Mitsubishi Outlander 2006 vs Subaru Forester 2008
| Gearbox: | Manual | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 136 HP | 150 HP | |
| Torque: | 176 NM | 196 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 10.7 seconds | 11 seconds | |
| Mitsubishi Outlander engine produces 14 HP less power than Subaru Forester, whereas torque is 20 NM less than Subaru Forester. Despite less power, Mitsubishi Outlander reaches 100 km/h speed 0.3 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.1 | 8.4 | |
|
The Subaru Forester is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 0.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Subaru Forester, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Mitsubishi Outlander could require 105 litres more fuel. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 59 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 640 km in combined cycle | 760 km in combined cycle | |
| Subaru Forester gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | Front wheel drive (FWD) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 520'000 km | 350'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Mitsubishi Outlander engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 44 years | 16 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi Space Wagon | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Subaru Impreza, Subaru Legacy, Subaru XV | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Mitsubishi Outlander might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
| Hydraulic tappets: | yes | no | |
| The Mitsubishi Outlander engine has hydraulic tappets (lifters), providing quieter operation and no need for periodic adjustment, but they are more complex in design and can cause serious engine damage in case of failure. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 4.54 m | 4.56 m | |
| Width: | 1.75 m | 1.78 m | |
| Height: | 1.62 m | 1.70 m | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander is smaller. Mitsubishi Outlander is 2 cm shorter than the Subaru Forester, 3 cm narrower, while the height of Mitsubishi Outlander is 8 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 402 litres | 450 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
1691 litres | no data | |
|
Subaru Forester has more luggage space. Mitsubishi Outlander has 48 litres less trunk space than the Subaru Forester. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 11.4 meters | 10.6 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Outlander is 0.8 metres more than that of the Subaru Forester, which means Mitsubishi Outlander can be harder to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`300 | 2`015 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | below average | average | |
| Subaru Forester has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Mitsubishi Outlander has serious deffects in 10 percent more cases than Subaru Forester, so Subaru Forester quality is probably slightly better | |||
| Average price (€): | 3400 | 4200 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.9/10 | 8.5/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Outlander has
|
Subaru Forester has
| |