Howdy, Stranger!

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





Mitsubishi Montero

1272830323392

Comments

  • claybusterclaybuster Posts: 90
    blazer610,

    You mentioned problems towing with your 2001 Montero. Were you using AWD or 2WD white you were towing? Did you have brakes on the trailer? Do you have radial tires on your boat trailer? I have heard several people say that radials are bad on trailers, as they tend to roll a lot and cause stability problems similar to your problems. That doesn't help the power problem; but stability is a bigger concern to me. I am planning to tow a boat that weighs about 3800 lbs. with my 2001 Montero ("Roll Over King") It does not look good, if your experience towing is any indication. Thanks for any comments or experiences towing.

    Maybe a stiffer suspension on the Monte would help a lot of things.
  • sergio6sergio6 Posts: 20
    Auto safety on NPR. Today at 2:00pm EST.

    http://www.npr.org/programs/totn/index.html
  • Hey people! I am sorry for all those out there that feel their Mitsu Monty has let them down.I am currently working on purchasing a new one from our local dealership--though it sounds like you all are willing to give yours up for a song. This (bad) publicity has so far worked in my favor. Mitsu has offered to give me 1.9% on my purchase. Alot better than 4.9%. This SUV is still the best buy on the market,not the bust buy. Gee,other than that C.U. tape, that I've watched over and over again,I've still not heard of a single rollover.I'm wondering about the TMV of the Monty, though. Anyone out there want to tell me their opinion of how to get my purchase for less than dealer invoice of 34,571.79 and 1.9 for 5 years??? Climate control is included. Thanks, y'all
  • phonosphonos Posts: 204
    By Carr engineering, this looks to be about the same time CU told Misu they had a problem:


    http://easylink.playstream.com/hittv/carr_test.rm

     

    Also same test (?) perform by mitsu can be seen here. This appears to be mitsu's own test from 2000:


    http://easylink.playstream.com/hittv/mitsubishi_test.rm


    If these won't play directly, do a right click "save target as" to your desktop (or where ever), start "Real Player" and drag into Player. Realplayer will then connect to the source video.

    A comment on another board was made that the results of the test depend more upon the driver of the vehicle than upon the vehicle itself (?)


    Since neither of these tests have outriggers attached to the vehicle, are they a key to the CU rollovers?


    Are these vehicles Limiteds or XLT's without rear LSD?


    What is the effect of rear LSD? Seems to me that once you lose traction on the lifting rear wheel, the LSD on the inside wheel could force the vehicle over (??)


    However, for offroad use you deffinitely want LSD or a locking rear differential. Maybe for on-road you don't?? Maybe this is why Mitsu, does not offer the push button locker option in the U. S. of A as shown in the book in your glove compartment.

  • brillmtbbrillmtb Posts: 543
    Personally the people who are focused on this roll over thing are getting way too excited.

    You can roll ANY SUV under emergency situations. It has been known for years that Jeeps flip, SUV's are high centered vehicles.

    Give me a break. Dont drive them like cars!

    I have taken my Monte on some hard driving and I just dont see any real concern yet.

    I for one will wait for someone elses review to confirm that this vehicle is any more likely than any other SUV (non-car based) to turn over.

    I would expect the lower, car based vehicles to do better but then I took that into consideration in my decision to get a better off road vehicle.

    For those looking to buy a Monte your so lucky because so many people will over react to this that you should get a great deal based on unreasonable fears.
  • brillmtbbrillmtb Posts: 543
    Wednesday June 20, 11:33 am Eastern Time
    Press Release
    SOURCE: Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc.
    Mitsubishi Motors Validates Stability of 2001 Montero, Criticizes Consumers Union for Staged Rollover
    Records Show No Reports of Accidents, Complaints, or Problems; Consumers Union Forces Tip-up With Maneuver Criticized by U.S. Government
    CYPRESS, Calif., June 20 /PRNewswire/ -- Mitsubishi Motors today released information that validates the safety and stability of the 2001 Montero. The company also produced forensic evidence that Consumers Union drivers forced a rollover using an unrealistic, test-track maneuver.

    ``Safety is a matter of utmost importance to Mitsubishi Motors, and this is a safe vehicle,'' said Pierre Gagnon, president and chief operating officer of Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc.

    ``We have searched our records and found no reported incidents or complaints of rollover crashes in this vehicle -- not one,'' Gagnon said. ``We have invested thousands of hours in the design and testing of the 2001 Montero, and we have validated its stability with additional testing over the past two weeks.''

    Gagnon criticized Consumers Union for using a maneuver that has been widely criticized as unreliable in assessing a vehicle's stability against rollover.

    ``In the real world, this vehicle's performance has been outstanding,'' he said. ``We are disappointed that Consumers Union chose to attack our vehicle despite overwhelming evidence that their conclusions are wrong.

    ``We acted immediately and responsibly to assess CU's concerns,'' Gagnon added. ``Our investigation shows that in this case their conclusions are false. They forced an outcome that misrepresents the safety of our vehicle, using a maneuver the federal government says is unreliable and not scientific.''

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has concluded that CU's procedures ``do not have a scientific basis and cannot be linked to real-world crash avoidance needs or actual crash data.''

    ``Using the same procedures, probably any light utility vehicle could be made to roll over under the right conditions and driver input,'' NHTSA has concluded.

    A forensic reconstruction based on physical evidence collected from the vehicles and CU's own course was performed by Carr Engineering, a respected third-party engineering and testing firm. This reconstruction of CU's activities shows that CU violated its own procedures and aggressively drove the vehicle off course and at extreme angles, forcing the vehicle to tip up.

    ``The evidence gathered by Carr Engineering raises serious questions about the methods Consumers Union used to force this vehicle to tip up,'' Gagnon said.

    In addition, Carr Engineering conducted its own runs of the Montero following CU's protocol -- and was unable to duplicate CU's result.

    ``All of the evidence validates our strong confidence in the stability of this vehicle and the safety of our customers,'' Gagnon said.

    Consumers Union notified Mitsubishi Motors on May 31 that it had forced the Montero to tip up during avoidance maneuvers on its test track. The company took immediate steps to understand CU's results and evaluate the safety of the vehicle.

    Those steps included:

    -- Advising the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the
    situation, and of the company's commitment to cooperation on safety
    issues;

    -- Pulling together all relevant engineering, design and test data that
    document the performance, stability and safety of the 2001 Montero
    Limited;

    -- Going back to Mitsubishi Motors Corporation's test track to conduct
    extensive retesting of the 2001 Montero Limited;

    -- Hiring Carr Engineering to conduct a full range of independent
    tests -- and asking it to do whatever is necessary to judge the safety
    of this vehicle;

    -- Asking Carr Engineering to accompany Mitsubishi Motors executives and
    engineers to Consumers Union's course to inspect the track and the
    vehicles, and to conduct a detailed assessment of what happened;

    -- Meeting with Consumers Union representatives to go over our findings,
    including results of the company's investigation.

    ``While we strongly disagree with CU's conclusions in this case, Mitsubishi Motors takes very seriously any question about the safety of our vehicles,'' Gagnon said. ``We are continuing our investigation of this matter, and will keep NHTSA and the public informed.''

    For more information, please visit the media news center at www.mitsubishicars.com/newscenter/medianewsevents. With a username of ``Montero'' and a password of ``safety.''

    STATEMENT BY PIERRE GAGNON, President and Chief Operating Officer, Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc.:

    ``Mitsubishi Motors has been providing Consumers Union with information since we first learned of their intentions regarding the 2001 Montero.

    ``CU's conclusions about this vehicle are false. They are based on a widely criticized, unrealistic maneuver that can be used to force vehicles to tip up under extreme conditions. The federal government has concluded that this maneuver is unscientific and cannot be linked to real-world safety matters.

    ``SAFETY IS A MATTER OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO MITSUBISHI MOTORS. There is no higher priority than ensuring the well-being of people who ride in our vehicles.

    ``We have searched our records and found no reported incidents or complaints of rollover crashes in this vehicle -- not one.

    ``We have invested thousands of hours in the design and testing of the 2001 Montero, and we have validated its stability with additional testing over the past two weeks.

    ``THIS IS A SAFE VEHICLE.

    ``Consumers Union created an outcome that misrepresents the safety of the vehicle and misinforms the public.

    ``Our evidence shows that CU broke its own rules.

    ``Their conclusion runs counter to everything we know about this vehicle, and conflicts with the Montero's real-world performance.

    ``In the real world, this vehicle's performance has been outstanding.

    ``There is no correlation between CU's avoidance maneuver and real-world safety.

    ``While we strongly disagree with their conclusion, Mitsubishi Motors takes very seriously any question about the safety of our vehicles.

    "We immediately examined the questions raised by CU.

    -- We advised the National Highway Traffic Safet
  • counselor2counselor2 Posts: 47
    Welcome to the forum,touristgirl. Have you considered buying used? A search this morning of www.cars.com, which is the Chicago Tribune's website for new and used car sales, revealed several lightly used (less than 10k miles) 2001 Monte Limiteds for around $30k. I haven't done the math, but I bet that is less than you'd pay for a new one (with TTL), even at 4.9%, although at 1.9% it might be a close call. I bet that used 2001 Limiteds will go even lower with a strong buyer's market.

    As for me, you won't be getting my 2001 Limited for a song or any other price. Except for Consumers, all other reviews and crash test results that I have seen on this truck, combined with the safety features (excellent braking, front and side airbags) and lack of any reported roll-overs indicate that it is a safe vehicle. (And I take safety seriously; I traded-in a Volvo wagon for my Monte and I still have another Volvo wagon.) As for Consumers, count me as one of those taking a "wait-and-see" attitude. Brill (#875) is right -- you're going to get a great deal based on people's gut reaction to a situation that requires deeper analysis.

    BTW, has anyone seen a source for VHS copies of the Consumers or Mitsu/CARR Engineering testing that has been made available on the CU and Mitsu websites?
  • rgreenbe1rgreenbe1 Posts: 8
    If you go to the section of the website dedicated for the Montero model, they now have an EXTENSIVE section related to the issues at hand, entitled Montero Safety. The information even includes videos.
    Now all I have to figure out who is telling the truth...
    Mitsubishi or Consumers...

    Then I'll know what to do with my LTD if anything at all.
  • sgbassinsgbassin Posts: 22
    Its time for my 1st oil change on my Montero.
    Has anyone used synthetic or the synthetic blend
    in their SUV'S thanks
  • counselor2counselor2 Posts: 47
    I had the oil and filter changed at 1300 miles at a Lube Express and put in Mobil 1. It cost about $50.00 total but obviously would be cheaper if you do it yourself. The topic of dino versus synthetic oil was discussed extensively quite a few posts back (maybe a couple of months ago). Opinions vary, but most seemed to feel that the extra $120 or so that it costs annually to use a top-grade synthetic like Mobil 1 is worth the peace of mind. I can't say that in the 2000 or so miles that I have put on my truck since then I have noticed any difference that I can attribute specifically to the oil change. The engine runs smooth as silk just as it did when delivered. My gas mileage has improved a bit, but that could be due to the dramatic temperature change from February to June in Chicago or to other factors.
  • drew_drew_ Posts: 3,382
    Hi all,

    Please do not copy and paste articles from other websites since this may be copyright infringement. Instead, provide a URL for us to see the article for ourselves on that site. I have let the press release posted above stay though, at least for now, since it's for the press to utilise anyway.

    Thanks!

    Drew
    Host
    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
  • hi5543i1hi5543i1 Posts: 6
    Then whats this?


    http://copartfinder.com


    Punch in "11714" as the zip code for search...then type in 2001 in search dates...Mitsubishi in "make" field...then "Montero"...I also have 3 other different vehicle pictures of our beloved "no rollover issue" Monty,s...Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

  • counselor2counselor2 Posts: 47
    hi5543i1 - I went to the URL in your message (#882) and saw photos of 9 vehicles. Three of the vehicles pictured are 2001 Monteros (i.e., full-size) and 6 are Montero Sports. Of the full-size Monteros, two appear to have taken hits to the front passenger-side quarter panel. There is no damage to the roofs of these vehicles, which indicates that those vehicles did not roll over. The third full-size Monte does not have any apparent damage. Are these the same photos that your post was referring to? If so, then I'd say that you are mistaken in concluding that any of these full-size Monteros (as opposed to Montero Sports) sustained a roll-over. If there are other pictures of full-size 2001 Monteros with roof damage on the copartfinder website, please let us know.

    You mention three other pictures you have of rolled 2001 full-size Montes. I say that if you've got 'em, post 'em, or give us a link to a website where we can see for ourselves.
  • regalaregala Posts: 45
    hi5543i1,

    There are only 3 Montero's on that site. Which one in the picture you think that rolled over? It looks like they are frontal crash.
  • sr_bodysr_body Posts: 23
    The whole rollover issue pertains to Monteros that roll COMPLETELY ON THIER OWN during an emergency lane change, not ones that have rolled due to a multi-vehicle accident.

    None of the Monteros on CoPartFinder - even on other zip codes - look like they've rolled on thier own. The three I saw that sustained roll damage also sustained massive side impact damage, can you say "T-Bone"?

    Any vehicle can be made to roll over if hit hard enough, but that in itself doesn't mean that particular vehicle has a natural tendency to roll over.
  • pinoy44pinoy44 Posts: 14
    I am one of the owners of ~30,000 Montero 2001 here in U.S., I have a Beige Limited Edition. I've seen the video clips that were on CU and Mitsu websites and my own judgement to this is all of SUV's are prone to rollover and this is totally depending who is on the steering wheel. Vehicle responds differently according to the driver input as you can see on the video clips - Carr Engg retested with same vehicle at the same path but it didn't tipped while CU made it rollover. If you look on NHTSA website: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/hot/rollover/fullWebd.html , no single SUV get more than 3 Stars rating which means it has a risk of rollover between 20 to 30 percent. You have to steer extra careful comparing with cars.


    I am thankful to CU for bringing up this issue that now I know of my truck's own weakness. I will be more extra careful in my driving as I am used to. I like the ride of this SUV and I am not thinking of a trade. This is a good deal with all of its features. I'll just wait and see on Mitsubishi's decision, I hope that they will recall it and do something favorable to the consumer and their company to get people's trust back (change suspension with stiffer ones). It is doubtful though since their is no single incident of rollover.


    So, to other Montero owners out there, just relax, take extra caution in steering and see what's going to happen next...

  • brillmtbbrillmtb Posts: 543
    Why do I get the feeling that there are those on this site now to do nothing but make unsupported or misleading claims about Mitsubishi now?

    Hi5543il is just one example. excuse me if you thought you were trying to help but every truck I picked had photos of accident damage. This dosent tell us anything other than people get into accidents.

    Let us all remember that the Montero has been around for a long time. I think this one is longer and wider than previous models. I dont remember hearing any concerns about those vehicles.

    These things are extensively used off road in other countries and if there was a high center of gravity problem leading to a high rollover rate I would imagine we would of seen it discussed by now.

    I saw the footage of the "roll over" and I can tell you honestly it seemed that the driver did more than an emergency lane change. he seemed to whip the Monte in a way that could induce roll over in any high clearence SUV.
  • KicKMan1KicKMan1 Posts: 45
    I for one feel no need to praise the virtues of neither CR nor Mitsubishi. I do know that Mitsu's "response" to the CR test is nothing more than spin. Those of you who believe that you are the upstanding, righteous and sensible types should fully appreciate the need to be accountable and to accept responsibility. It's simple, right?

    Well the fact that Mitsu, during litigation lied and refused to turn over evidence of other lemon law claims doesn't exactly show responsibility now does it? The fact that they took my deposition and tried to characterize me and my family as deadbeats--while having nothing to do with the lemon law claim--doesn't exactly scream accountability.

    To split hairs about whether it (the Montero) rolls over at 37 mph vs. 42 mph; or whether the driver drove it slightly different from the others is nonsense. This company has made vehicles with defects for years. And their practice is to do and say whatever they can to make the consuming public believe otherwise.

    My advice is to get a copy of CR's test; complain to the NHTSA en masse; see an independent technician to find out what it costs to make the Montero comply with CR-type test criteria; obtain market value trade-in estimates; and then contact Kimmel & Silverman in PA for a lemon law attorney in your area.
  • xtski93xtski93 Posts: 4
    I'm gonna put me one of them new fangled rear spoilers on my Monte. That way when I'm takin the eggzit ramp at 80 MPH I'll be hunkerin down on all 4 of dem wheels.

    Go Musky, Deputy Dogs a gainin on us.
  • phonosphonos Posts: 204
    Nineteen thousand (19,000) miles --

    Zero (0) warranty repairs --

    Zero (0) rollovers --

    Zero (0) tips on 2-wheels

    since August, 2000.

    If we can keep the pot stirred, and the price really drops due to all this BS, I may buy another one (used ?). My wife drives this one during the week. I only get it for long trips and offroad weekends (which are becoming far too few).

    -PHOnos; White/Silver Limited w/Rear A/C; July 2000 build date; $34,500 + TTL in August, 2000 (no extras included); zero down, 4.8% for 48 months; Orange County, CA.; 18,000 miles, slight squeak from rear brakes when dry/hot, probably glaze on rotors/disks

    OOPS wrong signature. Correct one below (to keep the pot stirred).

    FOR SALE: White/Silver Limited w/Rear A/C; July 2000 build date; $34,500 + TTL in August, 2000 (no extras included); zero down, 4.8% for 48 months; Orange County, CA.; 18,000 miles, slight squeak from rear brakes when dry/hot, probably glaze on rotors/disks. Willing to negotiate on price (big discount probably available).

    Contact: PHOnos

    PS to Steve/Drew: Last signature, I received your e-mail
  • regalaregala Posts: 45
    What do you guys think about this. The description said that it rolled over. Looks pretty bad..


    http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/ebayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=592811698&r=0&t=0


    How come these things weren't reported to NHTSA?

  • rgreenbe1rgreenbe1 Posts: 8
    I'd gladly keep my montero if this type of car looks this good after a rollover.
    Someone should forward this web page to MITSUBISHI, CU and NHTSA(?). If it was indeed a rollover then was it the drivers, another cars or its own fault.

    I AM VERY IMPRESSED WITH ITS CONDITION. DAMAGE INDICATES THERE WERE PROBABLY NO INJURIES!!! WOW!!
  • jinjalijinjali Posts: 3
    ithink posting 891 should be taken seriously by monte owners.we should somehow approach nhtsa to validate the results of mitsu and cr tests.we all know that suv are pron to rollover but the issue is whether this vehicle is compatible with its class? thats the answer i need, if it is than i will keep it otherwise company needs to fix the problem and bring it to the standard.
  • hi5543i1hi5543i1 Posts: 6
    Lets say between 37-40mph? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
  • brillmtbbrillmtb Posts: 543
    I am all for honesty. I dont think any of us wants to knowingly be driving an unsafe SUV but even some of the "safest" cars on the road get reports of problems, look at the recent Volvo problem (the gold standard of safety).

    I dont know if there really is a problem here and certainly Mistu had to answer (in Japan) to the lockering of complaints and why they were not made public but my limited understanding is that they corrected the issues, they just did not make them public. I dont like this approach either but the Mitsu rep in the US stated that reported problems over here would have been made public. Is he telling the truth, I will never know for sure.

    I have driven just about everything out there and many older SUV's and I sense no unreasonable tendency to roll over. The jeeps and smaller cars in general have me more concerned. Toyotas 4 runner even more concerned given the additional clearence and narrower profile but most of those guys love the 4 runner for its clearence and reliabilty so whos right......no one...the main thing is to understand the physics here and drive accordingly.

    KickMan1, seems like you have some hot issues with them, dont know the details, but I think it is too early to lump this one in with whatever other problem you had. If it was a lemon law problem get in line. My Dad had no luck, as an attorney, getting a refund of some kind on his Jeep GC 1999 and there are known, admitted issues on that baby. this is not limited to Mitsu. Lemon laws do not protect the customer.
  • sergio6sergio6 Posts: 20
    Anecdotal evidence is never objective. Your limited experience with a couple of SUVs does not match the statistical evidence of only 3 out of 100+ cars failing the series of CU tests
  • KicKMan1KicKMan1 Posts: 45
    OK. Nobody question the decision that phonos made in purchasing his Montero. He's doing just fine by himself.
  • cct1cct1 Posts: 221
    No offense, but consumer reports testing falls in the category of "anecdotal," at least according to the NHSTA. I think there are some legitimate concerns w/r to the CR rollover test. If a test is not valid, is it statistically significant? Just wondering....

    I think I'll wait for the NHTSA rollover risk on the Montero before passing final judgement.
  • counselor2counselor2 Posts: 47
    Ditto post #892 above on the condition of this XLS if it did roll. Sunroof intact? The windshield only cracked? Not to downplay the significance of a roll-over when it does occur, but usually when a vehicle rolls you get serious roof crush, which compromises the space between the occupant's head and the roof. Not so with that XLS on e-bay. It could have been a very mild roll, but who knows? I would expect almost 5,000 lbs of truck going onto its roof to cause one heck of a lot more damage than is shown in that picture. I note that e-bay permits you to ask the seller a question; perhaps someone wants to ask the seller how it happened? From the damage to the front quarter panel, it looks like a roll-over (if one did occur) might have been initiated by a frontal collision.
  • lameslames Posts: 14
    Perhaps we should not worry about the Monte, perhaps we should worry about the drivers at CU? Maybe they should be "recalled" as clearly there is a design flaw in their ability to drive.
Sign In or Register to comment.