Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Mitsubishi Outlander vs. Subaru Forester
This discussion has been closed.
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
And yes, it can be turned off (actually the threshold is higher but it's not totally disabled) so that you can rock out of a snow bank.
ABS = maximize 4 wheels stopping.
AWD = maximize 4 wheels going.
Ideally, you want both.
FWD are not inherently unsafe, it's just that AWD has more safety potential and giving up that benefit when you pay for AWD seems silly when you don't have to.
I would just leave it in 4WD auto all the time.
I'm not sure I'd even use the Lock mode. If it truly does lock the axles together (or do they mean it locks the power split?), then you'd have problems in sharp turns with binding. So if the Auto 4WD mode really works, it would turn off and on when needed.
With Lock, you'd have to hit the button for each sharp turn or U-turn, then back on, then off again, then on, and so on.
If Auto works well, both other modes are unneeded, IMHO.
With Lock, you'd have to hit the button for each sharp turn or U-turn, then back on, then off again, then on, and so on.
IMO, Lock is a very poor naming choice for that mode. If I understand the Mitsubishi press release, you can drive 100K miles or more in Lock mode and it won't hurt the drivetrain. The Lock mode differs from the Auto mode in that it "locks" in a more rear bias power split (50% more than Auto mode). Once again, a very poor naming choice. Something like Sport would be a much better choice. In fact, the press release mentions using the Lock mode for more spirited driving.
Apparently Mitsubish owners don't care about off-road but care about towing. There were many passionate posts about the difference in towing abilities between the two cars.
That's right. Towing was also passionately discussed, but how does your comment relate to the current conversation?
Personally, I don't care about towing or any kind of off-roading where the approach/departure angle would matter. I care about snow, mud and some moderate logging trails where the 4WD and ground clearance matters.
You'd think the stuff cost more than gold nowadays, with windows being chopped (Escape), or enormous D-pillars that are slaves to style (Rogue, Outlander, RAV4, CR-V). Automakers build designs with huge blind spots then up-sell you on a navigation system with a backup cam to fix the problem they designed-in. $1600-2000 profit. Ka-ching.
You pay for their design failure.
So mostly, visibility. Being able to see out of it has unfortunately become a rarity in this class.
Someone asked this about the Forester, above, so I'll mention what appealed to me (and my wife) about ours:
* by far, best visibility in the compact crossover class
* lightness - compacts should be light, most are bloated, overweight
* IIHS Top Safety Pick
* best non-hybrid fuel economy (20/26) for AWD
* combined with a 16.9 gallon tank, long distances between fill-ups
* good previous experience with the brand (they've won many Polk loyalty awards)
* most horsepower among the 4 cylinder normally aspirated, 175hp for our PZEV
* CHASE Subaru Credit card means $500/year free service/accessories
* Much better than average ownership costs, 2nd best in class (CR)
* high Owner Satisfaction ratings (being happy is the bottom line)
* Much Better than Average Reliability
* better than average satisfaction with dealer service (a warranty is only as good as the dealer behind it)
* biggest moonroof - even the kids can star gaze
* great ride/handling balance, smooth and very little body roll
* comfy perforated, heated leather seats
* softly padded elbow rests for all 4 of us
* if it were going to be my car - another rarity - a real MANUAL trans
* true 4-channel ABS (some cost-cut and use 3 channel systems)
* good ground clearance, not for rock hopping but for those apple orchard visits
* compact dimensions make it easy to park (big plus for my wife)
* heated mirrors that work to clear even rain (my Sienna's aren't nearly as good)
* wiper de-icers so no scraping
* three 12-volt outlets (GPS, cell phone, spouse's cell phone)
* trip computer (my van has this, I'm spoiled)
* lights that fade out slowly, rather than turn off abruptly
* stereo adjust volume automatically as speed increases
Those are some of what appealed to us. Each person has different priorities, so each one of us will have a different list, I'm sure.
To be honest I could stop at visbility, IIHS Top Safety Pick, and light weight, and that would be enough.
Lightness is great because it helps acceleration, economy, handling, braking; lots of stuff.
With Lock, you'd have to hit the button for each sharp turn or U-turn, then back on, then off again, then on, and so on.
IMO, Lock is a very poor naming choice for that mode. If I understand the Mitsubishi press release, you can drive 100K miles or more in Lock mode and it won't hurt the drivetrain. The Lock mode differs from the Auto mode in that it "locks" in a more rear bias power split (50% more than Auto mode). Once again, a very poor naming choice. Something like Sport would be a much better choice. In fact, the press release mentions using the Lock mode for more spirited driving.
Indeed lock is a bit of a misnomer. Not a solid lock like I had in my 4X4 Dodges
but a power ratio split. Wheres I couldn't back out of my driveway while turning in 4X4 mode in the Dodges without severely binding I have tried the Outlander in all 3 positions with no tugging or binding whatsoever on dry surfaces while sharply turning.
Indeed, they should call it "Sport" mode or something like that.
If you go on a 4x4 site and say you have a Lock mode you would never here the end of it.
Let us know how it stands up in real-world use.
As I've mentioned before, I think the Forester and Outlander represent the best CUV's on the market.
We factory ordered to get exactly what we wanted.
Forester sales were up 49% in April and demand is hot, so the popular LL Bean model was hard to find, especially the colors my wife liked. Closest one we could locate was in NJ, almost 4 hours drive.
High demand is a mixed blessing - it should mean good resale down the road, since the public really likes it, but it also means no incentives.
We should be taking delivery in early July, so if incentives show up by then they will apply to our deal. I'm not holding my breath...
Depending on how high gas prices go over the next month or so, there is a chance demand for the new Forester may soften... But like you said, I wouldn't hold my breath either.
Demand for the Outlander has softened considerably since the end of '07, unfortunate for Mitsubishi, but good for consumers... Hopefully, with the 4-cylinder Outlander now well represented on dealer lots, sales may rebound...
The report states that total global production came in at 128,606 units, an increase of 12.1 per cent over the same month last year, and marking the 12th consecutive monthly increase since March last year. Production volume in Japan at 86,909 units was up 17.7 per cent, the 17th consecutive month of year-on-year growth and marking a new record since Mitsubishi Motors spun off its truck and bus operations in 2003.
This growth, carpages.co.uk reports, was driven by a 37.6 per-cent increase in output (29,444 units) of the new Lancer for the Russian, North American, Middle East and African markets and by a 36.1 per cent increase in output (17,243 units) for export shipment of the new Outlander, which continues to sell briskly in European and Chinese markets.
If Outlander is a "boring" SUV, I don't think Peugeot and Citroen will want to rebadge it under their own brand.
Back here on earth, what does this have to with anything? For all I know, the compeition increased 50% in output, leaving the Outlander in the dust. You're better off sticking to discussing AWD nuances.
Right... because Peugeot and Citroen don't have any boring econoboxes at all...
If Outlander had a Honda badge on it and Forester a Toyota you can be more than sure that the sales would have been in a lot of thousands per month
I don't think anyone will argue with that.
But...the fact is, Honda and Toyota earned that rep.
gun wrote:
there is a chance demand for the new Forester may soften
Yes and no - fewer people will move up from compact sedans, but more people may downsize from an SUV. With 20/26 mpg stamped on the Monroney, that won't scare people away.
It could hurt turbo sales but most of the volume is the base engine.
How's the sales split with the Outlander, V6 vs. I4, I wonder? I bet the diesel represents a lot of those overseas sales.
In the US, I think sales are softer. I found 7 left over 2007 models when I went on my test drive. That's not good.
I'm sure the incentive will clear them out soon, but incentives erode residuals, which were already not as good as the Forester's per ALG.
For someone who keeps their cars forever, that may not matter. You may be upside down on a loan for a while if you took one, but unless it's totalled or you have to sell it early for unforeseen reaons, no biggie.
And also true, a lot of people buy the brand rather than value for money, but as we know, these trusted brand vehicles are not without problems. So they are not superior by default.
Can you remember the trims on those vehicles? The Outlander sells well on a particular trim than others. Back in 06, XLS was in hot demand, leaving the ES and LS on the lot.
I think the Pigeon and the :lemon: are French econoboxes, so if thats how Mitubishi can reflect their brand, you go ahead and proudly wave that flag.
Don't take it personally.
What these brands have earned is a reputation for reliability, good cars and good customer service (and yes, before we go there, there are always a bunch of complainers who can never be satisified). No brand is without issues, and Mitsubishi convering up issues for 22 years is the head of the pack. People who want to buy any car, know it's a crapshoot as to whether the car *you* get is going to be a good experience. However, with a Honda or Toyotota the odds are in your favor.
You can check on fitzmall.com, they list the current inventory on-line.
They probably sold a few by now with the incentives.
Rockville Mitsu had a 2007 in the showroom and it was also an XLS. I test drove a 4 cylinder base model though.
Interestingly, I was reading a C&D article about this phenomenal AWD system, and they say it directs power via an electronically controlled clutch pack. Hmm, sounds familiar.
Nissan uses the name "Vehicle Dynamics Control" for their brake-based traction and stability control system. Tunerzine wrote "three-stage adjustability is available for the VDC system and transmission shift operation" so it's adjustable. GT-R World has a YouTube video up and that compares VDC On with VDC Off.
Electronically controlled clutch pack with VDC that you can turn on and off. Cool.
Where have I heard that before?
I will give a list of likes of one over the other.First let me say I am a fan of both vehicles and companies.This our third subaru and my first outlander.
This list will be lengthy so I will continue to update it for a while as the differences come to me.
The outlander wins in the power department it is the v6 the ll bean is the2.5 4 non turbo. Although the forester was not weak in power It cannot compare the the outlander,when passing or climbing hills the outlander does it with ease and plenty of power.the subie takes a while to pass and shifts way down to get some large hills the tach will hit about 5k while the outlander might not have to downshift or if it does it might go to 5th gear maybe 2.8 k I am shure it does not hurt the subie but I dont like It.
The subie corners much better I don't know how they do it but they always amaze me how flat they stay when hard cornering.
mpg--the subie does better in city driving but highway they are about the same.
I think subies have to have about 15 thousand miles on them before they get their best mileage. so I would it expect it to average about 29 highway this trip it got 27.
Thats about my outlander does now It has 17,000 the subie has 4,500.
Thats all for now I will try to give more details tommrow. I have many more.
Its quite simple. I owned a 08 forester not too long ago and then, through some blundering and floundering [which I wont go into, its a long story], I finally got it sorted out to where I got a Nissan Rogue. I went for a 2wd sl [when I should've gotten that blue awd sl that had less options, sunroof was important].
I disliked the Forester for the roadnoise, I'd like to hear my music not the engine/road thanks, the lack of a tilt function for the sunroof, and the missing 5th gear. While the Forester really was a good rig, there were issues with the center console and my knee.
Fastforward to the Rogue. Perfect mirror placement, I have larger blindspot mirrors and the mirrors turned outward 10 degrees and takes care of the blindspots. I prefer to think of the larger D pillar as a safety promotion issue for when changing lanes or passing.
The outlander I havent even test drove yet, but I do like the features they have on their offerings, and at least they have a cvt.
Speaking of cvts, Nissan has got those down pretty well. Something Subaru US should pay attention to... Really? 4 speed autos in this day and age? cvts are far more efficient and are on demand power instantly.
I would like to say that first time I had a cvt it was in a ford freestyle, and going from that to the forester was a bit disconcerting. I've test driven the Altima, sentra and Rogue and also the 09 forester twice. I just really enjoy both legroom and headroom with the Nissans. I have far more to say, but I'll end here for now.
CR just rated all 3 of these (Forester XT and X, Mitsu Outlander 2.4l, Rogue) and rated the Subie on top.
The Rogue did stand out among base 4 cylinder models for its acceleration.
Majority of Foresters (which are equipped with 4-speed auto transmission) are also a FWD biased with on-demand torque to rear wheals. Only a manual transmission based Forester has real full time AWD.
Hyundai has a decent Borg Warner based AWD system: it uses Multi-plate clutch coupling - which is also installed on Porsche 911. Borg Warner system can provide up to 95% of the torque to the front wheels, but automatically diverts up to 50% of the torque to the rear wheels when needed. In addition, Hyundai has optional button to lock the clutch providing permanent 50% torque to the rear wheels. 4EAT equipped Forester can't do it.
Not too long ago the 911 Turbo employed a viscous coupling like Subaru's MT system. In fact, with a boxer engine, a Subaru is more or less like a 911 driven backwards.
Automatic Foresters still always send some power to the rear axles (10 or 20%, depending on who you ask), unless you insert a FWD fuse (meant for being towed or for when you get a flat tire). So it is full time, then adjusts constantly as needs change.
Watch this video below to see just how well it works, too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yp1PkXizeQ
The 09 pretty much owns the 07, despite the 07 being a turbo with much more torque. The 09 has better ground clearance and a better tuned traction control system. Why? You have to look at the whole vehicle - ground clearance, angles of approach and departure, breakover angle, even tires. The 09 Forester does well as a package, incredibly so for a unibody sans low range.
There were no changes to the AWD system from that 07 to that 09 yet the new model does substantially better.
Maybe I missed something!
The 09's traction control system also allowed less wheel spin, the effort to get moving is always more controlled.
This is far more than 99.9% of owners will ever subject them to.
The same type and the same brand. Porsche 911 and Santa Fe both use the ITM 3e multi-plate clutch coupling system from Borg Warner.
.
>> Automatic Foresters still always send some power to the rear axles (10 or 20%, depending on who you ask), unless you insert a FWD fuse
If you ask Subaru's Corporate Communications Director Mike McHale, it's 10%. Santa Fe's number is no mystery: it can lock 50% of consistent power to the rear axles.
Inserting a fuse is as high tech as Forester's 4-speed transmission :-)
Do you have to run to RadioShack to get the fuse? I would be careful continuously running Forester with the fuse for long time: it may burn out the solenoid.
Note that the Compass is the only Jeep that's not Trail Rated.
I'm sure any systems they supply to Porsche would meet very different duty requirements.
A true manual transmission, for starters, rather than an autotragic. Mitsu backed out on offering a dual-clutch gearbox (bummer!), so it's slushbox only.
How 'bout gas mileage, too. The Outlander V6 was EPA rated for 19mpg, and CR got that same 19mpg in their tests. They got 22mpg in the auto Forester and a whopping 25mpg in their manual. That's 32% better mileage, and the tank is bigger so the range advantage is even greater.
The turbo Forester outruns the Outlander V6 and gets better gas mileage as well. The new 2010 230hp V6 is supposedly more efficient, but it wants premium fuel, just like the Forester turbo. Per the EPA the quicker Forester turbo will save you $23 per year on fuel compared to a 2009 Mitsu and saves you more than $100 over the 2010 model, even accounting for the higher fuel costs for premium gas. It's 16.3 barrels of oil vs. 18.0 barrels of oil for those counting.
Subaru does offer both satellite radio and bluetooth. I wonder what your source is.
There is a trade-off or ride vs. handling, and the Forester wins the latter. A lowered Outlander GT sort of defeats the purpose of a raised crossover in the first place, and where is the manual tranny, or at least the SST gearbox? Subaru tried that too (XT Sports model) and it failed, so I wish Mistubishi luck. I'd rather have an EVO Sportback or a WRX 5 door if that's what I was looking for.
Forester has class-leading ground clearance at 8.9", and also best-in-class approach, departure, and break-over angles.
Subaru has manufactured more than twice as many AWD systems as Borg Warner (who specializes in 4WD, not AWD), and as mentioned above the system you keep bragging about is in the only Jeep that isn't good enough to earn a Trail Rated badge. It's basically Chrysler Corp's weakest system. They cancelled the option for the Caliber because noone wanted it:
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/chrysler-dropping-awd-from-sebring-avenger-and-- caliber/
CR actually rates the cargo capacity of the Forester as bigger than the Outlander, so that too depends on the source and how you measure. The turning circle is also tighter for the Forester.
ALG gives the Forester 5 stars for residual value, while the Outlander only earns 3. Lease residuals as quoted by car_man confirm this, just go to either Lease Questions thread and ask for quotes using the same terms. BTW the OP is shopping the Santa Fe and that earns 3 stars. Forester kills here, I've seen 3 year leases with residuals of 62%, nothing short of amazing.
Visibility is better, also. So it's not just the moonroof glass.
Advantages of the Forester include far more than just the huge moonroof.
Not to mention, the OP was comparing it to a Santa Fe, not an Outlander.
Manual transmission is offered on Outlander in other markets: in USA demand for that 20th century technology is very low. The Mitsubishi’s dual-clutch marvel obviously is not for this price segment where the antique 4-speed automatics are still offered by some silly manufacturers. Outlander GT 6-speed auto with paddle shifters is extremely smooth. It also has fuel/emission saving Neutral Logic technology.
>> How 'bout gas mileage, too. The turbo Forester outruns the Outlander V6 and gets better gas mileage as well. The new 2010 230hp V6 is supposedly more efficient, but it wants premium fuel, just like the Forester turbo.
The mileage is improved on GT and the difference is marginal: 18 city /24 on GT vs. 19/24 on XT, not even worth to mention considering that premium fuel will cost more to XT owner. The GT still using regular fuel. The Forester turbo quickness comes at the price of premium gas, excessive noise, and stress on engine. Ironically , the Forester’s TD04 turbochanger has been build by Mitsubishi for Subaru since 2003.
.
>> Subaru does offer both satellite radio and bluetooth.
Forester just “prewired” for satellite radio. Satellite radio is expensive $400 dealer installed option. There is a multipage catalog with all kinds of dealer installed goodies for Outlander, if we want to go there.
And I did not say Forester does not offer Bluetooth. It’s just the basic one: it is does not offer Bluetooth audio streaming, no downloadable phone book capability and no voice controlled entertainment.
.
>> Forester has class-leading ground clearance at 8.9".
The ground clearance difference is marginal: 0.5” and who cares for that since 99% of the time car is not off the road, but on the road, where lower clearance actually improves stability.
.
>> CR actually rates the cargo capacity of the Forester as bigger than the Outlander,
Subaru official numbers measure Forester smaller though and that’s what counts.
>> ALG gives the Forester 5 stars for residual value, while the Outlander only earns 3.
3 star is normal – 6 models of Lexus and 7 models of Toyotas have 3 stars. After all, premium gas and shorter warranty will cost Forester consumer more money.
.
>> Visibility is better, also.
That’s just your subjective opinion. Outlander though has larger side mirrors, backup camera, better emergency handling and second row airbags.
.
>> The turning circle is also tighter for the Forester.
So what! It’s 0.4”difference. I can show you long list of these marginal differences were Outlander has better specs. Do we really what to go there?
The bottom line is that Outlander is significantly superior in AWD, transmission, entertainment technology, comfort, handling and warranty. The manual transmission, the 0.4” nor 1 mpg specs could beat that.
Residual values are very important. I honestly think that Mitsu make some nice vehicles, but unless you plan on keeping the vehicle for 10-12 years, the depreciation is the biggest part of the cost of ownership equation. Subarus have very good re-sale values which improves their COA. Mitsu resale values have traditionally been poor. You may state that 3 stars is standard but a better term is average. Hyundai is improving, but its residuals are still not stellar. Subie Forester is well above average here and that makes the vehicle relatively a better deal over the length of ownership for most buyers.
That last part isn't necessarily true. Especially if the lower ground clearance is the result of, for example, an exhaust pipe routed under the rear suspension like some recent Toyotas suffered from. Or maybe a low hanging suspension part. Point is, a vehicle can actually be riding higher than another vehicle even though the former's ground clearance is lower. Ground clearance is not a measure of actual ride hight or center of gravity, both of which do have a lot to do with stability.
I'd like to see Mitsu sell a Ralliart sportback - is that combination offered? I have yet to see an EVO sportback on the roads but that would certainly appeal more to me if I wanted something truly sporty.
18 city /24 on GT vs. 19/24 on XT, not even worth to mention considering that premium fuel will cost more to XT owner. The GT still using regular fuel
That's not what the EPA site says - it has the GT running on premium fuel. That may be how they got from 220hp to 230hp. Is there a source? I'm referring to information from fueleconomy.gov.
Forester's turbo is smoother and quieter than the non-turbo, I doubt you've driven one since you're saying that. You keep calling it slow so I imagine you've only driven the 2.5X automatic, which is comparable to the 2.4l CVT Outlander, not your V6 model.
Subaru official numbers measure Forester smaller though and that’s what counts
Not if the box you bought won't fit!
CR's biggest box does count, so this is a split decision.
The Forester also surprisingly has more passenger volume, 107.6 cubic feet compared to the Outlander's 100.4 cubes.
The Forester's mirrors are huge, are you sure you've driven one?
After all, premium gas and shorter warranty will cost Forester consumer more money.
You're speculating. Let's go to Edmunds TCO. 2009 models, since the 2010 Outlander isn't listed yet:
Outlander XLS V6 AWD - $47,148
Forester XT Limited - $44,466
If the 2010 GT model with 230hp really does require premium fuel than the Forester would only stretch that advantage.
significantly superior in AWD
Remember, it's in the only Jeep that's not Trail Rated. The Compass has a 4WD lock mode, too, you pull up a chrome T-bar. Still not good enough.
The Outlander is basically a super-sized Jeep Compass/Dodge Caliber. Same engine block in the base models, same CVT transmission, same non-Trail Rated AWD system.
The Infotainment system is awesome - no debate there at all. But isn't it basically a Chrysler MyGig system, from the Caravan? No doubt a result of the Mitsu/Chrysler/Hyundai partnership.
Having said that, I think Mitsu did remarkably well with some humble underpinnings.
The first thing that struck me was how similar the body shape of the Outlander is to the Forester and the Outlander. I wonder whether the designers were the same. It’s interesting in reading the reviews on the Outlander that critics think that it’s exterior styling is great but most don’t think too much of the Forester’s.
I then compared features for the 2.5 X with Touring Package vs. the Outlander trim model that has most of the features that the 2.5X with Touring Package has plus a 4 cylinder engine so I am comparing apples with apples.
Firstly, I'm not interested in the turbo Forester XT. Despite a lot of people on the Forester forums saying that it makes for a much better vehicle, the 4 cylinder is more than adequate for my needs (I came from a 2002 Honda Civic LX) and I suspect that most purchasers buy the 4 as opposed to the Turbo. So the trim to compare the Forester with Touring Package to is the Outlander ES with 4 wheel drive, which puts out 168 HP which is two less than the Forester's. The transmission for the ES is CVT Sportronic, until you get to the next trim level with the 6 cylinder six speed automatic, which is the LS.
The ES doesn't have the sunroof. It comes only as a Sun and Sound package with the Rockford Fosgate premium stereo which costs an additional $2,250.00.
It only comes pre-wired with Sirius, with no free trial subscription. The Forester's is already installed, but I would have to renew the free 3 month subscription.
The ES does not come with FAST keyless entry. You have to go to the LS trim to get this.
The ES doesn't come with Bluetooth; it is an accessory. A back-up camera, and parking sensors are accessories.
The ES does not come with foglights as does the Forester. A fog light kit is an accessory.
The ES doesn't come with a power driver's seat until you get to the highest trim, the 4WD XLS. Forester comes with 8 way power seats and lumbar support.
The ES comes with 16 inch wheels as does the Forester.
The paddle shifters don’t come with the ES - you have to go to the LS.
As for the comparison regarding cargo room, there’s already been a lot of discussion about that back and forth in the previous posts. Ditto with the 4WD. I note in the Car Connection review I looked up, it says:
“Choose '4WD Auto' and at least 15 percent of engine torque is routed to the rear axle at all times, and when you're accelerating on packed snow or other slippery surfaces, the rear wheels can accept up to 60 percent of the power,” Edmunds reports. “Choose '4WD Lock' and the system sends a greater percentage of torque to the rear wheels—up to 60 percent under full-throttle acceleration.”
Most reviews pan the 4 cylinder engine, like they do with the Forester’s. So maybe we’ll call that one even.
They also are of the view that the interior styling leaves something to be desired:
“The 2009 Outlander can't overcome drawbacks regarding its materials and build quality. Car and Driver notes that it "doesn't quite match the RAV4 for material quality," while Edmunds mentions the "plastics and controls feel a bit low-grade." ConsumerGuide remarks that the "cabin has few padded surfaces and many plastic panels that feel thin and hollow to the touch" and "look on the cheap side," while one of their Mitsubishi Outlanders "suffered from a number of interior creaks and groans," a sign of poor build quality.
However, critics say the same thing about the Forester interior. Call that one even too.
In terms of quality, Car Connection says:
“You can hear the Outlander's questionable build quality every time you drive down the highway. ConsumerGuide rates the Mitsubishi Outlander below the class average when it comes to interior noise levels and deems "engine and bump noise are the biggest sources of ruckus." AutoWeek adds that the 2009 Mitsubishi Outlander is plagued by "roaring engine, tranny, road and wind noise."
In terms of handling and ride, mixed reviews:
“Car and Driver says the Outlander has "a stiff suspension for an SUV." ConsumerGuide observes that "the suspension does a poor job overall of absorbing sharp bumps," which makes for a rough and uncomfortable ride. Edmunds contends, “Ride quality is just as important as handling in a small SUV, though, and the Outlander is indeed comfortable and well-mannered when cruising.”
I think overall reviewers say handling is very good in the Outlander, at the expense of a harsher ride, but I haven’t read any review which says it’s superior to the Forester’s.
In any event, in pricing it out, the MRSP of the ES, adding the fog lights, and the Sound and Sun package, costs $29,765., which is $30.00 less than the MRSP of the Forester with the Touring Package. Also, keep in mind that I would still not be getting the power driver’s seat with the ES. Taking into consideration all of the above, and the better residual value of the Forester, I think the Forester is better value for the money, at least in terms of my individual needs in a vehicle.
I am leaning towards it, despite the better-looking interior of the Santa Fe. If only Subaru could have imported the Santa Fe’s interior design into the Forester!
Mitsu offers a PZEV version of the V6, but you lose 7hp, for 213hp total. Still, if you're in to being green, it's nice to have that option.
If you're comparing 4 banger to 4 banger, the Forester can actually tow more, FWIW.
Have you looked at the Veracruz? I was really impressed with that interior. Especially the soft leather - very nice. With discounts it may not cost much more than a SF, and it gets ALG's 5 star rating for resale, so it may hold its value better than its little brother, and it offers true 3rd row seating:
I also contemplated the Veracruz. I'm looking for a compact SUV so it's too big for me, and I don't need to seat 7, but seeing all the features you get with just the GL base model, including sunroof, fog lights, rear parking sensors, I agree it's a good buy; it would cost me about 6K more though compared to Forester or SF. And the base model doesn't come with 4WD; I'd have to go to the GLS trim which would cost 10.5K more. Plus fuel costs would go up. If I was in the market for a mid-large SUV I would likely take the Outback over the Veracruz though; I think the price would be similar and the Outback is a better vehicle overall, and the cargo capacity is huge.
My wife and I just had twins 3 months ago and that's the impetus for buying a new car. Need room for that double stroller! In fact, I was very taken with the first car I reviewed, a Mazda 5 and almost bought a 2009 model because Mazda was offering a 3K reduction; however the dealbreaker was lack of traction control. The sliding doors I also found very appealing because I can put in the infant seats in the second row without stooping and bending my back. Also it had surprisingly large cargo area if you didn't use the third row seats (which basically would fit only children, and not very comfortably at that). In fact, the cargo area beyond the 2nd row seating (at least lengthwise) is bigger than the Forester's. But Forester is a much safer car; plus the high ground clearance, combined with the fact that the second row doors open very, very wide, also makes it easier to put the infant seats in. Not as effective as sliding doors, but next best thing.
There must be a reason why the Canadian Automobile Journalists of Canada, and Motortrend voted the Forester as the best SUV for 2009. I figure I can't really go wrong with buying one.
Why, “too bad”? You did not even buy manual Forester? I can’t imagine you would be buying manual Outlander.
>> I'd like to see Mitsu sell a Ralliart sportback - is that combination offered?
Not to my knowledge, but Mitsu will be offering a smaller SUV 1.8L turbo combined with Mitsubishi's Twin Clutch SST gearbox and an AWD system.
http://blogs.thecarconnection.com/marty-blog/1037414_mitsubishi-previews-new-com- - - pact-crossover
>>That's not what the EPA site says - it has the GT running on premium fuel. That may be how they got from 220hp to 230hp. Is there a source? I'm referring to information from fueleconomy.gov.
Hmm, odd, but fueleconomy.gov also says that P could mean recommended, but not necessarily required. Edmunds says its regular:
http://www.edmunds.com/mitsubishi/outlandergt/2011/featuresandspecs.html
>> Forester's turbo is smoother and quieter than the non-turbo, I doubt you've driven one since you're saying that. You keep calling it slow so I imagine you've only driven the 2.5X automatic, which is comparable to the 2.4l CVT Outlander, not your V6 model.
Right, the slow one I have driven was 4 banger. But the noise is in nature of turbo engines. Most of CVTs though are smoother then that 4 speed auto I tested.
>> Not if the box you bought won't fit!
Every test may use different size boxes or suitcases, and in different way so it’s subjective. Cubic feet volume is the most fair and standard way to measure space, just like using EPA rating for gas mileage.
>> The Forester also surprisingly has more passenger volume, 107.6 cubic feet compared to the Outlander's 100.4 cubes.
That is only true if you don’t count kids in the third row.
>> You're speculating. Let's go to Edmunds TCO. 2009 models, since the 2010 Outlander isn't listed yet: Outlander XLS V6 AWD - $47,148 Forester XT Limited - $44,466
Actually I’ve got numbers $44.4k vs $42.1K. The difference of $2.3K over 5 years is small, considering Outlander is bigger and better equipped. After 5 years the difference will be even smaller due to Outlander 10 year power train warranty.
>> Compass has a 4WD lock mode, too, you pull up a chrome T-bar. Still not good enough. The Outlander is basically a super-sized Jeep Compass/Dodge Caliber. Same engine block in the base models, same CVT transmission, same non-Trail Rated AWD system.
You're speculating. Chrysler times have long passed and Outlander is build in Japan. The GT is equipped with first-in-class active front limited-slip differential and an electronically controlled 4WD coupling. It can prevent wheel slip by redistributing torque from side-to-side. No Jeep, Dodge, nor Subaru could do that. Mitsubishi does however build turbochargers for Subaru.
I wonder myself. Even steering wheels look like twins.
>> Firstly, I'm not interested in the turbo Forester XT. Despite a lot of people on the Forester forums saying that it makes for a much better vehicle, the 4 cylinder is more than adequate for my.
I agree with those people. The XT is probably more fun to drive.
>> Ditto with the 4WD. I note in the Car Connection review I looked up, it says: “Choose '4WD Auto' and at least 15 percent of engine torque is routed to the rear axle at all times, and when you're accelerating on packed snow or other slippery surfaces, the rear wheels can accept up to 60 percent of the power,” Edmunds reports. “Choose '4WD Lock' and the system sends a greater percentage of torque to the rear wheels—up to 60 percent under full-throttle acceleration.”
Also the new 2010 Outlander AWD system is a significant update. Way ahead of Forester.
>> They also are of the view that the interior styling leaves something to be desired:
Again there is 2010 model with improved interior.
>> In terms of quality, Car Connection says: “You can hear the Outlander's questionable build quality every time you drive down the highway. ConsumerGuide rates the Mitsubishi Outlander below the class average when it comes to interior noise levels and deems "engine and bump noise are the biggest sources of ruckus." AutoWeek adds that the 2009 Mitsubishi Outlander is plagued by "roaring engine, tranny, road and wind noise."
All this magazines sell advertising and praise their clients. Just look and CR reliability rating I posted earlier and you will see Outlander on the top of rating. Also read reviews from real world owners here on Edmunds, Yahoo and MSN. All these people actually paid for their cars instead of being payed by car manufacturers. Also test drive it yourself and hear the noise levels.
>> “Car and Driver says the Outlander has "a stiff suspension for an SUV." ConsumerGuide observes that "the suspension does a poor job overall of absorbing sharp bumps," I think overall reviewers say handling is very good in the Outlander, at the expense of a harsher ride, but I haven’t read any review which says it’s superior to the Forester’s.
That’s the way it works. Sharp agile sport handling comes at expense of harsher ride. Generally you can’t have both. So if a soft ride is very important to you, you might want to go with Toyota, SF or Subaru. Lexus is known for plush ride, but dull handling. BMW is an opposite. The slalom handling test of new 2010 Outlander is spectacular. It even beats Mercedes C Class sedan.
>> In any event, in pricing it out, the MRSP of the ES, adding the fog lights, and the Sound and Sun package, costs $29,765., which is $30.00 less than the MRSP of the Forester with the Touring Package. Also, keep in mind that I would still not be getting the power driver’s seat with the ES. Taking into consideration all of the above, and the better residual value of the Forester, I think the Forester is better value for the money, at least in terms of my individual needs in a vehicle.
I am leaning towards it, despite the better-looking interior of the Santa Fe. If only Subaru could have imported the Santa Fe’s interior design into the Forester!
I did not realize that you are in Canada talking about $30k price range and you are looking actually at entry level Outlander/Forester. I’ve seen entry level Outlander at $17 USD at the end of last year. At that level I agree Outlander advantage is not easy to see.
The Outlander really shines in 2010 GT trim.
The Forester would be a very good choice for your price range, though Santa Fe is more car for the money.
Just glance over to the right, Forester gets a 9.0 and the Outlander gets a 8.8. Both good scores. Sante Fe also does well with an 8.8.
I'm just saying, you should know there's more to the Forester than a large moonroof to earn a better score than your beloved Outlander.
The slalom handling test of new 2010 Outlander is spectacular
Remember, though, that model is lowered (anyone know how much?). It won't offer the 8.5" of clearance that the other models had. You pick one or the other, not both. People shopping for this vehicle should be aware of that trade-off.
I think the lowered suspension is fine in Florida and SoCal, but if you're in a snowy climate it'll bottom out and scrape bottom constantly. Let your climate and needs decide which is best.
Even then, if I didn't want a snow vehicle, and went to a Mitsu store, this would be better suited to an enthusiast driver:
These all good cars. The Outlander rating is for the older 2007 generation though.
.
>> I'm just saying, you should know there's more to the Forester than a large moonroof to earn a better score than your beloved Outlander.
You still did not offer any significant Forester advantage. The only strongest argument you attempted to make is a better resale rating, but then when you look at True Cost to Own numbers the advantage reduced to marginal. After all the Outlander is much more car for the money.
Outlander is not a religion for me. After happily driving it for 2.5 years, I decided to try another car and leased the MB ML350. It’s a nice looking SUV, twice more expensive, but still I am not sure if it is an upgrade. Nice quiet interior, solid build, power liftgate but transmission gets confused at low speeds, handling is way below average, engine is abit underpowered for the weight. KeylessGo (FAST Key was standard on my Outlander) is a $1000 option, no hard drive music server. No paddle shifters, mediocre reliability ratings, only 4 year warranty (forget about this car after warranty expires), expensive maintenance ($100 oil change), no standard folding mirrors, Bluetooth is $500 optional accessory, no Bluetooth audio streaming Outlander GT is an exceptional value and so much more fun to drive.
.
>>> The slalom handling test of new 2010 Outlander is spectacular
>> Remember, though, that model is lowered (anyone know how much?). It won't offer the 8.5" of clearance that the other models had. You pick one or the other, not both. People shopping for this vehicle should be aware of that trade-off.
Snow or not, on a paved road an inch or two difference of ground clearance would not matter especially considering exceptional AWD system. Anyway Mitsu might have lowered just a roof a bit: both the Australian Mitsubishi site and AOL Auto indicate that GT ground clearance of 8.5” which is just 0.4” less then Forester – not even worth to mention. This is a good ground clearance yet Outlander GT slalom score (Edmunds IsideLine) is superior to Audi Q5, BMW X3, X5, MDX, RDX, Infinity FX, MB ML63 AMG and even MB C-Class sedan, which has much lower ground clearance.
>> Even then, if I didn't want a snow vehicle, and went to a Mitsu store, this would be better suited to an enthusiast driver [EVO]:
Sure, EVO is a pure driving fun and incredible bargain, but if you need more utility, the GT gets very close.
click:
I just got my new Consumer Reports, Dec 09, and FWIW the Outlander is not in the top 6 Most Reliable Small SUVs (p. 63).
True Cost to Own numbers the advantage reduced to marginal
$2,700 is marginal? That's a lot of money...
You traded in your Outlander and the music went with it. To me it makes more sense to carry music in an iPod, iPhone, or portable MP3 player or SD card or something, that way it goes with you, and not just while you're driving.