Track Tested: 2011 Mitsubishi Outlander Sport SE

0-60 in 10.0 flat!! I didn't think that it was possible that in the year 2010 we would see any non-hybrid, non-5000lb people mover vehicle run such a slow 0-60 time. Even funnier is that this vehicle has the word SPORT in it's title. How did this thing get signed off by dozens of engineers and accountants at Mitsu without someone saying, "OK, this is too slow"....

Merry Christmas everyone!!

Good god that is embarrassing... I mean this thing is a full 1000 lbs lighter then my 99 F150 with only 260hp (and 165,000 miles) and even with big tires (33) and tall gears (3.55) I can still hit 60 in 6 or 7 seconds!

For most of us on this blog, the above tests are all we need to know about this Outlander (I can't write the rest of the name, I just can't)

What WERE they thinking!

You know what, though, a lot of lack-of-car-savvy peole will buy this for, say, a low lease payment, or even a low priced stripper model, or because their brother inlaw owned one and he said it was *really nice." And these buyers will think it was really nice.

I am thankful today for the information and education that Edmunds provides us every DAY. Makes my subscription to (fill in blank) seem totally irrelevant.

Nice to see posters are out on Christmas morning. Ho ho ho, everyone.

"Good god that is embarrassing... I mean this thing is a full 1000 lbs lighter then my 99 F150 with only 260hp (and 165,000 miles) and even with big tires (33) and tall gears (3.55) I can still hit 60 in 6 or 7 seconds!"

Wanna bet? It may sound and feel that fast but more like 9 sec or so to 60.....just saying....:)

"Good god that is embarrassing... I mean this thing is a full 1000 lbs lighter then my 99 F150 with only 260hp (and 165,000 miles) and even with big tires (33) and tall gears (3.55) I can still hit 60 in 6 or 7 seconds"

Probably more like ten.....I guarantee your F150 does NOT go 0-60 in 7 seconds.

the outlander sport....you are a good sport for ever buying one and taking one for the team.

And please tell why car makers keep trying to sell us CVTs? The best are just OK and the rest suck.

@bodyblue and zoomzoom22

Well it feels pretty damn quick when I have it floored but you are correct I have never really sat down and timed it. Nonetheless it has to be faster then this thing.

@audisport

With all due respect, I think you just showed your ignorance of many mainstream segments in your comment. 10 seconds to 60 mph is not out of the extraordinary for compacts and subcompacts with automatics. Most compact SUVs with 4 cylinder engines don't do much better either, low to mids 9s. Focus, Civic, Corolla, the old Elantra, etc.. If you bother to look at subcompacts, you'll see most are even slower than 10 seconds too, once equipped with automatics.

This vehicle is pretty heavy for the 2.0L engine, but its acceleration is decent and sufficient for day-to-day driving. Especially since it's an AWD vehicle too, which the manual version they tested previously wasn't, in fact it weighed 3 009 lbs versus 3 371 lbs for this version. So considering the car is 12% heavier than that previous model, a factor that, if applied to the previous 0-60 time of 8,8 seconds with the manual, almost equals the time this CVT gets (8,8 times 1,12 = 9,85 seconds versus 10,0 seconds) I'd say the CVT does a pretty good job of milking this powertrain for all it's got. But it's still a 148 hp 2.0L pulling nearly 3 400 lbs of vehicle, no way it's breaking records.

So to sum up:

1- This vehicle is no slower than most subcompacts and compacts, including the best-selling ones, and not that much slower than compact SUVs.

2- Once you account for the weight factor in the comparison with the previously tested manual FWD version, the CVT does a pretty good job at getting as much power as possible out of the engine, being only slightly slower than the manual (again, once you account for the weight difference).

I'm curious if this engine will get good fuel economy, because that must be the point of a 2.0L engine being put in a compact SUV, right? The EPA ratings are really good (24/29), I'm hard-pressed to find a similar vehicle getting similar fuel economy with AWD, just curious to see if the real-world mileage will reflect that.

"Well it feels pretty damn quick when I have it floored but you are correct I have never really sat down and timed it. Nonetheless it has to be faster then this thing."

And I am sure it sounds a lot better and is a lot more fun to drive..:)

Okay, let's say that the acceleration is a bit below average for the class. Why then, does it have that damning applelation of "Sport"? Perhaps that is why we pick on it-- with that "Sport" thing we expect more. It isn't sporty in any way. So, we rag on it.

A Honda CR-V is slow, but there are no labels on the CR-V that say it should be fast. Our expectations are that it is a "nice" relatively inexpensive small CUV. And, oh yeah, it has the Honda name on it. That's all most people need to see. (The CR-V comes in LX, EX, and EX-L trim levels. NO "sport" here folks-- by design.)

Well a "sporty" car does not have to be fast, right? If it handles nice and is fun to drive, I consider that "sporty". Does this car handle nice and is it fun to drive? I have no idea.

I expected handling to be much better than this. Oh well

Acceleration is not bad for what this car has its mission set as. Like someone above said many other cute utes may be slightly quicker (low to mid 9's) but I doubt any common consumer would notice this as long as it is peppy during normal driving. We shall see if this thing gets panned for day to day driving like the Terrain does.

"Well a "sporty" car does not have to be fast, right? "

no it does not have to be fast. but it can NOT be slow.

for example, the miata has never been terribly fast but it handles fantastic and it isn't slow by any means. clearly, it qualifies as sporty. the rx-8 was not terribly fast but is often said to be one of the best balanced and best handling cars around.

but nothing that takes 10 secs to get to 60 can be defined as sporty (in common usage).

If this can't even break out of the 10s with the CVT keeping it on full 6100 rpm boil for the whole run that says it must be just hopeless on the adult side of the tach.

That's a lot to give up for 1 mpg on the sticker. Even that likely won't show up in the real world because they'll be flooring it on every hill or merge just keeping up with traffic.

A $24,000 car with the verve of a $12,000 Accent just doesn't appeal.

I think some have to understand that you don't pay a car for performance only, you pay for the whole package: the comfort, the size, the usability, etc... This Outlander Sport may cost 24 000$ for performance no better than most compacts (still better than an Accent though, and significantly, I've seen reports of automatic Accents taking more than 11 seconds to get to 60 mph), but look at what it offers that compacts don't: more room, more features and AWD. If you want, just go for the Outlander FWD which is available as low as 18-19 K $ and which probably will be faster, once the heavy AWD system is removed.

For those seeking fast performance, of course this car has no appeal, but for those looking for an affordable, fuel-efficient compact SUV, maybe with AWD, I'd say it looks good at a quick glance. The FWD CVT version is even rated at 25 MPG City and 31 MPG Highway... that's nearly compact territory, the Mazda 3 2.0L auto is rated 24/33. With a fuel economy rating of 24/29, I think the Outlander Sport AWD is probably the most fuel-efficient non-hybrid AWD vehicle out there. The city rating is especially great. Of course, I'd like to know how it works out in real-life too, but numbers-wise, it looks really good. You give up performance for that however, but that may be worth it depending on what individuals really want. The Outlander Sport is maybe 0,5 to 1,0 second slower to 60 mph than the CR-V, but it's 12% more fuel-efficient, resulting in costing more than 200$ less a year in gas (according to the EPA), is that a fair deal? That's up to everyone to decide for themselves.

If you look at best-selling cars, betting on fuel economy by sacrificing performance may not appeal to enthusiasts, but it seems to appeal to the mainstream public. However, calling it "sport" may be a marketing mishap, then again some companies seem to affix the "sport" moniker to cheaper cars with less features, like Jeep for instance, where the "sport" trims are basically the lower trims for the Compass, Liberty, Wrangler and Patriot. So "sport" is no guarantee of anything in the car industry.

"Why then, does it have that damning applelation of "Sport"? Perhaps that is why we pick on it-- with that "Sport" thing we expect more. It isn't sporty in any way. So, we rag on it. "

The Mazda 5 "sport" is the lowest priced 5 you can get....and even though it is small it still only has about 150 HP. It is no more sporty than this car, I would think......even a zoom zoom Mazda.

Too many pounds and too many dollars for too little power.

I can get a Subaru Forester XT Limited for about a grand more than this vehicle. 78 more hp, automatic, AWD, heated seats, leather, bluetooth, and power driver's seat. True it has worse EPA mileage and no Navi or HD music storage, but I have a smart phone and I'd rather have the power.

Or, for about $26k I could get the non-turbo with Navi and still have 30 more hp and similar mileage.

I can see no compelling reason to buy this particular Mitsubishi.

ok... anybody else REALLY suspicious that @kchoz is either an intern or entry-level member of mitsubishi's marketing dept.?
the way that last one was written was a bit "off". sounded like a politician trying to stick to his talking points while at the same time not really offending anyone.

OK, zcalvert, you want proof I'm not a Mitsubishi marketing guy? OK, here goes. The Galant and the Eclypse are crap, cars that have long overstayed their welcome with late-90s technology, don't buy them. The Endeavor is awful, not even worth mentioning really. The #1 reason not to buy Mitsubishi is the crappy dealer network, from what I've seen and heard. Also, may I point out how never would a shill say what I said about the Outlander Sport having no appeal for anyone who wants performance, especially not on a website where most people are enthusiasts.

The only thing is, I don't like unfair bashing. Some people here seem to have individually decided to hate on this car and bash it for reasons I think are frankly unfair. I've got a bit of a contrarian streak actually, if everyone bashes on one thing, I tend to play devil's advocate and point out the other point of view. Plus, I just honestly think that this vehicle is interesting as an affordable compact SUV or crossover or whatever they call it. If you want AWD however, Subaru might be more interesting considering you don't have to get the highest trim just to get it. If you don't care about AWD and don't expect good performance, but just want a compact SUV for the room and the (relative) fuel economy, then the Outlander Sport might be worth a look in my opinion.

Satisfied?

satisfied? well, to be honest i don't really care either way. i can't claim to take any personal interest in the car.

it was more a matter of "how you said it" rather that "what you said" that caught my attention.

About this car specifically... given mitsubishi's current position in the us car market; they're probably going to need exceptional, rather than decently acceptable, products in order to get relevant sales numbers. this car seems to be in the decently acceptable category.

it's not like i'm not pulling for them. hell, i had an isuzu trooper that was an absolutely amazing car. i'm still slightly depressed that they're gone from the us market. i hope mitsu doesn't take the same path.

As a comparison, below are Edmund's performance numbers for the the slightly bigger and heavier Hyundai Tuscon and Kia Sportage (they are part of the same segment none the less):

Hyundai Tuscon
0-60 mph (sec.) 9.6
1/4-mile (sec. @ mph) 17.1 @ 81.2
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) 64.5
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) 0.75

Kia Sportage
0-60 mph (sec.) 9.5
1/4-mile (sec. @ mph) 17.1 @ 82.0
Slalom, 6 x 100 ft. (mph) 62.2
Skid pad, 200-ft. diameter (lateral g) 0.76

Of course these numbers don't really reveal how the cars drive in day-to-day situations.

NOTE TO EDMUNDS: Please post 30-55mph and 55-80mph acceleration numbers

The Nissan Juke Edmunds tested was a FWD and vastly outperformed all three vehicles referred to above. However, the Juke is quite a bit smaller and lighter than the three and undoubtedly the enthusiasts choice (if you can get past the styling)...

On a side note, the Mitsubishi is also quieter than the two Koreans, yet many reviewers complain about the noise in the little Outlander.

wait, wait... I think I heard, "Oh god, I don't think this can be any slower..." HAHAHA! I have to have Mike chime in on this. His comment about the acceleration run that day had me rolling on the floor laughing! ('ROFL' for those of you who don't know IM-speak)

I signed up just to say this. I cannot believe that most of the posters are flipping out that this thing is not a land rocket it is an SUV! The fact that IL tested it on the track is just nuts. Just because it has "sport" in the name. I bet that it is a fine suv for a small family let's get our expectations in order. I will not get started on the Mitsubishi bashing is see at least not yet. Now having said all that it is a little slow but if you want something fast get a grad Cherokee SRT-8