It's said that babies don't come with instruction manuals. Had my 3-month-old daughter come with one, it would have read: "Warning! Placing Alexandria in a car seat for a duration more than eight hours will result in massive bouts of crying and screaming."
Alas, I learned this only after I drove to Sedona, Arizona, for vacation. Duration each way? Twelve hours. D'oh! At least the Mitsubishi Outlander proved to be a more enjoyable long-distance companion than a very unhappy baby.
Here are observations about the Outlander in terms of long-distance driving.
Comfort: I was impressed with the level of comfort. The driver seat never gave me problems and I like the driving position despite the lack of a telescoping steering wheel. There's decent padding on the armrests and the center armrest slides forward. Rear seat comfort is also pretty good according to my wife, who sat in the back for much of the trip to take care of the little one.
Amenities: Our Outlander's navigation system, Rockford Fosgate sound system, auxiliary audio jack and satellite radio were all very much appreciated. The navigation system's point-of-interest (POI) function worked very well as it gave us directions to our hotel and a couple of food stops along the way. You can read more about the MMCS system here.
Storage and Cargo: Plenty of storage further enhances the Mitsubishi Outlander's long-distance capabilities. There's a two-tier glove box, a storage bin on top of the dash, good door bins with a cupholder each, a useful two-tier center console, an additional center storage cubby and three other front cupholders.
I didn't need the third-row seat, so the Outlander's 36.2-cubic feet of luggage space was used to carry our stuff and the baby's. Being first-time parents, we're constantly amazed at how much "baby crap" you need to take for even a weekend trip.
Passing Power: Two years ago, the V6 Outlander would have still seemed fine. Unfortunately for the Mitsubishi, Toyota really blew open the small/midsize crossover market with its V6-powered RAV4. The Outlander's 220-horsepower V6 often feels more like a strong four-cylinder. At 6,000 feet of elevation, acceleration was lackadaisical.
Wind and Road Noise: It seems about average, but hard to say without direct measurement or comparison.
Range and Mileage: Not very good. You'll rarely push past 300 miles on a tank of gas. Blame the Outlander's below-par fuel economy and smallish 15.8-gallon fuel tank. (Front-wheel-drive Outlanders have a 16.6-gallon tank.)
Sum-up: I really enjoyed driving the Outlander. It's sporty, looks cool and works very well as a daily-driven or long-distance vehicle. If you don't want a RAV4 or CR-V due to their ubiquity but still want something sporty and versatile, the Outlander is an excellent choice.
Brent Romans, Senior Automotive Editor @ 14,064 miles
Subscribe
Recent Posts
Archives
Vehicles
Past Vehicles
Links
A NAV system will come in handy when she's old enough to say "Daddy, I need to go potty". Otherwise, you'll be wondering "If I take that exit, can I use the same street to get back on the freeway?" or "That looks like a 1-way street to that gas station. How do I backtrack?"
What does it mean "Range and Mileage: Not very good. "? Any numbers?
What would be "the par" fuel economy for a V6 in this class?
Would you be able to give an example of a similar CUV (V6 powered), other than the RAV4 V6, which is better on gas?
I'm asking because I drive this car every day and I average 20-22 mpg in mixed, urban/suburban traffic and 26+ mpg on longer highway trips at around 75 mph.
It doesn’t seem bad at all to me. What are your expectations?
Nice pictures BTW !
Dodo2: I didn't report my mileage from this trip because I felt that it was atypical -- the screaming baby required speeds at times that were, uh, slightly higher than normal. I will calculate our lifetime mileage for my next Outlander post, however.
The EPA's 2008 estimates for a AWD Outlander are 17 mpg city and 24 mpg highway. If you were to compare these numbers to every V6-powered small SUV, the Outlander might come out mid-pack. But given that acceleraiton is hardly better than many four-cylinder competitors, it's disappointing. -- Brent
Brent: My point is that you did not provide any data for your trip (fuel economy calculation), but you stated that the mileage was not good; and you just confirmed that in fact you did not calculate the mileage at all. How is that a credible assessment?
“But given that acceleration is hardly better than many four-cylinder competitors, it's disappointing”
You are kidding right? I hope you didn’t get this impression from reading Edmunds’ recent comparison Outlander vs. CRV vs. Rogue vs. RAV4. Oops… you did, didn’t you?
Test
^ I was testing the blog editing bug above. It's still there, folks.
A photo of the little one would be nice to see in the future, Brent!
OT: Yesterday, I signed up for my first track day at Laguna Seca on Saturday, November 10th. :o)
Clearly Brent is lying about getting bad gas mileage in the ongoing effort to discredit the Outlander despite it really getting amazing gas mileage. Liar liar liar. Just like all those slanderous lies they tell about the Aura and the Jeep Compass. Yes, that must be it!
I averaged 20.9 mpg for my trip, all highway driving. This number is well below the EPA's highway estimate and even what I expect most Outlander owners to get. This is why I didn't want to report it as it would be an unfair criticism of the Outlander.
There is a discrepancy regarding acceleration numbers. I don't know what the cause is. On my trip, the Outlander often felt slower than expected, which is how I ended up with the commentary that I did. So perhaps something has gone mildly awry with our particular Outlander. -- Brent
Brent: I don't see a problem with you reporting 20.9 mph for your trip if this is what you got. It’s much worst to make claims without supporting facts or twist the results. You should specify the driving conditions under which you got this result. You could drive on the highway all day long, but if you constantly push the throttle, drive at high speed, you carry heavy cargo, and the road climbs a mountain, you will never hit the EPA highway estimate, for ANY car.
Also, I think it’s unrealistic to state that the Outlander’s fuel economy is under-par if you did not drive the rest of the cars under the same conditions.
Regardless of the crooked acceleration numbers posted by Edmunds in the Compact SUV comparison, the Outlander is obviously faster than any I4 SUV (naturally aspired) so I’m not sure what made you think otherwise and based on which FACTS.
test
Testing again...
^ No dice. Let's try this again...
Nope. Sorry, mates. :(
I'd say 21 is pretty decent. The EPA estimate is 24 and you were only off the mark about 10-15%, with the aggressive driving we all know so well to get the baby home sooner. You might well have exceeded 24 mpg with a more relaxed pace.
In regards to the acceleration numbers of our long term Outlander.
When new at 1,402 miles it went from 0-60 in 8.2 seconds. Four months later at 8,500 miles it did 0-60 in 9.0 seconds.
A 40-degree difference in temperature between the two tests may have something to do with it, but we do correct for weather conditions.
The first number went up when corrected and the second went down.
The road test editor who got the 9.0 commented that he figured the difference mostly came from launch technique -- he left the car in drive, whereas the 8.2 was achieved in manual mode. During the first test, when the Outlander was run in drive, it achieved numbers closer to 9.0.
That 9.0 number is more indicative of what you or I would achieve around town any way, and in all reality, still lower. If you have 4WD on, stability control off and brake torque to around 2,500 rpm while manual shifting in 53-degree weather in Fontana, Calif., and have years of performance driving experience, you too may achieve an 8.2!
In the end though, the Mitsubishi Outlander went from 0-60 in 9.0 seconds, period. It did it, we didn't fudge anything or have some rube testing it. The other cars didn't seem too negatively affected by the weather or anything else, so saying the Rogue (which was also tested in drive mode) is close to the Outlander's acceleration is not an exageration. It all comes down to whether somebody thinks 1 second or so of 0-60 time is worth a hit of 3 to 4 mpg, especially when the RAV4 V6's performance and fuel economy is considered.
Careful with that Outlander. Those things are magnets for scalding-hot space debris, you know! http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007710170363
How much to you want to bet that insurance won't cover space-born damage?
A reference for the 0-60mph times (and other performance numbers) could be the MT 2007 Truck of the Year contest when they tested NEW vehicles UNDER SIMILAR CONDITIONS. IIRC, the acceleration performance order was RAV4, CX-7, Outlander, Santa Fe and CRV. I cannot remember the exact numbers, but the CX-7, Outlander and Santa Fe were close together (7.7-8.3-8.9 I believe, but not sure) with the RAV4 far ahead and the CRV far behind. The results made total sense.
I agree that 1.x sec +/- 0-60 mph on the track is not relevant for the daily driving experience, but yet this is how the reviewers compare and rank the vehicle's performance and they often use double standards for some reasons. For example, they say the RAV4 is much faster then the Outlander and use the 0-60 mph times to back it up (e.g. 7.1sec vs. 8.2 sec). On the other hand, for example, they say the Outlander is marginally faster than the CRV, but they do not mention the 0-60 mph time (e.g. 8.2 sec vs. 9.6 sec.). Now, 1.1 sec difference makes the RAV4 MUCH faster than the Outlander, but 1.4 sec. difference makes the Outlander MARGINALLY faster than the CRV. Do you get my point?
An illustration of the “double standard evaluation” could be found on Edmunds Outlander and CRV FT. Edmunds editors praise the CRV for its 131 ft. 60-0 mph stopping distance (rating Very Good), while they consider average the Outlander’s 60-0 mph 128 ft. stopping distance (rating Good). How do you explain that again?
The bottom line is that, under any circumstances, the Outlander is noticeably faster than any I4 CUV. According to the RAV4 and Outlander OWNERS forums, the Outlander’s fuel economy is about the same as for the RAV4 V6. Of course the RAV4 has the edge in this respect from the more powerful engine.
Oh, yes, and the Outlander vs CRV vs Rogue is much more than 1.x sec. 0-60 mph or 2-3 mpg, it’s about driving experience.
Braking rating (good, very good) has as much to do with feel and fade as it does actual numerical distance.
Darn lack of editing tool. Often times, the best numbers will be attained on the first stop, but after heating up after repeated stops, the distances can grow longer, brakes fade and feel suffers. This is how distances can be better, but rated lower.
I love the fact that dodo is ragging on Edmunds as if they're slamming the Outlander after one of their editors gives it a pretty possitive review.
'I really enjoyed driving the Outlander. It's sporty, looks cool and works very well as a daily-driven or long-distance vehicle. If you don't want a RAV4 or CR-V due to their ubiquity but still want something sporty and versatile, the Outlander is an excellent choice."
God forbid somebody recommends a vehicle other than the one you bought.
How do you guys MEASURE the "feel"? My breaks feel very good- linear, predictable and smooth. I know exactly when and how hard to break in order to stop the car where I want and the way the car breaks inspires confidence. What else should I “feel” for? To me, a car that stops in a shorter distance under given conditions has better brakes and gets better score. It’s simple as that.
It doesn't help much to "feel" good (whatever you mean by that) and hit the car in front of you, and 3 ft. could make a hell of a difference in a panic breaking.
Granted your point, I was thinking that the experienced Edmunds editors already included the fading effect in their testing methodology and the numbers I read are meaningful. If they don’t mean anything and the rating comes down to the personal “feel” why bother performing any measurements?
"God forbid somebody recommends a vehicle other than the one you bought."
I can assure you it's not about that. I'm just challenging some of the comments in these reviews, which I don’t find accurate, although the overall reviews are positive. It just happens that I know fairly well few cars in this segment as I extensively researched them (CRV, Outlander, RAV4, CX-7, Santa Fe), I read pretty much any on-line review, forums, I test drove all of them, I sat in them for hours scrutinizing them, I read their specs many times, etc.
YES, I will challenge anyone suggesting that the Outlander is MARGINALLY quicker than a CRV and MUCH slower than a RAV4 V6. It’s just not accurate.
"I was thinking that the experienced Edmunds editors already included the fading effect in their testing methodology and the numbers I read are meaningful. If they don’t mean anything and the rating comes down to the personal “feel” why bother performing any measurements?"
I believe that's how all the magazines do it, champ. They use the absolute best performance time and distance. Also, objective "feel" ratings come in all the time. It's why they write article and include opinions, because some things just can't be equated with numbers and figures. Otherwise, magazines and web sites would be one giant excel spreadsheet after another. If you're not going to trust that they feel something different, then stop reading what you consider to be an inaccurate site and move on.
"I was thinking that the experienced Edmunds editors already included the fading effect in their testing methodology and the numbers I read are meaningful. If they don’t mean anything and the rating comes down to the personal “feel” why bother performing any measurements?"
I believe that's how all the magazines do it, champ. They use the absolute best performance time and distance. Also, objective "feel" ratings come in all the time. It's why they write article and include opinions, because some things just can't be equated with numbers and figures. Otherwise, magazines and web sites would be one giant excel spreadsheet after another. If you're not going to trust that they feel something different, then stop reading what you consider to be an inaccurate site and move on. You obviously know so much more about these vehicles than they do having driven them around the block at dealerships and sat in them.
daxtripper: Let's keep this conversation polite if you know what I mean "champ".
There is no sarcasm in my statements. I do believe that most of the Edmunds editors have many years of experience under their belts and I do respect them. However, this doesn’t mean that everything they say is accurate.
“Also, objective "feel" ratings come in all the time”
Did you mean “subjective”? Well, there is a dose of subjectivism in any review, but I tend not to weight it very much, exactly because it’s “subjective”. However, I carefully take note of it and I do my own evaluation. This is the reason I read these reviews. I hope this answers your concern.
However, I believe that measuring a parameter like the breaking distance should be 100% objective and the ranking/rating should be based on the actual stopping distance. If fading is a concern, than it should be captured in the testing procedure, let’s say by recording the 5th or the 10th breaking attempt. There are other factors like tire inflation and tire wear.
Ranking higher a vehicle that stops in a longer distance because it “feels” better – without defining what “feels” means, it’s not correct in my opinion. In the end, the goal is to stop the car in the shortest possible distance at all costs, so this should be how you measure the success isn’t it? Stopping from 60 mph means panic stop and all it matters is the stopping distance. The “feel” means ZERO in this context.
“You obviously know so much more about these vehicles than they do having driven them around the block at dealerships and sat in them.”
Yes, I do know more about the Outlander as I most likely drove it more than any Edmunds editor and I read and exchange information with lots of Outlander owners on various forums on a daily basis. I’m sure you know how powerful tool the Internet is. I drove quite a bit the CRV as a good friend of mine has one. Any test drive I take is around an hour long and includes city/suburban, highway and back roads driving. No, I don’t drive the cars for days, but in order to evaluate the interior or various features, you only need some quiet time on the dealership floor which is not that hard to get. I used to do that a lot while I was shopping.
Perhaps I know quite a bit about the RAV4 and CRV as I still read the rav4world dot com and hondasuv dot com. Lots of first hand, good information there too.
You could check those forums for a better sense of the real world fuel economy for these vehicles too if you know what I mean. EPA estimates mean almost nothing.