Howdy, Stranger!

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





Mitsubishi Montero

1293032343592

Comments

  • syl1syl1 Posts: 6
    You bring up some very valid points regarding dynamic stability. However, I do not agree that sophisticated suspension and steering design is paramount. Rather I would say that lower center of gravity and balanced weight distribution is paramount. Sophisticated suspension and steering will help stability fractionally. Take the BMW X5 for example, it is a more stable vehicle because they went to great lengths to design the vehicle with a lower center of gravity. Their engineers had to come up with a design with no more than a 60/40 weight distribution front/rear. That is why the engine is sunk lower and further toward the center and the battery is located in the rear. A statically stable vehicle leads to a dynamically stable vehicle. Just the static you want to hear huh? :-)

    Anybody here able to measure and calculate the center of gravity for the new and old montero models and make a comparision?
  • drew_drew_ Posts: 3,382
    brillmtd, good points. How about this? I'd rather be in a 2X rollover in my SUV rather than a 40mph offset crash. ;-)

    syll, actually the X5 has almost a 50/50 weight distribution for neutral handling. But you're right, the engineers went to great lengths to balance it. FYI, for '02, it gets an optional pneumatic suspension system, similar to the Audi Allroad, that can lower or raise the vehicle just a tad more.


    Drew
    Host
    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
  • dmac8dmac8 Posts: 54
    If you don't want big losses. Another alternative, is to buy a second Monte and average down your outlay per vehicle.

    If they are as good as everyone here says they are, the opportunity to own more than one is getting pretty golden.

    Regardless of what happens now, the CR article has made these vehicles very undesirable to consumers considering an SUV.
  • pgarrow60pgarrow60 Posts: 2
    counselor2,

    You start your post with a dig at ken131 for "giving in to the hysteria". This is a valid point, the merits of the CR test are certainly debatable.

    But then you leap into hysteria yourself by applying the poor F-150 offset crash test results to the Expedition. How scientific is that?

    Sure they are based on the same front end, but they also have a different cab/a-pillar. Not to mention 2WD vs 4WD variables.

    For example, check the Dakota vs. the Durango offset crash results. Same front end, but very different results.

    Will the Expy do better than the F-150? Who knows until it is tested. All we know now is that the Expy *does* get 5 stars in the NHSTA test.

    You are not helping anyone by slamming the Expedition with your own, completely unscientific, interpretation of the F-150 test.

    Just because others are getting "hysterical" about the Montero does not mean you should defensively start getting "hysterical" about other SUVs.
  • counselor2counselor2 Posts: 47
    Good points about the Expedition and F-150 testing; the Expy should be stiffer because of the mass that it has behind it and would probably perform better in the IIHS frontal off-set testing. Granted, as both brill and Drew point out, the IIHS testing is a very, very severe impact. I was just pointing out that from a comparison standpoint, the Montero performed very well in that test. And, by the way, that is a far more "scientific" test than the CU test. It is performed under controlled conditions that replicate the very same collision for the vehicles tested (i.e., no human behind the wheel). And I'm not slamming the Expy. I'm simply trying to point out that it is premature to jettison what otherwise appears to be a very safe vehicle (the Monte) because of one publication's report that is based on "testing" that is itself suspect, especially when the vehicle that ken switched to has a whole host of issues of its own. As for the Expy's 5-star rating in NHTSA's NCAP program, those are 30-mph full frontal collisions with a fixed barrier. If you increase the delta-v of that collision or change the angle to make it a more severe impact (a la the IIHS test), it could very well be that the Expy performs far differently. Witness the CU testing with the Monte: no problems up to 36 mph, "tipping" above that speed. What we do know is that the Monte performed very well in the IIHS testing, and that frontal collisions occur with more frequency than rollovers, so you are more likely to experience a frontal collision than a roll.

    The bottom line is that before selling or buying a vehicle because of safety concerns, you ought to focus on the overall safety of the vehicle and collect as much data from as many sources as you can.

    Hey Drew and brill, would you really rather be in a 2X roll in your 2001 Monte than in a 40 mph frontal off-set? I have never seen how a 2001 Monte performs in a roll, so I don't know whether the roof is strong enough to take a roll without substantial roof crush. I suppose it depends on how severe the roll is. From the testing that the IIHS did with instrumented dummies, though, the HIC (Head Injury Criteria) was pretty good and the neck moment and chest compression were comparable to the Mercedes M-Class. From those numbers, I don't think that you'd have to be concerned about "third collision" injuries (e.g., torn aorta) at that speed. I guess that I'd take the known quantity over the unknown.
  • regalaregala Posts: 45
    I just checked Kelly Blue Book value, despite of all this hype, it's still pretty high.
  • rgreenbe1rgreenbe1 Posts: 8
    I really hate how Pierre "Le Pew" Gagnon and his company are handling this mess, but more specifically its thousands of customers who spent 35k for their Monte.

    Basically I got what looked like a cool overnighted package in the mail from Mitsubishi this week. I said, Wow, they are thinking of their customers.

    WRONG...

    Inside was I form letter which was Pierre's press release statement jumbled up a bit. Couldn't they have personalized it and provided a little bit more for us owners?

    It also came with a video tape which had only a small segment of the 30 minute press conference we all had reference to over a week ago. What a waste!

    I want to stand by this car until someone/something tells me not to, but if the car proves to be that bad then someone will get something fixed at that point.

    However, Mitsubishi and its mgmt could stand to go bach to undergrad school to learn about how t run a comany , handle a crisis, and most importantly deal with important customers!
    I would have expected them to provide us with everything possible in terms of eveidence, as a way to make us feel better. There seems like there is a lot of test data, research, articles etc that they might grab together to make a strong case

    Sorry for the long post, but it seems to me like they feel that they have already lost the battle and/or know something that they don't want us to find out.

    I am thinking of writing a letter to Pepe, maybe we all should to demand their attention to our concerns.
  • vnguyen1vnguyen1 Posts: 9
    Some Monty owners are trying save their Monty value by claiming the other SUVs are not safe either. If they can make people believe that then the value of the Montys drop down more
  • vetmed3vetmed3 Posts: 38
    Got my new issue of CR in the mail yesterday. The Montero concern is in it.FYI. The XLS wasn't tested, so no report.
  • conman2000conman2000 Posts: 158
    Sorry to go back on Topic but my buddy has rims off his 95 SR for-sale. They are the "chrome" polished alloys 15x7 rims(five of them). with new General Grabber AP 32x11.5x15 tires with less than 500 miles on them. He bought new 16" rims to replace these. Best Offer. Thanks.

    Cheers,
    Con
    conman@switchboardmail.com
  • phonosphonos Posts: 204
    Anybody remember "Christine" (Bad to the Bone)? Check the following out.


    http://www.autonews.com/html/main/stories0702/probe705.htm

    Hey Brill, how'd you do fishing?

    -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.; 19,000 miles, slight squeak from rear brakes when dry/hot, probably glaze on rotors/disks

  • brillmtbbrillmtb Posts: 543
    Fly fishing in Jun/Jul isnt the best but I had fun.
  • brillmtbbrillmtb Posts: 543
    Yes, given the choice, roll me over. Hey, did you see the claimed rollover link that someone posted. That Montero looked great. No glass breakage or anything really...so...if that is a true rollover I'll do that anyday. Your aorta can take that a hell of a lot better than a deceleration at 40mph head on with someone else perhaps matching your speed.

    By the way, my brother-in-law told me about his 3x rollover in a GJC some years back. All seven passengers walked away with minor injuries other than the one who had is hand outside (missing fingers now). They were lucky but I think it illustrates how the forces might be a little kinder.
  • brillmtbbrillmtb Posts: 543
    Something Interesting

    Go read the Road Test of the 2001 Montero here on this site (Edmunds). They drove this vehicle and thought it handled quite well, not to mention all the safety features that are pointed out in the article.
  • alexjr1alexjr1 Posts: 19
    First of all looking at the montero with its tall skinny back it looks like its going to roll over. I am not sure how much the body leans when it turns in the corners but i imagine it is enough to make you nervours some times. My brother rented one he said some times it would get him s little nervous. Not for nothing if it wasn't for the poor rating i would conisider it, it is a really nice vehicle inside and oout. I lived by consumer reports all my life and i wont stop now.
  • brillmtbbrillmtb Posts: 543
    I dont know but unless all these reviewers are off thier rockers it seems that the Montero gets great ratings for its suspension all the way around. There are other articles stating good handling, great off road handling so I'm not too sure now where to place this one CU report in the mist of all the good reports.

    Popular science was able to get the older Montero through the double lane change at 50.1 MPH and the new montero is 4inches wider and 2 inches longer.
  • oac3oac3 Posts: 373
    you should've bought the Toyo when you had the chance ! Maybe what the Monte needs is a VSC just like those in the new Toyo trucks. Sometimes you just gotta bite the bullet (figuratively) and invest a little more $ in a slightly better product.

    just my .02 cents
  • ragpaoaragpaoa Posts: 8
    oac3 ... who's this cat??
  • Hi everybody. I was fortunate to find this site from someone mentioning it at carpoint and read all the messages on this forum. I've been looking into buying a montero from the day I first saw it on a dealer's parking lot. I was shopping for Sport or 3000GT, but fell in love w/the new looks. Came close to getting one in April for $34,500 w/rear air at 4.9%, but despite the dealer's attempts, decided to wait a few, considering the 2002 are not far to come. Figured I'd wait for the price to drop, better financing, or could as well get the new model for about the same price.
    With all the noise CR made, I was waiting for dust to settle, and was hoping for the price to take a plunge (not to offend the current owners), but it doesn't seem to happen. I still think it's a safe truck, I realize its limits, I testdrove it, I've read all the reviews and comments I could find.
    Checking Mitsu site last night, I discovered they have a new special-0% financing for 3 years, nothing mentioning montero is not included, so I assume it does. One of the local dealers lists it at $33,215 w/rear air, so I figured I could negotiate for $33,500 or less, maybe throw sunroof defector.
    My question to you, is to confirm the current deal and if you know more about the pricing, especially in Boston area, I would really appreciate it.
    I was told the new model should have illuminated mirrors as well as power passenger seat. Anyone know more about it?
    Thanks and sorry for the long post.
  • pgarrowpgarrow Posts: 3
    "oac3" has been pissing people off in the Sequoia discussion group for some time now. Guess he is expanding his turf.
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,451
    Those of you worried about Montero sales tanking may be heartened by this story:

    Ford's Reputation May Be Dinged, But Explorer's Sales Still Shine

    (I'm sure the rebates help).

    Steve
    Host
    Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • brillmtbbrillmtb Posts: 543
    Junior,

    Look at the specs on the 2001 Montero and compare it to other midsized SUV's I think it is prety wide and long. Not really a skinny SUV.

    Skinny in my book would be the 4 Runner. This is a quality SUV in my mind but many of my friends who own them think it is crazy that CU is trying to fault the Montero in the way they are. They say that the 4 runner could be flipped over relatively easily as well but thats not the point as all SUV's with high ground clearence are going to have very similar issues with roll over.

    Whether its at 36, 39, 41 MPH in a hard turn or on hard to soft transitions like might occur in real life there is not going to be a big difference. Even cars flip in real world situations.
  • oac3oac3 Posts: 373
    I'd like to clarify my earlier post to you. It was actually in response to one of your excellent posts where you advocated, amongst others, that "...adding stiffer spings and/or increasing the size of the roll bar is all that should be needed..." to avoid a possible roll by the Monte (see post #917). I simply wanted to comment on this specific suggestion of yours whether (a) equiping the Monte with the VSC as on the Toyo trucks would have made any difference to the purported roll-over at 37MPH in the CU test, and (b) if you could have avoided this altogether by buying the Toyo instead of the Monte when you were shopping (I remember your posts on the Seq board back then)... and, of course, (c) a light-hearted jab at you, which I am glad you take in same light-hearted fashion. Thx for being such a good sport about it..

    ps: you wrote, "who is oac3? Some say he's from mars, others say he is a toyota dealer, still others believe he is on a quest to prove that the Toyota Sequoia is the only rig worth buying....we will never know! :)"

    brillmtb: none of the above ! I am just a simple Toyo truck owner and no different from you and everyone else who loves their trucks/cars/vans/etc... but interesting choices though... didn't realise I am that "enigmatic" :-). Of course, pgarrow thinks differently, water off my back...
  • regalaregala Posts: 45
    Anyone already installed a trailer hitch on their 2001 Montero? Did you go with the factory or aftermarket?
  • bryhoganbryhogan Posts: 23
    I went with an after-market Draw-Tite hitch. Because they have a specific model for the '01 Montero (including install instructions), it goes in easily. I ordered through the internet and paid about $140 w/shipping. The only thing I haven't done yet is install a wiring harness. (I mostly use the hitch for my bike rack, so this isn't a priority.)
  • brillmtbbrillmtb Posts: 543
    I think its important to laugh once and a while, call it laugh therapy.

    Back to your point

    I dont think the VSC on the Sequoia prevents rollovers. It is a nice system for ice mainly that shifts power to the wheel with traction and can break slipping tires and power down the engine if the tires continue to slip. I know some think it helps with this sort of thing but I think they are incorrect.

    Rollover is more a factor of roll center and how soft the suspension is. If it is true the Montero rolls easier then some want then antisway bars would be my first choice and then you would more likely slid the SUV.

    The problem is that some true 4wder's disconnet swaybars for better off roading so setting up your suspension is dependent on what you want the SUV to do.

    That's why is is silly to be putting all this effort into the CU report.

    Any high centered SUV will roll fairly easy. I saw the test and I think many other SUV they didnt test would "fail" the way they define failing.

    Personally, I would like a little stiffer swaybars but if that caused too harsh a ride or too much single wheel jounce would revert back to stock.

    This SUV rides very nice and what CU is doing is a shame. Many reports talk about the high speed off road capability off the Montero, it has been extensively tested and is probably no more unsafe then your Sequoia (although thats a little bigger class).
  • brillmtbbrillmtb Posts: 543
    I went with aftermarket and put on a trailer brake setup with a 7pin connector. I think the factory is 4 pin. Cost overall was still less than factory unless you had the factory job thrown in at purchace time.
Sign In or Register to comment.