Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Mitsubishi Raider Large Truck

2»

Comments

  • asaasa Posts: 359
    I was pleased to read that Mitsu had re-entered the truck business, but when I saw that the Raider's length is 220", I crossed it off my list. I garage my truck and 220" is far too long for the space I have. Contrast that with Frontier's 205-1/2", Tacoma's 208" (short bed) and Colorado's 207" and Raider is in a whole new league. For those that need a truck of that size, it's desirable, but like the Tacoma long bed, it borders on almost full size length.

    I love Mitsus (mine has 200,000 miles on it), but I think they'll merely be an also-ran in a market already crowded with winning choices.
  • It wasn't so much the off the sticker as they gave me a very good trade-in and $1500 factory rebate. But it is one sweet truck. If you don't need the 4 door, the length is obviously shorter. But I have a big dog in the back seat and a bed extender for the kayak! Like I said, I'm one happy camper.
  • asaasa Posts: 359
    Just watched MotorWeek on the Speed Channel and they reviewed the Raider. They like it a great deal -- very good handling, excellent braking and great accelleration, despite a wet test track.
  • kodenamekodename Posts: 141
    How can I put this without offending Raider owners....The Raider brings nothing new to the table except it's styling, and the styling is not proving to be much of a draw. I find it looks very ockward and is no improvement over the Dodge. It's not available as a standard truck(w/o extended cab) so selection is limited.Now it's being reported that they are just not moving at all even with a $3K rebate. Mitsubishi dealers have a 200+ day supply already on hand and Mitsubishi is asking Dodge to cut back production. I like Mitsubishi, and I'd like to see them get back on track. They need a quick & easy way to sell more units.The Raider wasn't much of a good idea to begin with, and the numbers say it loud and clear:This was not a success. I think they should kill the Raider and move on to plan "B", can they afford to do that? Bill C.
  • asaasa Posts: 359
    Agreed. It's akin to Isuzu selling the Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon under a third name. It doesn't add anything to the market. With $3 ($4 ?) gasoline, perhaps Mitsu might try something sized like the Ford Ranger, except modernized. But then again, buyers seem to want higher horsepower at any cost.
  • idtelleridteller Posts: 1
    The Raider is sufficient for most outdoors and towing or hauling needs. It does fall behind when it comes to drivetrain specs, but I am very happy with my raider. It handle great and the interior is very nice. I wish it accelerated like my '03 Chevy S-10 Vortec V-6, but I don't race or haul stuff around much so it is sufficient. I do hope that Mitsubishi adds more HP and Torque to later models. Having the power is important in a truck because you never know when you'll need it.
  • I HAVE HAD MY RAIDER V6 WITH A 6SPD TRANS FOR A LITTLE OVER 8MONTHS .IT HAS A ROUGH IDLE MOTOR HAS A SLIGHT KNOCKING SOUND AND THE TRANS HAS GOTEN REAL NOISY IN 3RD AN 4TH GEAR AND NOW THE BRAKES ARNT WORKING PROPERLY .TO MANY SERVICE TRIPS FOR ME. ANY ONE HAVE ANY LIKE THIS?
  • People please....Raider its not a Mitsubishi, its a VERY BIG mistake that Mitsubishi made by accepting crap from Chrysler and rebadging as a Mitsu. These trucks are unreliable as usual with DCX products. Raider its for people who likes a domestic pick up with a sporty japanese styling. The only big plus is the warranty that you wont get at Chrysler dealers. But that hurts Mitsubishi image because as this Dakotas/Raiders keeps falling apart....people will see the Mitsubishi badge and they will think that all Mitsubishi's are unreliable. Which is a BIG mistake. But lets hope the Raider dies SOON and will be forgotten, so new Mitsubishi products arrive to keep strengthing the product line. :)
  • dustykdustyk Posts: 2,931
    I don’t know how you define "crap" or what you’re comparing a Dakota to, and by implication the Mitsubishi Raider. You have a right to your opinion, of course. So do I, and I think your hatred of Chrysler is glaringly obvious and noticeably obsessive. It damages your credibility as a potential neutral commentator.

    It should be noted that the relationship between Mitsubishi (MMC) and Chrysler goes back three decades and better. If you’re a true Mitsubishi fan I hope you’ll be honest enough to admit that MMC built those "crap" Plymouth Breeze, Dodge Stratus, Dodge Conquest, D50, Plymouth Sapporo and Dodge Challenger (2nd gen).

    Mitsi also built a lot of engines for those "crap" Chrysler products, of which the 2.6 was quite famous for breaking the balance chains and causing engine seizure (the oil pump was driven off of that chain), broken balance shafts, premature chain stretching, chain guides falling apart, premature main bearing scuffing, cracked or warped heads (they used sacrificial head bolts on that engine), and the valve guides falling into the combustion chamber on the 3.0 V6 engines.

    This is not intended to be a harangue against Mitsubishi, but as a point of drawing perspective. Even in the pure state Mitsubishi has given the motoring public its fair share of "crap" as you might refer to it.

    I don't think the previous generation of the Raider was a shinning star by any means, and as far as I can tell some might consider the new Raider a marked improvement, Dakota under pinnings or not. Yes, Chryslers' made its share of junk, to be sure, but so has GM and Ford and even Nissan and Toyota. During my tenure as a automotive technician I would say that the definition of "crap" was just about everything made by GM, Ford, and Chrysler between the years of 1977 to 1989, some more, some less.

    On the other hand there are some Chrysler products that stand out in both performance and reliability. When my company had Chrysler B-bodies (Satellite, Coronet, Charger, etc) along with the competition from GM and Ford, the Chrysler products were far and away the better built and most reliable, with the lowest repair incidence. In recent times Dodge trucks are a standout for the same reason, especially the full size RAM.

    I will offer a far different opinion of the Dakota, and comensurately the Raider. I was in the automotive repair business for 30+ years and part of that experience has been in the fleet management business. I can testify that the Dakota is far from "crap." In fact, compared to the domestic competition, especially the S-10 or even the new Canyon, the Dakota shines in both reliability and durability and is a very popular truck with fleet buyers and civilians for good reason. It has the heaviest load and towing capability, the stiffest frame, the largest interior size, largest box size, and the most available horsepower of any current mid-size pick-up. And it gives people the most for their money.

    The Dakota is a true truck, built to perform work tasks first, instead of being designed for car-like performance characteristics. Yes, it has its negatives, but it has its pluses. Now maybe the repair incidence rate isn’t quite as low as a Tacoma or a Frontier, but the Dakota/Raider is not that far behind either of those two nameplates in reliability. I know and have known people that own Dakotas, some have thought highly enough to buy another. Overall the majority are pleased with their performance, reliability, and cost of ownership. My son had a ’91 that has to be testimony to the abuse a person can give any vehicle. That one’s still on the road with almost 400K on the original engine and drive train.

    I think your dismal characterization of the Dakota and the Raider is bias driven, very much exaggerated and totally undeserving.

    Dusty
  • mirde98mirde98 Posts: 95
    I totally respect ure opinion and point of view. And believe me i like some Chrysler products. And the "cloud cars" were Chrysler cab foward design products made in USA and Mexico mostly and those sir, were NOT made my MMNA. The only MMNA dna on the "cloud cars" were the 2.5L V6 engine. Thats it. The 4cyl was Neon derived, which we all know those were excellent and refined vehicles........... Dodge Stratus and Sebring (2 door only) were actually Mitsubishi cars with Chrysler's badges. Dodge Colt's (late 70's) were Mitsubishi Lancer's everywhere in the world and those, even today's day they are still use for racing. About the Sapporo, Challenger and the infamous 2.6L engine ure absolutely right. Crap. But while Chrysler was delivering in the late 80's and early 90's those lovely Aries K, Dynasty, Le Baron, Shadow, Daytona, etc, Mitsubishi was providing them with Dodge/Plymouth Colt's and Eagle Summit (Mitsubishi Mirage's) Dodge/Plymouth Colt Vista and Eagle Summit Wagon (Mitsubishi Expo), Eagle Talon and Plymouth Laser (Mitsubishi Eclipse)......and those Mitsu you still see them running on the road today. The other Chrysler vehicles you may still see them, mostly on junkyards. But then again thats why we are in a free country, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

    Ralph.
2»
This discussion has been closed.