Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
2015 Mitsubishi Outlander Sport Road Test | Edmunds.com
Edmunds.com
Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 10,315
2015 Mitsubishi Outlander Sport Road Test | Edmunds.com
The 2015 Mitsubishi Outlander Sport scores points for fuel efficiency but not enough to overcome its drawbacks.
0
Comments
This vehicle DOES HAVE a telescopic steering wheel.
Drivers knee airbag has been equipped in all Outlander Sport models since 2011 MY.
It does not compete directly with an Escape, CR-V, Rav4, CX-5, or Equinox. That would be the larger Outlander. It DOES compete with Buick Encore/ Chevy Trax, upcoming Honda HRV, Jeep Renegade, Mini Countryman (size wise).
YOU CANNOT USE THE IPHONE VIA USB AND HAVE IT TETHERED VIA BLUETOOTH SIMULTANEOUSLY!!!!! I really don't know HOW many times Mitsubishi has to cover this. It will not work! It will drop calls! It will stop playing music! It will act erratic! It has since 2011 MY!
It's all subjective commentary without any objective measurements to support the authors opinions. There's just no pragmatic approach here. It makes me question whether the author even actually drove the car...
Here the 0-60 mph acceleration of 9.2 s is deemed slow. the same parameter was reported for Kia Sportage (9.2 s), Honda CR-V (9.7 s), For Mazda CX-5 (2.0 L engine; 9.3 s). Why is the Outlander Sport slower than the competition?
http://www.edmunds.com/kia/sportage/2011/road-test-specs2.html
http://www.edmunds.com/ford/escape/2013/comparison-test.html
http://www.edmunds.com/mazda/cx-5/2013/road-test.html
From the same reviews the breaking distances from 60mph to 0 are the following:
Kia Sportage: 124 ft
Honda CR-V: 129 ft
Ford Escape: 124 ft
Mazda CX-5: 121 ft.
Why is the 119 ft measured for the Outlander Sport here considered average for the class? Actually it is the best in the class.
It is alarming that our esteemed auto journalists cannot even be consistent with their own facts. In science and engineering there is no room for feelings. The clock, the measuring tape and the scale do not lie, our senses may let us down.
Subaru XV Crosstrek 0-60 mph: 9.9 s; breaking distance from 60 mph to 0: 126 ft.
http://www.edmunds.com/subaru/xv-crosstrek/2013/road-test-specs1.html
Chevrolet Equinox 0-60 mph: 9.3 s; breaking distance from 60 mph to 0:132 ft.
http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/equinox/2010/road-test-specs2.html
Chevrolet Trax 0-60 mph: 10.0 s; breaking distance from 60 mph to 0: 120 ft.
http://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/trax/2015/road-test-specs.html
Even from these additional three crossovers the conclusions of the author cannot be justified.
I was wondering what are the competitors of the class that make the Outlander sport slow and its breaking distance average? I could not found them. I do not want to waste more space and time to prove my points on other claims of the article. I hope I established some credibility unlike the author.
Based on the data collected by Edmunds and listed on my previous two posts Edmunds assigned a letter grade "D" for the acceleration of the Mitsubishi Outlander Sport (OS), while the slower Honda CR-V received a "B" grade.
In the breaking category the OS again received a "D" grade, while the cars with longer breaking distances got better grades: Honda CR-V, and Mazda CX-5 both got "B" grade. From Edmunds data it is easy to calculate: when the OS has come to a complete stop the CR-V is still rolling with a speed of 17.3 mph and the CX-5 with 9.8 mph. These speeds are enough to cause damages that require a visit to the body shop.
I have a message to the Managing Editor of Edmunds. Please, register your journalists for high school physics courses. They would benefit from it as their current grade is "F". There is a lot of journalism in the articles but not so much automotive.
I find it outrageous that self proclaimed experts without proper foundation play with our money and give unsupported purchasing advice to favor one manufacturer over another. They are supposed to be the experts whom the unsuspecting consumer turns for help. I urge my fellow buyers to check your facts before you believe such a reports.
http://www.edmunds.com/mitsubishi/outlander-sport/2015/rating-details.html?&sub=suv
http://www.edmunds.com/honda/cr-v/2013/suv/used/rating-details.html?&sub=suv
http://www.edmunds.com/mazda/cx-5/2014/rating-details.html?&sub=suv
Size is exactly what I expected and both front and rear seats have great room. My 6 foot son has no problems in the rear seat.
Also, the Mitsubishi has a great realiability record. This is my second Mitsubishi and I love the fact that my main recurring cost is for oil changes. This is a great small SUV and I am amazed that Edmunds does not like it. The only thing I can figure is they put much more weight on the silly toys which cause bad drivers to drift into my lane at 70 mph rather than a great, reliable, safe and quick vehicle. Makes me scratch my head and has resulted in me lowering my opinion of Edmunds.