Picture Gallery: 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander
Day 1:
 Click Image to Enlarge |
Starting at only $25,498 the Outlander certainly is well priced for this market. It’s also well-equipped with a huge list of standard features, including: a 220hp V6 engine, 6-Speed Sportronic Automatic Transmission, Cruise Control, Anti-Lock Braking system (ABS) with EBD and Air Conditioning. Some other features include: Advanced Dual Stage Front and Side Airbags, Power Windows/Locks and Remote Keyless Entry — an impressive list for the money, no question.
 Click Image to Enlarge |
This brings the grand total of my tester to $29,843 including freight and PDI charges. Based on the little time I have had with the Outlander so far, it certainly seems to be very well-priced for the included features.
The shocker of the day for me? Opening the rear hatch to put down my camera and lunch bag. The cargo space in the back of the Outlander is incredible. I’ll certainly get the measuring tape out tomorrow — when it warms up and the rain stops. At first glance, the rear looks large enough to fit a four by eight foot sheet of material. I’ll report back with those findings tomorrow.
2007 Mitsubishi Outlander
MSRP as tested: $29,843
For more information on Mitsubishi and the Outlander visit Mitsubishi Canada
Day 2:
 Click Image to Enlarge |
The dash is the best part of the interior, with nicely textured materials and a smooth flow. The many storage bins built into the dash are always a welcome feature, and the extra cupholder for the driver on the left of the steering wheel works well.
 Click Image to Enlarge |
The door panels are the real let down of the interior. The top panel is a flat-black, non-textured flimsy plastic piece with a cut-out for the door handle and lock — unfortunately this cheapens the interior. The remainder of the door panel is on par with the competition, with a cloth covered arm rest and silver accented trim flowing back from the dash design.
Although I may have been a little harsh by calling the interior a mish-mash, it ends with the sunvisors. Lined with a vinyl material not used anywhere else in the vehicle, it just seems odd.
As promised yesterday, I pulled out the measuring tape today to measure the cargo area. Although not four feet wide between the fender wells, there is three feet, four inches of available space. And with an easy six feet of length available with the seats folded and tail gate lowered, longer items are easy to carry in the Outlander.
Day 3:
 Click Image to Enlarge |
The availability of a 4WD lock feature is yet another surprise for this price category. Not all of the cute-utes even offer 4WD at an entry price of $29,000; even fewer offer it with a full locking feature. In the rain, the 4WD-Auto setting works well, eliminating slip almost immediately. In 2WD mode, in the rain, and with the 220hp engine feeding only the front wheels, getting the traction control to engage is a rather easy affair.
 Click Image to Enlarge |
That being said, the shift-able automatic transmission is extremely responsive and shifts quickly when manually prodded. And with six gears to choose from on the highway, the Outlander turns a paltry 2250 rpms at 120km/h. This results in a quiet and smooth ride and an engine that is barely audible. On the other hand, tire noise produces a slight hum at highway speeds.
In terms of ride feel and comfort: the Outlander drives very much like a typical sedan. When compared to its competition, I would liken the Outlander to the Honda CR-V; if you are in the market for an SUV/CUV that drives very much like a car, the Outlander should be very near the top of your list.
Day 4:
 Click Image to Enlarge |
Over the week, I was able to average approximately 11.5L/100km. Not stellar for this type of vehicle, but not horrible either. I would rank this as an average fuel consumption rating for this category. The Outlander was thirstier than the Honda CR-V I tested, but the CR-V has a less-powerful 4-cylinder engine — there is a small price to pay for the extra power, in most cases.
I had a chance to test the cargo capacity of the Outlander and was rather impressed; I was able to carry 8 tires without spending even a second to ensure they were placed neatly. The flip-able seats are a breeze to operate when the extra capacity is required and were a welcome feature for my trip to the tire store.
My only noteworthy gripe with the Outlander are the seats; they are very much lacking in lumbar support. The rails seemed to slide a little haphazardly as well, when adjusting the seating position fore or aft.
No Mitsubishi article would be complete without mentioning the peace of mind this company offers with every one of itsvehicles. Of course, I am speaking of the 10 - year/160,000 km limited powertrain warranty, five - year/100,000 km new vehicle limited warranty and the five - year/unlimited km roadside assistance packages. That said, ignore the warranty and the Outlander can still stand tall against the competition on its own merits.
*Rating out of 5:
| 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander | |
| Acceleration |  
|
| Handling |
|
| Comfort | |
| Interior |
|
| Audio System | |
| Gas Mileage | |
*Rating based on vehicle’s classification
2007 Mitsubishi Outlander
MSRP as tested: $29,843
For more information on Mitsubishi and the Outlander visit Mitsubishi Canada
to our site.
June 06, 2007, 04:45:45 pm
Nice looking vehicle, but I couldn't ride in one on a daily basis.
LOL!!!!... Maybe they forgot to put the backrest padding on the seat you sat in.
Mine is perfectlly fine and confortable all around.
Hopefully it was something like that. I like Mitsubishi--I tend to root for "underdog" companies--but I was really disappointed by the ergonomics of the Outlander.
The driver seat I was in was fine, maybe they dont want you to have passangers
June 06, 2007, 05:04:13 pm What happens to your Honda if you leave the key in the ignition switch in ON, or ACC position when you open the door? Your car makes some noise to warn you, right? The FAST Key does the same. If you try to leave the vehicle when the ignition switch is in ON or ACC position, it will make noise which is hard to miss. In additional, the doors cannot be locked.
I would be surprised if people still manage to leave the car running overnight. If there are people like that out there, FAST Key or not, it won't matter to them.
Citydude
June 06, 2007, 06:43:45 pm
I would be surprised if people still manage to leave the car running overnight. If there are people like that out there, FAST Key or not, it won't matter to them.
Citydude
I hear ya, and what you said is true, BUT, think about this for a minute: Many people who park inside their garages don't bother to lock their cars; Headlights have audible warnings but many people still manage to leave their lights on. In fact, never mind headlights, it's not uncommon for people to lock themselves out of their cars. I've done it!
Wouldn't it be that much better if they include some form of range limit, or off-timer with keyless ignition? I mean, that certainly would not hinder the functionality of the system.
June 06, 2007, 06:46:24 pm
If someone doesn't hear the car running and see the exhaust puffing from the back of the car as they walk away, they deserve an empty tank. Otherwise, where would this end? What if someone doesn't put a vehicle into "park" before stepping out?
June 06, 2007, 07:28:47 pm
If someone doesn't hear the car running and see the exhaust puffing from the back of the car as they walk away, they deserve an empty tank. Otherwise, where would this end? What if someone doesn't put a vehicle into "park" before stepping out?
Hey, don't laugh. I've seen it happen (to my cousin)!!
Another thing about the FASTKEY is that they could've/should've used a push-button. Not only is it more convenient, but it eliminates the possibility that the driver doesn't turn the "key" all the way to off, and leave it on ACC, which could drain the battery.
June 06, 2007, 09:29:30 pm
June 07, 2007, 08:52:07 am Since I did not cover it in my article; regarding the seats. The seats are ok but not the most comfortable and do not have lumbar support at all.
June 08, 2007, 12:00:40 am Wing had mentioned in his first post that $29,843 includes freight and PDI, so the actual price of the CAR, as tested, is $28,248.
One note on the 4WD Lock: this is not the traditional 50-50 front/rear split. The label could be deceiving for someone who is not familiar with the system. In "4WD Lock" mode, 50% more torque is sent to the rear COMPARED to the "4WD Auto" mode, while the split is still variable, for up to 60% of the torque going to the rear depending on the driving conditions. In "4WD Auto" up to 40% of the torque is sent to the rear, again, depending on the driving conditions. The nice thing about Mitsu's 4WD is that some torque always goes to the rear, even though no slippage is detected, with the percentage increasing under full throttle for instance.
The torque steer is virtually inexistent in 4WDAuto mode in this car.
June 08, 2007, 09:39:02 am I always include freight and PDI in my MSRP as tested prices, even though the manufacturers are all different I ensure I am consistent is always including it.
June 08, 2007, 12:39:52 pm Carcrazy said:
I must be blind, is it mentioned in the article? I stand corrected. I assumed it did not have them, wow, that is a excellent package, good on Mitsu!
June 08, 2007, 09:24:56 pm
Thanks citydude. Appreciate the write-up! I had read an article about it having sporty driving dynamics, so was wondering about that. It was interesting to read a comparison with a RSX, even if it's not same type of vehicle.
EDIT: Nice website by the way. I liked looking at the pics of the Outies. It's a handsome vehicle IMO.
June 08, 2007, 09:36:07 pm Interesting.... I was watching Fifth Gear and they showed this vehicle. I noticed the resemblances instantly.
http://www.citroen.co.uk/level3/modelpage.asp?pagetype=C-Crosser
June 08, 2007, 10:00:52 pm
http://www.citroen.co.uk/level3/modelpage.asp?pagetype=C-Crosser
Yep. Because it's the same vehicle. Peugeot has it's own variant too (4007). However, each manufacturer slightly modified the front and the end to fit their design language. The interiors are almost identical. Mitu has a partnership with PSA to supply them with the compact 4x4 SUV based on Outlander. Starting 2008 I believe, Mitsu will use a 2.2L diesel from PSA for its European models. Now they use a 2.0L VW diesel in Europe.
June 11, 2007, 12:40:52 pm I'm a little puzzled by the way you rank these vehicles and here it is why. I went back and pulled up the rankings for Santa Fe, CRV and RAV4 as these are the closest competitors in the segment today and these are the vehicles (exactly the same models) I extensively researched for month before I made my purchase.
Acceleration: Outlander 3.5, Santa Fe 4, CRV 3, Rav4 4. In any given test I read, Santa Fe posted lower acceleration numbers than the Outlander, but yet it scores higher on your rating.
Handling: Outlander 3, Santa Fe 3, CRV 3.5, RAV4 3.5. In any given test I read, the Outlander has the best handling numbers over the other ones, but yet it scores lower than CRV and RAV4 and equal to Santa Fe. Plus, I believe the Outlander has the lowest turning radius, which matter the most in day-to-day driving.
Comfort: Outlander 2, Santa Fe 3.5, CRV 4, RAV4 4. I understand the lack of adjustable lumbar support and I would add the telescopic steering wheel adjustment, but the penalty is way too much IMO. What about the leather steering wheel which CRV or RAV4 don't have, or steering wheel audio controls that RAV4 does not have? What about the uncomfortable arm rests or rear backrest in the CRV? What about the adjustable front armrest in the Outlander? What about proper lateral support for the front seats compared to the rest? Don't you balance the good and bad? The interior dimension on the Outlander, CRV and RAv4 are extremely close, varying by fractions of inches in most cases. From what I read here, the Outlander's comfort is half of what you get in the rest, which is far from the reality. Half point penalty maybe, but 2 points?
Interior: Outlander 3, Santa Fe 4, CRV 3.5, Rav4 3. This seems to reflect the reality.
Audio: Outlander 2.5, Santa Fe 2.5, CRV 3, RAV4 2.5. Why exactly makes the CRV's stereo better by 0.5 than the rest?
Gas Mileage: Outlander 3, Santa Fe 3.5, CRV 4, RAV4 4. Santa Fe better fuel economy than the Outlander? I don't think so. Not even by the ResCAN numbers, let alone real world numbers. If you factor in the engine size versus fuel economy, than perhaps CRV should score lower than it does if you use the absolute values.
June 11, 2007, 01:09:51 pm First I wouldn't put the Santa Fe in the same category... I know it is similar but the new Santa Fe IMO is larger than these competitors so the ranking of the Santa Fe is somewhat screwed.
3 is average... well I guess out of 5 2.5 would be average, but I generally use 3 as an average.
Acceleration / Handling I go by feel, the Outlander feels good but the tires give up early in the corners but it was average.
Comfort, I was in pain by the seats hence the lower points.
Interior - average
Audio, the CRV stereo sounded better, what's .5 it's not much on this scale. The Outlander radio (all mitsu's actually) tend to fade in and out and that's why it didn't get a 3.
Gas Mileage, remove the Santa Fe as I said before and it's on par. The Outlander is more of a CRV competitor IMO and scores well against it.
Note that these are not scientific, I don't refer back to my numbers to double check I go by feel and they just give you an idea of what I felt about the car on average. I think the Outlander scored very well.
June 11, 2007, 02:23:55 pm I totally agree with you that the Santa Fe is not in the same category as RAV4, CRV and Outlander as it's bigger and heavier than them (it should compete in over 4000 lb category). But if you move the Santa Fe higher, the acceleration ranking should be lowered to make room for the faster vehicles - 2008 Saturn Vue, 2008 Highlander and even 2007 Pilot. The Santa Fe may end up being the slowest in the class at 8.5+ sec. to 60 mph. Pretty much every bigger SUV (include here the CX-9, Acadia/Outlook) makes it to the 60 mph in less than or close to 8 sec.
The three are nearly the same size wherever you look and they should compare well.
I wouldn't agree thought that the Outlander has "average" fuel economy while the CRV has "excellent" fuel economy. Going by your numbers (which are fair for the Outlander at least), you averaged 10.6L/100 km in the CRV and 11.5 L/100 km in the Outlander. The Outlander's 220 hp represents 33% increase versus CRV's 166 hp with only 8% penalty in fuel consumption. However, I find the RAV V6 the best engine for power/fuel consumption ratio and I think the ranking should show some difference vs the CRV. In absolute values, in the real world, the Outlander gets about the same mileage as the RAV4 V6 so from this stand point, I believe that the Outlander's fuel consumption rating for a V6 200+ hp should be above the average not just average.
And if you drive conservative, you could get much better. I got 8.5 L/100 km on a 100 km highway drive at 100-120 km/h (this was for testing purposes only), and I frequently average low 10s L/100 km on my daily commute (mostly highway at rush hours and about 22 km one way).
On the ratings, in order to be relevant for the readers they should have some objective criteria for the evaluation. Any rating has that. If it's 100% subjective, it becomes one-person thing with no relevance for others.
For instance, I find the Outlander's seats comfortable and I much prefer them to the ones in my Mazda3 GT with lumbar support adjustment (I keep it at the lowest position as I hate the bump in my back). I very much like to have a proper armrest and leather steering wheel. These items make me feel comfortable while I'm driving. I compared side by side my Outlander to my friend's CRV and I still find the Outlander more comfortable so I would give the Outlander an equal or better score for comfort if I were to do the ranking. But this is just you and I. Other's opinion may be different.
I enjoyed reading your reviews and I hope you see my posts just as an opinion exchange between car enthusiasts and nothing more.
June 11, 2007, 02:26:10 pm "3 is average... well I guess out of 5 2.5 would be average, but I generally use 3 as an average."
Unless you use a score of "0", 3 IS, in fact, "average".
June 11, 2007, 03:15:04 pm carcrazy, no problem. I didn't really take into account the 6 vs 4 cyl in the Outlander VS CR-V equation. For some it is basically car to car comparison on that front.
From what I remember of the more powerful Santa Fe I had, it was really fast, almost as fast as the RAV4, I drove those vehicles back to back. Actually I pretty much drove the CR-V / Rav4 and Santa Fe back to back to back so it was easy to compare them at the time. The Acadia was slow as a dog so I'm not sure how it can get reasonable 0-100km/h numbers, it can't be faster than the Santa Fe ... can it?
Are you comparing the bigger engined Santa Fe? If so, it really masks it well as it felt fast.
June 11, 2007, 04:20:03 pm MT lists 8.4s 0-60 mph for Acadia and 8.3s for the Santa Fe so you are right, there is a big SUV (about 800 lb. heavier) that the Santa Fe can beat on the track by a small margin.
They had a back-to-back comparo between Murano, Edge, Highlander (current) and Santa Fe and the Santa Fe came out as a slowest of the pack.
Now, I find this entire track test somehow misleading since if you read track results from different sources they may be different by a significant margin. I usually compare results from the same source (as in publication) as chances are they use the same drivers and same facilities to test the vehicles and sometimes they do side-by-side testing too.
If you go by what you feel when comparing acceleration and performance in general, you may misjudge the results because I don't know if you can "feel" and measure a difference of 0.x seconds in acceleration?
If the gap is bigger than 1+ second you start feeling it, but otherwise you should use some tools.
I test drove the CRV EX AWD, RAV4 Sport and Santa Fe 3.3GL AWD and later tested the Outlander (LS and XLS 4WD). The RAV felt quicker no doubt about it, the CRV felt sluggish (I4 excuse) and the Santa Fe felt a bit slower and heavier (because it is). The relative track numbers are kind of consistent with what I felt from the acceleration hierarchy standpoint.
June 11, 2007, 04:23:23 pm I don't think many purchasing in the category care about .1s
I have a gtec and was using it but the fact that's it is illegal made me stop, I didn't want to get caught for "racing" by myself.
Also temperature can be a huge factor in these tests.
June 11, 2007, 05:25:32 pm
Exactly. I didn't care much about getting the RAV4 Sport for its only significant advantage - bigger and more powerful V6 with good fuel economy. I cannot care less that the RAV4 V6 goes to 60mph in a second or so quicker, as long as the Outlander gives me enough pick-up and passing power, which it does, with comparable fuel economy, which it does again. The manual mode tranny could also help to squeeze some more juice out of the engine if needed.
However, I would never get an I4 in this type of vehicle since it cannot possibly give enough power for my taste.
June 19, 2007, 12:17:22 am Does anybody worry about the Outlander rear bumper able to withstand any low speed hit at all give that it is a movable design? I believe good solid bumpers should be able to stand a 5 Km/hr hit.
June 19, 2007, 11:05:27 am
I believe that good solid bumpers are long gone from our cars.
June 19, 2007, 11:15:58 am and here i th'ot that the BUMPAAH standards had been increased to 8KPH no damage..in Canada......
why can't they engineer in a"shock absorber" type GIZMO on a bumper ..say based on the new
Metal/electostatic charged instantly responding "Magma!!(sic)" type shock..that could reduce force on the passengers and vehicle in any accident..good to 30KPK NO DAMAGE and 30% reduction in transmitted force to passengers.....any Eisensteins out there tell me whyNOT?
June 19, 2007, 10:12:35 pm I just read that in the US the rear bumpers are not tested on the SUV's, trucks and minivans (not to affect their utility). Cars only. Not sure about Canada.