Howdy, Stranger!

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

Mitsubishi Montero



  • 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.


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

    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

    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: , 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..

    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.

  • 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 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.