Howdy, Stranger!

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

Mitsubishi Montero



  • toyotatoystoyotatoys Posts: 118
    I'm no expert in wrecks, but something does not seem to be right about this e-Bay picture. Even if the (presumed) roll over was at low speed (37-42 mph, he) I cannot imagine the structural stress not breaking any of the windows. Twelve years ago I had a minivan that fell on its side at less at than 15 MPH (it' a long story!) and all the windows on the impact side broke.

    I agree with the earlier posts that if my SUV rolls over and comes out like this, I'll consider myself VERY LUCKY.

    Maybe, this Mitsu got beat up in a flood?
  • drew_drew_ Posts: 3,382
    It looks like a roll, but a slow roll (possibly on a soft surface like grass) and definitely just once around. The fact that it broke its suspension suggests to me that it rollover once and then landed back on its "feet". That would explain why there isn't much intrusion.

    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
  • syl1syl1 Posts: 6
    I thought posts 853 and 855 are right on target. Perhaps someone who reads this board has the ability, access to scales and to both the old and new montero models to calculate the center of gravity and make a comparison. The scales should be able to read the weight on each tire. I would even have someone sitting in the driver's seat before making the measurements to make it more realistic. I think calculating the center of gravity is commonly and easily done by air transport companies and military before airlifting equipment. Perhaps trucking companies do it too. If the new model's center of gravity is closer to the ground and closer to the center, it would lead me to conclude that the 2001 model is more stable compared to previous models. We could even use this test to compare all vehicles.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    I think that is a very valid point, but since it is a not a dynamic handling test, I don't think you could use that measure alone to compare stability among SUVs, or cars for that matter. This is the same reason for which the NHTSA's rollover star rating is misleading; its no more useful than saying "cars rollover less easily than SUVs".

    Think about it... who's to say that a vehicle with a high(er) center of gravity but with a sophisticated, well designed suspension that allows for minimal body lean and precise steering, coupled with, perhaps, stability control...wouldnt outhandle and be more stable than a vehicle with a lower center of gravity?

    All I'm saying is that just because the new Montero may have an incrementally lower center of gravity, it does not necessarily follow that it is a more stable vehicle. Suspension design and steering are paramount, which is why the "moose" manuver IS a fair measure of stability in extreme circumstances.

    As its been said before, Mercedes had a problem with their A class in the moose performed by a trade/consumer organization (which, I'm reasonably certain, did not reveal itself during internal testing, just as in the Mitsu case)and they took matters to heart. Shouldnt Mitsu do the same?
  • phonosphonos Posts: 204
    Well I found this BB on account of the bad press and I wanted some other opinions. Maybe I feel a little less unsafe now after reading a few.
    Last night with the wife in the car I unexpectedly had to make THE Avoidance Maneuver, and I didn't flip, but I was scared. I also wasn't going 40+, maybe slowing down, the operative words being slowing down, and some idiot stopped short and hard in front of me, so I made the quick Oh S#@t left then right lane change, and well I'd rather forget about it all, but we're fine and I didn't hit anything.

    I don't think anything can predict the outcome of an auto mishap. As a youth, I was in a car that crested a hill at 80 mph, launched like the dukes of hazard into the air, flipped over 3 times, and spun 4 more, landing on the roof with no glass left in any windows. It was a hyundai excel, and there were 4 high school idiots in it, and all of us should be dead, and we all walked away unscathed...

    I have no explanation for any of this, but I'd never drive or buy a hyundai excel just because I lived through certain death in it.

    Just my 2 cents...

    2001 Mitsu Montero LTD, w/ rear A/C
  • phonosphonos Posts: 204
  • sergio6sergio6 Posts: 20
    That our vehicles are now worth $21,000.
    And there are still some that defend Mitsubishi.
    You must like losing money...
  • counselor2counselor2 Posts: 47
    The frightening thing from phonos' post above (#906) is that the bidding was closed on a pristine, loaded 2001 Limited with low mileage, and the top bid (which did not meet the seller's reserve price) was only $21,100. Yikes! Forget about suing Mitsu, how about suing CU for the loss of value caused by its press campaign?
  • phonosphonos Posts: 204
    Therefore, a used Monte LTD is worth more than this to the Toyota dealer that listed it on e-bay.

    Not time for upper story window jumping-out yet.
  • s852s852 Posts: 1,051
    It doesn't really matter what the dealer thinks it's worth. It is only worth the highest bid.
    The dealer might believe that someone who sees the truck at the dealership in person might be willing to pay more than people looking on eBay and that could be true, I suppose.
  • brillmtbbrillmtb Posts: 543
    The heck with this talk of roll over potential.

    I'm going fly fishing, perhaps if I catch a big one I will tie it on the bottom to keep the Monte on its tires.

    I discussed this issue with a few hard core 4wder's and they think the roll over issue is a joke....all SUV's built with high ground clearance can be expected to have some instability on very aggressive manuvers. I guess I just dont believe that the Monte is that unstable after seeing what they had to do to get it to touch the roll over bars. I think I could do that on the LC, JGC, Jeep, 4 Runner, RAV, etc etc etc. but what would be the point of a car instead.....I'm keeping my SUV until the environmental nuts pass some law outlawing them.....

    Gone fishing.......
  • viet2viet2 Posts: 66
    My friend's wife rolled over in an Honda CRV trying to avoid a dog. I also saw with my own eye a flipped over 3 series BMW. I also know some one broke a thumb when his Lancruiser rolled over. My co-worker lost a son when his van rolled over on the I15. The car or truck is only part of the story, driver and lucks makes a word of different. I would considered to joint a class action suit against CU is their testing is proven to be false.
  • thirdsuvthirdsuv Posts: 209
    Tens of millions of AOL users are greated today
    with their Welcome screen with the headline of

    " 6 most dangerous vehicles "

    Montero tops the list.

    That should get the word out.
  • vetmed3vetmed3 Posts: 38
    About five or six of my friends couldn't wait to tell me that my XLS is dangerous and would roll. They were also the same ones who couldn't praise my Monty enough about how great it drove, etc. They wanted one also.
    I was thinking to change my XLS (Xtra Large Ship) to ROS or Roll Over Special when given the news. Since then, I decided to wait to see what the future brings for the vehicle.
    As I have leased it at a firm price, I should come out better in the end. I hope.
    My only complaints at this time is that stupid skid plate in the front that has metal mesh in the front that can be punched out with something like a corn stock. Behind that mesh are all kinds of things that are very expensive to fix. Also the paint on the plastic trim can be scratched very easy and very expensive to repaint. Lastly, those end caps on the rear bumper don't take to abuse well ($400). Did mine in when I backed (slowly) into a snow pile.
  • regalaregala Posts: 45
    Does anybody know what's the largest tire size that will fit on a 2001 Montero XLS without rubbing and doing any modification? I'm due for a tire change pretty soon and wanted to know what are the options.
  • s852s852 Posts: 1,051
    According to the article above, if the CR drivers had a cell phone in one of their hands, the vehicle would not have tipped over.
  • brillmtbbrillmtb Posts: 543
    I have read a little more about the CU test. It seems they have been critized for doing non scientific tests and that some of the vehicles tested didnt even make it through the cones so which is safer head on becasue you cant get back or rollover (given the choice I'll take my chances with rollover)?

    Anyway, if the roll over was due to too soft of spings and the antisway bars need to be bigger or polyurethane bushings put in that should be simple.

    This SUV has independent suspension set up to be compliant in on and off road situations and you do give up on some lateral g's. Off road though you gain stability by keeping the tires on the ground vs the stiffer SUV's that can weave between cones better due to thier stiffer suspension but on an off road corner will get bounced out of a hole so hard they will slide easier.

    Anyone familiar with off roading will understand this. There are always some trade offs.

    The Monte has a very reasonable stance so adding stiffer spings and/or increasing the size of the roll bar is all that should be needed. Personally I will wait and see. At most, I think I might consider urethane sway bar bushings or if larger sway bars come out then these. This will maintain most of the good ride and take out the roll.

    This SVU is not dangerous as these idiots are trying to make everyone believe. We even have the Toyota fans overhere taking pot shots now. Obviously many of the comments are from people who dont understand that a great off road SUV will not handle like an MDX or BMX on road.
  • drew_drew_ Posts: 3,382
    Actually rollovers are something you don't want to be in because there are only a few inches of crumple space above your head. If the roof collapses, head, neck, and spinal injuries are very likely. I'd take my chances in a front impact. Most manufacturers only test for 2 or 3 rolls. Only MB (and perhaps Volvo) launches its vehicles sideways off a ramp into a 4-5 time roll (i.e. the M-class staying alive commercials). SUVs also don't have to meet the same rollover/roof strength standards that cars do; which is that the roof and pillars have to be able to support 1.5X the car's weight.

    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,658
    Anybody look at the photos of Explorers that have rolled? The "A" pillar must be made of paper the way it collapses. As an Explorer owner, it doesn't make me very comfortable knowing that.

Sign In or Register to comment.