Subaru Forester 2000 vs Mitsubishi Outlander 2003
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Manual | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 2.0 Petrol | 2.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing belt | Timing belt | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 125 HP | 136 HP | |
| Torque: | 184 NM | 176 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12 seconds | 11.4 seconds | |
|
Mitsubishi Outlander is a more dynamic driving. Subaru Forester engine produces 11 HP less power than Mitsubishi Outlander, but torque is 8 NM more than Mitsubishi Outlander. Due to the lower power, Subaru Forester reaches 100 km/h speed 0.6 seconds later. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 9.2 | 9.4 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 11.4 l/100km | 9.7 l/100km | |
|
The Mitsubishi Outlander is a better choice in terms of fuel economy based on user-reported consumption, although the specification shows otherwise. By specification Subaru Forester consumes 0.2 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 30 litres of fuel. But when we compare the real fuel consumption reported by users, Subaru Forester consumes 1.7 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Mitsubishi Outlander. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 60 litres | 59 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 650 km in combined cycle | 620 km in combined cycle | |
| 800 km on highway | 770 km on highway | ||
| 520 km with real consumption | 600 km with real consumption | ||
| 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: | 380'000 km | 520'000 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: | 7 years | 45 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Subaru Impreza, Subaru Legacy | Installed on at least 4 other car models, including Mitsubishi Lancer, Mitsubishi Space Wagon | |
| 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: | no | yes | |
| 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: | 4.45 m | 4.54 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.75 m | |
| Height: | 1.60 m | 1.62 m | |
|
Subaru Forester is smaller. Subaru Forester is 9 cm shorter than the Mitsubishi Outlander, 1 cm narrower, while the height of Subaru Forester is 2 cm lower. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | no data | 402 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
no data | 1705 litres | |
| Turning diameter: | 10.8 meters | 11.4 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Subaru Forester is 0.6 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): | 1`500 | 1`995 | |
| Safety: | no data | no data | |
| Quality: | high | no data | |
| Average price (€): | 2200 | 1800 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Subaru Forester has
|
Mitsubishi Outlander has
| |