Robert Pepper’s 2015 Mitsubishi Outlander XLS diesel review with pricing, specs, ride and handling, safety, verdict and rating.
[review]
On the outside
The Outlander manages to look like exactly what it is – a softroader, or SUV if you must. Happily, it does not have garish try-hard flares or other fauxroader junk, it’s just quietly functional in its own way. You couldn’t call it chic or cool, but it’s not a bad look at all and has the modern style of squinting headlights and a body crease. There are plastic sill guards but these are functional as they protect the more expensive metal panels from casual damage.
Here’s the photos so you can decide for yourself. I’m sorry the car is filthy in most of them but I can’t control Melbourne’s weather. Your dealer has clean ones, go take a look.
Room & Practicality
In the front we have a glovebox, door sidepockets and a centre console. There’s one 12v under the dash and another, with a USB port, inside the centre console. There’s a little slot for mobile phones and the like under the dash. Two drinks holders are ahead of the gearshift, where they should be on all cars as they won’t get in the way there. The centre console is usuably spacious. I’d rate the front storage as average, there’s no extra little compartments to lift the car beyond the norm.
Moving into the second row and there’s a 40/60 split, and sadly the 40% is not on the kerb side for Australia. But that’s really about it on the negatives. Both parts of the second row can be moved forwards and backwards, which is a brilliant feature found in some, but unfortunately not all such vehicles. The reason it’s a good feature is because you can trade space between second and third rows. Let’s say you want more cargo space…move the second row forwards. Or more legroom in the second row, which is pretty decent anyway…then move it back. It is also possible to adjust the angle of the second row seatbacks which is good, allows space to be effectively utilised and comfort to be maximised. It’s also important for babyseat fitting. There’s also a fold-down table/armrest in the centre of the second row.
The second row folds down pretty much flat by lifting the base forwards and laying the seatback down. Older cars just had a basic tumbleforwards function, but this is superior because it affords more loadspace. The only negative is that this mode is not easy to work out, and I feel that all car seating modes should be easy for people not familiar with the vehicle to figure out. The rear cargo depth is about 980mm, increasing to 1230mm if the second row is moved all the way forwards, and 1800mm if the second row is flat. That is a a sizeable amount of loadspace for the size of vehicle.
One other negative is the second row middle seatbelt that is tethered to the roof. Not only is this a pain to connect and disconnect, it also gets in the way of the rear loadspace. There’s also no 12v socket or USB in the second row, and this will not be popular with children of today. Even worse, there’s not one in the cargo bay either. It’s also a bit cheap to only have the one seatpocket on the back of the front row.
Moving into the third row and there’s not much space for either head or feet if you’re an adult, which is ok because the Outlander is smaller than the likes of the Pajero (shorter by over 200mm) and its larger competitors. Kids would be fine in the back. The ability to move the second row forwards and backwards helps a great deal, and also means access to the third row is easier than those vehicles which only tilt the second row forwards. The third row is a 50/50 split.
The cargo area has four reasonably solid tiedowns, and a nice little bay for storing, well, stuff. While the third row does fold flat it doesn’t lock down into place.
All the seats are easy to operate – obvious controls and little effort, so you could do it one handed – with the exception of folding the second row flat. That’s fine because you won’t often need to do that.
Despite not looking boxy on the outside, the Outlander is spacious inside and makes fairly intelligent use of that space. It is very much a practical, no-nonsense utilitarian sort of interior.
There are more interior photos in the gallery at the end of this review.
On the inside
The Outlander’s interior and switchgear will be familiar to anyone who has spent time in Japanese cars, as will be the rather dreary shades of grey and beige. Mitsubishi have kept things easy and simple with dials, stalks and buttons, not fancy touchscreens. This means everything is easy to use. In this XLS model there’s not a lot of things to operate anyway.
The driving position is upright (height-adjustable seat) and easy to access, and the steering wheel is tilt/reach adjustable. The steering wheel controls don’t get in the way when you turn the wheel.
The infotainment unit does navigation, Bluetooth audio streaming, DAB radio, phone and can show a variety of information (see gallery at the end for details). It can also keep track of maintenance items like tyres and oil filters. As usual these days there is an eco system that scores your driving, fuel consumption history and bizarrely, a laptimer. In an Outlander? I never knew Mitsubishi had a sense of humour.
Another feature I doubt anyone will use is a calendar, but of more relevance is the altimeter, barometer and temperature history. That is actually useful given this is very much the sort of vehicle that could be used to ascend mountains – but more on that later. There’s voice recognition too and it works effectively. Overall, the infotainment unit is easy to use, but too slow to respond and the interface isn’t the most modern. In particular the satnav which has a rather dated look and feel. It does however show current speed limits for the road you’re on, even if they aren’t always quite up to date.
The vehicle settings – automatic locking, alarm, lights and the like – are set via the infotainment unit which is a much better way than the usual method of fiddling around with small dash displays and toggles.
The display on the dash between the revcounter and speedo is much more up to date and modern looking. Happily, it helps with navigation by signaling the next turn, as well as the usual fuel economy and trip meter information.
Mitsubishi are bringing CarPlay and Android Auto the Pajero, let’s hope that follows through to the Outlander.
Performance, ride and handling
Around town and on the blacktop
The Outlander is a stereotypical SUV. High riding, soft ride, doughy but entirely safe handling. The 4WD system is on-demand, so it drives the rear wheels only when necessary for reasons of fuel economy. This means it feels like a front-driver, but not as much as some of its peers. Regardless, and as soon as you try and move on a bit all your efforts evaporate into terminal push-wide understeer which is safe, yet irritating. Grip levels are a quite good, but the steering is a little slow. This would be a great car for learners because you feel absolutely no desire to drive fast and if there were more Outlanders sold there’d be less speeding fines issued.
The 110kW diesel engine is smooth and quiet, a good mate to the six-speed gearbox which intelligently uses the engine’s 360Nm of torque. Unfortunately, despite their combined best efforts that’s not really enough to shift the car along nicely and even under moderate acceleration the revs climb necessarily but not frantically high before the gearbox changes. Solo without a load around town it’s not too bad, add a family on rural roads and you do wish for a bit more grunt. I wouldn’t want to hook a caravan to the back.
Parking and low speed work are good as usual with this sort of vehicle as is the visibility. The combination of reversing sensors as well as a camera is a good move as the two features are complementary, many cars have just the one.
There are paddleshifts to change gear, and Mitsubishi are one of the few manufacturers (Ferrari is another) who have fixed-position shifters instead of rotational. This is a good choice because with any offroad vehicle you may need to change gear with a full lock of steering on and it gets confusing if the shifters rotate with the wheel.
Overall, I’d put the Outlander below average for onroad dynamics but only from a driving enthusiast’s perspective, it’s very safe. It’d average if you don’t mind trundling along slowly and comfortably.
Driving technology
Mitsubishi have all the usual electronic aids but have really confusing terms and descriptions for them and the low-budget translations in the owner’s manual don’t help much. So, here’s a quick rundown:
- S-AWC – Super All Wheel Control – simply a combination of stability control and traction control.
- Active Yaw Control – part of stability control, in Mitsu speak that’s ASC or Active Stability Control.
- Electronically Controlled 4WD – on demand 4WD that drives the front wheels, and the rears as and when the computers decide it’s a good idea.
- Left-Right Differential Limiting Function – traction control. I’ve seen a lot of names for traction control and this has to be the most weird yet. I can only presume it’s another poor translation. Does that sound like something you want on your car? It actually is, believe it or not.
Here’s the 4WD modes:
- 4WD Eco – pure 2WD (front drive). Only drives the rears when it really needs to.
- 4WD Auto – preferences 2WD, readily drives the rear wheels when there’s front slip
- 4WD Lock – drives the rear wheels as well as the front, so an all-wheel-drive mode. Despite the name this is not a true locking mode as in locking centre differential but it comes pretty close. More on that shortly.
The transmission can also be locked into a low gear with an L mode.
There’s an Eco button which as usual with these things is a kind of placebo effect to make you feel better. Mitsubishi have seen fit to colour it green and stick it prominently in the centre of the dash next to the hazard lights, so hit the wrong button and you could end up saving fuel while being hit from behind. This Eco mode doesn’t do much other than fiddle with the aircon and a few other settings, and is in addition to the 4WD Eco mode, so for super-greeness enable both. If you actually make any measureable difference to fuel econsumption (as distinct from your consience) please let me know.
You can switch the stability control (ASC) off via a long-press of the dash switch, but you shouldn’t ever because it also disables traction control. And that’s not good, because traction control keeps you moving in the rough. I do not know why manufacturers design cars this way. Based on some mud driving experience with the Outlander I’ve found ASC not to interfere with the car’s offroad performance, but did not have a chance to drive in sand where stability control activation can get you bogged.
If you own an Outlander of this model year or similar and have driven it in soft sand please comment below. My guess is the car would do quite well. I recall somewhere that ASC does not operate below 15km/h which is a good design.
Dirt roads
Remember that soft suspension on road? Well, it’s all good on rougher brown roads because it affords a very pliant and comfortable ride. Grip is good as the on-demand 4WD system actually works, so you don’t have too much wheelspin or axle hop under power on corrguations. Not that the Outlander has a lot of power anyway.
On smoother roads the handling isn’t the sharpest, but you can never complain about the ride. The Outlander is also reasonably well protected and tucked up underneath by softroader standards. Overall, the Outlander is a very good dirt-road cruiser, but it’s not a rally weapon, far too soft, slow and unresponsive for that. Interestingly, the Pajero is much better, it’s one of my favourite dirt-road low-range cars.
Offroad
Melbourne served up a decent dose of rain so first up was some shallow, slippery mud driving. This was a perfect test as the Outlander isn’t designed for tough offroading, but it should be able to get you along slippery, muddy roads. So I gave it a shot.
With the tyres completley clogged with mud to the point the tread was invisible, the Outlander nevertheless made progress up moderate hills, and even if we had to go up a little sideways on occasion.
This was down to the 4WD system, the traction control and the engine. In order:
I have to say I was much impressed with the on-demand 4WD system and consider is the best of that type I’ve ever used – and I think I’ve used them all by now. Most of the time these on-demand systems engage the rear wheels too late, and when they do, by too little so the car wheelspins to a halt, or you spin the front wheels only getting further into trouble. Not so with this one, which is early to kick in, and effective – and that’s in Auto, change it to Lock and it’s even better, getting towards having an actual lockable centre diff. Top marks to Mitsubishi, everyone take note and follow suit please. Either that, or stop claiming things that aren’t true in your specifications.
The traction control is highly effective, which is surprising as recently I had a Challenger owner so concerned his wasn’t working he didn’t think it was fitted. Turned out it was, it was just slow. Not so on the Outlander which has a much better calibration similar to the Pajero which is also pretty good.
Finally, the engine. While the motor lacks power on road, it never seems to runs out of puff in the rough unless pushed to extremes, and it always seems to have a bit grunt more available – surprising, but welcome and it makes the car easy to control on slippery surfaces. The soft suspension also really helps here, keeping all four wheels in contact with the ground.
We also ran the Outlander over some rough terrain, ditches, hills and the like. It did very well indeed, and I would say it is one of the best no-low-range vehicles on the market for the reasons listed above – an effective 4WD system, tractable engine, supple suspension with long travel and a robust design. The relatively light weight 1630kg kerb weight helps too, as indeed it seems to be for fuel efficiency. As a contrast, last week I tested the Lexus RC F which is a sports coupe and that weighs 1860kg.
Hills are a problem. There’s no low range and no hill descent control. That said, the four-wheel disc brakes work pretty well, and the 4WD lock system also helps on steep descents. I’m sure Mitsubishi would say buy a Pajero if you want to do this sort of thing and I agree, but it’s nice to know the Outlander is pretty capable.
Notably, the Outlander never complained. It never threw a warning light, nothing gave up, nothing overheated, everything just worked and very much gave the impression it would continue working forever. You know carshows always have SUVs set in a bed of gravel with mountainbikes on the roof and lyrcra-clad Active Lifestyle People parading around? Let me tell you there is an inverse relationship between car capability and hype. The Outlander wouldn’t be on display lit up in neon, it’d be quietly waiting in a garage for when the show is over and the real work needs doing.
There’s more offroad shots in the gallery at the end. I didn’t bother shoot any onroad because frankly that’s far less interesting.
Quality
A 5-year, 100,000km warranty is not bad but not market leading. Interestingly, the new Triton is 5 year/130,000km.
One or two parts look cheap, but there’s nothing flimsy or poorly made, and we had no cause for concern during the test.
Pricing & Equipment
Our test car is the XLS diesel. There are no glaring omissions from the XLS specification that families or other buyers might particuarly want. Inclded is satnav, Bluetooth audio, DAB, cruise control, the usual power accessories.
Above the XLS there is the Exceed diesel which gets keyless entry, leather, power and heated seats, electric tailgate and adaptive cruise control. It’s another $5k, and as always with moving up a trim level you do need to ask yourself if it’s worth it. I think in this case you could argue it is, and resale should be quite high too. Mitsubishi have been using the Exceed name for years now across many models so it has some market recognition. The petrol Exceed also has forward collision mitigation (AEB) and is cheaper than the diesel, so might be a better option if you plan on city or short-range use.
The range starts with the 2.0L petrol 2WD models which are CVT automatics, then there’s the 2.2L diesels (normal autos) and and the 2.4L petrol (CVT again), with the hybrid PHEV to top off the range. Some Outlanders, mostly the LS models, are 5 not 7 seats.
The difference between diesel and petrol is only around $1500. Given small difference, and the fact the fuel tank is 60L, if you intend to tour in your Outlander I’d be very tempted to opt for the diesel which has better fuel economy and therefore range. At least the petrol will run on 91RON petrol, a good move for a SUV. Fuel consumption on the combined cycle is 7.2 for the petrol and 6.2 for the diesel, although the petrol’s consumption will rise more with a load. We were able to remain well under 10 with our test diesel except for the offroad work.
Safety
The Outlander has the now-obligatory 5-star rating. ANCAP really needs to do something because everything is scoring 5 and it’s no longer a differentiator. How about rating second and third row safety…not a lot of people know the rating applies only to the front row. But I digress.
One reason why the Outlander should shoot to the top of your list if you intend to wander Australia is the spare wheel. Not only does it have a full-sized alloy spare, it’s underslung so should you need to get to it you don’t have to unload the back of the car. It’s a sad state of affairs when we have to praise a manufacturer for supplying what should be the basics, but that’s where we are now. Even better, the jack is hidden away in a side panel, so it’s relatively easy to get to, and it is a pretty robust jack too. The winch point to let the spare down is on the door jamb, so again no need to unload the car to change the tyre. It is truly amazing how many manufacturers do not think of these points. I have said before I’d like to get the engineers that forget these things to change a wheel out in the bush while raining at night in the mud – in the case of the Outlander I shall buy the engineer a beer instead.
Now the Outlander is already looking very good on the real-4WD front, but there’s more. The vehicle actually has a rear towpoint and two front towhooks which are not those horrific screw-in jobbies. Now I wouldn’t go recovering the car from a bog using the rear one – fit a towbar and then connect like so – but the two front ones are great and very unusual for this class of car, use a long bridle and you should will be much better for a recovery than a single screw-in point.
All this means that the Outlander really does deserve its adventurous sounding name, and it absolutely ticks all the boxes as a car you’d want to take a long way into remote Australia – diesel, frugal, good 4WD system, towhooks, full-sized spare, capacious. My kind of car, and I think anyone considering a Subaru should also consider an Outlander. There are differences between the two, and I’ll cover them in a blog post later.
There are three child-restraint points where they should be, which is on the back of the second row, and ISOFIX ISOFIX restraint points. The third row doesn’t have any restraints.
2015 Outlander XLS Diesel Automatic
PRICE : $39,490 (+ORC) Metallic/pearlescent paint + $550
WARRANTY : 5 years / 100,000 km
SAFETY : 5 star (35.58 / 37, tested in 2015)
ENGINE : 2.2 diesel
POWER : 110 kW at 3500 rpm
TORQUE : 360 Nm at 1500-2750 rpm
TRANSMISSION : 6-speed automatic with paddleshifts
DRIVE : On-demand 4WD
GROUND CLEARANCE : 190 mm
BODY : 4695 mm (L); 1810 mm (W), 1680 mm (H)
TURNING CIRCLE : 10.6 m
WEIGHT : 1630 kg
SEATS: 7
TOWING : 2000 kg unbraked, 750g braked, max TBM 200 kg
FUEL TANK : 60 litres
SPARE : Full-sized alloy underslung
THIRST : 6.2 L/100km ADR81/02 combined cycle
FUEL : diesel
Thanks to Jessica and Stephen for their assistance with this review.
Outlander interior gallery
Outlander offroad gallery
Outlander instrument gallery
I can honestly say that as the most detailed and best review I think I’ve ever read.
Very well done, Mr. Pepper
Thank you!
I agree with Todd, this is probably one of the most in-depth reviews I’ve read. Most reviews don’t go in to so much detail with the multi media system and instrument layout. I bought an outlander 2 months ago, although only the 2WD model but I’m very happy with it.
Loving your PROPER off road tests, not just drive around the block like most others…
Re folding/getting into the rear/rear seat, you are wrong, the 70/30 split seat with the bigger seat on the LHS is better:
Because being wider its easier for people to get in the back from the footpath safer side
And
As I am tall in general my passengers prefer to sit behind the LHD passenger with more legroom for them, they have a wider seat to move around on as I fold the rear RHS seat to load long items etc
That is one way to look at it. The other way is that the smaller seat is easier to operate, less disturbance to the other occupants, and the whether its the 40 or 60 makes no difference to accessing the immediate rear seat, and very little to the other. Most car manufacturers will change the split according to LHD/RHD. Some clever ones have a symmetrical three-way split.
Yes any time I get an offroader it is going offroad with photos to prove the point.
Great review. Much better than the other mob. One thing you might want to consider is using GIF image or a very short video (thinking tripod with an iPhone) demonstrating how far/well it offroaded. It doesn’t need to flow or anything fancy like Top Gear but in this age of easy access to video hosting, having a short clip can bring the words to life.
Hi Guest – we will start doing that. See the Jeep Renegade Trailhawk review for an example.
Excellent review. I picked up my XLS diesel last week and so far, so good. I had a 2013 LS Petrol Outlander before, and the new one is a great improvement. The diesel 6 speed is a much better option over the petrol CVT. Haven’t got the new one dirty yet, but the old one went everywhere I wanted to go.
Hi Craig, I am thinking of doing the same. 2013 petrol excellent, so not sure what I will gain. Your comments are encouraging.
I am slightly concerned about the “I wouldn’t tow a caravan comment”. Apart from that, I am on the verge of trading in my 2013 petrol Outlander for the MY16 diesel. Do you suggest a kg capability, ie towing 1000kg max or so? Or no towing at all?
Johanna – comment comes of two things, first the lack of power, second the soft suspension which will sag at the rear. I think in general the maximum any vehicle should tow is 2/3 of its towing capacity, or about its GVM. I’m sure the Outlander would be fine with 1000kg but even then I’d look at aftermarket springs in the rear.
Certainly if you had a 2000kg trailer I would not recommend an Outlander.
Any Outlander owners wish to chime in?
Thanks for the great review.
Can you tell me why they rated the Outlander diesel at 2000kg towing capacity. Whereas the Ford Kuga diesel has more horsepower and torque, but only rated at 1500kg! How can that be?
I have an Outlander diesel and would like to tow my boat + trailer at about 1500kg. Is it safe? Advice please. Thanks.
Hi chc – towing capacity has much more to do with the chassis, cooling, transmission strength and so on than pure kW/Nm.
A good rule of thumb is only to tow up to 2/3 of the max rated capacity. A 1500kg trailer (if that’s the loaded weight) would be fine I expect, but haven’t towed with an Outlander so cannot truly say. The Outlander does have softish springs so you may consider an upgrade there.
I don’t quite buy that lack of power argument. You can tow with much less power comfortably, than what most 4×4’s have today. Reliability and drive system wise, traditional automatic and a diesel is one of the best combinations you can have for towing.
The rear suspension also doesn’t have much to do with the trailer weight because the tow ball weight is limited? You can legally only have a certain amount of weight on the towball. :/
But otherwise I agree. If you need to tow a 2000 kg trailer, it is better to buy a car that is allowed to tow a little more (2500 kg ->), so you have a little more flexibility, and can be sure that the car is more than enough for the job.
I think car size of the outlander should tow 1500-2000 kg quite comfortably.
The Outlander does not feel powerful and torquey with a few people in it. Still moves, but doesn’t have the feeling you’d want for a 2000kg trailer or so. That’s where the comment comes from. Could you tow with it? Yes. Would it better with extra grunt like some competitors? Definitely. Also, the figures don’t tell the whole story. For example the Defender is a brilliant towcar with 90kW and 360Nm, it feels much stronger than the figures suggest. The Outlander is the reverse.
It is a sum of many things. Gearing, and the torque curve of the engine ( by other words, what amount of torque it has at a certain RPM and if you know torque and rpm, you know the power ). 🙂
If you had the torque curve, that would tell the truth. If a vehicle has let’s say 300 Nm at 2000 rpm, you can directly calculate the power from that and power is what moves a vehicle. No matter what it feels like, it is a property that comes from the laws of physics, it is measurable and can be calculated.
Only way to know the truth for example compared to the Defender, would be to measure it. You could measure acceleration with a trailer 0-80 km/h, then could measure acceleration at certain rpm range of the engine or at certain gear, to test the properties of the engine. Some modern engines have a very narrow power band/peak, and outside that range the engine is gutless. Other have a low peak power, but they have steadily power available across the whole rpm range.
But yeah, I am sure the Defender is a great tow car. It probably has a lower gearing, and the engine has a different kind of tune, where is power available from the low rpm.
Also weight, aerodynamic efficiency, gearing, friction losses all play a part. Then there’s sensations which are affected by height above road, engine note, wind noise etc etc…can’t tell till you drive it!
My old 3 litre petrol ZG (now with 350K km on the clock and still moving reliably) had the same sag at the back when pulling the van. Got some load levellers for the van, which helped a bit – but ended up adding some airbags in the back coils, which helped some more. Only time I had a problem with overheating was going up a steep mountain (in 3rd gear ?) on the A1 out of Nowra when the ambient temperature was something ridiculously high (49 maybe 51 deg C ?) and there were local fires. The warnings went off about 2/3 the way up so I pulled over and let it idle 5 minutes and moved off again up to Newcastle without a recurrence.
Hi Johanna, I have just done exactly what you are considering, replaced 2013 petrol outlander with MY16 diesel. We bought a new boat about 6 months ago, it weighs around 1400kg loaded and the petrol towed it fine except highway fuel economy blew out to around 17L/100km. The new diesel does it without breaking into a sweat!! The new car is a great improvement all around on the 2013 car. I am really happy. Not that the older one was a bad car. In fact my wife drives the 2013 now and I have the new one! We are a two Outlander family lol
In the earlier Mitsubishi models that had the AYC, it meant that the car had an active differential either on front or rear axle. Active differential means that the differential has a computer controlled clutch pack system that is capable of torque vectoring (technically may be as capable as a 100% locker in transfering torque). So it is not brake based like a traction control or stability control, it is mechanical and capable of providing a continuous drive on that axle where the active diff is.
The AYC is not a new invention, Mitsubishi has had it in maný 4wd drive vehicles since the 90’s, first in the Galant VR 4 and Lancer Evolution. Originally it was designed to improve cornering of the vehicle, by driving the outside corner wheel faster, and in engine braking, slowing the inside corner wheel more.
But I don’t know does the Oulander have actual active diff! Maybe they just grabbed the old marketing word for new use.
It doesn’t have an active differential,just brake (and engine) based traction control which is effective. As you say AYC is more for performance vehicles.
Yeah, active diffs are expensive. But they would offer benefits for off road driving too compared to traction control. 😉
Jeep used a little similar system in the grand cherokee quadra drive 2 system I suppose.
Thanks for a straight and practical Go thru of the car. I own a boat on a trailer with friends and my friend tow the boat to sea and back again. Sea is 30- 100km away depending on What fish we are targetting. We fish alot offshore. Trailer with boat weigh 1800kg. He’s driving a 2.2 d outlander -11, mt. Never a problem. We fish all year. And that means snow and ice too. The outlander has caused no problems on roads or on the slip. My Buddy tows horses for his daughters too, no problems either, with a 2000kg double boogey. Towing wise it’s great. I’ve ordered a -16, 2.2did, MT, for My self and family of 4+2. Waiting for IT to be delivered.
//Magnus
Scandinavium
Best review I’ever read about the 2016 outlander. Seriously considering replace my 09 Lancer with this.
Thanks Eric. – Isaac
Hi Robert-at the end of the article you mentioned that anyone considering a subaru would be well advised to look at the outlander, and you would do a comparison on the 2 against each other. I am just about to pull the trigger on a new car and these 2, plus the Nissan X-Trail are the final 3. Am considering the XLS trim variant as tested here, the forester L variant and nissans ST-L (unfortunately not their diesel as it only comes in manual and the better half doesn’t fancy self shifting!). I am curious if you ever posted that comparison you mention – would definitely be keen to know your thoughts on a direct comparison! Great job on the review – as others have said yours are so much more detailed then a lot of the “reviews” that get airtime these days!! 2 mitsi specific questions to finish – how are the headlights on it (I personally do a fair chunk of driving at night) and how did you find it through the slightly rougher stuff with only 190mm clearance? That seems to be the only real negative to its rough road SUV spec set!! Keep up the great work!
Anthony
Yes the comparison was done and it is here:
https://practicalmotoring.com.au/blogs/subaru-forester-vs-mitushibi-outlander-which-should-outdoorsy-people-choose/
and here:
https://practicalmotoring.com.au/car-reviews/compared-jeep-renegade-trailhawk-vs-mitsubishi-outlander-vs-subaru-forester-vs-suzuki-grand-vitara/
190mm of clearance is not enough for proper 4WD tracks, and that decreases as the vehicle is loaded. The headlights; often asked, but I don’t often comment because it’s actually quite subjective as night vision varies very much from person to person, and especially with age. I would always suggest driving lights for any real night work.
Hi Robert. I wondered please if you can suggest the preferred method to gain some more clearance? In Qld (as I understand it) larger tyres can only legally be fitted to a ‘proper’ 4WD not SUVs. Would a mild suspension lift be appropriate? Thank you.
Yes a mild suspension lift would work plus some slightly oversize tyres. I don’t know where Qld is at with its roadworthy laws though…so the above advice would work but may not be roadworthy! You can’t expect a 50mm lift on vehicles like the Outlander though.
Thank you Robert, much appreciated.
I looked at this vehicle as well as the Honda CRV and the Hyundai Tucson. I ruled out the Tuscon first as it did not seem to have the length in the rear storage area compared to the Outlander, Test drove the CRV 2.4l petrol Nice car but the rear view camera seemed very gainy to me. Finally settled on the XLS Diesel Outlander and am very happy with the car. It cruises very easily and although not quick off the line gets up to speed smoothly enough. Although if you plant your foot the turbo kicks in with some gusto. Achieved 6.6l per 100k on the drive back from the dealer (highway) and the best so far is 6.3l per 100k (highway again) Easy to achieve low 7’s with day to day driving. Would have liked to had a 5 seater in the XLS diesel as it would give me more underfloor storage (my daughter has the 2014 LS 2.0L petrol with great storage under the rear floor) One thing my daughter noted is that with the cupholders positioned in front of the gear lever you can pick up your drink from the side of the cup/can and do not have to do the “shuffle” when the drink is picked up from the top from cupholders placed behind the gear lever as in some other cars. Small thing that you don’t normally think about. Love the SD card slot behind the audio unit. Have transferred about 100 CD’s onto a 32g card (with space to spare) so am never short of driving music.
Great review Robert and was a BIG factor in my choice of vehicle Keep up the good work.
Brad – brilliant post and thank you, that’ll be of great help to other people considering this vehicle.
I recently bought the 2016 LS Outlander 4WD 2.4 petrol ZK model . How do you think it would have performed on your test run in comparison to the diesel. My car also has a Ds gear selection( note not on the diesel). Not sure of the benefits for this ? Although I can say after just completing 4000km trip from Brisbane to NSW & Vic, the Outlander is an extremely comfortable touring vehicle.
The Ds gear selection sounds like a sport mode. The Outlander is totally not-sporty so that setting is a gimmick. The petrol would use more fuel and probably not be as good offroad as it would develop less torque higher in the rev range.
You never explained the “low gear with an L mode” so I take it does have a low gear setting or NOT. If it does then it’s 4WD, right? or not?
It doesn’t have low range. The L mode is to restrict to first gear only.
Hi Robert,
Great review, very informative.
I’m looking at 2016 Outlander diesel XLS v. a 2013 Hyundai Santa Fe Elite.
Both are similarly priced (22,771 v 22,900), both 70,000ks, both have towbars, both light coloured and both appear to be well maintained vehicles. I haven’t had an opportunity to look carefully or drive an example of either, and these vehicles are in Newcastle and Sydney respectively.
My main criteria are fuel efficiency and luggage space: I do a weekly community acupuncture clinic at a cwa hall and need to pack a lot of gear!
What do you think?