Subaru Forester 2008 vs Mitsubishi Outlander 2006
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.4 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 150 HP | 160 HP | |
| Torque: | 196 NM | 213 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.7 seconds | 11.2 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander is a more dynamic driving. Subaru Forester engine produces 10 HP less power than Mitsubishi Outlander, whereas torque is 17 NM less than Mitsubishi Outlander. Due to the lower power, Subaru Forester reaches 100 km/h speed 1.5 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 8.4 | 10.1 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 10.6 l/100km | 11.2 l/100km | |
|
The Subaru Forester is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Subaru Forester consumes 1.7 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Outlander, which means that by driving the Subaru Forester over 15,000 km in a year you can save 255 litres of fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Subaru Forester consumes 0.6 litres less fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Outlander. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 64 litres | 59 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 760 km in combined cycle | 580 km in combined cycle | |
| 600 km with real consumption | 520 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: | 350'000 km | 480'000 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: | 16 years | 22 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Subaru Impreza, Subaru Legacy, Subaru XV | Installed on at least 3 other car models, including Mitsubishi Galant, Mitsubishi Grandis, Mitsubishi Eclipse | |
| 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: | 4.56 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.78 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.70 m | 1.62 m | |
|
Subaru Forester is larger. Subaru Forester is 2 cm longer than the Mitsubishi Outlander, 3 cm wider, while the height of Subaru Forester is 8 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 450 litres | 402 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1691 litres | |
|
Subaru Forester has more luggage capacity. Subaru Forester has 48 litres more trunk space than the Mitsubishi Outlander. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 10.6 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Subaru Forester is 0.8 metres less than that of the Mitsubishi Outlander, which means Subaru Forester can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 2`015 | 2`300 | |
| Safety: | no data | ||
| Quality: | average | below 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 (€): | 3800 | 3000 | |
| Rating in user reviews: | 8.2/10 | 7.9/10 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Subaru Forester has
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has
| |