Howdy, Stranger!

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

Mitsubishi Montero



  • cct1cct1 Posts: 221
    s852: you are correct--the lexus did manage it at 50 mph, but you are comparing a car based SUV to a truck based SUV--not a valid comparison in my mind.

    With regard to a "Mitsu" cover up: where in the link that Steve provided in post 846 is there a cover-up? Examine the post, and let us know what Mitsu should do differently. It seems to me they are doing the things they should be doing, although perhaps they could be a bit more vocal about it. It seems to me that some people have become the judge, jury and prosecutioner; I think its much too early for that--let's slow down a little bit and see how things play out. I was tremendously alarmed when all this started, but as more stuff comes out, it does not appear to be a slam dunk against the Montero.
  • lvbearamlvbearam Posts: 3
    Whether you believe the Consumer Reports findings or not, there is no doubt CR has a major impact on what vehicles people buy. Mitsubishi can not afford any more bad publicity; it can whine all it wants about CR's accident avoidance test but it does not solve the problem. What Mitsubishi should do (something that Isuzu and Suzuki did not do) is say this: Look, we disagree with CU, but this company puts its customers first. Then it should have it engineers find a solution; recall all the Monteros; and fix the problem. By doing that, Mitsubishi can neutralize the Consumer Reports findings; build trust and help restore its good name. I truly believe CR has no ax to grind (I subscribe to CR, Automobile and am a frequent reader of Edmunds.) And CR has a point about the design of SUV's. Too many drivers handle them as if they were Miatas; they were not designed to be sports cars.
  • jinjalijinjali Posts: 3
    of the tests/indepened analysis (in detail) which they did after they heard the report of cr.if any body knows the link to details(not the press conference)please post.thanks
  • cct1cct1 Posts: 221
    I doubt Mitsu will find a solution to a problem they don't feel exists in the first place--it would make no sense to dispute CR's report, then go ahead and fix what they were disputing doesn't exist. Mitsubishi claims it could not duplicate CR's test results with an independent 3rd party analysis (I agree with the above post--would like to see a link for this). Until it has been proven that the problem exists (which has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt as of yet), I don't think its reasonable to demand that Mitsubishi does something to placate CR. The impression I get is that many people on the forum are taking CR's test as definitive proof of the problem, and are demanding Mitsu acknowledges and corrects it.If third party testing establishes the problem, then I agree that Mitsu should do something, and quickly. So far, that has yet to happen. Mitsu has done all the right things as far as I'm concerned--tested it itself, contacted NHTSA, etc.
    What is going to need to happen is another 3rd (or should I say 4th) party, not paid for by either CR or Mitsu, to test the vehicle. Hopefully, the NHTSA will take it upon itself to do so (they do rate vehicles for rollover risk), and hopefully soon. You seem to be saying that Mitsu should do something because of the bad publicity, wether you beleive the reports or not...If Mitsu doesn't believe the report, and can prove that its findings are erroneous (again, this is still up in the air), why should it do anything to placate CR? Just looking at the jury decision on the Trooper/CR case (this can be found on CNN's website) brings in CR's methods of testing into question (not to mention the NHTSA's opinion of CR's tests...).

    This will not fix the depreciation issue--nothing will--even if other tests do not confirm CR's tests.

    I don't think the issue is cut and dried, and I personally am not angry with Mitsu, at least not yet. Things may turn out to prove CR right, but until then, innocent until proven guilty....
  • agh15agh15 Posts: 90
    My mom has 2000 montero sport and she drives hers like a sports car and I have never been worried that the montero would roll over. I know she has montero sport and not big the montero, but my point is mitsubishi makes good suvs and cars that are safe. The reason why CR is coming after mitsubisi is that it is smaller company than ford or nissan. If you look at the pattern you will see that they went after small japenese car makers.
  • Pattern? What pattern? Using that rationale, one could also say that CR gave out not acceptable ratings because the failing test subjects had 4 wheels. 3 failed test subjects in 15 years doesn't constitute a "pattern".

    Mitsubishi is far from being a "small" company. In relation to other automakers, it might be small but it's automobile division is only a twig in the massive Mitsubishi corporate tree. Thier pockets run deeper than Ford, GM, Honda, Toyota, and Nissan COMBINED!
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,661
    You made mention of the Montero doing poorly over in Europe. If I'm not mistaken, you said it actually flipped over doing a similar kind of test, but not using outriggers. Have you had any luck tracking down that report?

  • ken131ken131 Posts: 20
    I have the 2001 Monty Ltd, rear air conditioner....7200 miles and perfect condition...mitsu dealer has offered me 27 K to buy back the this a good deal or not? Any input on trade in / resale value would be greatly appreciated.
  • drew_drew_ Posts: 3,382
    Still looking...unfortunately I don't think it's available online. The test was conducted by Auto Motor und Sport magazine in Germany. The only reason that I knew about it was because several months ago, someone living in Europe mentioned it to me. I didn't think much of it at the time though, but now that C.R has reported something similar, it piqued my interest.

    birger "Mercedes-Benz M-class" Jun 20, 2001 9:50am

    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
  • dmac8dmac8 Posts: 54
    You have an interesting choice. If you researched the vehicle and you like it, your first option is to keep it until the wheels fall off.

    Right now, you can get a Limited in S. Cal with the option you spec, for around $32,000, without breaking a sweat. It's a given it will go down, when the full effect of the negative publicity kicks in.

    Whether $27k is right for your vehicle, is difficult to determine. It obviously represents a substantial loss, but the loss, if you sell it in the near future, is only going to increase.

    My guess is you would really get whacked on the value by trading it on a non Mitsu product, where those dealers are sure to tell any Monte prospects about the CR test, if they happen to be in the dark.

    What might tempt me to sell it is the fact that Mitsubishi has proven itself to be a pretty recalcitrant company.

    The right move on this is to reassure customers, even if CR can't be convinced. The first step, is to replicate the test exactly, preferably, with the same drivers.

    If it's true, find a fix fast.

    If you could be assured Mitsu would do the right thing, you could hold onto the truck knowing they will correct any defect, at their expense.

    Otherwise, a stark loss now, might look better as time goes by. Good luck, nobody needs this when you shell out this kind of money!
  • claybusterclaybuster Posts: 90

    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.
  • 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:


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

    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

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

    -- 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 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.


    ``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, 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.
Sign In or Register to comment.