Subaru Forester vs Mitsubishi Outlander

**bunge** · May 3rd, 2007 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by FXT

...so if i agree with you with all your comments, what am i doing with a Forester?!

And what the heck are you doing with that FXT handle? You must change it into GLS.

Right?

**kulit** · May 4th, 2007 11:31 PM

This is a difficult choice to make. The Outlander clearly has the Forester in its sight, but Mitsubishi has to come up with a bigger engine (3LV6) to match Subaru's (2.5F4 Turbo) power but its still a tad short. In terms of ameneties and space, the Outlander has the advantage. I haven't driven the Outlander yet so I cannot comment on its ride & handling. I'll tell you a personal anecdote: During the MIAS last March, I inspected the Mitsubishi Outlander on display. Nice! While I was seated at the Driver's side, another onlooker opened the front passenger door and when he closed it again, lo and behold, the sunglass holder mounted above the rear view mirror fell! Talk about build quality. Notwithstanding, in difficult comparisons as this, I suggest you go for a test drive. Considering that the Outlander is still a new model, there are no comprehensive reviews as of this writing. My personal choice: still the Subaru Forester.

**kulit** · May 17th, 2007 02:07 AM

I drove my friend's new Outlander GLS Sport today. I was impressed! The upshifts were smooth, it was hardly noticeable especially below 4000rpm. Acceleration from a standstill was not jerky. The big brake rotors gives you confidence in sudden stops. It could go fast especially in overtaking maneuvers- hindi ka mabibitin. Space- there's lots of it. Rear leg room (adjustable back seats) is roomier than Forester. Rockford Fosgate sound system- a joy to the ears. Ride height is higher than Forester's. Noise insulation- quiter inside the Outlander. Aircon- both do the job despite the summer heat. Cubby holes- 2 big compartments in the Outlander's front passenger side. more gadgetry in the Mitsu.
Ride comfort- I still prefer the Forester.Although the Outlander's ride was not bumpy, I felt that the suspension travel of the Forester was still longer. Exhaust note- I prefer the boxer engine's deep rumble. Handling- haven't tried the Outlander in the twisties yet so default choice is the Forester. No sunroof in the Outlander also. Interior- better texture of materials in the forester.
My 2 cents' worth...

**jjmichaels** · May 17th, 2007 06:59 AM

Mitsu's have never been known for build quality most notably interiors. Outlander actually looks more imposing than the Forester's unassuming looks.

**mazdamazda** · May 17th, 2007 09:17 AM

I read the Philippine Star's review of the Outlander. After a driving it hard for a few hours using the paddle shifters - it suddenly went to safe mode and disengaged it automatically. Hmmm...

**jjmichaels** · May 17th, 2007 10:37 AM

So far did 2:16 around BRC for over 12 laps on the 4EAT Forester. Engine, auto-tranny, brakes and all wheel drive ran as solid as a rock! Pretty bullet proof in my opinion. Time could easily go lower with a better driver though.

**mazdamazda** · May 17th, 2007 10:44 AM

Btw, they were only doing some slalom tests when the tranny went to safe mode. They were able to do some track time though it was on "drive mode" only.

**Drave** · May 17th, 2007 11:52 AM

My wife and I are planning to buy a small suv before the end of the year to exchange for our jazz coz we want a taller car. We have a shortlist of forester, outlander and sta fe a/t tranny. I don't know with my wife but she likes the looks of the forester more than the others. We went to motor image and we liked the interiors of the forester due to the more simple layout and more luxurious feel. The rear seats though are relatively more cramped but I was able to sit comfortably well. I'd love to test drive it in the near future but I will go thru the others first before making a final decision.

Forester 0-100kph in 6 secs. Just can't get that out of my head