2007 Mitsubishi Outlander: Third Row For Show Video

I think that if any salesman tries to sale the car based on the third row seats it offers you should make him sit there while you test drive the car for ten-twenty minutes.

banhugh - I like the way you think.
 
Miutsu probably put the third row seat in as a last minute idea so that, on paper, it would compare favorably to other CUVs.

CUVs really shouldn't try to put a third row seat in anyway. If I were designing a CUV for the market, I'd make the two additional rows as good as they could possibly be and use the chassis size to the best advantage. How many people actually buy these vehicles intending, and actually, using the third row seats anyway? Most third row seats, including these, appear more like an afterthought and really unsafe for any children riding in them.
 
That's one place Mitsu went wrong; adding third row seats that really aren't that good...to a vehicle that is arguably a sport(y) CUV. Note to designers: save the third row seats for your full size SUVs.

I can only laugh at your effort to demonstrate how bad the Outlander 's third row seat is and how decent the RAV4's is (all of the sudden you cannot provide a picture of yourself sitting in the RAV4's back seat. What about go to the nearest dealer and take a picture; not a big deal).
You just don't get it that the vast majority of the people don't really care about the third row in the Outlander or RAV4, so why bother? What's your point? Let's comment on the long list of nice features the Outlander offers for a decent price, which are offered in the RAV4 at a much higher price or not offered at all. This actually matters for the buyers in this class not the stupid 3rd row seat.
Yes, you could remove the 3rd seat in the Outlander and get over it if it annoys you that much.

Those who want a long list of nice features can pick up a brochure. The rest of us are interested in what the vehicle is like for actual people to live with on a daily basis.

Dodo i am an owner of an outlander too and i love the thing! but reading your posts throughout some of the outlander posts and forums and i have to say you sound a little hypocritical when you say edmunds is biased towards toyota and Honda. You seem to be the opposite in that you will do anything to defend the Outlander and how great it is even though edmunds is just trying to find the good and the bad in the Outlander (there are goods and bads in every car). I am not trying to ruffle any feathers and i think everyone should test drive the Outlander when in the market for a small CUV, but lets keep things relatively objective here.

I have a Mazda 5, I know it's not an SUV but it's got a much comfortable 3rd row than that flimsy contraption. But still, having the capability to seat additional 2 passengers is better than nothing at all. So it's still a Win for the Outlander.

Have to say that the 2nd video, showing the seatbelt fasteners popping up, was hilarious!

Here is a picture of the RAV4's third row seat. Note the 50/50 split and its bottom padding. This manufacturer photo exagerates the distance between the second and third rows, so imagine the middle row pushed back and reclined by about three to four inches.

I think it'd only be fair to throw some 10-yr old kids in the back to see how it is for them.

It is impossible to get somthing out of nothing, a car cannot be any bigger inside than it is outside. So small SUVs/CUVs will be small inside as well, and when they stuff a third row seat in there, there is simply not enogh space.

qqt414: You did not read my posts carefully enough and I don't blame you for that.
I never said that the Outlander is a perfect car and if you indeed read my posts, you would find critical comments where they are due.
In said from the beginning that the Outlander’s third row seat is useless, ugly, uncomfortable, afterthought..... you name it. Please let me know how is this defending the Outlander.
However, where I did not agree with James is when he implied that the Outlander's 3rd row is useless (true) and the RAV4's is useful (false). I say they are BOTH useless, although RAV4's are better executed. Where am I defending the Outlander again?
 
Some editors at Edmunds are biased Honda and Toyota and this is no news. In this case for instance, they wrote about the uninspired 3rd row seat in the Outlander and quickly compared to the RAV4, suggesting that this feature is better in the RAV4 (useful 3rd row ???? - I don't think so). Note that they never said the CRV (another Outlander competitior) doesn't have any form of 3rd row seat. Did you happen to think that that awful 3rd seat in the Outlander might be an advantage for some, over none in the CRV? They never mentioned that.
 
 However, for example, when they comment on the Mitsu MMC they never say, RAV4 doesn't even have one. Do you get my point bmorton? When they comment on Outlander's 220 HP engine they say it's less powerful than the RAV4, but not a word about being more powerful than the CRV,
 
And, no, the Outlander is not the perfect car, but let's talk about the good and the bad in every car. Some Edmunds editors tend to talk about negatives when they review almost every other car but H&T and positive only when they review H&T. This qualifies for biased in my books.
Don’t get me wrong: H&T are good vehicles, but not always the best.

A full comparison of the Outlander, RAV4, CR-V and Nissan Rogue is coming soon, which will delve deeper into the finer points between all these vehicles. A blog isn't supposed to be, and cannot possibly be as comprehensive as such a test. The existence of the 3rd row in the Outlander and the non-existance in the CR-V and Rogue was noted in this comparo, and factored into the scoring.

Because I'm bored and dont have fantasy football to keep me busy at the moment, i just went through the Outlander blog list and the RAV4 list.
 
At my count, the positive-negative blog comment tally for the Outlander stands at 12 positive and 7 negative, with the remainder being sort of neutral ((including they liked this, but disliked that). The RAV4's tally is 19 positive and 14 negative (three of which involved the radio gremlins), with a lot more in the neutral category. Don't know if that means nothing, but I was curious to see if the RAV really did get a lot more loving reviews. Looking at the blogs, doesn't seem like it does.
 
As for that comaparison, should be interesting.

The intent of long term testing is precisely to nitpick. If journalists and editors were required to insert X number of complaints and Y number of commendations to keep everything equal, these types of blogs would not be very useful. It is your job as the reader to understand that no individual is perfect and certain biases may indeed exist. You must also understand that it is the intent of any publication to be as objective as possible.
 
I read these blogs with the satisfaction that I may be able to learn more about automotive manufacturers and the products they produce. I do not come on here to listen to people complain about how they feel their biases are not justified by what is written here. If you have a problem with how the material is being presented, write a complaint to Edmunds. Don't post it here.

The purpose of the blog is to have people comment. I don't need to write to Edmunds (?!). The authors of these blogs are here with us, responding back to our posts. This is part of the fun.
Did you have anything to comment on the blog itself, or you only comment on my comments? Move on, the subject is the Outlander not my comments. If you don't like them, skip over or comment to their content and let’s share opinions.
 
James: I'm looking forward to the upcoming comparo. In the meantime, did you guys have any reliability issues with your test vehicle? How is the interior holding up? This is one of my concerns and I would appreciate your experience. Your LT vehicles most likely are more abused than a private vehicle so it would give a perspective of what to expect down the road.
Did your door panels get scratches so far? Same for the cargo area plastic trims.

In their promotional material (web content and brochures), Mitsubishi states that the third row are "jump seats" and "...recommended for passengers under 5-foot-3".
The third row is for kids on an occasional use basis and, as far as I am concerned, perfectly adequate for that purpose.
Your seat being rickety is of concern, however, and probably needs to be looked at by the dealer (possible installation defect....???).
I would have to agree that the seats in the RAV4 are better, yet the passengers back there are nearly as cramped with only 2 inches more legroom and less headroom.

phinneas519: That's one place Mitsu went wrong; adding third row seats that really aren't that good...to a vehicle that is arguably a sport(y) CUV. Note to designers: save the third row seats for your full size SUVs.
 
Marketing Analyst: In designing the replacement for the vehicle you currently own, what features would you like to see?
Current Owner: A third row seat would be a nice feature to have. Mom visits once a year, and it would be nice to drive in one vehicle.
 
Marketing Analyst to Design/Engineering: Customers are DEMANDING third row seats.
 
Third row seats are a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. Go full size, or get a minivan for hauling 7-8 people.

Precisely. I have a co-worker interested in the three-row RAV4 simply because a few times a year they need to haul more than five butts around. A minivan would be cheaper and more practical, but there's still a strong anti-minivan stigma out there.

psychogun - Although the RAV4's third row is less of a penalty box overall, it's true we're probably talking about degrees of being uncomfortable when sitting in one of these seats in any vehicle in this class. Good on Mitsubishi for being honest about the very limited practicality of the Outlander's third row.

In regards to reliability, we've had problems with the keyless ignition/entry system as was documented a week or two ago. I'll ask around to see if there's anything else causing problems. I do recall seeing a few scratches on the plastic door panels (they're not of the best quality) and some of the plastic skids in the trunk area. But since the latter do a good job of making sliding stuff in back easier, that's probably excuseable.

Like everybody else, I think that the 3rd row seat in a compact/mid-size SUV is just a crazy idea. I bet this a 100% marketing stunt.
However, I give credit to Mitsu engineers for finding a way to squeeze the jump seat in the very little space available without altering the vehicle's design. I think the main goal was to have high ground clearance (at 8.5 inch I think it's one of the highest out there), low cargo floor bed (I don't have the numbers, but again I think it's one of the lowest) and high cargo volume without making the vehicle too tall (lower center of gravity). Also, they managed to pack it up seamlessly under the cargo floor, without any gaps or uneven surfaces.
In order to compensate for the very low backrest, they had to use those funny (ugly) looking headrests. The result is neither pretty nor useful, but I guess it did help to satisfy the marketing folks.

Thanks James. I'm with you on the door panels quality. I hope Mitsu takes note of it and it will improve that for 08MY. Personally I like the clean design, but the plastic is too easy to scratch.
I noticed the cargo area has much better (scratch resistant) plastics that could take some abuse.
I know about the F.A.S.T. key issue and speaking of that, do you know what the problem was? I posted a TSB in that blog addressing a similar issue (the keys were replaced under warranty). It was a relatively small list of VIN numbers affected. I was curious what the resolution was in your case.
BTW: what is the manufacturing date on your Outlander?

I dont think people buy these smaller CUV for 3rd row space. Im suprised its even an option as they are pretty much worthless even for young children. More of a sales gimmick to me.

Remember the Honda CRX? It was a two-seater in the USA, but the Japanese Domestic Market (JDM) model sat four. It is very likely that the Outlander seating arrangment was conceived by Japanese designers for Japanese customers. Mitsubishi USA might not have had much say in the matter.

The CRX sat 4 in the JDM!? Wow, now that is a compact.