Review: 2009 Mitsubishi Outlander
06-07-09, 06:15 PM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Review: 2009 Mitsubishi Outlander
By CL member request, a Review of the 2009 Mitsubishi Outlander
http://www.mitsubishicars.com/MMNA/j...er/09/index.do
In a Nutshell: A couple of nice features, but, in general, not as impressive as some of its competitors.
(Beige Interior)
(3.0L V6 engine shown)
I recently received a CL member request for a 2009 V6 Outlander review, and, since the other CL requests are still on hold due to lack of availability, decided to do the Outlander review today.
Mitsubishi introduced the first-generation Outlander, in 2003, as its first small car-based, unibody SUV. The Outlander (and the larger, car-based, Mitsubishi Endeavor) were introduced not only as replacements for the former, more trucklike, Montero and Montero Sport lines, but also to meet the huge competition from the small, car-based Toyota RAV4, Honda CR-V, Subaru Outback/Forester, and Ford Escape. The Montero Sport, unlike the larger Montero, came only with a truck-based, part-time 4WD system. Fortunately, the first-generation Outlander solved that problem with a pavement-worthy center differential AWD system that allowed more flexible use (the new model also allows 2WD and 4WD Lock....more on that below). The original Outlander, like the Endeavor, was not a terribly big success in the American market, for several reasons. First was Mitsubishi's lack of name recognition, compared to its huge rivals like Honda and Toyota. Second, it was introduced at a time when the company had a number of major problems with poor marketing here in the U.S., corrupt company officials (several of them went to prison), so-so quality/engineering (which had deteriorated since the 1980s), and when most of the attention was going into the Evo rally cars to met Subaru's STi competition. Third, both the original Outlander and Endeavor were considered ugly-looking by the auto press (I agreed), and the Outlander had a four that was simply too small and underpowered for the job, with no V6 option. The Outlander and Endeavor, though, did manage a better-than average repair/reliability rating from Consumer Reports; not quite as reliable as the superb Toyota RAV-4 and Honda CR-V, but, nontheless, respectable.
The second-generation Outlander was introduced last year, and now, for 2009, in the American market, comes in three basic versions....base ES, SE, and XLS. The ES and SE versions come with a 2.4L in-line 4 of 168 HP, 167 ft-lbs. of torque, and a CVT (Continously Variable Transmission), programmed with 6 imitation ranges, or "gears". XLS models use Mitsubishi's 3.0L MIVEC V6, with 220 HP and 204 ft-lbs. of torque, and a conventional, Sport-Shift 6-speed torque-converter automatic. All versions come with a choice of 2WD (actually, FWD) or a flexible 2WD/AWD/4WD Lock system that is also (supposedly) fairly good off-road (though I didn't test it off-road). But the Outlander lacks the more rugged frame of Mitsubishi's former, true off-road Montero and Montero Sport....it was not designed necessarily as an off-road Jeep. Like other small car-based SUV's, it can do mild off-roading, but was not meant to be a mountain goat.
The review request was for a V6 AWD model, but, right now, there aren't very many V6s here on the lots in the D.C. area. Even the 4's are in rather short supply right now, because the Outlander is not a big seller, and dealers aren't ordering many of them. There were a couple of 2WD fours, 4WD fours, and one V6 at the Mitsubishi shop I was at, so what I did was more or less a compromise. I first did a full review and test-drive on an upmarket, four-cylinder SE with 4WD, to check out the vehicle in general. The one V6 AWD model they had was a factory-program car used by management, and not for sale, but they did let me sample it on a quick test-drive just long enough to compare it with the four. The V6, of course, being a program car, didn't have a price sticker on it, so I didn't list its price/options on the V6 like I usually do....just that of the four. Actually, I didn't need much time with the V6, since it comes with the same suspension, wheels, steering system, and tires that the upmarket SE four-cylinder does. So, not surprisingly, it rode, handled, and steered pretty much like the four did, except with a little more power and, of course, some different transmission-shift characteristics. So, instead of writing two different full reviews (one review alone takes long enough to write, believe me), I'm going to describe what I found on the SE four-cylinder version, with a few notes on how the V6 was different.
So.........let's do it.
Model Reviewed: 2009 Mitsubishi Outlander 2.4L SE 4X4
Base Price: $25,380
Options:
Third-Row Seat: $500
Destination/Freight: $750
List Price as Reviewed: $26,595
Drivetrain:
(4 cylinder): 2WD/AWD/Lock, transversely-mounted DOHC 2.4L in-line four, 168 HP @ 6000 RPM, Torque 167 ft-lbs @ 4100 RPM, CVT automatic with paddle-shift and 6 programmed gear ranges.
(V6): 2WD/4WD/Lock, transversely-mounted 3.0L SOHC MIVEC V6, 220 HP (213 HP for ULEV version) @ 6250 RPM, Torque, 204 ft-lbs @ 4000 RPM, 6-speed Sport-shift automatic.
EPA Mileage Rating:
(2.4L 4X4): 20 City, 25 Highway,
(3.0L 4X4): 17 City, 23 Highway
Exterior Color: Manitoba Green Metallic (a dull but fairly attractive medium green-gray)
Interior: Black Cloth/Leather
PLUSSES:
Better-than-average average repair/reliability history.
Excellent 10/100 and 5/60 transferable warranty.
Nice console **** allows decoupling to 2WD when extra traction is not needed.
Normal AWD and Locking-4WD ranges when extra traction IS needed.
OK-to-good ride comfort on smooth roads and large bumps.
Fairly good noise isolation on smooth road surfaces.
Large, easy-to-reach shift paddles.
Black lower-body molding helps ward off paint damage from road debris.
Underhood insulation pad.
Cross-bar front-end support for chassis rigidity.
Generally good underhood layout, except for large engine cover.
Nice twist-grip ignition switch.
Generally nice exterior trim, except for grille.
Nice, tall exterior side mirrors for good visbility.
Attractive black/chrome lower-body simulated running boards.
Clear, easy-to-read, twin primary gauges.
Excellent stereo sound (the SE comes with the same 650W Rockford-Fosgate unit as the Sun & Sound package).
Nice dual cloth/leather seat upholstery.
Simple-to-use (but cheap-feeling) dash buttons/controls.
Fairly well-finished cargo area.
Handy (and strong) drop-tailgate.
MINUSES:
Wimpy 4-cylinder, especially with AWD.
V6 power better then four, but still not that strong.
CVT transmission (with four-cylinder) has typical CVT rubber-banding/surging characteristics.
Annoying zig-zag console transmission shifter.
Weak, spongy brakes, with poorly-located brake pedal.
Fairly slow steering response.
Marked, but not severe, body roll.
Stiff ride over small, sharp, bumps (but not larger ones).
High road noise on rough or concrete roads.
Underhood prop rod instead of struts.
Large, annoying engine covers on both 4 and V6.
Somewhat tinny doors/sheet metal.
So-so paint job, by today's standards.
Complex LED tailights.
Cheap-looking/feeling, flat-black plastic grille.
Wide, triangular D-pillars/rear roofline impede some rear vision.
Seat bolsters a little narrow for big, wide people.
Too much cheap, thin, hard-plastic/hard-surface interior trim.
Soft but cheap-feeling sun visors.
Fuel/temp gauges must be accesssed by the INFO button.
Cheap, wobbly climate-control *****.
Tight rear headroom for tall people.
Spare tire underneath the rear of the vehicle.
EXTERIOR:
Walking up to the Outlander, it is hard to distinguish it, at first glance, as a Mitsubishi product. The exterior styling combimes strong themes from the Toyota RAV4 and Matrix, Pontiac Vibe, Nissan Murano, and the new Subaru Forester, particularly in the large triangular D-Pillars, headlights, and grille. Not until you actually see Mitsubishi's triple-diamond logo and the vehicle's nameplates can you actually identify it as a Outlander. Overall, it isn't as ugly, IMO, as the last Outlander was, with the quirky double-snout. Still, I'm not a fan of those reverse-triangular D-Pillars, and, just like in the Murano, Vibe and RAV4, they restrict rear outward vision some. Like the RAV4, the latest-generation Outlander has stretched some......long enough for a small third-row seat, and, of course, a V6. Neither the paint job or the exterior sheet metal is particularly impressive. The paint job is lacking a little in gloss and contains a noticeable amount of orange peel. The sheet metal is not very solid-feeling, and the doors shut with a rather tinny sound. I liked the actual paint color, though, on my test car...it was a medium-to-dark greenish-gray that, while dull, had a classy look to it.....a color I wouldn't mind having on my own car. Eight exterior colors are available (with a few restrictions by model)....they are not sports-car-bright, but are nice enough that I could live with several of them.
The exterior hardware and trim was generally nice-looking and well-done...the only sub-standard piece of trim, IMO, was the cheap-looking/feeling, flat-black, plastic grille. The silver-painted roof racks (standard on the SE and XLS) looked nice, without the usual eye-sore look of the silver-metallic paint. The black/chrome imitation-running boards on the lower-body sides also looked classy and not overdone. I also liked the flat-black strip that ran around the entire bottom of the vehicle (except in the wheel wheels, where it should have been, but wasn't) to help ward off damage and chips from road debris. The twin outside mirrors were not particularly wide, but were nice and tall, and generally gave a good field of visiblity. In the back, the taillights are, IMO, shaped nice, but too busy-looking, with dozens of small LED-circles in them. The cargo area has a handy tailgate......more on that below.
UNDERHOOD:
Open the hood (like the doors, the hood's sheet metal is OK but not impressive), and you are treated to a nice insulation pad underneath and a not-so-nice swing-out prop rod to hold it up. The rod itself, though, seemed to be made out of very thick, strong metal.....you're not likely to bend it like you can with some of them. The underhood layout, overall, is pretty good....or, at least, not bad. Both the in-line 4 and the v6 fit in somewhat snuggly up front, but behind, there is a rather large, free, empty space (even with AWD) that is designed for the engine/transmission assembly to slide back and down under in the event of a frontal collision. Though there's room to reach things in back, up front, it's rather tight.....made worse by big, plastic engine covers (on both the four and V6) that block access to most of the upper-block components. The battery, though, on the front right, is not covered up.......it is easily reached, along with reservoirs on the left. Connecting the two strut towers (like on Mitsubishi's Evo and Ralliart) is a metal brace that runs the width of the engine compartment....this, of course, adds structural rigidity, but doesn't seem to help the handling or steering response much.....more on that below.
INTERIOR:
While having a few nice touches, the interior in general, appears to have been done to a budget. I did like four things. First, cloth-and-leather seat upholstery, with the nice-feeling leather edges/backs and the thick, durable cloth in the center of the seating surfaces (all-leather on the first two-row seats is a Luxury-package option). The driver's seat has a nice big pocket built into the back of it. Second, the nice red, black, and blue primary gauges that are clear and easy to read. Third, the simple, easy-to-use design of most of the buttons/controls (my test vehicle did not have NAV). Fourth, the borderline-killer stereo sound....the 650 watt Rockford Fosgate unit is a nice piece of equipment (Since it's early June, Alice Cooper did the honors today, with "School's Out").
But, once Alice was done, I found little else in the interior to be impressed with. The door panels, dash, and console are all hard plastic/hard surfaces and unpleasant, even the felt-covered but hard-surface door armrest where you're supposed to lay your elbow. The three big climate-control rotary ***** under the stereo feel even more cheap and flimsy that those I've criticized in the new Camry and a couple of other newer Toyotas. The center part of the buttons, where you push for the A/C and to turn them on/off, were so thin it felt almost like paper. The fuel and coolant-temperature gauges are not built into the dash like gauges are supposed to be, but are video-bar units that go on and off with certain functions of the "INFO" button that operates the trip computer, outside temperature, etc.... The seat bolsters are too narrow for people my size......admittedly, I'm big and heavy, but I wouldn't consider myself obese. The center-dash plastic, like some of the buttons, is overly-thin and flimsy-feeling. The shifter for the CVT has that annoying zig-zag pattern I dislike (but, that's something I have to put up with even in my own car). Headroom and legroom are OK in front, and legroom is generally OK in the rear, but there is a marked lack of headroom for tall people in back......somewhat surprising with the high roofline. Apparantly, the sunroof housing, despite the high roofline, takes up more than its share of ceiling room. The sun visors have a soft but cheap-feeling, flimsy covering.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
The cargo area, in general, is done much better than the cabin. The conventional hatch opens straight up like on most vehicles of this type, but underneath the hatch is a solid, well-done, fold-down tailgate strong enough for me, even with my weight, to sit on. That helps, of course, with loading heavy things, or for simply going to a picnic area and having a tailgate party. The walls of the cargo area are hard-surface plastic, with rear speakers for the aforementioned nice stereo built into them and a compartment for the spare-tire jack. The temporary spare (not a proper real one), like on some other small SUVs, is under the rear of the vehicle....but in this case, you have to access it by a small plastic tab, which removes a cover and allows it to be reached through the tailgate. The floor of the cargo area (and part of the tailgate) is covered in a nice black, semi-plush carpeting. Both the second-row and third-row seats fold down,of course, for added cargo room.....a fairly impressive amount for a vehicle this size, except for what the sunroof housing robs out of the rear ceiling, as I mentioned above. The third-row seat, of course, like most SUVs this size, is basically for children or small adults...it does not come with leather, even with the regular leather-seat option. With the third-row seat up, as expected, cargo space is minimal behind it.
ON THE ROAD:
Except for the 2WD/AWD switch, didn't find the new Outlander particularly impressive on the road, either. I did like the ignition system, though....a built-in thumb-twist-**** on the side of the steering column that activates when the electronic fob is in the vicinity. Both the four and the V6 come to life fairly smoothly and quietly. The four, with AWD is adequate only in more level areas without much of a load....IMO, it would be borderline underpowered, in, say, mountainous or steep-grade areas with a load. The V6, as expected, has a little more power, but not that much.....52 more HP and 37 ft-lbs. of torque. Still, if this were my vehicle, I'd go with the V6. The price and general 2-3 MPG difference, IMO, is worth it.....and both engines burn regular 87 octane. Both engines are reasonably quiet on the road.....the V6, as expected, a little more so than the four. Exhaust noise is fairly well-muted...a vehicle like this, of course, is not intended to have a loud sports-car exhaust. One nice feature with the Outlander, that I mentioned above, is the rotary, 3-position console **** on the console (and it is NOT flimsy or cheap-feeling) that activates the 2WD/AWD/LOCK transfer case. It can be shifted on the fly (while the vehicle is in motion), and 2WD (FWD) can be chosen when desired for slightly more power and fuel economy. Most of the Outlander's small, car-based SUV competitors don't have that decoupling feature, except for the very small Suzuki SX-4. The others run the system in automatic AWD most or all of the time.
The CVT transmission, with the four, is smooth, but has some of the typical CVT rubber-banding, RPM-slip/surge characteristics. It is divided into 6 artificial "gear" ranges, to imitate a conventional transmission. The regular 6-speed Sport-shift automatic in the V6 models, of course, feels and runs a little more conventionally. Both transmissions use nice, B-I-G paddle-shifters built ino the steering column.....the left one downshifts; the right one upshifts. Both paddles are superbly easy to use by finger-feel alone, without even looking down. Using the paddles with some throttle, the shifts in the conventional automatic feel, to me, a little smoother than the artificial "shifts" built into the CVT.
The chassis is not the best I've driven, either, even by small SUV standards. Both the (upmarket) SE four-cylinder and the V6 have similiar wheels/tires, suspension, and steering, so there's not much difference between the two in the road-manners department. Steering response is fairly slow, and there is marked but not severe body roll (even with the front chassis-brace), Ride comfort is OK (even borderline good) on smooth roads and large, slow-motion bumps, but stiffens up considerably and on small, sharp bumps and jolts. Wind noise is generally well-controlled; Road noise is not bad at low speeds on smooth asphalt surfaces, but tends to assault your ears on rougher, grainy, and concrete surfaces. Brakes were rather weak, quite spongy, and had little effect unless you put some significant pressure into them. The brake pedal was also rather poorly-located for my big size-15 feet.....I had some trouble with my shoes catching slightly on the underside of the pedal when I lifted my foot off the gas.
THE VERDICT:
Well, folks, I would not call this vehicle a piece of junk (it did have some nice features), but overall, I was not impressed with it. The standard seat upholstery is well-done, the 2WD/AWD **** is a good feature, the stereo is fully fit for Metalheads like me, the cargo-area features are nice, and the warranty is excellent. But the four-cylinder needs more spunk and a conventional automatic instead of the CVT, the interior needs many changes in the quality of its trim/materials/hardware, the rear seat needs more headroom, body sheet metal needs a little more thickness, a couple of bean-counting omissions need to be addressed, and the chassis/suspension engineers need to take a trip to Stuttgart or Munich to see how the Germans do it. So, in all honesty, this is an OK vehicle for basic transfortation, particularly if you like a flexible drivetrain, but, IMO, it doesn't stack up to a number of its competitors in the small-SUV market. Buying or leasing an Outlander is not necessarily a waste of money, but, again IMO, there are better ways to spend your hard-earned automotive dollars.
http://www.mitsubishicars.com/MMNA/j...er/09/index.do
In a Nutshell: A couple of nice features, but, in general, not as impressive as some of its competitors.
(Beige Interior)
(3.0L V6 engine shown)
I recently received a CL member request for a 2009 V6 Outlander review, and, since the other CL requests are still on hold due to lack of availability, decided to do the Outlander review today.
Mitsubishi introduced the first-generation Outlander, in 2003, as its first small car-based, unibody SUV. The Outlander (and the larger, car-based, Mitsubishi Endeavor) were introduced not only as replacements for the former, more trucklike, Montero and Montero Sport lines, but also to meet the huge competition from the small, car-based Toyota RAV4, Honda CR-V, Subaru Outback/Forester, and Ford Escape. The Montero Sport, unlike the larger Montero, came only with a truck-based, part-time 4WD system. Fortunately, the first-generation Outlander solved that problem with a pavement-worthy center differential AWD system that allowed more flexible use (the new model also allows 2WD and 4WD Lock....more on that below). The original Outlander, like the Endeavor, was not a terribly big success in the American market, for several reasons. First was Mitsubishi's lack of name recognition, compared to its huge rivals like Honda and Toyota. Second, it was introduced at a time when the company had a number of major problems with poor marketing here in the U.S., corrupt company officials (several of them went to prison), so-so quality/engineering (which had deteriorated since the 1980s), and when most of the attention was going into the Evo rally cars to met Subaru's STi competition. Third, both the original Outlander and Endeavor were considered ugly-looking by the auto press (I agreed), and the Outlander had a four that was simply too small and underpowered for the job, with no V6 option. The Outlander and Endeavor, though, did manage a better-than average repair/reliability rating from Consumer Reports; not quite as reliable as the superb Toyota RAV-4 and Honda CR-V, but, nontheless, respectable.
The second-generation Outlander was introduced last year, and now, for 2009, in the American market, comes in three basic versions....base ES, SE, and XLS. The ES and SE versions come with a 2.4L in-line 4 of 168 HP, 167 ft-lbs. of torque, and a CVT (Continously Variable Transmission), programmed with 6 imitation ranges, or "gears". XLS models use Mitsubishi's 3.0L MIVEC V6, with 220 HP and 204 ft-lbs. of torque, and a conventional, Sport-Shift 6-speed torque-converter automatic. All versions come with a choice of 2WD (actually, FWD) or a flexible 2WD/AWD/4WD Lock system that is also (supposedly) fairly good off-road (though I didn't test it off-road). But the Outlander lacks the more rugged frame of Mitsubishi's former, true off-road Montero and Montero Sport....it was not designed necessarily as an off-road Jeep. Like other small car-based SUV's, it can do mild off-roading, but was not meant to be a mountain goat.
The review request was for a V6 AWD model, but, right now, there aren't very many V6s here on the lots in the D.C. area. Even the 4's are in rather short supply right now, because the Outlander is not a big seller, and dealers aren't ordering many of them. There were a couple of 2WD fours, 4WD fours, and one V6 at the Mitsubishi shop I was at, so what I did was more or less a compromise. I first did a full review and test-drive on an upmarket, four-cylinder SE with 4WD, to check out the vehicle in general. The one V6 AWD model they had was a factory-program car used by management, and not for sale, but they did let me sample it on a quick test-drive just long enough to compare it with the four. The V6, of course, being a program car, didn't have a price sticker on it, so I didn't list its price/options on the V6 like I usually do....just that of the four. Actually, I didn't need much time with the V6, since it comes with the same suspension, wheels, steering system, and tires that the upmarket SE four-cylinder does. So, not surprisingly, it rode, handled, and steered pretty much like the four did, except with a little more power and, of course, some different transmission-shift characteristics. So, instead of writing two different full reviews (one review alone takes long enough to write, believe me), I'm going to describe what I found on the SE four-cylinder version, with a few notes on how the V6 was different.
So.........let's do it.
Model Reviewed: 2009 Mitsubishi Outlander 2.4L SE 4X4
Base Price: $25,380
Options:
Third-Row Seat: $500
Destination/Freight: $750
List Price as Reviewed: $26,595
Drivetrain:
(4 cylinder): 2WD/AWD/Lock, transversely-mounted DOHC 2.4L in-line four, 168 HP @ 6000 RPM, Torque 167 ft-lbs @ 4100 RPM, CVT automatic with paddle-shift and 6 programmed gear ranges.
(V6): 2WD/4WD/Lock, transversely-mounted 3.0L SOHC MIVEC V6, 220 HP (213 HP for ULEV version) @ 6250 RPM, Torque, 204 ft-lbs @ 4000 RPM, 6-speed Sport-shift automatic.
EPA Mileage Rating:
(2.4L 4X4): 20 City, 25 Highway,
(3.0L 4X4): 17 City, 23 Highway
Exterior Color: Manitoba Green Metallic (a dull but fairly attractive medium green-gray)
Interior: Black Cloth/Leather
PLUSSES:
Better-than-average average repair/reliability history.
Excellent 10/100 and 5/60 transferable warranty.
Nice console **** allows decoupling to 2WD when extra traction is not needed.
Normal AWD and Locking-4WD ranges when extra traction IS needed.
OK-to-good ride comfort on smooth roads and large bumps.
Fairly good noise isolation on smooth road surfaces.
Large, easy-to-reach shift paddles.
Black lower-body molding helps ward off paint damage from road debris.
Underhood insulation pad.
Cross-bar front-end support for chassis rigidity.
Generally good underhood layout, except for large engine cover.
Nice twist-grip ignition switch.
Generally nice exterior trim, except for grille.
Nice, tall exterior side mirrors for good visbility.
Attractive black/chrome lower-body simulated running boards.
Clear, easy-to-read, twin primary gauges.
Excellent stereo sound (the SE comes with the same 650W Rockford-Fosgate unit as the Sun & Sound package).
Nice dual cloth/leather seat upholstery.
Simple-to-use (but cheap-feeling) dash buttons/controls.
Fairly well-finished cargo area.
Handy (and strong) drop-tailgate.
MINUSES:
Wimpy 4-cylinder, especially with AWD.
V6 power better then four, but still not that strong.
CVT transmission (with four-cylinder) has typical CVT rubber-banding/surging characteristics.
Annoying zig-zag console transmission shifter.
Weak, spongy brakes, with poorly-located brake pedal.
Fairly slow steering response.
Marked, but not severe, body roll.
Stiff ride over small, sharp, bumps (but not larger ones).
High road noise on rough or concrete roads.
Underhood prop rod instead of struts.
Large, annoying engine covers on both 4 and V6.
Somewhat tinny doors/sheet metal.
So-so paint job, by today's standards.
Complex LED tailights.
Cheap-looking/feeling, flat-black plastic grille.
Wide, triangular D-pillars/rear roofline impede some rear vision.
Seat bolsters a little narrow for big, wide people.
Too much cheap, thin, hard-plastic/hard-surface interior trim.
Soft but cheap-feeling sun visors.
Fuel/temp gauges must be accesssed by the INFO button.
Cheap, wobbly climate-control *****.
Tight rear headroom for tall people.
Spare tire underneath the rear of the vehicle.
EXTERIOR:
Walking up to the Outlander, it is hard to distinguish it, at first glance, as a Mitsubishi product. The exterior styling combimes strong themes from the Toyota RAV4 and Matrix, Pontiac Vibe, Nissan Murano, and the new Subaru Forester, particularly in the large triangular D-Pillars, headlights, and grille. Not until you actually see Mitsubishi's triple-diamond logo and the vehicle's nameplates can you actually identify it as a Outlander. Overall, it isn't as ugly, IMO, as the last Outlander was, with the quirky double-snout. Still, I'm not a fan of those reverse-triangular D-Pillars, and, just like in the Murano, Vibe and RAV4, they restrict rear outward vision some. Like the RAV4, the latest-generation Outlander has stretched some......long enough for a small third-row seat, and, of course, a V6. Neither the paint job or the exterior sheet metal is particularly impressive. The paint job is lacking a little in gloss and contains a noticeable amount of orange peel. The sheet metal is not very solid-feeling, and the doors shut with a rather tinny sound. I liked the actual paint color, though, on my test car...it was a medium-to-dark greenish-gray that, while dull, had a classy look to it.....a color I wouldn't mind having on my own car. Eight exterior colors are available (with a few restrictions by model)....they are not sports-car-bright, but are nice enough that I could live with several of them.
The exterior hardware and trim was generally nice-looking and well-done...the only sub-standard piece of trim, IMO, was the cheap-looking/feeling, flat-black, plastic grille. The silver-painted roof racks (standard on the SE and XLS) looked nice, without the usual eye-sore look of the silver-metallic paint. The black/chrome imitation-running boards on the lower-body sides also looked classy and not overdone. I also liked the flat-black strip that ran around the entire bottom of the vehicle (except in the wheel wheels, where it should have been, but wasn't) to help ward off damage and chips from road debris. The twin outside mirrors were not particularly wide, but were nice and tall, and generally gave a good field of visiblity. In the back, the taillights are, IMO, shaped nice, but too busy-looking, with dozens of small LED-circles in them. The cargo area has a handy tailgate......more on that below.
UNDERHOOD:
Open the hood (like the doors, the hood's sheet metal is OK but not impressive), and you are treated to a nice insulation pad underneath and a not-so-nice swing-out prop rod to hold it up. The rod itself, though, seemed to be made out of very thick, strong metal.....you're not likely to bend it like you can with some of them. The underhood layout, overall, is pretty good....or, at least, not bad. Both the in-line 4 and the v6 fit in somewhat snuggly up front, but behind, there is a rather large, free, empty space (even with AWD) that is designed for the engine/transmission assembly to slide back and down under in the event of a frontal collision. Though there's room to reach things in back, up front, it's rather tight.....made worse by big, plastic engine covers (on both the four and V6) that block access to most of the upper-block components. The battery, though, on the front right, is not covered up.......it is easily reached, along with reservoirs on the left. Connecting the two strut towers (like on Mitsubishi's Evo and Ralliart) is a metal brace that runs the width of the engine compartment....this, of course, adds structural rigidity, but doesn't seem to help the handling or steering response much.....more on that below.
INTERIOR:
While having a few nice touches, the interior in general, appears to have been done to a budget. I did like four things. First, cloth-and-leather seat upholstery, with the nice-feeling leather edges/backs and the thick, durable cloth in the center of the seating surfaces (all-leather on the first two-row seats is a Luxury-package option). The driver's seat has a nice big pocket built into the back of it. Second, the nice red, black, and blue primary gauges that are clear and easy to read. Third, the simple, easy-to-use design of most of the buttons/controls (my test vehicle did not have NAV). Fourth, the borderline-killer stereo sound....the 650 watt Rockford Fosgate unit is a nice piece of equipment (Since it's early June, Alice Cooper did the honors today, with "School's Out").
But, once Alice was done, I found little else in the interior to be impressed with. The door panels, dash, and console are all hard plastic/hard surfaces and unpleasant, even the felt-covered but hard-surface door armrest where you're supposed to lay your elbow. The three big climate-control rotary ***** under the stereo feel even more cheap and flimsy that those I've criticized in the new Camry and a couple of other newer Toyotas. The center part of the buttons, where you push for the A/C and to turn them on/off, were so thin it felt almost like paper. The fuel and coolant-temperature gauges are not built into the dash like gauges are supposed to be, but are video-bar units that go on and off with certain functions of the "INFO" button that operates the trip computer, outside temperature, etc.... The seat bolsters are too narrow for people my size......admittedly, I'm big and heavy, but I wouldn't consider myself obese. The center-dash plastic, like some of the buttons, is overly-thin and flimsy-feeling. The shifter for the CVT has that annoying zig-zag pattern I dislike (but, that's something I have to put up with even in my own car). Headroom and legroom are OK in front, and legroom is generally OK in the rear, but there is a marked lack of headroom for tall people in back......somewhat surprising with the high roofline. Apparantly, the sunroof housing, despite the high roofline, takes up more than its share of ceiling room. The sun visors have a soft but cheap-feeling, flimsy covering.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
The cargo area, in general, is done much better than the cabin. The conventional hatch opens straight up like on most vehicles of this type, but underneath the hatch is a solid, well-done, fold-down tailgate strong enough for me, even with my weight, to sit on. That helps, of course, with loading heavy things, or for simply going to a picnic area and having a tailgate party. The walls of the cargo area are hard-surface plastic, with rear speakers for the aforementioned nice stereo built into them and a compartment for the spare-tire jack. The temporary spare (not a proper real one), like on some other small SUVs, is under the rear of the vehicle....but in this case, you have to access it by a small plastic tab, which removes a cover and allows it to be reached through the tailgate. The floor of the cargo area (and part of the tailgate) is covered in a nice black, semi-plush carpeting. Both the second-row and third-row seats fold down,of course, for added cargo room.....a fairly impressive amount for a vehicle this size, except for what the sunroof housing robs out of the rear ceiling, as I mentioned above. The third-row seat, of course, like most SUVs this size, is basically for children or small adults...it does not come with leather, even with the regular leather-seat option. With the third-row seat up, as expected, cargo space is minimal behind it.
ON THE ROAD:
Except for the 2WD/AWD switch, didn't find the new Outlander particularly impressive on the road, either. I did like the ignition system, though....a built-in thumb-twist-**** on the side of the steering column that activates when the electronic fob is in the vicinity. Both the four and the V6 come to life fairly smoothly and quietly. The four, with AWD is adequate only in more level areas without much of a load....IMO, it would be borderline underpowered, in, say, mountainous or steep-grade areas with a load. The V6, as expected, has a little more power, but not that much.....52 more HP and 37 ft-lbs. of torque. Still, if this were my vehicle, I'd go with the V6. The price and general 2-3 MPG difference, IMO, is worth it.....and both engines burn regular 87 octane. Both engines are reasonably quiet on the road.....the V6, as expected, a little more so than the four. Exhaust noise is fairly well-muted...a vehicle like this, of course, is not intended to have a loud sports-car exhaust. One nice feature with the Outlander, that I mentioned above, is the rotary, 3-position console **** on the console (and it is NOT flimsy or cheap-feeling) that activates the 2WD/AWD/LOCK transfer case. It can be shifted on the fly (while the vehicle is in motion), and 2WD (FWD) can be chosen when desired for slightly more power and fuel economy. Most of the Outlander's small, car-based SUV competitors don't have that decoupling feature, except for the very small Suzuki SX-4. The others run the system in automatic AWD most or all of the time.
The CVT transmission, with the four, is smooth, but has some of the typical CVT rubber-banding, RPM-slip/surge characteristics. It is divided into 6 artificial "gear" ranges, to imitate a conventional transmission. The regular 6-speed Sport-shift automatic in the V6 models, of course, feels and runs a little more conventionally. Both transmissions use nice, B-I-G paddle-shifters built ino the steering column.....the left one downshifts; the right one upshifts. Both paddles are superbly easy to use by finger-feel alone, without even looking down. Using the paddles with some throttle, the shifts in the conventional automatic feel, to me, a little smoother than the artificial "shifts" built into the CVT.
The chassis is not the best I've driven, either, even by small SUV standards. Both the (upmarket) SE four-cylinder and the V6 have similiar wheels/tires, suspension, and steering, so there's not much difference between the two in the road-manners department. Steering response is fairly slow, and there is marked but not severe body roll (even with the front chassis-brace), Ride comfort is OK (even borderline good) on smooth roads and large, slow-motion bumps, but stiffens up considerably and on small, sharp bumps and jolts. Wind noise is generally well-controlled; Road noise is not bad at low speeds on smooth asphalt surfaces, but tends to assault your ears on rougher, grainy, and concrete surfaces. Brakes were rather weak, quite spongy, and had little effect unless you put some significant pressure into them. The brake pedal was also rather poorly-located for my big size-15 feet.....I had some trouble with my shoes catching slightly on the underside of the pedal when I lifted my foot off the gas.
THE VERDICT:
Well, folks, I would not call this vehicle a piece of junk (it did have some nice features), but overall, I was not impressed with it. The standard seat upholstery is well-done, the 2WD/AWD **** is a good feature, the stereo is fully fit for Metalheads like me, the cargo-area features are nice, and the warranty is excellent. But the four-cylinder needs more spunk and a conventional automatic instead of the CVT, the interior needs many changes in the quality of its trim/materials/hardware, the rear seat needs more headroom, body sheet metal needs a little more thickness, a couple of bean-counting omissions need to be addressed, and the chassis/suspension engineers need to take a trip to Stuttgart or Munich to see how the Germans do it. So, in all honesty, this is an OK vehicle for basic transfortation, particularly if you like a flexible drivetrain, but, IMO, it doesn't stack up to a number of its competitors in the small-SUV market. Buying or leasing an Outlander is not necessarily a waste of money, but, again IMO, there are better ways to spend your hard-earned automotive dollars.
Last edited by mmarshall; 06-08-09 at 06:17 AM.
06-08-09, 05:55 AM
#3
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Sure. Anytime.
Tell him to check out some of the competitors before he signs on the dotted line for an Outlander....especially the excellent Hyundai Santa Fe, if he needs a V6 and third-row seat, or the superbly built Honda CR-V if he doesn't. The RAV-4, with the V6 and third-row seat, is also a good alternative, but its interior quality isn't as nice as the CR-V or Santa Fe, and I haven't done a full review of the present-generation one. The Ford Escape and Saturn VUE also offer high-MPG hybrid versions....but the Escape's interior is rather cheap, like the Outlander's, and the VUE has not been reliable. And, of course, I've always had a high opinion of Subarus, with their reliability and excellent AWD systems, but they don't allow decoupling into 2WD like the Outlander does, and the new Forester, though larger now and with standard VSC, is almost the Outlander's size, has had the budget ax applied to a number of its former features.
The Outlander, though, is not popular, and if he DOES like it, he may be able to get a good deal. The Mitsubishi shop I was at offered both 4 and V6 models for $100 over the factory invoice, which they were willing to show and verify, not just advertise.
Last edited by mmarshall; 06-08-09 at 06:05 AM.
06-08-09, 04:04 PM
#5
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
06-08-09, 06:08 PM
#6
Lexus Test Driver
06-09-09, 08:53 AM
#7
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
In the next 4-5 weeks, I hope to get to the often-requested and long-delayed 2010 Prius, Lexus RX Hybrid, and Camaro reviews. The Prius and RX Hybrid should be in the D.C area in about a month. Camaros are already here, but are generally all pre-sold. I'm also looking forward to the Lexus HS250.....that may (?) be the special Holiday Review I do every year in December if it doesn't get here sooner.
Trending Topics
06-10-09, 01:26 AM
#8
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: CA
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, the outlander, like every other Mitsubishi, is built in a ****-poor way using cheap parts everywhere you look. Even the Evolution has a flimsy, cheap aura about it. Out of all of these tiny SUVs (cr-v, outlander, escape, equinox, tiguan, rav 4etc.), I would go for one of the last two. The CR-V is just a boring car, boring interior, doesn't blow away in any way. Outlander is cheap. Escape is cheap. Ditto equinox. The Tiguan is actually built very nice and drives well, and the Rav 4 is actually large and is fast, even if the interior could be better quality. These are the two front runners IMO.
06-10-09, 06:18 AM
#10
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
06-10-09, 06:25 AM
#11
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Yep, the outlander, like every other Mitsubishi, is built in a ****-poor way using cheap parts everywhere you look. Even the Evolution has a flimsy, cheap aura about it. Out of all of these tiny SUVs (cr-v, outlander, escape, equinox, tiguan, rav 4etc.), I would go for one of the last two. The CR-V is just a boring car, boring interior, doesn't blow away in any way. Outlander is cheap. Escape is cheap. Ditto equinox. The Tiguan is actually built very nice and drives well, and the Rav 4 is actually large and is fast, even if the interior could be better quality. These are the two front runners IMO.
06-10-09, 06:34 AM
#13
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
06-10-09, 06:38 AM
#14
Lexus Test Driver
Yes, between the dealership, the tail lights and the interior, it wasn’t impressive. A few years ago, there was rumors that Mitsubishi might pull out of the US market, that doesn’t help in gaining buyer's confidence.