article, the Evo "rattled" or however it was put in the article, on the streets and was devoid of any creature comforst. Bottom line, the 135 was the faster, more solid and better feeling car on the streets. Want to track a car, get an Evo.

    Evo always was and currently is a niche product at best. Mitsu tried to civilize the new Evo a bit more but once you drive it you will know you are in Evo. Handling is comparable to exotics.

    So the Bimmer had a better 0-60 time yet it lost BAD on the track, there goes the BMWs best in the business handling/chassis control. Evo is a true sports car that derived from it's rally counterpart. It is always a lot easier to add more HP than to improve handling. And the AWD system in Evo X is not just another front biased AWD system, its one of the most sophisticated AWD systems in the world, its in the same league as Nissans ATTESA which is regarded as the best. BMW doesn't have such an advanced system, they introduced torque vectoring in X6 but it's still not as advanced. Even with Evo VIII/IX, it was a great track car but for everyday use it sucked, so that article discovered nothing new.

    Also, the 3.0l twin turbo 1 series is only $2500-3000 cheaper than the 335i sedan and guess which one I would pick??? Yep, 335i offers more interior space plus it has an extra pair of doors and performance is about the same. I would imagine that with the same engine as 335 and 1 series being a smaller car, the 1 series would be a faster car but it's not, BMW could have done a bit better job on it. Afterall, they are the Ultimate Driving Machine.

    Anyway, the only real competition Evo X has is the new STI and so far in most of the tests well, you know how it is :P Doesn't look good for the Subie, does it? And with every new Evo X test I see the times are constantly improving, the first GSR 0-60 times were in like 5.1/5.2 range but now I have seen them down to even 4.6/4.7 sec, while the Subaru STI is stuck at around 5 seconds.

    All in all, you contradict yourself all the time, first you say that you don't need the space or towing of a CUV but then you say that you don't want a real performance car such as Evo/STI because you need more space and towing capacity, really confusing, thats why Subaru XT is a niche product at best I guess. Most sold Foresters are of the base/mid-ground (non-XT) variety.
  • piastpiast Member Posts: 269
    "So you could say I've got more versatility."
    Yes, with two vehicles. Why don't you throw in Aveo to the mix and beat as on fuel economy as well?
    "We're not talking about those types of vehicles as it can't haul stuff, the same way these CUVs can."
    Audi wagons can, BMW wagons can, Volvo wagons can, Outback can, many hatchbacks can, plus they handle better than your Forester.
    “the AWD system figures it out"
    SAME HERE. You leave it in 4WD and it does. But when you WANT to be in 2WD (I do) you can have it. Maybe AT is too complicated as well for you. All those letters and numbers. Why not just P and D?
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles