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…89111314…32

Comments

  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    The Forester now has shiftable AT. It is not the same one in the 2008 Forester, so I'm not sure how it's 'dated'.

    Up until now, you had plenty of 'options' in a FXT. Not quite the same on the new Forester. Especially with the lack of MT. But whereas the Outlander is not an SUV version of the EVO. The FXT was most certainly an SUV version of the WRX/STI.

    I can't for the life of me think of a reason I'd want to turn off the AWD ever. If you want that option, more power to you but it completely lacks a driving advantage.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >>"In a story first provided by Japanese car magazine Best Car, and then passed on via Motor Trend, Autoblog, Motor Authority and others is news (rumor!) that Subaru may provide Toyota with a new Celica."

    They say it's rumor and you present this as a fact. Shame.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> In this mode the Subie would be 100% FWD, with 0% power going to the rear axle.

    "Would be" :--)
    .
    >> And you completely dodged the 100/0 point I proved.

    You are funny. You "proved" what I’ve been saying all along: 4EAT Subaru is nearly are FWD cars. On April 30 I’ve said:
    “The 4-speed auto Subaru practically defaults to FWD with on-demand torque to the rear. Subaru does not offer an official number even in regards to 10%. Why are they so shy? I suspect there is even less then 10%”
    http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.eea4ead/1055

    Now you proved it! Great! Make sure you carry a fuse in a pocket :--)
    Subaru keeps its customers up to date with antique technology. Fuses, 20-year old part-time awd systems, 50-year old transmissions, and finally first diesel engine in 2008: wow! Now they finally try to develop a CVT tranny, which was invented by Leonardo da Vinchi 500 years ago: interesting contrast to the Evo's Twin Clutch SST marvel.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> The Forester now has shiftable AT. It is not the same one in the 2008 Forester, so I'm not sure how it's 'dated'.

    Shiftable, but it's just electronic add-on, it has no paddle shifters and it's only 4-speed. 4-speed auto tranny is about 50 years old. Sure it is DATED. I drove it with 4 banger engine and performance is terrible. It feels fragile .
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    So if it were a 15-speed tranny would it be from the future?

    And how is a paddle-shifter not an electronic add-on? I'll admit that a semi- automatic would be better, but it is not fragile. Nor is the '4-banger'.

    Its similar to the engine and transmission setup out of the Legacy. And in turbo guise, its good for 350+hp without breaking.
  • rcpaxrcpax Member Posts: 580
    But Mitsubishis best is not on the Outlander. So what?

    and so is Subaru's with the Forester, so what's your point?
  • rcpaxrcpax Member Posts: 580
    I thought that Mitsu essentially said the EVO IX was their last attempt at an all-purpose rally-bred car. And that the X was street-performance only. STI will still be a dirt-devil.

    Now, again... another hearsay. I hear this and that... blah blah blah... where's the link? You think Mitsubishi retired from rallying and built an Evo for your grandpa (if he still breathes). Look at how the Evo X smoked all the STi's: http://www.serviceparknews.com/?c=129&a=1408
  • jflorjflor Member Posts: 20
    The STI will obliterate any SH-AWD based system on rallye trails.

    Obliterate: to wipe out, destroy, demolish, eliminate, eradicate, annihilate, or reduce to nothing. Wow, is STI a car or a WMD?
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    Here's one of many links hinting at the EVO would be more tarmac than tarpit. Calm down. I've always respected the EVO.

    "No longer built with the express purpose of winning rallies, Mitsubishi has allowed it to mature, and while its immaculate rally lineage remains central to its core appeal, considerable effort has been expended to make the Evo X greener, more refined and more versatile"

    I read the same thing in numerous places and assumed they were creating an on-road only suspension. Apparently not so.

    telegraph.co.uk
  • piastpiast Member Posts: 269
    Can we go home now? Please.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Yeah, but only if you walk. And no comparing notes about Nikes vs Reeboks vs New Balance.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    I can't for the life of me think of a reason I'd want to turn off the AWD ever. If you want that option, more power to you but it completely lacks a driving advantage.

    One reason to drive in FWD is to gain 1MPG or so. For some people, and when possible, this matters and this applies to both Forester and Outlander owners. The difference is that for the Forester owners, who know about the fuse trick, is cumbersome. For the Outlander owners it's at their fingertips.

    For the past two weeks, in an attempt to evaluate the fuel economy in various scenarios, I switched to 2WD. I can assure you that on my daily commute I do not see ANY difference whatsoever in the driving experience.... ZERO, NADA, NIL. I drive on urban highways and city/suburban streets not on mountain or scenic back roads.
    If need be, I can switch to any 4WD mode, at any time and any speed, in a fraction of a second.
    Even more, where I live (Toronto, Canada), I can drive most of the winter in 2WD since the roads are clean and dry 1-2 days after a snowstorm (they plow the snow to the pavement and use tones of salt on the roads).
    This is why I appreciate the Outlander's 4WD setup since I can use whatever configuration I see fit not what the car defaults to.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    Like it or not, every other mainstream manufacturer is moving to 5,6-speed A/T and the luxury brands to 7,8-speed. The technology simply evolves like in every other field. Some try other things like CVT or Dual-Clutch. Do you think that they are all stupid and Subaru is the only smart one? I'm pretty sure this is not the case.

    Today only few econoboxes, cheap cars or older designs come with 4 A/T. Look at the industry and note that the manufactures upgrade their transmissions early in the vehicle's cycle in order to keep up - e.g. Mazda, GM, Ford and most of the newly designed models come with 5/6 A/T from day one.
    Now Subaru launches brand new 2008 and 2009 (!!!) models, including cars like the WRX, with 4AT. It doesn't sound too good nor it deserves any praise for that.

    You could trumpet as much as you want that the 4 A/T is good enough so Subaru didn't need to update, but I'm sure Subaru has a very different reason for this situation. I'm also pretty sure that the 2010 or 2011 models at the latest will have a different transmission so no, I don't think Subaru put the 4A/T in the new Forester by choice.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> So if it were a 15-speed tranny would it be from the future? And how is a paddle-shifter not an electronic add-on?

    It is. But what I was saying that the shifter is just a cosmetic add-on to the Subaru antiquated tranny.

    And speaking of coming from the future, Mitsubishi launches the new all-electric 2+2 AWD i-MIEV Sport for 2009. According to the article it has 123 mile range and could recharge up to 80 percent in 35 minutes. You can even charge it via a wireless charger! The i-MIEV comes equipped with an auxiliary photovoltaic generator on the roof, a power generating fan inside the front grill and is also able to recharge its lithium battery when the car brakes, recuperating wasted energy. Amongst the technologies this vehicle offers energy saving LEDs, heat absorbing glass to reduce heat gain within the vehicle and the interior components of the vehicle use environmentally friendly plant-based resin developed by Mitsu. And this is not a rumor or concept, this is a real production vehicle.

    Subaru on the other hand is coming from the past, chasing fuel economy standards with its first ever diesel engine, being generations behind from the rest of the world.

    image

    Mitsubishi Launches New Electric Sports Car
    Mitsubishi's iMiEV to Feature Solar, Wind Power, 2009 Release
  • psychogunpsychogun Member Posts: 129
    Good grief.
    Why is it that we have to bash on the manufacturers?

    Yes, Subaru uses a 4-speed A/T on the '09 Forester. However, Mitsubishi uses a 4-speed A/T on the 4-cylinder versions of the '09 Galant, '09 Eclipse, and '08 Endeavor.
    Both manufacturers probably did this to control cost and ensure reliability.

    Regardless, one buys a car because of the sum of its parts, not individual pieces.

    I really don't see any reason (nor do I find it helpful) to describe the technology used, or the vehicles in question, as "antiquated" or "fragile".

    If Subaru is supposedly using a 20-year old AWD system, then Mitsubishi was using a 25 year old engine design (the venerable 4G63T) in EVO's up to iteration IX. Both work(ed) exceedingly well.

    BTW, I am actually partial to Mitsubishi. However, that does not stop me from being open-minded, factual, and polite (if I were in the market I would definitely seriously consider both of these vehicles).
    I feel that the juvenile tone, the tangent topics, and lack of facts in a good number of the posts over the past 27 pages is to the detriment of this entire discussion.

    Let's keep this on topic, shall we. Though interesting and innovative, Boxer Diesel from Subaru (the world's first Horizontally opposed diesel) and the iMiev Sport from Mitsubishi, this is not the right thread for them.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    Keep chasing that 1 mpg. I know there are other ways to improve fuel economy than to deactivate a safety feature. So that particular chip would be my last concern.

    You guys are way off base making assumptions about the logic behind the 4AT.

    The Outlander is a boring old small SUV. Every Subaru (except the Tribeca) are performance vehicles detuned to several different levels. They are like LEGOs, and they all can swap components to become superior even to stock STI level, without a lot of fuss, time, or money.

    That 4AT in an Outback I was just looking at was putting down 470hp at the crank. None of their manuals can handle that much power, so there is no point for them developing a semi-automatic from them.

    It has nothing to do with one company being stupid over the other, Subaru just knows they have a niche market, and the computer geeks (me) will be toying with the engine.

    If they have a robust tranny, thats the important thing. And since they absolutely have to use it on the turbo versions, there is little point developing 2 different ones for the FX and FXT.

    And don't go off-topic on electric cars. Subaru's been in the news for their e-car just as much as Mitsu. And how are they chasing the past when the Boxer diesel was among the first aluminum block diesels to go mainstream? How is a company that is first in many things behind the times? They're not.
  • rcpaxrcpax Member Posts: 580
    Every Subaru (except the Tribeca) are performance vehicles detuned to several different levels. They are like LEGOs, and they all can swap components to become superior even to stock STI level, without a lot of fuss, time, or money.

    Please tell me which components I can swap to make the Forester "superior" to the STi, without a lot of "fuss", time, or money. You make it sound I can literally take components out from one Subaru car and bolt it on to the Forester without any modification. I'd love to hear your recommendations.
  • rcpaxrcpax Member Posts: 580
    I know there are other ways to improve fuel economy than to deactivate a safety feature. So that particular chip would be my last concern.

    But it turns out, Subaru didn't give you that choice, so you actually have NO choice but to drive AWD all the time. While Mitsubishi gave us the choice to switch to 2WD when cruising on the freeway, without stopping, even at speeds of 65mph or above.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    Please tell me which components I can swap to make the Forester "superior" to the STi, without a lot of "fuss", time, or money. You make it sound I can literally take components out from one Subaru car and bolt it on to the Forester without any modification. I'd love to hear your recommendations.

    Actually you try to sound skeptically cynical, but I wouldn't have gone there. It is actually exactly as you say ( up to 2008 ).

    My brother's Forester has:

    STI turbo
    STI intercooler
    Full turbo-back exhaust

    That alone got it to 300hp. It took 1 day with myself helping and 1 guy to run the laptop for the open-source tune. All the parts were used off of an STI that it itself had been upgraded, and had no more use for them.

    The turbo needed the hoses and gaskets swapped, but indeed no further mods necessary to the car. His next step is sway-bars, springs, and tires.

    Here's the goal. They only sold it in Japan, but its been done. And its easy enough to do yourself.

    Impreza vs. Forester

    Enjoy.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    But it turns out, Subaru didn't give you that choice, so you actually have NO choice but to drive AWD all the time. While Mitsubishi gave us the choice to switch to 2WD when cruising on the freeway, without stopping, even at speeds of 65mph or above.

    Precisely. Part-time AWD would actually be something I looked down on the Forester if it had.

    I can adjust the suspension on my Suby so that I can get it to handle in the exact orientation I want. At that point, there would never be a purpose to change near-perfect grip and handling by swapping to a different mode.

    And believe me, if you felt how effortlessly my car takes ramps and corners, and then got in a FWD car, it is not only noticeable, its dangerous. I have to remind myself when I get into a FWD car that I have to slow way down.

    I'm not talking about spirited driving, I'm talking how I do not have to brake for even extremely tight corners. It just doesn't occur to me that I have to until I'm in a FWD car. My car practically straightens out roads with a blip of the throttle.
  • rcpaxrcpax Member Posts: 580
    And believe me, if you felt how effortlessly my car takes ramps and corners, and then got in a FWD car, it is not only noticeable, its dangerous. I have to remind myself when I get into a FWD car that I have to slow way down.

    If I had an Outlander, it's just one flick of a switch, then I'm in 4WD mode. But in conditions that allows for 2WD driving, you don't have that choice with your Forester.
  • rcpaxrcpax Member Posts: 580
    Actually you try to sound skeptically cynical, but I wouldn't have gone there. It is actually exactly as you say ( up to 2008 ).

    What year Forester do you own? If I owned a 2009 Forester what choices do I have? You said they were like Lego's, so what's up with the "up to 2008" disclaimer?
  • kurtamaxxxguykurtamaxxxguy Member Posts: 1,798
    http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/LongTerm/articleId=116747

    for the most recent Edmunds test of the '06 RAV4:

    http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=126279

    for the Edmunds review of the '09 Forester.

    http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/LongTerm/articleId=120390

    for the Edmunds initial review of the '07 Outlander.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    What year Forester do you own? If I owned a 2009 Forester what choices do I have? You said they were like Lego's, so what's up with the "up to 2008" disclaimer?

    Because up to 2008, the WRX and FXT needed the STI or equivalent turbo to put down 300+ hp.

    For 2009, don't bother with compatibility with the STI. The stock turbo is good enough. Just buy aftermarket exhaust, and intake (should you be so inclined). 300hp is yours for less than $1-2K investment and 1 weekend's worth of work.

    The guy on this video doesn't seem to think that 250hp and 330tq to the wheels is good enough. Mind you 250whp ~ 300bhp. So 300hp at the crank. And nearly 400tq at the engine.

    Forester should be compatible with WRX turbo, so video is relavent.

    Stage II
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    Would you want an ABS off switch also?

    I think Dave (dcm) nailed it when he said this is what turning off AWD equates to.

    You might as well just save thousands and buy a FWD Outlander and carry low-profile chains for the tires when you really need it.

    I find it a bit absurd that biscuit says the XT does not feel quick, especially after Edmunds' XT reached 60mph a full 2+ seconds sooner than the V6 Outlander.

    The XT is absurdly quick, are you kidding? The slowest XT tested is quicker than the quickest Outlander V6 tested.

    Individual tastes may prefer the boost of a turbo engine, or a linear V6, but there's no doubt which one is quicker.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Member Posts: 72,587
    It was a rumor back then, but it's been confirmed since and reported on sites like Automotive News time and time again.

    Like I said, Google it, you'll get tons of hits.

    Toyota will indeed use this platform to build their next sports car.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    Keep chasing that 1 mpg.

    I don't, but some do. The bottom line is that the Outlander owners have the OPTION to do it easily, the Forester owners don't. It’s not a very big deal, just worth noting rather then discarding just because one is a Subaru fan and the Forester does not have this option.
    In fact most 4-cylinder SUV buyers are looking for fuel economy (why would they buy a 4-cylinder CUV in the first place) so anything that would take them one step further, aside from other common means, should be noted.

    The Outlander is a boring old small SUV.

    The Outlander is a 3 years old vehicle and it was fully redesigned at that time - platform, engine, tranny, body, interior, with no major components carried over from the previous models. You cannot really say the same about the 2009 Forester, as its powertrain is only an update of the previous generation.

    Boring: You can call the Outlander “boring” all you want, but you are in a negligible minority.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    And the 2009 Forester is 0 years old. It uses a flat-4 but it actually not similar to the previous one in the Forester. It uses the Legacy GT's base engine, with new turbo and valve technology.

    I am not a 'Subaru fan'. I appreciate many makes and models. I objectively know the benefits of full-time AWD, and the superiority of a turbo-4 to an NA-6. So the Outlander doesn't have anything I would like or even recommend.

    Actually I think anyone who finds the Outlander exciting is of a negligable minority. Except on this forum.

    PS. All 5 of my friends with NA Suby's average around 25-27mpg year round. And they all live in urban areas. EPA is useless from my experience.

    PPS. Also, everyone who has modified their turbo version has reported a 1-3mpg improvement on average. Why? Free-flowing exhaust on a turbo car is helpful in a number of ways.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    Would you want an ABS off switch also?

    No. There is no benefit from switching off the ABS, and no car does that. Certain systems make sense to be switched off safetly, other don't. You don't switch off the air bags either. ;)
    Going with your theory that driving a FWD car is unsafe it means that tens of millions of people are drving unsafe cars. Strange theory.

    Can you ask these two questions?
    1. Is the 2009 Forester's VDC a safety system?
    2. Can you switch it off?

    I find it a bit absurd that biscuit says the XT does not feel quick, especially after Edmunds' XT reached 60mph a full 2+ seconds sooner than the V6 Outlander.

    Edmunds 2007 Outlander XLS Full-Test

    Edmunds 2009 Forester XT Full-Test

    0-60 mph time difference: 8.2-6.8=1.4 sec.

    From comparing the handling numbers side by side, it seems like the Outlander is doing better than the Forester. ;)
    Read "Handling" comments as well.

    The Forester is doing better in the acceleration and braking.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    The XT is absurdly quick, are you kidding? The slowest XT tested is quicker than the quickest Outlander V6 tested.

    Also quicker than the RAV4.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    In the slalom test, Senior Road Test Editor Josh Jacquot drove the Outlander to a 61.6-mph run and noted, "It feels heavy through the transitions. There is a lot of wind-up and spring-back in the suspension, resulting in high steering effort." After the XLS recorded 0.74g around the skid pad, Jacquot added, "There is tire-abusing understeer and the car does not respond intuitively to steering and throttle inputs."

    While both of these are not sports cars, this does not sound like very positive feedback.
  • comem47comem47 Member Posts: 399
    Would you want an ABS off switch also?

    I think Dave (dcm) nailed it when he said this is what turning off AWD equates to.

    You might as well just save thousands and buy a FWD Outlander and carry low-profile chains for the tires when you really need it.

    Oh I see. All FWD cars are inherently unsafe. ...NOT

    AWD is a traction enhancing device and turning it off returns the vehicle to FWD. Hardly equivalent to defeating ABS. Oh how did we ever drive these unsafe vehicles before AWD came along? And yes I've seen an ABS switch in a race car (driver option, with skill) I've been driving cars long enough to have gone though all sorts of power train configurations. It's called learning to drive (and not overdrive) with what you have. Guess what, all vehicles are toast on glare ice and if you are stupid enough to be flying along driving over your head thinking my superbrain car is going to save my butt (and compensate for my poor judgment)you're in for a surprise someday.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    Going with your theory that driving a FWD car is unsafe it means that tens of millions of people are drving unsafe cars. Strange theory.

    Massive overinterpretation. There's a difference between 'unsafe' and 'more safe.' full time AWD has better accident avoidance potential if utilized properly. Don't patronize.

    Oh I see. All FWD cars are inherently unsafe. ...NOT

    Another example of lack of comprehension. It actually is like turning off ABS. There are some cars that get along just fine without standard 4-wheel ABS. And if I had to rate the safety advantage of 4-wheel ABS vs. AWD, they'd rank about the same. Its all additional safety.

    Wheras none of these cars might be considered generally 'unsafe', some are 'safer' than others.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    And the 2009 Forester is 0 years old.

    Yes, but it doesn't bring anything inovative to set it apart. I'm not saying this in a negative way by any means. However, when the Outlander first came out it brought some new things to the segment (some are still unique). Most likely this doesn't matter to you as it seems like your focus is high performance only. However, this segment in general has a different focus. Subaru decided to follow the market and departed the raised station wagon approach for the compact SUV approach (good move IMO).

    I am not a 'Subaru fan'. I appreciate many makes and models

    Same here, including Subaru. However, here I'm strictly talking about the stock 2009 Forester, not Subaru vehicles in general and their abilities to be tuned for high performance.

    I objectively know the benefits of full-time AWD, and the superiority of a turbo-4 to an NA-6. So the Outlander doesn't have anything I would like or even recommend.

    Here we have different preferences. I prefer a NA V6 to a Turbo 4 in this application (compact SUV). I'd take a Turbo 4 in a different application though. I would recommend both the Outlander and the Forester as they both serve the purpose they are designed for very well. The BTW, the Outlander 4WD has a full-time 4WD as well. In terms of the powertrain offerings however, the Forester has a Turbo (with its benefits and shortcomings), the Outlander has a V6 (again with this benefits and shortcomings). It's a matter of personal preference and none of them is better than the other for everyone. Comparing them in terms of powertrains is like comparing apples to oranges, but it's still interesting if you are open minded.

    Actually I think anyone who finds the Outlander exciting is of a negligible minority. Except on this forum.

    Read every single Outlander review and you'll see that a common "like" for the Outlander is its design (in and out). No review (that I have seen anyway) called it "boring"; not even the ones that gave it not so favorable review (they mostly pick on the interior fit and finish, which is partially correct). If everything else that’s not a Turbo 4 300HP+ is boring for you, than yes, you could call it “boring”, but you are looking at the wrong segment for that.

    All 5 of my friends with NA Suby's average around 25-27mpg year round. And they all live in urban areas. EPA is useless from my experience.

    I too average above the EPA numbers in the Outlander, but for the sake of comparison, EPA is what most people go by as a reference.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    AWD is a traction enhancing device and turning it off returns the vehicle to FWD. Hardly equivalent to defeating ABS. Oh how did we ever drive these unsafe vehicles before AWD came along?

    Helping to prevent tire spins seems like a real useful safety feature to me. How did we get along without seatbelts, crumple zones, air bags, hid headlights. We did, but i wouldn't want to drive a car without them.

    Guess what, all vehicles are toast on glare ice and if you are stupid enough to be flying along driving over your head thinking my superbrain car is going to save my butt (and compensate for my poor judgment)you're in for a surprise someday.

    This is the age old arguement for people who don't understand drivetrains. Since AWD does not help on ice, it must be useless.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    This is the age old arguement for people who don't understand drivetrains. Since AWD does not help on ice, it must be useless.

    Nobody said the AWD is useless, just that there are certain conditions when it doesn't have any value and can be disabled for added (hence marginal) fuel economy. Again, the Outlander's AWD setup would satisfy different people with different views. One can drive the in 4WD all the time and one could drive in 2WD at times. Do you get the point?
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    Same here, including Subaru. However, here I'm strictly talking about the stock 2009 Forester, not Subaru vehicles in general and their abilities to be tuned for high performance.

    I don't particularly disagree with anything you posted. Exept that I was responding to claims that the Forester's tranny was 'fragile'. Not the case. So I gave examples of how it could be modded.

    Then I was questioned on the ability to mod it, which I think I've shown it can be.

    So this really took a downward slightly off-topic spiral away from the stock-stock comparison of the vehicles.

    However, I look at a turbo-swap on a Subaru like changing a tire. Same goes for springs. It should be said that nobody has to settle for stock. If my idea of a perfect vehicle is a 'Forester STI', they unfortunately make them only in Japan, so here we have to replicate them.

    That being said, I agree I'm not enamoured by the stock FXT. It comes out of the box needing improvement, and will always lack the manual option. I judge a vehicle on potential, because no factory to my knowledge has ever given me what it takes to be satisfied.

    >>>>Grease Monkey<<<<
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    While both of these are not sports cars, this does not sound like very positive feedback.

    This doesn't sound stellar either after all the claims made here about the superior handling of the 2009 Forester XT (without even driving the car around the block, never mind on the track).

    "The Forester teeters on the brink of ESP all the way around the skid pad; in fact, the brakes got quite warm from it. That said, it felt tippy but freakishly neutral. Modulating the throttle did strange things to the steady arc of the skid pad, requiring more steering input than I'd prefer. In the slalom there's a noticeable steering delay and gain once the car rolls. Just as it starts to get fun, however, the ESP grabs the front brake aggressively."

    Let's see your spin KD. :)

    Plus, this is what the Edmunds's editors have said about the Outlander's handling:

    "Respectably quick in the slalom for crossover/compact SUV. Stable and predictable and well behaved. Much better speed than grip and center of gravity would indicate."

    Is your excerpt from a different publication? Both Edmunds reviews were written by the same editor (Kelly Toepke) so we have the same person's view on both cars.
  • comem47comem47 Member Posts: 399
    This is the age old arguement for people who don't understand drivetrains. Since AWD does not help on ice, it must be useless.

    AWD is far from useless and surely I would be using it in winter. But it is hardly a requirement on dry roads. (ASC is still available without 4WD, BTW)

    I get the feeling though, that a lot of people feel the car is going to drive itself because of all the modern refinements. Witness all the SUV owners you find in a ditch in snowstorms that probably were puffing out their chests minutes before feeling superior with AWD or 4WD. The human brain can do wonderful things if you listen to it.
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Member Posts: 194
    I find it a bit absurd that biscuit says the XT does not feel quick, especially after Edmunds' XT reached 60mph a full 2+ seconds sooner than the V6 Outlander.


    6.8 seconds for the 2.5XT, 8.2 seconds for the Outlander V6. And the Outlander has been rated at 7.1 by other reviewers, so the difference is not a lot. The transmissions also make a difference in the feeling, my Outlander 6 speed is always in the right gear. The Subaru only has 4 speeds so it has to hold the gear longer and it bogs down more when it shifts. During a full speed 0-60 run that is not as noticeable, but in everyday driving you will definitely notice it.

    I've had my Outlander for more than a year, so I know how it feels. When I test drove the 2009 Forester 2.5XT it didn't feel that quick. The RAV4 V6 definitely feels faster to me.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    I don't particularly disagree with anything you posted. Exept that I was responding to claims that the Forester's tranny was 'fragile'. Not the case.

    I cannot say anything about being fragile, but being a 4-speed A/T, as good as it would be, it's just out of sync with the times. Not a good thing for a newly designed vehicle.

    Would you still consider a 2009 Forester "STi" (modded) in the new body style? Just out of curiosity as many were saying that the new design would alienate the old Forester enthusiast base.
  • biscuit_xlsbiscuit_xls Member Posts: 194


    Also quicker than the RAV4.

    6.8 for the Forester 2.5XT
    6.8 for the RAV4 V6

    How is that quicker?
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    Would you still consider a 2009 Forester "STi" (modded) in the new body style? Just out of curiosity as many were saying that the new design would alienate the old Forester enthusiast base.

    Lowering springs and a more squared-off front lip would make a world of difference, IMHO.

    I was dismayed when they didn't make it look like this:

    front
    (ignore the JDM sideview mirror)
    side

    If I could find the body kit to take it back more to a 'boxy' look, I'd be more inclined to upgrade. The differences are subtle, but necessary, IMHO.

    Indeed, the 2009 FXT looks like any other small CUV. It isn't set apart. Not that I'm saying the Outlander is. The Forester is still the only small CUV with even the quick potential to stand out and be something exciting.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    The Forester is still the only small CUV with even the quick potential to stand out and be something exciting.

    True, but is the straight line or track performance a stand out for a small CUV?
    For example lowering a small CUV only negates one of its purposes to be higher off the ground in order to get the family through the snow, mud, back roads, etc.
    I guess Mitsu could easily make a Ralliart version of the Outlander (they showed an "Evolander" concept already - lowered, body kits, making 300hp), but I think they will never do it because it doesn't make business sense.
    These companies are in the business of making money and Subaru recognized that when they decided to go this route with the new Forester. I bet the sales numbers will show it sooner rather than later.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    I disagree.

    1) I know at least a dozen people in my area alone that have upgraded their Foresters. They're constantly bitchin' that there is no Forester STI like there is in Japan. What Subaru knows, as the video has shown, they would be creating competition from within their own brand. Americans are too loyal to brands. The only person who's going to buy an FSTI is someone who otherwise would have bought either an STI or FXT.

    2) The ground clearance of any Suby is superior to many of the 4x4 vehicles with live axles and exposed differentials. The 2009 FXT is a full inch higher off the ground than before. For what purpose? Who's logging with the FXT?

    We know from rallying that anything STI height or above is adequate for snow, mud, gravel. Lower it 2", and you go back to the maximum useful height for a CUV, in my opinion, plus you'd drastically reduce body roll, which seems to be the Achiles heel of this vehicle, which in turn causes the ESP to intervene.

    3) They don't need to go full Evolander. In particular I think the EVO's turbo-4 could do equivalent or better power and better economy than an NA-V6 if Mitsu were so inclined.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    Who's logging with the FXT?

    I don't know, apparently Subaru owners do as Subaru underlines its "off-road" capability as strength and the Subaru fans here seem to promote the idea (see the passionate posts about the fraction of an inch advantage as well as the approach/departure angle posts).

    Having said that, I think having decent ground clearance on a CUV like the Outlander and Forester is great. Last winter I easily plowed through a feet of snow maybe more, in more than one occasion (lazy to shovel the driveway). I wouldn't try that with my car. To me, the Forester (2009) and the Outlander ground clearance (very similar) would be a selling point versus the ground clearance in the RAV4 and CRV.

    We indeed disagree here, but that's fine. It would be interesting to see, percentage wise, how many XTs Subaru sold for the previous generation. My bet is that it was around 10-15% perhaps. I think the only reason Subaru still included the XT model in their US lineup was not because they sold well, but because they didn't want to completely upset their fan base.
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    I think they have played, and are playing their cards totally wrong. If Suby sold the same range of high performance versions in the US (Legacy STI, Forester STI) they would get more enthusiasts to pull out their wallets and upgrade.

    As it stands, going mainstream means giving away whatever percentage their niche market was away to the competition.
  • dcm61dcm61 Member Posts: 1,567
    It would be interesting to see, percentage wise, how many XTs Subaru sold for the previous generation. My bet is that it was around 10-15% perhaps. I think the only reason Subaru still included the XT model in their US lineup was not because they sold well, but because they didn't want to completely upset their fan base.

    Not sure about all XT's, but IIRC, only 3% of Forester sales were M/T XT's.

    They didn't sell well because Subaru sucks at advertising their products.

    Speaking of advertising, I don't think I've ever seen a TV ad for an Outlander. I don't recall seeing a TV ad for any Mitsubishi for that matter. Maybe I just ignore them. ;)
  • bigmclargehugebigmclargehuge Member Posts: 377
    They didn't sell well because Subaru sucks at advertising their products.

    Totally agree with this. They really should have marketed them as versatile alternatives to boring cars and SUVs.

    If I had known that I could get a Forester to keep pace with any number of sports cars, while retaining safety, reliability, economy, 4-door/wagon utility, and offroad ability; I certainly would have dropped by the dealership much sooner.

    As it was, I was very biased AGAINST Subaru until I was forcefed their full potential in the passenger seat. Likewise I have never known anyone else to buy one until until I gave them a ride BigMcLargeHuge style :shades:

    They sell 99% word-of-mouth, and its entirely their own fault that there are a select few that know what they are capable of.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    Speaking of advertising, I don't think I've ever seen a TV ad for an Outlander.

    They did have few ad campaigns on TV, both in the US and Canada.
This discussion has been closed.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles