Subaru Forester II
Car comparison
Subaru Forester II 2.5 i 16V TurbovsMitsubishi Outlander I 2.0 i 16V 4WD Turbo
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonMitsubishi Outlander I
2.0 i 16V 4WD Turbo
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Subaru Forester II 2.5 i 16V Turbo
- Quickest 0-100 km/h6.3 s
- Fastest top speed226 km/h140 mph
- Most powerful211 hp157 kW
- Highest torque320 Nm236 lb-ft
- Lightest1,455 kg3,208 lb
- Best power-to-weight145 hp/t108 kW/t6.9 kg/hp
- Largest trunk406 L
- Best overall score62/100
- Best performance score54/100
- Best practicality score80/100
Mitsubishi Outlander I 2.0 i 16V 4WD Turbo
- Lowest city consumption14.1 L/100 km16.7 mpg US20.0 mpg UK
- Lowest highway consumption7.6 L/100 km30.9 mpg US37.2 mpg UK
- Best economy score80/100
Specification comparison
| Model | SubaruForester II2.5 i 16V Turbo | MitsubishiOutlander I2.0 i 16V 4WD Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 211hp157kW | 202hp151kW |
| Torque | 320Nm236lb-ft | 303Nm223lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,455kg3,208lb | 1,595kg3,516lb |
| Gross weight | 2,000kg4,409lb | 2,070kg4,564lb |
| Top speed | 226 km/h 140 mph | 220 km/h 137 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 67.2s99% target: 224 km/h / 139 mph Calculated | 84.3s99% target: 218 km/h / 135 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 6.3s | 7.7s |
| 0-200 km/h | 28.3s Calculated | 39.0s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 6.0s Calculated | 7.3s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | - | 10L/100 km23.5mpg US28.2mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 15L/100 km15.7mpg US18.8mpg UK | 14.1L/100 km16.7mpg US20.0mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | 8.7L/100 km27mpg US32.5mpg UK | 7.6L/100 km30.9mpg US37.2mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 14.4s Calculated | 15.6s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 145hp/t108kW/t66hp/1000 lb Calculated | 127hp/t94kW/t57hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 220Nm/t147lb-ft/ton Calculated | 190Nm/t127lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | - | 600km373mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 2,457cc150cu in | 1,997cc122cu in |
| Length | 4,450mm175in | 4,550mm179in |
| Width | 1,735mm68in | 1,750mm69in |
| Height | 1,585mm62in | 1,620mm64in |
| Wheelbase | 2,525mm99in | 2,625mm103in |
| Front track | 1,495mm59in | 1,495mm59in |
| Rear track | 1,485mm58in | 1,495mm59in |
| Trunk volume | 406L | 402L |
| Max trunk volume | 1,525L | 1,705L |
| Doors | 5 | 5 |
| Seats | 5 | 5 |
| Fuel tank | 60L | 60L |
Performance charts
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Dyno simulation
Estimated stock-style power and torque curves by engine speed.
- Subaru Forester II 2.5 i 16V Turbo: Power / Torque
- Mitsubishi Outlander I 2.0 i 16V 4WD Turbo: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| SubaruForester II2.5 i 16V Turbo | 5,600 rpm | 3,600 rpm | 5,850 rpm |
| MitsubishiOutlander I2.0 i 16V 4WD Turbo | 5,500 rpm | 3,500 rpm | 5,750 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | SubaruForester II2.5 i 16V Turbo | MitsubishiOutlander I2.0 i 16V 4WD Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 6.0 s | 7.3 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 6.3 s | 7.7 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 28.3 s | 39.0 s |
| Top speed | 226 km/h 140 mph | 220 km/h 137 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.4 s | 2.5 s |
330 ft 101 m | 6.3 s | 6.7 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 9.4 s | 10.2 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 12.1 s | 13.1 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 14.4 s | 15.6 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 158 km/h 98 mph | 147 km/h 91 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SubaruForester II2.5 i 16V Turbo | 211 hp 157 kW |
| MitsubishiOutlander I2.0 i 16V 4WD Turbo | 202 hp 151 kW |
Subaru Forester II 2.5 i 16V Turbo has 9 hp more than Mitsubishi Outlander I 2.0 i 16V 4WD Turbo.
The biggest power difference is between Mitsubishi Outlander I 2.0 i 16V 4WD Turbo and Subaru Forester II 2.5 i 16V Turbo: 9 hp (7 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SubaruForester II2.5 i 16V Turbo | 320 Nm 236 lb-ft |
| MitsubishiOutlander I2.0 i 16V 4WD Turbo | 303 Nm 223 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SubaruForester II2.5 i 16V Turbo | 1,455 kg 3,208 lb |
| MitsubishiOutlander I2.0 i 16V 4WD Turbo | 1,595 kg 3,516 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SubaruForester II2.5 i 16V Turbo | 226 km/h 140 mph |
| MitsubishiOutlander I2.0 i 16V 4WD Turbo | 220 km/h 137 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SubaruForester II2.5 i 16V Turbo | 6.3 s |
| MitsubishiOutlander I2.0 i 16V 4WD Turbo | 7.7 s |
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Subaru Forester II 2.5 i 16V Turbo and Mitsubishi Outlander I 2.0 i 16V 4WD Turbo: 1.4 s.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| SubaruForester II2.5 i 16V Turbo | 145 hp/t 108 kW/t 6.9 kg/hp |
| MitsubishiOutlander I2.0 i 16V 4WD Turbo | 127 hp/t 94 kW/t 7.9 kg/hp |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| SubaruForester II2.5 i 16V Turbo | 211 hp 157 kW | 6.3 s | 226 km/h 140 mph |
| MitsubishiOutlander I2.0 i 16V 4WD Turbo | 202 hp 151 kW | 7.7 s | 220 km/h 137 mph |
Most attractive quadrant
Scatter chart with performance score on the X axis and practicality score on the Y axis.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Practicality score | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SubaruForester II2.5 i 16V Turbo |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| MitsubishiOutlander I2.0 i 16V 4WD Turbo |
|
| ||||||||||||||
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | SubaruForester II2.5 i 16V Turbo | MitsubishiOutlander I2.0 i 16V 4WD Turbo | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 211 hp 157 kW | 202 hp 151 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 320 Nm 236 lb-ft | 303 Nm 223 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 6.3 s | 7.7 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | 226 km/h 140 mph | 220 km/h 137 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,455 kg 3,208 lb | 1,595 kg 3,516 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | - | 10.0 L/100 km 23.5 mpg US 28.2 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | - | 600 km 373 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 406 L 14.3 cu ft | 402 L 14.2 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 145 hp/t 108 kW/t 6.9 kg/hp | 127 hp/t 94 kW/t 7.9 kg/hp | ||||||||||||||||
| Overall | Fixed score | Fixed score |
Fuel cost and annual usage
Estimate running costs from combined consumption, your annual distance, and the fuel price in your local currency.
Enter the fuel price in your local currency, for example €/L, $/gal, £/L or any other local currency.
LC = Local Currency
| Vehicle | Mitsubishi Outlander I 2.0 i 16V 4WD Turbo |
|---|---|
| Consumption | 10 L/100 km23.5 mpg US28.2 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 17.50 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 28.16 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 1,500 L396 US gal330 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 2,625 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Subaru Forester II 2.5 i 16V Turbo
- Has 9 hp more
- Has 17 Nm more
- Is 140 kg lighter
- Is 1.4 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Has 6 km/h (4 mph) higher top speed
- Has 18 hp/t better power-to-weight
- Has 4 L more trunk volume
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Highest top speed
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Lightest
- Best power-to-weight ratio
- Largest trunk
Mitsubishi Outlander I 2.0 i 16V 4WD Turbo
No measurable advantages in the available data.
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Lowest power
- Heaviest
- Lowest top speed
- Smallest trunk
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























