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
Global Engine Manufacturing Alliance was not evolved with AWD systems, just engines.
>> For me this is common sense, call it inference, not fabrication. He's sending me on a fool's errand, to find a source to confirm these are the same, but of course each manufacturer wants to brand their system differently, and Borg Warner would lose money if they don't play along.
It’s not a “common sense”, it’s just a subjective speculation. Speaking of “common sense”, why Mitsubishi would be so special to require such a secrecy? Porsche, Hyundai, Acura, Ford and Mercedes - all openly use some form of Borg Warner AWD technology. BMW and Subaru also openly use Mitsubishi turbochargers. And this kind of information is not easy to hide anyway: “if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck “.
To me “common sense” is that Mitsubishi already owns excellent Dakar tested AWD technology and it has no need to buy it from someone else.
>> If he wants to believe that Borg Warner gives Mitsubishi preferential treatment and supplies them with a superior AWD system
No need to “believe”, just facts please, that would be a common sense.
I don't understand the sentence about Dakar ... Mitsu outsources the AWD, Borg Warner supplies it.
We'll just have to agree to disagree.
Just like Subaru, Mitsubishi develops and builds their AWD and 4WD technology in-house (this includes their AYC, ACD, ASC, ABS, and the system that integrates them all to produce S-AWC). They do not use Borg-Warner's system, one of the reasons being the integration of the aforementioned technologies.
In fact, the company has no relationship with Borg-Warner. For example, Mitsubishi sources their dual-clutch TC-SST from German transmission maker Getrag. This tranny will be available on the European-spec Outlander equipped with the PSA sourced 2.2l diesel starting in December (why would Mitsubishi adapt a Borg-Warner AWD system to a Getrag dual-clutch transmission when they could get an all-in-one solution?).
FWIW, I in my humble opinion the Forester and the Outlander (especially the freshened 2010) are the top 2 picks in the small CUV category.
I'm sure they each use their own software/ECU/tuning, but are the bones of the system, i.e. the metal parts, really different? GEMA does that for the engines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Engine_Manufacturing_Alliance
An excerpt:
Each manufacturer has configured their variants of the basic GEMA design differently based on their engineering needs and standards, so consumers may experience very different power, fuel efficiency, and "feel" from each manufacturer.
Yeah, wiki is weak, I know.
Wonder if we can look up part numbers from a dealer's web site and find out exactly what Borg Warner calls those parts. Also, where is it made? Japan, USA, somewhere else? What did the parts content percentages on your Monroney say? They give a % of parts that come from each country, wonder how much was made in Japan?
You wrote:
Mitsubishi develops and builds their AWD and 4WD technology in-house
Develops, maybe, but builds? I don't think that's the case.
The Forester is 100% made in Japan, even the parts are sourced there.
Major Source of Foreign Parts Content: JAPAN 100%
Final Assembly Point: OKAZAKI, JAPAN
Country of Origin: Engine: JAPAN
Transmission: JAPAN
Outlander is not part of GEMA.
Question - are the AWD systems different, 2.4l vs. 3.0l models? Reliability dropped when the 2.4l was introduced (per CR).
I ask because Subaru has about 4 different systems, and they're all called "Symmetrical AWD". It's basically just a marketing label.
There could be licensing agreements floating around but my guess is that Mitsu makes their own system. When they aren't making Nikons and ships.
Perhaps we can get back to comparing the rest of the features of the cars now?
But, "speaking of fools' errands,"
* I have two Freedom cards: Visa and MC so it doubles my generic 3% earnings.
* The other generic Chase Freedom Rewards 1% rebates have no maximum earning cap anymore.
* With new Rewards Plus extension program I get additional 2-20% cash back rewards for purchases at hundreds of online retailers including Apple, Sears, Best Buy, Dell, Microsoft, Macys, Brooks Brs, Barns n Noble, Best Buy, JCPenny, Gap, Kids R Us, Bloomingdales, OfficeDp, OffMax, Walgreens, Expedia, United, HomeDpt, hotels.com, 800flowers, buy.com... There are big and small, chain and specialty stores, the list of retailers is very long and impressive. The program is loaded with various coupons and free shipping offers.
* In addition, there is 20% bonus for any accumulated cash rebate: when I accumulate $200 I can order $250 check. This year I have received already 3 checks $250 each and I am on target to get one more this year.
So you making big mistake as a consumer.
* The Subaru Rewards card has $500 a year cap, while Chase Freedom card, on the other hand, has no limit and it earns me this year close to $1000, while I have not even started to use the Rewards Plus program.
* The Subaru Rewards card earns Subaru dollars which you will not see very soon and they decrease in value due to inflation. You become enslaved by Subaru dollars being forced to buy Subaru with its dated 4-speed transmission again and generic stereo. My Chase Freedom card, on the other hand, earns me pure CASH almost instantly. I get check every 3-4 month and I have FREEDOM (name of the card) to spend my cash on anything including automobile of any brand.
True, but you can get 2 Subaru Rewards cards, like I did. I own a 2002 Forester, and so far I have paid everything - maintenance and repairs (bills over $100), using Subaru bucks. You get $100 rewards as soon as they accumulate, which for me is every 5-6 weeks. The $100 Subaru bucks certificates have a 4 year expiration date - but you can use them right away. I will soon buy new tires, and pay using Subaru bucks. So if you already own a Subaru, this card is a no brainer.
That said, I agree that the Outlander is a thoroughly modern, reliable, competitive vehicle in this class
As daniel mentioned you can use Subaru Bucks to pay for tires, or service, body shop work, and even accessories. Subaru sells the whole Yakima catalog basically, so you never run out of things to buy, and it's an effective way of lowering TCO.
It is not like the Ford and GM cards, where you were forced to buy a car of that brand way out in the future. It is an excellent program.
Sure, steve. I know this hasn't been an easy thread to moderate, and I'm sorry about that.
I have used them a few times while purchasing vehicles (had a 2005 Outback, 2006 Tribeca, now have had 2009 Forster since March this year (21,000 miles on now) and have already used four of them on service for the vehicle and by next week will have accumulated seven on them.
Obviously, have not spent anything on service over the years (except I am not dumb enough to use them on small purchases like oil changes, etc.)
My biggest problem is remembering to switch one one card to another as I reach the $500 limit allowed for each year. Also have Sears Master Card for wife & I that pays 5% cash rebate for supermarkets, drug stores and gas stations. But the maximum rebate per year for this items is $300 and I usually fill that by September (so have to take that card from wify) Also, have Mobil Card for gas that gives 15 cents off per gallon, so that is the best deal around as long as gas remains less than $3 bucks per gallon.
Even my dealer (Mastria, in Raynham, MA) calls me the Subaru Bucks King! Never have they seen anyone redeem so many of these.
It's not that I am very wealthy, or have an extravagant life style. Many of the charges on my card are business related and I get that money back.
Now, like the moderator asked, can we get back to comparing the cars instead of bragging about accruing points???... :mad:
Thank you.
I have not read all the "fine print" at that time, but does not say anywhere, even in a fine print that there is a "$18 monthly cap": it's your own calculations.
And since you've read all the "fine print", why didn't you reveal that there is no cap on 1% purchases, and there is up to 20% cash back with no cap limit on select merchant purchases? That was misleading.
The most misleading statement was, however, that "Both Outlander and Caliber/Compass are supplied the same AWD system from Borg Warner".
You win, that's sch-weet.
godeacs: keeping this in context, reducing the TCO of the Forester is relevant.
I don't think it's my job to explain that card, and I'm sure there is more fine print when it comes to the merchants you mentioned (2 to 20% is a HUGE variance for starters). I shop costco.com, Trader Joe's, WalMart, etc. and I don't see any of those on your list. It may be useful to you if you meet the store and item category restrictions, but I don't see the freedom in all those restrictions.
Subaru's card is simple - earn 3% til you have $500, then switch cards. Any merchant. That's nearly $17 grand of spending for one card and everything counts, any item from any store.
Mitsu got their CVT first, kudos, Subaru's is due out soon. Slushboxes are indeed dated - even with gimmicky manual shift modes.
Remember they offer a stick shift, though.
But keep in mind our tried-and-true Forester is on CR's most reliable list, and Mitsubishi, while deserving credit for getting their CVT to market, dropped out of that reliable list.
In fact Mitsu is notably absent - they did not have a single car out of the 48 most reliable per CR.
Mitsu sales are down, what, 48%? Subaru's sales are up.
Since you've gone on this tirade against the Forester, sales have basically experienced a meteoric rise. Even comparing the 2010 to the then-brand-new-2009 model, sales are still up. 2009 was way up from 2008. People obviously care about the resulting performance, not the number of gears in a transmission.
Does that work on the ladies? "My car may be slower, but I have more gear ratios." So smooth.
The Forester is leaner, meaner, greener, safer, and costs less to own.
Outlander does deserve credit for pioneering many firsts in the segment, a risk that unfortunately did not pay off in sales. People don't shop for spec sheets or options lists the way you do, they take test drives and buy the vehicle that brings a smile to their face.
Accolades from the press reaffirm their decisions, and sales keep rising.
Mitsu has updated their site with the official 2010 Outlander specs. http://www.mitsubishicars.com/MMNA/jsp/outlander/10/index.do?loc=en-us
To settle one earlier discussion point, Mitsu makes no mention of there being a premium fuel requirement for the 2010 Outlander V6. I compared against the Lancer Ralliart, which does require premium, and the Lancer specs page does note that difference.
Do they have any other models where premium fuel is recommended (but not required)? Just curious as to why the EPA would say that. I checked again and they still do:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/Feg/findacar.htm
Edit: Mazda recommends premium for my Miata, and the EPA uses premium fuel for their numbers. Premium is not required in the Miata, so maybe it's the same thing?
Anyone own a '10 GT yet? What does the owner's manual say? What about the fuel door itself? Usually it'll say something right there.
As I noted the Lancer Ralliart "recommends" premium while the other Lancers do not: http://www.mitsubishicars.com/MMNA/jsp/lancer/10/specs.do?loc=en-us
From what I've heard, the '10 models will hit dealers later this month or the first week of December.
Anyway, I'm not saying this is definitive proof; just that the manufacturer's site does not mention premium as a requirement. I will go test drive one once they're available locally and find out.
??? The current Outlander V6 DOES NOT require premium nor is is even a recommendation (it would be a waste with nothing gained)
Now maybe the new one goes that way (a mistake IMHO) but it's not something they currently do.
Soon! Who cares for CVT? This is old tech for cheap cars. Mitsu has been already selling cars with modern smooth 6-speed auto, and Dual-Clutch auto-manual, paddle shifters and neutral logic.
.
>> But keep in mind our tried-and-true Forester is on CR's most reliable list, and Mitsubishi, while deserving credit for getting their CVT to market, dropped out of that reliable list.
Well, may be it's not in the top 2 anymore, but top 3 or 5: who knows this still would be great, but actually you forgot to mention, that, looking at overall brand reliability, Mitsubishi brand is ahead of Subaru, Nissan, Mazda and Lexus in CR listing (published on Nov 2nd, 2009):
http://www.fivecentnickel.com/2009/11/02/most-and-least-reliable-cars-2009-editi- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - on/
>> Mitsu sales are down, what, 48%? Subaru's sales are up.
This is just in one market (US) and one month numbers. Mitsubishi still sells twice more cars/light commercial vehicles worldwide consistently every year vs. Subaru (Fuji):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_20_motor_vehicle_producing_companies_in_2007
And this does not even include Mitsubishi heavy vehicles and buses – by the way this Subaru manufacturing division went out of business in 2003.
>> Since you've gone on this tirade against the Forester, sales have basically experienced a meteoric rise.
"Meteoric rise"? Not quite. May be in some markets sales are better, but worldwide Fuji / Subaru sales decline every year (thousands of units):
2008: 597
2009: 555
2010: 508 (projected)
http://www.fhi.co.jp/english/ir/corporate/message.html
It will not be easy for Subaru to stop this “meteoric” decline, while dropping behind in key technologies: AWD, transmission, diesel, hybrid, plug-in electric, not even mention toys like modern NAV, streaming bluetooth, FAST key, etc.
>> The Forester is leaner, meaner, greener, safer, and costs less to own.
Forester is leaner for sure, leaner in terms of technology. As for safety, and accolades, not Forester, but Outlander won the "Top Safety Pick" by the IIHS:
http://www.mitsubishicars.com/MMNA/jsp/accolades.do?modelId=100035&loc=en-us
Subaru sells "lean" basic cars equipped with outdated but proven technologies. This helps them to stay on the top of reliability charts and move funds from R&D to marketing, but this strategy may eventually backfire.
Technically, you're both right. Meteors generally fall and either become meteorites or vaporize completely. Only rarely does a meteor, with sufficient mass and just the right trajectory, reverse its decent and rise to become a meteoroid again.
Oh, yes, my point! And it is that sometimes people just don't want that much detail in a comparo. :shades:
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
True, but it's a shame the dual-clutch SST transmission didn't make it to the US-spec Outlander GT, though. Keep in mind that vehicle starts at $31 grand, and that's with cloth and no Navi. Plus - Mitsu said it was coming.
may be it's not in the top 2 anymore, but top 3 or 5
Actually no, it did not make the top 6 in its class.
The rest of your post waters things down by comparing Mitsu corporate to FHI. Subaru of America, where both of us live, is on a huge roll. Their market share is up nearly 50%, primarily due to the main subject of this thread - the Forester.
Mitsubishi should stop selling passenger cars, and stick to trucks and other businesses.
transmission, diesel
You don't know about Subaru's diesel? Edmunds even tested it, in the Forester no less. Let's see who can get theirs to the USA first, Subaru or Mitsu.
And guess what transmission it had? A 6 speed manual. No pretender, the real thing, with a clutch.
modern NAV
Really? What you haven't disclosed is the fact that your 2007 model had maps from way back in 2005, and that wasn't updated until 2009. 4 year old map data. That's pathetic. Modern? Try ancient.
Since 05 Garmin has been through version 6, then 7, then 2008, then 2009, and now 2010, and by the way they've had TWENTY updates to the 2010 maps, currently on v2010.20.
How can you brag about a system that had 4 year old maps? It can't even match a $99 portable.
I'm not going to defend Subaru's Navi, in fact I passed on it. OEM Navi is overpriced, even at $1800 it's not worth it. Mitsu's costs more and offers more, but it's still grossly overpriced and has maps so dated it would not include roads built years ago. Not to mention the options costs more and I bet the updates cost a couple hundred bucks, too.
Get a Kenwood instead. You called Subaru's stereo "generic", no realizing that's actually an advantage. It's a standard double-DIN opening. Anything fits, generic size, like you said. Get one of these for 1/3rd of the cost of OEM Navi:
And since it has Garmin maps, you would have been able to get dozens of updates in the time you were waiting for just one. And the updates cost $99 for life. That head unit is about $700 with Bluetooth, and you can add a backup cam for $99, too.
So this is about 1/3rd the cost. Still less than half even with the backup cam and installation.
Not true.
Forester was actually the FIRST small crossover to be named a Top Safety Pick, well before Outlander caught up several years later.
Here is the complete list for 2009:
http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr112508.html
Even now, the Forester gets the top score of "Good" in every single test IIHS performs, and the Outlander does not.
Outlander scores "Average" in the roof strength test:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/roof/detailsbyclass.aspx?58
Forester's roof is so much stronger that it can take all the weight that crushed the Outlander's roof, and the Outlander itself, crushed roof and all, and still the roof would not fail! :shades:
You keep falling back on the options list, but I will note that the Outlander GT starts at $31 grand, for cloth and no Navi. The Forester XT tops off at less than that even with Navi and heated leather. So the Outlander simply goes in to a much higher price range, where luxury brand competitors exist.
This is why sales won't pick up. People are not looking for an economy-branded compact crossover for more than $30 large. At that price it makes more sense to buy Mercedes, BMW, or some other luxury make. The Outlander GT with leather and Navi costs $33 grand, and by then people aren't even considering Mitsubishi.
No wonder you leased a Benz, at that price I would have, also.
We finally agree on something.
Neither does Subaru, but clearly neither of these is what I'd call "modern".
I've had text-to-speech in my portables for half a decade now.
C'mon folks, get out of the stone ages.
Goodbye Miles per Gallon, Hello Monthly Fuel Cost
Edmunds got it right - this is how it should be done.
Edmunds made no statement to that effect at all (one way or another)
That is how YOU think it should be done. Everyone has their opinion
My preference for a CUV is for running the more available weasel pi** gas with lower compression. I'm sure someone else would prefer a supercharger over a turbocharger too. (with complexity can come expense and it's one more thing to add in for less potential reliability over time )YMMV.
I don't understand your response, the article (by Edmunds.com) said:
We think it's time to get on with the changeover to something better.
A figure that reflects monthly fuel cost makes much more sense
That was their opinion. I merely agreed with it.
"Edmunds.com, parent of AutoObserver, late last week submitted a recommendation to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation to make fuel-economy information on new-vehicle window stickers more useful by shifting to a cost-of-energy figure rather than today's emphasized miles-per-gallon numbers."
Edmunds.com Recommends Shift From MPG Emphasis (AutoObserver)
The background story is all the electric and hybrid cars on the horizon (and on the street) that don't have "normal" mpg usage.
How can you measure MPG on an electric car if it doesn't use Gallons but rather kilowatt-hours?
I didn't even get a turbo, ours is a PZEV naturally aspirated engine. Clean and green. :shades:
Also, IIRC the 3.8L from the Galant and Endeavor used premium. That's prior to the current Galant and when they sold the Endeavor. The current Galant is only offered with a 4 cyl.
Finally, there was a discussion in the earlier posts going back and forth about the 2010 Outlander V6 requiring premium. My posts were an attempt to provide at least some finality to the question by noting that Mitsu does not state premium is required.
I test drove one a while back. That 3.8l was really torquey. They also set the engine nice and low in the engine bay. What happened to it?
Also, I wonder what they did to the 3.0l to move from 220hp to 230hp. Did all models get that boost? Or just the GT?
Switching gears a bit...
Automotive News had a timely article, echoing Edmunds sentiments, here's part of a headline:
Nissan North America says the Nissan Leaf all-electric car will get 367 mpg. No, it won't. General Motors Co. says the plug-in hybrid Chevrolet Volt will get 230 mpg. No, it can't...
Energy cost per mile would work, and some folks already use that for gas vehicles.
'Subaru of America' does not build cars. It’s just a marketing office and sales numbers by local market/season may be misleading for the company health. The fact is that worldwide Fuji / Subaru sales decline every year: from 597,000 cars in 2008 to the projected 508,000 in 2010: a significant drop. FHI / Subaru is expecting this year a staggering net loss of 700 billion yen which is about 785 million dollars. Sorry, boys, no money for gadgets and we have to keep the 4 speed tranny for another decade.
>> You don't know about Subaru's diesel?..
Yea, sure, I know. The first time ever Subaru builds diesel: big deal, finally! Mitsubishi has been building them for over 50 years. That’s why Subaru is behind in diesel technology, and I would not recommend this first Subaru pancake.
>> And guess what transmission it had? A 6 speed manual. No pretender, the real thing, with a clutch...
He-he. “Real thing”: the 100 year old technology. Have you ever thought why Lexus and Benz don’t use your “the real thing” in their luxury SUVs? Or why did you purchase your Forester with crappy 4-speed auto instead of “the real thing”?
>> modern NAV Really? What you haven't disclosed is the fact that your 2007 model had maps from way back in 2005, and that wasn't updated until 2009. 4 year old map data. That's pathetic. Modern? Try ancient...
Why are you talking about 2007 Outlander model? “That's pathetic“: in 2007 Forester did not have ANY navigation while Outlander already had hard-drive based navigation: first in the class. Now we are talking about the current 2010 model navigation, which comes with Diamond Lane Guidance, fast hard-drive based map access, free Real Time Traffic, voice activated 40GB music server, and backup camera.
>> Get a Kenwood instead. You called Subaru's stereo "generic", no realizing that's actually an advantage. It's a standard double-DIN opening. Anything fits, generic size, like you said. Get one of these for 1/3rd of the cost of OEM Navi...
Yea, Do It Yourself, that’s the way to go with Subaru. Buy your own stereo, navigation, Xenons, satellite accessory, backup camera. And don’t forget to get that “fuse” at RadioShack for your AWD. Wow, not having anything in Subaru is actually “advantage”. Yea, it’s like buying a house with bare walls and finishing it yourself. Sure, I see the advantage.
No. MSRP aside, after the first 3-4 month the GT will become available, I expect its street price to be $30K or less fully loaded (excluding rear entertainment system). The comparably equipped smaller MB GLK would cost you $44K: FAST Key option alone costs over $1000. The comparably equipped Audi Q5 and Benz ML350 will cost you $53-56K plus tax, so the GT will be a steal at 30K.
But if you use your own Do It Yourself approach, you can steal Forester for even less than that. Some of that stuff you can get on eBay cheaply, making in the mean time some Subaru bux. Another benefit would be that an aftermarket accessory failure would not count for Consumer Reports survey and Forester will remain on the top of reliability charts.
Available on 1books.com for only $2.62 used, plus earn 3% in Subaru bux:
All major car makers can put the gadgets in a small SUV that Outlander has. Its not about having the capability. Its about what package appeals to most of the consumers and able to sell it in numbers. Mitsubishi followed a different route with Outlander and to me it seems that they did not quite succeed (sales are very low even after full 3 years). If that was'nt the case then Rav4 and CRV won't be at the top. Heck in terms of gadget a basic kia model has bluetooth, mp3 player, aux jack etc etc and they really market it that way since they really have nothing to write about in other areas.
Lets see how many Outlander GT is Mitsubishi able to sell in North America in 2010.
Vehicles like the Tribeca, with a too-small 3rd row and no side curtain air bags to protect those occupants (sound familiar?), have caused the overall drop for Subaru, not the Forester.
A timely article: Subaru: Japan's Hottest Car Company
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/nov2009/gb20091111_789023.htm
Excerpt:
For the timing being, expect Subaru's hot streak to continue. Mori has increased Subaru's annual sales forecast by 37,000, to 548,000 vehicles, and now expects to record sales of 204,000 in the U.S. Like all Japanese exporters, Subaru is still hampered by the strong yen, but the company at least expects a small operating profit for the six months through March 2010. It previously projected a $390 million loss.
Right now the only reason they may not match 2009 sales is short supply. Subaru had a 15 day supply of cars on its lots after C4C. The only struggle right now is for supply to catch up to demand.
Admit it, you did not know about Subaru's diesel engine. Otherwise why did you mention it on your list of things Subaru doesn't offer that Mitsubishi does?
Have you ever thought why Lexus and Benz don’t use your “the real thing” in their luxury SUVs?
Because those aren't the sportier manufacturers in that segment. BMW offers a true manual in the X3. RX350? Please...I own a Toyota, they're as far from sporty as you can get. Competent in other ways, sure.
in 2007 Forester did not have ANY navigation
Portables are better anyway, you're not stuck with outdated maps. When will they offer the next update, 2013? I wonder if you rent an Outlander (or one of its clones) in Europe if it still says East/West Germany, or maybe USSR? LOL
Portables also offer Bluetooth and lane guidance, and 3 things the Outlander's expensive system does not:
* frequent updates
* 3 choices for traffic, including a free one with no subscription
* text-to-speech
Your 2007 Outlander did not have heated mirrors. And don't say you didn't care - because you said that was an important feature that you missed. Subaru had that 7 years sooner. Subaru added Navi the same year Mitsu added heated mirrors. After all, AWD is for snowy climates, and I'd rather see out my side mirrors than get directions from 4 year old maps:
Make a left on to the Road That Doesn't Exist Any More...
Not to mention all the businesses that closed (or opened) from 2005 to 2009.
stereo, navigation, Xenons, satellite accessory, backup camera
All that stuff just lowers your residual and ends up increasing ownership costs disproportionately. Plus they push the GT in to a lease payment that would get you a Benz or BMW - which is what you did.
At that price many people (like you) lease, and Outlanders don't lease well due to the residuals. Fancy options only lower residual percentages. Actual samples:
$560/month with $3000 cap reduction + taxes and fees
($464 with taxes), first month payment + $350 doc fee/plates ($814 total) due at signing
That's BMW/Mercedes money. No wonder you defected. Actions speak louder than words.
GLK: 3.5L, 268HP = 76.6 HP/L
Outlander: 3.0L, 230HP = 76.7 HP/L
Power output/displacement is a wash so you can't really say the Benz engine is more advanced. It's just bigger. No advantage to MB there except for the "more is better" argument. Which is fine until you have to put gas in it:
GLK: 16 city/21 highway/18 combined
Outlander: 18/24/20
Even brand new the GLK would have qualified as a clunker WRT fuel economy. That's not good. The Outlander gets 11-14% better fuel economy & will be less expensive to drive than the GLK. The GLK's gas tank is almost 2 gallons larger so their driving ranges are pretty similar.
BTW, this is a revised version of the 3L V6 so the NVH you experienced may not be there anymore. It certainly hasn't been a factor in my Mitsu's 10 year old 3L V6; with 152K on the clock it's still silky smooth.
I'm sure the GLK has better interior materials than the Outlander. I won't try to argue that point. But the Outlander has more passenger space by every measurement - hip, leg, head, and shoulder room. The GLK has more luggage capacity with the second row seats up but the Outlander bests it with the second (& third row, which the GLK doesn't offer) down by 18 cubic feet. Speaking of second row seats, the Mitsu's fold flat to the cargo floor; the GLK's do not. So good luck hauling those long, flat items without bending them.
(All data is from the Edmunds specs pages for the 2010 V6 AWD models.)
Regarding sales, yes, time will tell. Mitsu has problems there with brand recognition and with very limited advertising dollars. With those combined it will be hard to attract sufficient attention. They also have a relatively small dealer network nationally (although they're represented fine in my area - Chicagoland).
Personally, I'm comparing the Outlander XLS to the GT. Same engine but different AWD system. Optioned similary the GT is a bit more expensive and I'm not sure the better AWD system is worth the extra cost. I'll drive both and see.
Plus, short gearing makes it much quicker, a trade-off for the mileage.
The point, though, is should Mitsubishi even be competing with Audi and Mercedes?
Anyway, we shouldn't be comparing the Mitsu (or the Forester) to the Audi, MB, or RAV4 as I just did