Mitsubishi Outlander 2006 vs Subaru Forester 2008
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.4 Petrol | 2.5 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 160 HP | 230 HP | |
| Torque: | 213 NM | 320 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 11.2 seconds | 7.6 seconds | |
|
Subaru Forester is a more dynamic driving. Mitsubishi Outlander engine produces 70 HP less power than Subaru Forester, whereas torque is 107 NM less than Subaru Forester. Due to the lower power, Mitsubishi Outlander reaches 100 km/h speed 3.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 10.1 | 10.0 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.2 l/100km | 11.7 l/100km | |
|
By specification Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 0.1 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 15 litres more fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Mitsubishi Outlander consumes 0.5 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Subaru Forester. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 59 litres | 64 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 580 km in combined cycle | 640 km in combined cycle | |
| 520 km with real consumption | 540 km with real consumption | ||
| Subaru Forester gets more mileage on one fuel tank. | |||
| Read the article "Fuel Efficiency: How to Reduce Fuel Consumption" to learn more about fuel economy. | |||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 480'000 km | 300'000 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: | 22 years | 21 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Galant, Mitsubishi Grandis, Mitsubishi Eclipse | Used only for this car | |
| 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. | |||
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 | 11 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Mitsubishi Outlander is 0.4 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`000 | |
| 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 (€): | 3200 | 4400 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 7.9/10 | 8.2/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Mitsubishi Outlander has
|
Subaru Forester has
| |