Howdy, Stranger!

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





Mitsubishi Montero

14445474950137

Comments

  • phonosphonos Posts: 204
    One more hour to bid on this 2001 Limited. Reserve not met at $28,900. Owner claims he paid over 40K new. That's the worst deal anybody has gotten yet, I think.


    http://cgi.ebay.aol.com/aol/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=592699997

  • counselor2counselor2 Posts: 47
    phonos, more than just the claimed $40k purchase price is suspicious with that Monte for sale on e-bay. The seller says that the truck has 5900 miles on it but the truck still has the protective plastic covering on the seats? The seller claims that the rear-air package is "hard to find?" Hmmm. On a more believable level, I note that 2001 Limiteds with less than 8,000 miles continue to be advertised for between $30k and $32k in Chicago.
  • ken131ken131 Posts: 20
    The safety issues that CR brought to light left me no choice but to trade my Monty Ltd 2001 in for a new Eddie Bauer Ford Expedition. The Expedition may not be quite as aesthetically pleasing, but it's a great vehicle that seems to be plenty safe!!! It's a shame that Mitusbishi is not stepping up to the plate to seriously address the problem that CR has pointed out. However, when safety is at issue, it's just not worth taking a risk (to me, at least).

    Anyone else trading their Monty in?

    See you over at the Ford discussion boards!
  • regalaregala Posts: 45
    You think trading your 2001 Monty for an Expy would make you feel safer. Think again.


    http://www.msnbc.com/m/c/ctv_emailthis.asp?id=local/knsd/13crash&sk=msnbc&sl=&0mw=x93


    Given the right condition, no matter what vehicle you're riding, it can roll-over. This happened in San Diego in an icy freeway. Luckily, everyone was wearing seatbelts and survived the crash.

  • counselor2counselor2 Posts: 47
    Congratulations, ken, on giving in to hysteria. I sure hope that you did some research first in deciding to trade in your Monte for an Expedition. Let's see, a search of NHTSA's website (www.nhtsa.gov) turns up 4 recalls for the 1999 model year Expedition, 2 for the 2000 model year, and 2 for 2001, including recalls to fix things like "fuel line leakage" and -- gasp, surprise! -- "tire-related defects." You will also find hundreds of technical service bulletins (i.e., stuff that the dealerships are being instructed how to fix because of problems with the trucks) and 218 consumer complaints for the 1999 MY Expedition, 86 complaints for the 2000 MY, and 8 so far for the 2001. Oh, and by the way, one of those 8 complaints for this year, verbatim, reads: "CONSUMER FEELS VERY UNSAFE WHEN MAKING LEFT HAND TURNS OR MAKING LEFT CURVES. STEERING IS VERY LOOSE, ) AND CONSUMER MUST GRIP STEERING WHEEL VERY TIGHTLY WITH BOTH HANDS. VEHICLE FEELS LIKE IT WILL TIP OVER EASILY." (ODI ID: 877861) Hey, ken, you think she got spooked and traded her Expedition in on a 2001 Montero?

    By the way, just in case you think your new Expedition won't roll, you can check out the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's website (www.hwysafety.org) and look up the death rates for the Expedition and other vehicles. The latest data that they have is for the 1997 model year, and, actually, the Expedition fares pretty well. But still, it has a death rate from rollovers of 16 per million vehicles, so you are not immune. The most interesting thing about the data is that when you compare the overall death rates and even the rollover death rates in larger SUVs to cars, the SUV rates look very good. Also, ken, if you make it to the IIHS website, you might want to check out what happened when they ran an F-150 through their 40 mph offset frontal barrier crash test. (Your new Expedition is based on an F-150, right ken?) The F-150 earned the worst rating ("Poor") in every category -- that's overall performance, structure/safety cage, restraints/occupant kinematics, and injury measurements. By comparison, the 2001 Monte earned the second-best overall rating ("Acceptable.") The IIHS's tests indicate that the F-150 sustained "massive occupant compartment deformation." Ouch.

    When you get past CU's videotapes and attention-grabbing headlines and really do some research on the 2001 Montero (and other SUV's), its pretty interesting (and reassuring) what Montero owners will find.
  • viet2viet2 Posts: 66
    Montero for a Ford?, I would not do that. The important thing is how the truck feel to the owner/driver, not because of what CU said. The Montero has very good steering feed back, with no kick-back like the Expedition. What I mean about kick back is if the truck is suddenly steered in one direction, the steering will continue to occilate left and right uncontrolably when driver tries to steer straight. Beside, Ford has reliability problems, I just got rid of my Ford SVT Contour, I just got tire of going to the dealer ship to fix all kind of thing. Also, Any one liked Ford must like squeaks and rattles.
    I have no doubt the Montero handling suffered by soft spring, that is why the body lean so much. Mitsubishi wants the truck to do off-road well, so they tune the Montero with soft spring for long suspension travel. I have always looking for polyurethane bushings for the sway bars since I have bought the vehicles, but I can not find a set. Anyone have a lead?
  • ken131ken131 Posts: 20
    Thanks for the info about the Expedition. It has a 5 star NHTSA front crash test rating and is top rated in JD Powers initial quality survey. I'll gladly take my chances with it rather than having to worry about it tipping over at 37 mph. Do you really think that CR has some sort of "agenda" and rigged their test of the Monty? What reason would they have to do that?
  • jmaterojmatero Posts: 253
    Look, I don't believe for one minute he traded it in because of safety concerns... he's using it as an excuse. If he REALLY was concerned about safety he'd check out the vehicle's ratings and there are better choices for the money. Regardless, I know ONE person who is LESS safe out there now... ME! I drive on the Meritt Pkwy in CT every day and I can't TELL you how many SUV's are off the road flipped over each week because they drive too fast or think that they are safe on wet roads. And I've seen MANY Fords... explorers and expeditions/navigators on their roofs let me tell you. Never seen a Mitsubishi though.
  • cct1cct1 Posts: 221
    No, Ken is right--the Expo will be much safer--depending on which loaner vehicle he gets while it is in for repairs.
  • brillmtbbrillmtb Posts: 543
    I can understand why Mitsu owners want to jump all over others who take unreasonable shots at the Montero when there is good reason to believe that the rollover report is flawed and that Mitsu has addressed and is addressing saftey issues but I hope we can move beyond the attacks.

    I still stand by my statement that any SUV can be rolled, all under similar conditions, if you try. Whether one rolls at 37.5 or 40 or others that dont even make it back into to next cone probably has little bearing on real world conditions since most of us are driving 70-80 on the highway. Hell, I think my Acura GSR might roll at that speed especially if I get a front tire off the pavement.

    Drew, I personally know of people who have walked away from roll overs in thier SUV but the physics of a head on are very concerning. It doesnt take much deceleration force to tear your aorta. Airbags hitting you in the head have been known to cause chest and head/neck problems too. Bottomline, head-ons are going to deliver a much more forceful and dangerous blow.
  • 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
Sign In or Register to comment.