Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Mitsubishi Raider Large Truck
Kirstie_H
Administrator Posts: 11,148
Will the Dakota clone give Mitsubishi's slumping sales a boost?
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
Tagged:
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Umm... What happened to the Nissan Titan and Toyota Tundra? I guess the meant the first compact/mid-size import pickup to offer V8 power.
DaimlerChrysler wasn't too cooperative in helping Mitsubishi come up with a competitive
truck. And does Mitsubishi even have money to advertise this vehicle?
I would like to see specifics as to what exactly the differences are between the Raider and Dakota. I have heard that they only share chasis and drivetrain components, and I have also heard that they share a lot more.
What I wonder is how many sales will the Raider take from the Dakota? With the Raider, if it is consistent with other Mitsu products, it should offer a 60K bumper to bumper and a 100K drivetrain warranty. With the Dakota, I believe the bumper to bumper is only 36K. Now, a 60K/100K warranty is great as long as the manufacturer is around long enough to honor it. Some people believe Mitsubishi won't be around in North America much longer, and some believe they will pull through their current problems. Couple the warranty with the possibility that there will be more incentives offered on the Raider than the Dakota, and that could potentially lure some Dakota shoppers over to the Raider.
Sorry for the rambling, but these are my general thoughts / questions about the Raider.
That is a good point. When the Dakota first came out years ago, it had a niche. It was larger than the S-10, Ranger, Tacoma, Frontier, but smaller than the F150, Silverado, Ram. Then, over time the S-10 became the larger Colorado, and the Tacoma and Frontier both grew larger as well. The Dakota offers the only V-8 in this group, but the Tacoma's V-6 puts out more hp than the Dakota's V-8. I'm not sure of the hp rating on the Frontier off the top of my head, but the way Nissan cranks out hp these days, I would imagine their V-6 probably has more hp than the Dakota's 4.7 V-8 as well.
The mid sized niche strategy worked well for Dodge for a while - they even utilized this same strategy with the Durango when it first came out. Now, their are a lot of SUVs out there that are the same size as the Durango. In my part of the country you don't see many of the new Dakota and Durangos on the road - which is odd, because trucks are very popular.
Seems like now, the only "compact" pickup that has a niche is the Ranger/Mazda B truck. It has kept it's "petite" size while the rest of their competitors has upsized.
In regards to the Raider, it has a tough road in front of it.
The commercial in which it stares down Nissan smaller truck is pretty bold. The Raider causes the Nissan truck to lose some fluids. :surprise:
M
I don't blame them. Too much marketing has gone into the HEMI on Chrysler's part to make Hemi and Chrysler go hand in hand.
I would have preferred to see Mitsu been given the higher hp, 4.7L engine (non HEMI) that is offered in the Dakota - instead of the base 4.7L that they are using. Then Mitsu could have offered an air intake, and dual exhaust (as part of an optional performance or sport package) to get a few more hp out of the 4.7L. This would also play into a "sportier" image for the Raider. I have heard people say that Chrysler just gave them the base 4.7L, instead of the optional, higher hp 4.7L because they wanted the Dakota to maintain an advantage over the Raider. It would have been cool if the Raider could have utilized that higher hp 4.7L, and the Dakota could offer the HEMI - thereby giving the Raider more power, and the Dakota still maintaining an "advantage" by being the one with the HEMI.
It's too early to tell if the Raider will/will not sell. I know my local dealer doesn't and hasn't had enough inventory to be able to make the call. They had 2 Raiders a couple of weeks ago, and now have 1. The 1 that sold (or is gone) was a fully loaded crew cab, and the 1 that remains is a base model extended cab. Now, if it gets to the point where they have 10 on their lot, and they aren't moving, that would be a different story.
It's going to take longer than that to see how a vehicle that has been out only a little over a month is selling - especially considering that there don't seem to be many of them to begin with. What I mean by that, is that there are 3 dealers within 15 miles of my house. Dealer "A" has only had 2 Raiders in stock, and sold 1, and the second one is still there (it is a base model). Dealer "B" just got 1 in last week. It is a fully loaded model, and was still there as of this past Sunday evening. Dealer "C" got 1 in about 3 weeks ago (loaded model), and I am not sure whether or not it has sold. I would like to know just how many have actually been produced.
I agree, a month is a short amount of time, but what does the Raider have going for it? Edmunds said in the Raider's latest review that the V-6 couldn't beat a V-6 Tacoma or Frontier in a 0-60 test even when both were loaded with 1000 pounds of sand. And without the sand, the V-6 Frontier and Tacoma beat the V-8 Raider. Not a single consumer has submitted a review of the Raider on the Edmunds web site. This forum only has 19 postings, which is only a few more than the new Isuzu i-Series pickup. Will it take more than a month to decide that the i-Series is probably going nowhere?
And how about Mitsubishi's advertising budget? It's looking pretty slim this year. I've seen one Mitsubishi dealer ad in the Los Angeles Times over the past two months. During the same time period I haven't seen any ads in the other big newspaper, the Orange County Register. As the saying goes, "Out of site, out of mind..."
Mitsubishi is also battling the consumer's perception that they aren't going to survive, which has probably cost them plenty of sales. What happens next month when they announce they they've lost over $500 million (Business Week) the past six months? Another momentum buster....
You may be correct 1racefan. One month is a short amount of time. But the Raider has quite a few hurdles to overcome.
I love Mitsus (mine has 200,000 miles on it), but I think they'll merely be an also-ran in a market already crowded with winning choices.
It should be noted that the relationship between Mitsubishi (MMC) and Chrysler goes back three decades and better. If you’re a true Mitsubishi fan I hope you’ll be honest enough to admit that MMC built those "crap" Plymouth Breeze, Dodge Stratus, Dodge Conquest, D50, Plymouth Sapporo and Dodge Challenger (2nd gen).
Mitsi also built a lot of engines for those "crap" Chrysler products, of which the 2.6 was quite famous for breaking the balance chains and causing engine seizure (the oil pump was driven off of that chain), broken balance shafts, premature chain stretching, chain guides falling apart, premature main bearing scuffing, cracked or warped heads (they used sacrificial head bolts on that engine), and the valve guides falling into the combustion chamber on the 3.0 V6 engines.
This is not intended to be a harangue against Mitsubishi, but as a point of drawing perspective. Even in the pure state Mitsubishi has given the motoring public its fair share of "crap" as you might refer to it.
I don't think the previous generation of the Raider was a shinning star by any means, and as far as I can tell some might consider the new Raider a marked improvement, Dakota under pinnings or not. Yes, Chryslers' made its share of junk, to be sure, but so has GM and Ford and even Nissan and Toyota. During my tenure as a automotive technician I would say that the definition of "crap" was just about everything made by GM, Ford, and Chrysler between the years of 1977 to 1989, some more, some less.
On the other hand there are some Chrysler products that stand out in both performance and reliability. When my company had Chrysler B-bodies (Satellite, Coronet, Charger, etc) along with the competition from GM and Ford, the Chrysler products were far and away the better built and most reliable, with the lowest repair incidence. In recent times Dodge trucks are a standout for the same reason, especially the full size RAM.
I will offer a far different opinion of the Dakota, and comensurately the Raider. I was in the automotive repair business for 30+ years and part of that experience has been in the fleet management business. I can testify that the Dakota is far from "crap." In fact, compared to the domestic competition, especially the S-10 or even the new Canyon, the Dakota shines in both reliability and durability and is a very popular truck with fleet buyers and civilians for good reason. It has the heaviest load and towing capability, the stiffest frame, the largest interior size, largest box size, and the most available horsepower of any current mid-size pick-up. And it gives people the most for their money.
The Dakota is a true truck, built to perform work tasks first, instead of being designed for car-like performance characteristics. Yes, it has its negatives, but it has its pluses. Now maybe the repair incidence rate isn’t quite as low as a Tacoma or a Frontier, but the Dakota/Raider is not that far behind either of those two nameplates in reliability. I know and have known people that own Dakotas, some have thought highly enough to buy another. Overall the majority are pleased with their performance, reliability, and cost of ownership. My son had a ’91 that has to be testimony to the abuse a person can give any vehicle. That one’s still on the road with almost 400K on the original engine and drive train.
I think your dismal characterization of the Dakota and the Raider is bias driven, very much exaggerated and totally undeserving.
Dusty
Ralph.