Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Mitsubishi Montero

1…1415171920…55

Comments

  • alpha01alpha01 Member Posts: 4,747
    phonos (post 792)... how can you be certain that the production of smoke from the front tires is from full time 4x4 engagement? isn't it possible that the severe leaning of the vehicle could have caused the tires to slam into the wheelwheels, with the sudden friction resulting in smoke? also, why would 4X4 make a vehicle LESS responsive in this test, and more prone to tipping? explain the physics of that, cause I am in the dark...
    many of the parameters only glanced over in the media ..ie NBC coverage... can be read in detail at www.consumerreports.com... theres a huge, specific article on the how the tests were conducted, methodolgy, results, Mitsu's response, photos, diagrams, etc.
  • counselor2counselor2 Member Posts: 47
    I didn't tell sergio6 not to file suit, and I even told him what his most promising course was. I also told him that there are lawyers out there who will gladly take his case. In fact, I bet dollars to doughnuts that lawsuits are already in the process of being filed. People can do whatever they want, it's no skin off my nose. (In fact, the more lawsuits, the more business for lawyers, which is not a good thing in most peoples' opinions, mine included.) But, aculex, I know what the state of the law is; I argue it each and every day. Sure, it can change and has changed over the years, and unquestionably will change again. My response was a straight answer (my perspective, admittedly) to a question that sergio raised. Lawsuits, regardless of what they involve -- property purchases, medical malpractice, partnership disputes, etc. -- ought not to be filed without careful consideration; they will get very, very personal and absorb a lot of your time, energy, and, often, money.

    But enough of that. Rather than clog this board with the discussion about the merits of any potential litigation, I'd rather hear what people have to say about the truck itself and their reaction to the posts about its performance and safety.
  • burgerm515burgerm515 Member Posts: 1
    Now that thousands of us are stuck with a $36,000 "unacceptable" vehicle what options do we have? Mitsu has posted nothing on their web site in regards to the failed CR test. Are they required to take standard actions to repair or recall those faulty monteros that are already on the road?
  • s852s852 Member Posts: 1,051
    Mitsubishi is free to ignore the CR article and those test results since the Montero has passed the government's required tests.
    CR tests are not required to be passed, so Mitsubishi can legally look the other way and move on.
  • sergio6sergio6 Member Posts: 20
    With enough public pressure, they will be forced to take some action. After all protecting Mitsubishi's brand image (which includes not only autos, but also marine transport, aircraft manufacturing, shipbuilding, nuclear power engineering, waste treatment plants, satellites, defense contracting, glass, petrochemicals, oil products, beer, finance, property and casualty insurance, and warehousing, among others) would more worth to them than the comparatively minimal financial burden of 8,800 Mitsubishi Montero LTD owners.
  • bostnwhalrbostnwhalr Member Posts: 128
    It is very relevent if you are considering the purchase of a Montero or trying to sell one.

    We can debate the testing all day long, but the reality is that the resale value of Montero's is heading south fast, unless Mitsubishi can do a "quick fix". In the next few months, sales are going to plummet 50% or more. Their going to have to move inventory which means steep discounts. So, if you want one, wait a few months for them to collect dust on dealers' lots. You'll get a heck of deal on one.

    The Trooper suffered a similar fate in 1995-1996. They become a good used value (still to this day) and content was added to new vehicles effectively making them $4,000 cheaper by 1997.

    I recently rented a 2001 Trooper and drove 1700 miles. Great vehicle, but handling on the Merritt Parkway was a bit scary taking broad corners at posted speed limits. You have to know your limits.
  • jinjalijinjali Member Posts: 3
    we need to stand united and unidirectional on this issue.its not only 36k but our lives including our children.
    first of all any owner of this crap had any problems with tipping should be mentioned here on this board.
    second we need to approach nhsta on this issue and third find a good lawyer firm for further steps.
  • drew_drew_ Member Posts: 3,382
    FYI guys, about a year ago, a German automobile magazine while testing the Montero in the moose test managed to roll the Montero. They definitely didn't expect it and there were no outriggers fitted to their test vehicle. The driver was thankfully not hurt serious (he was wearing a helmet too). This was way before the C.R test, so I think there may be something to the test results.


    Personally, I like the Montero and wish that Mitsubishis were sold in Canada (they're just starting to get back officially into the Canadian market now). However, as others have said here, it is an emergency situation that may happen in the real world. Many claim to drive their SUVs like trucks. But how exactly can you drive like a truck when you're on the highway and there is an obstacle in your lane? You can't really. All you do is react on instinct and swerve to try to avoid the object.

    I think this is what Consumer Reports is trying to say here (same with the Trooper). That SUVs being marketed as family vehicles to the normal driver should be able to deal with real world emergency situations. 40 mph is not very fast at all and people drive much faster than that on highways. IIRC, the Trooper started tipping at about 37 mph as well. FWIW, the Audi Allroad and Volvo XC wagon did the same maneuver without knocking over any of the cones at 50.5 mph. At higher speeds they would've clipped the cones, but it probably would require quite a lot more speed before they start to roll; A lower centre of gravity definitely plays a big part here. While using a computerised steering mechanism to steer the vehicle through the emergency course would be more scientific for comparison purposes, who is to say that a driver, in the real world, won't take the same driving lines that the drivers did in C.R's tests?


    The tire smoke was caused by excessive tire scrub as the vehicle tipped onto one side and spun around. I don't think it has anything to do with the Montero's excellent full-time 4WD system, but rather the suspension calibrations. As we all know, the Montero is great off-road especially considering its 4 wheel independent setup. However, I think that this long travel suspension and great off-road handling has come at a price, and that is that it is not as competent to deal with some sudden lateral weight transfers, such as in the emergency avoidance maneuver.


    From what I saw from the videos, this is what happened. In the first video with the red Montero, it cleared the first swerved to the left where the driver cranks the wheel left to avoid an obstacle (vehicle leans hard to the left and the right side wheels lift off the ground a little). When the driver cranks the wheel back to the right and into his own lane, the weight of the vehicle has to transfer very quickly from the left to the right side. It is at this point that the Montero starts to lift its left wheels very severely. Same deal with the 2nd video and the Silver Montero, except that partly because the speeds were higher (39.4mph vs 37.7 mph), the effect was exacerbated. It also looks to me like the right front tire on the 2nd Montero may have been punctured as a result of the maneuver (excessive tire scrub may have cause the wheel to come off the tire).


    Now the question is what Mitsubishi can and will do at this point. Firmer suspension tuning and different (larger/thicker) antiroll bars will probably help. In my humble opinion, the most significant and probably the easiest thing and quickest thing that they can do is add electronic stability control to the Montero. As was mentioned earlier, this was one of the steps that MB did a few years ago to the A-class when it had problems with the same maneuver. Audi also did the same thing (like MB they also did some chassis and suspension work) to the TT when there were issues with extreme high speed handling. Electronic stability control does have to be special developed and tuned for each individual vehicle though, so some development work is still forthcoming, if it hasn't already been carried out. Of course they may just say that there isn't an issue altogether.

    Some say that C.R's emergency avoidance maneuver isn't realistic for the real world, however, the same criticisms have been said about the IIHS 40mph offset crash test. There will always be naysayers, and personally, I prefer to err on the side of caution.

    In late March of this year, I took my own SUV to an advanced driving course where we did a similar (but tighter and shorter) emergency double lane change maneuver. You can see the video clips by clicking here

    Just my own 2 cents, your mileage may vary

    Drew
    Host
    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
  • rgreenbe1rgreenbe1 Member Posts: 8
    The is a link on Motor Trend's web site that links to the video of a 30 minute video of the Mitsubishi press conference. IT IS A MUST SEE. IT WILL REALLY PUT SOME SERIOUS DOUBT ON WHAT CR DID. I ACTUALLY FEEL MUCH BETTER NOW.
    Please check out and pass the word on.
    Please post your repsonses to the press conference.

    2001 Silver LTD
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    This is supposed to be a link to the press conference if you have Real Audio. I am have trouble getting it to work; maybe another one will be found.

    Meanwhile, CR rebuts statements by Mitsubishi here and here.

    Steve
    Host
    Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards

  • viet2viet2 Member Posts: 66
    I have own the Montero over a year now. I know the Montero has soft and long traveled suspensions, so I drive the truck accordingly to its capability. If people is concern about the Montero handling and want to turn it into a sport car, it can be done at some expense to the off road capability. The Montero has the basic set up for an excelent road handling SUV (indepeden suspension, stiff chassic). I guess if Mitsubishi can control the damage of bad publicity by recalibrating the suspension. When Car and drive tested the Montero, they have mentioned that Misubishi is playing with the suspension of the Montero for better handling.
  • madpapo2002madpapo2002 Member Posts: 8
    The monteros are BIG, it has 7passager capabilities, it is off road captain.

    When you're behind the wheel of this truck, you need to drive differently from the way you would drive in a sedan. Do not make sharp turn cause, you can't do anything about it, it's a suv.

    I have a 2001 Montero Limited silver.
    When i'm driving this car, i'm conscient, i know that i wont drive it like my 1999 Honda civic, i't not the same thing.

    America shoud know that, SUV are safe but, there are limits. Even if you make sharp turns in a Montero, your need to have your feet on the brake and you must not turn the wheel completely. it's simple.
    Even in my cousin's 1999 volkswagen passat wagon i won't make sharp turns. Why sharp turns?
    Even if you have a sedan, a minivan, there are some limits.

    I think that actualy, Montero's are the best SUV Sold Here in the united States, But american driver's need to be more responsible when they are driving SUV's. You NEEd to know that, if you want to race buy a CORVETTE, a BMW M3, M5, a Mitsu Lancer EVOLUTION VII, a FErrari,
    Why race in a MOntero? Because of it's aggressive lines, it's 120Mph top speed?

    Montero's owner's shoud be relax because they have no rollover problems with theyr cars, and they have a nice, strong, and fabulous car in their hands.
  • madpapo2002madpapo2002 Member Posts: 8
    1- Land Rover Discovery
    2- Mitsubishi MOntero
    3- Mitsubishi Montero Sport
    4- Toyota 4runner
    5- isuzu Axiom 2001
    6- Isuzu Trooper
    7- Jeep Gran Cheerockee
    8- Acura MDx
    9- Nissan Pathfinder
    10-Nissan X-terra
    11-Ford Explorer 2001 2002

    All those SUV's, at 40.0MPh, they roll over if you make sharp turns. It's simple. They for the dirt, the snow and even the road, but not for the race.

    America needs to see things differently cause the name SUV can mean: Safe Utility Vehicle until your know how to do your thing.

    Don't be afraid to byu all those Suv's Ya'll gonna like them.
    The AXIOM is fun go try it today.
    You'll also love the Montero sport sexy style.

    Go try one of these!!!

    CIAO!!
  • drew_drew_ Member Posts: 3,382
    FWIW, the Lexus RX300 ran Consumer Reports' slalom course at 50.5mph, albeit it with a lot of body lean; this is the same speed at which the wagons could complete the runs without hitting the cones. C.R mentioned that the stability control system helped to keep it on course.. The Acura MDX ran the same course at a lower 47.0mph. C.R gave it a fair or below average for handling because its tail end had a tendency to break lose quite early. C&D and MotorWeek reported the same things. Both of these vehicles are not designed for anything more than light off-roading due to their car-based/minivan-based underpinnings.


    Drew
    Host
    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
  • jmaterojmatero Member Posts: 253
    There is a point here that is being missed. We keep reading posts from SUV/Montero owners saying "everyone knows SUVs tip" and "you have to drive them differently than cars".

    Given

    BUT..., as posted by our host, these vehicles are marketed and sold as family transportation vehicles. The Mitsubishi Montero can even transport 7 people. It is also a given that MOST SUV drivers in the U.S. NEVER GO OFF ROAD. In other words, these vehicles have replaced the minivan and station-wagons in many American homes. The point being missed here is this: Whether you're driving a Honda Civic or a Mitsubishi Montero, when a child runs in front of your vehicle chasing a ball... and you are driving 40mph... you WILL cut the wheel to avoid the accident... and in the Montero, you have a much higher chance of flipping over than in the civic. The point of the CU test is that OTHER vehicles like the Nissan Pathfinder, the Ford Explorer, etc. DIDN'T behave this way in the same emergency situation. This indicates that there is SOME kind of flaw with the Mitsubishi causing it to be so prone to tipping over.

    The posts here stating "it's an SUV... you have to drive it differently" does not apply here. Mitsubishi promotes this vehicle as being able to transport your whole family in comfort... it is tauted as a "luxury vehicle" on their website. Therefore, the people buying a 7-passenger vehicle like this transport kids, spouses, the soccer team, etc. Hell, the TV commercial for the Montero shows two parents giving the keys to their TEENAGER to go pick up his sister and her 5 friends from soccer practice. What happens to them when he tries to avoid a cat in the road? Tell me how avoiding a deer in your path is handled differently in a Montero than in any other 4-wheeled vehicle? Should you turn "differently"? No. You just TURN. Enough of the "it's an SUV, deal with it". I don't OWN an SUV and I'm upset over this because I could be the guy in the OTHER LANE minding my own business when a mother loses control of her Montero in order to avoid hitting a squirl. THAT'S the point here. It performs DIFFERENTLY than other similar SUVs... and it SHOULDN'T
  • drmpdrmp Member Posts: 187
    How about ambulances, school bus, full size delivery vans, and commercial trucks? Does that mean they are unsafe to other drivers too?
  • phonosphonos Member Posts: 206
    I'd not be surprised to find all models of the current Montero similarly predisposed to this behavior, but it's standard practice to only identify the actual model used if there are slight differences as I believe is the case here. This accounts for the possibility that the different trim levels not tested have slightly different curb weight, tires or shock valving that may have a significant impact. Not acccounting for this would be irresponsible.
    That "left, right, left" scenario is a variation of the standard emergency evasive maneuver used by virtually any manufacturer to test their vehicle stability around the world. It is called various names, but my favorite is "The Moose Avoidance Maneuver" from a Scandanavian country. Obviously it is not standardized as to speed, spacing, etc but this is exactly the maneuver I live most in fear of as it mimics avoiding a deer on my rural roads. The only bummer is I'd be performing it at more like 65-75mph rather than the much tamer speeds they used (35ish?). I've done it once in the Cruiser and it wasn't pretty, which is why I put fresh factory shocks on it a few weeks ago.

    So, while it seems strange to some, this is a classic formula for generating rollover behavior (SUVs), or a spin out (sedans, coupes and extremely stable SUVs that did not succumb to a roll) and it happens perhaps thousands of times a day to ordinary motorists across the US in the wrong spot at the right time. I know it's hard to imagine a motorist spinning a thousand seperate times in a single day (honey, let me tell you, I've had a rough day out there - that car's possessed!...) Heh. Anyhow, it's a relevant test.

    Interestingly, the titan of automotive safety - Mercedes - recently produced a car that failed a simple avoidance test very similar to this. And it was a very small coupe called the A class not sold in the US where everyone was stunned it did not slid due to its small, low weight. A couple years ago during the car's introduction some Swedish (I think?) journalists rolled one on flat pavement right in front of hundreds of automotive journalists from around the world. Mercedes immediately stopped production, delayed the launch, modified every single one produced and changed the parts for those built thereafter. It probably cost them $100 million. So, yes this is an extremely relevant test and a maneuver none of you should try at home without the soon-to-be-mandatory SUV outriggers. I expect as soon as Congress gets finished with the knotty question of how best to destroy our country's power generating industry, they'll get right to work on outrigger legislation.
  • alpha01alpha01 Member Posts: 4,747
    drew (host of forum)....in post 814 (and others) you are quoting vehicle speeds from CR testing, which is valid. However, it is important to note that there are 2 emergency avoidance courses which CR uses to judge the emergency handling of SUVs, Pickups, and Minivans... a "short course" and a "long course". The Montero tipped up on the more difficult "short course", and the speeds listed in the the ratings column of the magazine for all new cars tested, no matter what style.. are the results of the "long course". Just something to keep in mind with all this talk of handling ability. I urge anyone to read the full report on the testing on the CR website, as well as view the press conference.. then decide for yourself.
    ~alpha
  • phonosphonos Member Posts: 206
    Quote from CerOf, Texas:

    I feel sorry for the deer that jumps in front of me!
    Mmmm...can we say, Venecin (sp?) Sausage?

    That's what ARB Bull Bars are for! They don't call 'em Bull Bars for nothin'!

    Seriously, I only swerve if it is safe to swerve, otherwise, I take the hit!

    I'd rather hurt myself than someone else by swerving.

    I only swerve for babies and old ladies in the road!

    Otherwise...Hmm...where did that string of posts go about "Roadkill" and your list?

    Add another squirrell and a cat to mine.
  • jiaminjiamin Member Posts: 556
    I think to test cars in the same section such as SUV, there should be a criteria. I'm not sure how the criteria should be defined. Maybe it is defined as much as we can from practical application like at what turning speed a car can still hold itself. I think based on the same criteria, whichever car can't hold itself is not safe enough, compared to the similar cars in the same section. I don't think we can just simply slow down until it's safe (slow down to 5MPH when turning?), because it'll make comparison even more difficult, and it'll be not so practical in a typical driving. Of cause if the criteria is defined tighter, then more cars will be unsafe. So it's relative but useful comparison.
  • kahkgozinyakahkgozinya Member Posts: 8
    The flap over the Montero/CR issue just about buries the new rollover controversy regarding GM's full size vans. I read last week that there have been DOCUMENTED proof that GM's line of full-size vans were prone to rollovers during low-speed emergency lane change maneuvers. There have been real fatalities on real roads, not just a slight tip on a closed test course!

    To add insult to injury, there have been no warnings from NHTSA or the Insurance Institute/Dateline guys (forgot what they were called). They're waiting for more data (fatalities) before issuing a warning or recall. Because it hasn't been documented on Consumer Reports, I bet resale values on GM full-size vans aren't plummeting like the Montero. Yet.
  • monkunashimonkunashi Member Posts: 12
    Will this rollover news affect the Montero as it did those other 2 famous vehicles?

    Mitsubishi should just rename the Montero - that's the course of action that seems to work best.
  • cberescberes Member Posts: 24
    is dead on-- articulately expresses what's wrong with this whole situation. It's not how YOU drive the vehicle, its how IT RESPONDS when YOU react to an unforseen event! That's the only point of importance here, really-- the only one. And its criminal that this many years and re-designs later this is still a problem!

    I'm one of those Explorer-owners who bought into the "bigger-safer-AND fun!" bill of goods about SUV's. The possibility of a roll-over is part of what I consider daily. BUT its a 1993 model and that's an 8-year-old issue. There is no excuse for this to still be a concern in a 2001 model-- by Mitsubishi or any other carmaker!

    You know, to the auto execs its all about making money-- be scared, be very scared. But consider what scares them-- not the mega lawsuits! Its future sales and where you choose to share your hard-earned dollars. Think about it.

    (off my soapbox now)
  • begemotbegemot Member Posts: 1
    I guess we are missing the point of the CU tests.
    That's what CU says about the tests and it explains why Montero's behaviour is unacceptable:

    "The speed at which a test vehicle completes the short course is not as important as what happens when it exceeds its handling limits. Typically, the vehicle will slide or skid sideways, knocking over cones that define the course. In most circumstances, this is a more controllable situation for an SUV driver than a tip-up or rollover. "
  • KicKMan1KicKMan1 Member Posts: 45
    After suing Mitsubishi; winning in one court but losing on their appeal, I learned that this company will stop at nothing to protect its (sullied) image -- even when they're at fault.

    Their immediate head-burial after learning of the rollover propensity of the Montero, followed by the arrogant and smug denial of the results of this most recently publicized rollover test, is quite typical of them. Someone mentioned a few posts back to martial the troups and lawyer up. I agree. Don't let this company get away with any more than they already have. Remember the hidden customer complaints in Japan over the last 30 years? They didn't exactly come forward with that out of conscience. They were about to be exposed.

    I would love to see evidence of Mitsubishi's own test results on rollovers. Since they won't divulge that type of information voluntarily; and since they will still continue to market the Montero as a family vehicle, the only way the consuming public can gain this information is to make it a legal matter. Since Mitsubishi is not and will not look out for consumer's safety, we should.
  • sergio6sergio6 Member Posts: 20
    How about starting a legal recourse?
    Kickman, since you have some experience, Would you guide us through the process? Can you contact your lawyer in your previous suit?
    8800 Montero LTD owners should make the company think more than a single customer.
    How about starting a 01MMLTD Owners Association?
    An egroup maybe? Or, this page will do for now.
    Let's teach Mitsubishi they can't mess with the American consumer as they do elsewhere in the world.
    The U.S. has legislation to protect its citizens from corporate abuse and we should make use of it!
  • rs_rogersrs_rogers Member Posts: 16
    After reading Mitsubishi's reponse and viewing their video, I feel much, much better about my new 2001 Montero. EVERYONE on this list should look at this video.

    I do appreciate CR's concern for the safety of my vehicle

    However, CR's tests are badly flawed and nowhere near scientific. CR has no case to support their claims. They made multiple runs (some faster than 37 Mph) with the Montero and they could only MAKE it tip a few times. Where are the videos from these other runs? Give me a break. And, on those runs where the Monty tipped, they drove the vehicle outside of the course. In other words, they could not get it to tip following their rules, so they set their rules aside and FOUND a way to MAKE it tip.

    They could have made any one of those vehicles tip if they wanted. They just chose the Montero. They don't even have the guts to go after some of the real dangerous vehicles - ones built by big US automakers.

    People should realize that CR intent here is to attack all truck-like SUV's with their claims. They hate these SUV's because, in their mind, they are too big, waste gas, and might pollute too much for them. (If you doubt this, then you should read their glowing reviews of the car-like SUV's they tested in their May issue). You have to look at CR's motivation behind all this. They have an adgenda and they urgently needed video of an SUV tipping to help their cause. Co-incidentally now, they just happen to be trying to convince the NHTSA of the need for a dynamic rollover test for all new vehicles. Then here comes a shocking video of an SUV rollover.

    CR has an adjenda - and thats makes them biased.

    I hope Mitsubishi sues the heck out of CR for damages. They will likely win if they do.
  • sergio6sergio6 Member Posts: 20
    Give me a break...
    Just ask thousands of Suzuki and Isuzu owners.
    Our cars are already probably worth less than $25K. Mitsu's lack of testing has already cost us thousands. Keep on paying them if you want.
  • phonosphonos Member Posts: 206
    ". . . I just watched the video where Mitsu's legal counsel goes over the engineering and test track evidence and I'm going to do a complete flop on this and agree with you that these results were mortally flawed.

    Mitsu engineers actually found gouge marks where the outriggers dug into the pavement and evidence the truck had pivoted up into the air from this. When it came down, it is clear that both right side wheels broke. In the real world, there is no way to do this to a vehicle and this new evidence makes it clear that CU was way out of bounds.

    In addition, I watched the video shown on TV and am embarassed something did not occur to me. Not only did the outriggers themselves likely cause the actual roll when they caught and dug into the tarmac, but they significantly altered the maneuvering in the entire course. The truck is clearly leaning on the outriggers well before it reached the rollover angle. This means the suspension is not being loaded as it would in the real world, with the outside springs providing more and more resistance to roll. Instead, they were only partly compressed and then weight was transferred onto the outriggers. What kind of lateral force the outrigger wheels had with this weight on them is unknown, but it in no way would it correspond even weakly to a Montero in the same turn with all weight on its tires as Mitsubishi designed it. It is safe to say the presence of the outrigger and its contact with the ground significantly altered the suspension's interaction with the track surface in a way that makes it no longer representative of the real world. Can't believe I missed that, but there you have it. Of course, the weight of the outriggers themselves would by itself dramatically impact the truck as someone pointed out. I won't go into too much detail, but this test was a travesty and I hope CU finally pays the price. I hope Mitsu calls Isuzu and Suzuki and applies for class action status for a group approach to kicking CU's a**.
  • sr_bodysr_body Member Posts: 23
    ...the damage has already been done. Potential buyers aren't going to do a frame-by-frame analysis of the test tape. Uninformed consumers are going to make a snap judgement based on a top-segment news report and, unfortunately, Consumer Reports.
  • sergio6sergio6 Member Posts: 20
    Just try to explain THAT to anybody you are trying to sell your vehicle to.
    Hope they buy into it and give you the $35K you are asking.
  • s852s852 Member Posts: 1,051
    Why would the outriggers be the cause of the rollovers for the Montero when they also tested so many other SUVs (Pathfinder and others) with the same setup and they did not have the same result?
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    only the Montero, Trooper and Samurai tipped. How do you explain that none of the other SUVs they've tested got up on two wheels?

    Did you really expect Mitsu to agree with CR? I was hoping that they might have learned something, at least from a PR standpoint, from the MB A-Class "moose" test. I guess not.

    As to CR having an agenda. Yeah, it's to inform the public.

    Bob
  • ycpycp Member Posts: 2
    www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33521-2001Jun22.html
  • cct1cct1 Member Posts: 221
    The outriggers were not on the other vehicles--they were placed on the Montero after the first run through because the driver was concerned that the vehicle would tip. They don't routinely put the outriggers on unless they are worried that the vehicle will tip.

    That brings up the next question: what happend before the outriggers were placed? Did the vehicle raise up off the ground and if so is there any videotape of this? Or were they just concerned that it would tip?
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    The Post editorial made some very valid points. However, I still trust CR's judgment, or perhaps track record, more so than I do those defending the Montero.

    My understanding is that CR puts outriggers on all SUVs they test.

    Bob
  • cct1cct1 Member Posts: 221
    I went back to the original article--I believe you are correct, that the outriggers were on all the vehicles. My bad.

    I, too have a hard time believing the outriggers caused the tipping. In one instance, the vehicle tipped so severly, the wheels were damaged by the outrigger and they had to stop the testing. In the opinion of the tester (who was apparently brought in as an "independent" by CR after the intitial tests) the outriggers prevented an inevitable rollover.

    I think its gonna take a bit more time to definitively sort this all out. Remember, in the Isuzu trial, there were fifteen points of contention--CR won 8, but lost 7. In fact, 8 of 10 jurors favored rewarding Isuzu 25 million dollars, but since they couldn't prove the falsehoods were malicious and premeditated in intent, no awards were given. I think it is too early to take CR's tests as a gold standard, given their previous track record. Although I will admit, the test results don't look all too promising.....
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Mitsu may think they have bigger problems than a CR story:

    "Mitsubishi sales at home have suffered since a recall scandal surfaced last summer involving a cover-up of auto defects. Market share in Japan sank to 6.9 percent from 9.3 percent a year ago, according to the automaker."
    link

    Steve
    Host
    Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards

  • madpapo2002madpapo2002 Member Posts: 8
    The monteros are BIG, it has 7passager capabilities. it's a confortable SUV., it is a off road master.

    When you're behind the wheel of this truck, you need to drive differently from the way you would drive in a sedan. Do not make sharp turn cause, you can't do anything about it, it's a suv.

    I have a 2001 Montero Limited silver.
    When i'm driving this car, i'm conscient, i know that i wont drive it like my 1999 Honda civic, i't not the same thing.

    America shoud know that, SUV are safe but, there are limits. Even if you make sharp turns in a Montero, your need to have your feet on the brake and you must not turn the wheel completely. it's simple.
    Even in my cousin's 1999 volkswagen passat wagon i won't make sharp turns. Why sharp turns?
    Even if you have a sedan, a minivan, there are some limits.

    I think that actualy, Montero's are the best SUV Sold Here in the united States, But american driver's need to be more responsible when they are driving SUV's. You NEEd to know that, if you want to race buy a CORVETTE, a BMW M3, M5, a Mitsu Lancer EVOLUTION VII, a FErrari,
    Why race in a MOntero? Because of it's aggressive lines, it's 120Mph top speed?

    Montero's owner's shoud be relax because they have no rollover problems with theyr cars, and they have a nice, strong, and fabulous car in their hands.

    Go try one and you'll see if you are in or out?

    Mitsu 4Ever.
  • s852s852 Member Posts: 1,051
    It was hardly an article. It was an editorial. A flippant rant by the writer with such useful tips as "use common sense" and "do not speed around corners" when driving the Montero.
    Itis true that you should not drive your Montero like a maniac, but sometimes, you need to make an emergency maneuver at more than 39 miles per hour. You might be able to drive it for 5 years without ever doing needing to, but you never know.
    He dismisses the CR test as unscientific and uses the fact that he drove a Montero for 1,000 miles and it did not seem like it was going to roll over during that time as evidence that the Montero is safe.
    This "drive carefully" response is the same as having a car that does extremely poorly in crash tests and then people defend the vehicle by saying:

    "Crash tests don't matter. If you avoid crashing into brick walls at 40 mph, you don't need to worry about crash test results."
  • blazer610blazer610 Member Posts: 7
    I was in the process of trying to sell my 2001 Limited. The ad hit the news paper yesterday. Talk about poor timing. At this point, I wish I had never seen this vehicle. It is a very nice vehicle. Comfortable, stylish, etc. I was just disappointed in its poor towing performance with my boat. I addition to being under powered for the job, it wallowed around and generally felt mushy and unstable while towing. The load is not excessive either. The boat and trailer are probably under 2500 lbs. Now I have a vehicle that is 10 months old and has lost $10,000 in value. Add the payments and it has cost me $1500 per month to own. By comparison, the vehicle that it replaced was a Chevrolet Silverado ex-cab pick-up. I drove that truck for 7 years and sold it for $7,000 less that I paid new. Mitsubishi has stolen their last dollar from me. I'll never again purchase one of their vehicles. Anybody want a deal on a 2001 Limited that is loaded with extras?
  • hi5543i1hi5543i1 Member Posts: 6
    Regardless of the specifics... I agree that the image of the Monteros has been seriously damaged. I no longer feel "proud" about my $38,000.00 purchase. This being my 5th mitsubishi purchase ( 2 montero's and 3 diamontes) I feel embarrassed when I now drive this "perceived" hazardous vehicle. Not only do I feel the safety of my family has been put at potential risk, it is going to be a rude awakening when we go to get rid of this vehicle... now wished I leased instead of purchasing this debacle. There is nothing short of a safety recall that will put my mind (or the future purchaser)at ease. Test is flawed? Who cares?... the integrity of this Mitsubishi product is now suspect. Shame on me for having to be the first kid on the block with a new toy...
    I've had this vehicle for close to year now, have 20,000 miles on it and USED to believe I made a wise purchase descision...lets not skirt the real issue... we are the owners of a flawed vehicle... tainted by bad press... our ONLY salvation is how Mitsubishi handles this PR nightmare... good luck to us all!
  • jmaterojmatero Member Posts: 253
    No offense but CR is not some super villain out to get SUV's. They praised a number of SUVs that were tested. The Ford Explorer and the Nissan pathfinder did exceptionally well.

    Believe me, if CR's intention was to "Destroy SUVs" as you suggest by showing footage of one flipping over, they would have shown a pathfinder, Blazer, Explorer or Grand Cherokee because they are the BIG Sellers... hundreds of thousands a year.... NOT the Mitsubishi which has sales of less than 9,000 TOTAL NATIONWIDE.

    Use a little logic here... if they wanted to destroy the SUV market.... if they had some "agenda" wouldn't they want to show a POPULAR vehicle flipping over to scare the crap out of it's owners? Wouldn't they have chosen the new explorer as its "victim"?

    No. Instead, they sat in a dark room and said "Ummm how do we get Americans to stop purchasing SUV's.... I know, we'll show a fake video of a 2001 Mitsubishi Montero Limited flipping over... THAT will do it!"

    Get real. And as for Mitsubishi suing Consumer reports.... They can try, but it didn't work out well for Isuzu with the trooper. The jury found in the favor of Isuzu but awarded NO DAMAGES because the only way damages could be awarded was if Isuzu could prove Malice... which they could not... so Consumer Reports was charged with making a false statement ""Isuzu ... should never have allowed these vehicles on the road." 

    In other words, unless Mitsubishi can find a document or a recording of a consumer reports employee stating "Lets destroy Mitsubishi" (which I can assure you, they can't...) the whole lawsuit issue is moot.

    It IS sad that folks with this new SUV are going to be stuck with them because resale is going to go down the toilet QUICK. BUT... hopefully some GOOD will come of this... particularly by Mitsubishi fixing what is wrong as opposed to attacking CR. If they were REALLY concerned about consumer safety, they would look into this SERIOUSLY... they would request all videos and test data... they would tell owners and the public they are reviewing the data. But NO... they instantly have a prepared statement calling the tests false. As an owner... or as a potential owner, that says a LOT about this company. In other words, at least Ford and Firestone (while publicly acknowledging their products ARE safe) are going out of their way to replace the tires right? Mitsubishi? NOTHING on their web site. NO info at their dealers. Just attacks on the messenger with NO assurances to owners/future owners that they will even LOOK INTO THE CLAIMS. Very telling indeed.
  • dskidski Member Posts: 414
    Up till last week everyone here beleived they were driving the best SUV around. Now many of those same people are ranting about Legal Action and the "death traps" they're driving.

    What changed? One report that they are taking as gosspel. Maybe CR is Correct or Maybe Mitsu is. NO ONE here has the answer to that yet so my advice is to calm down until you do.

    Remember this: someone in defending CR mentioned that CR has only found 3 vehicles with a high "Roll Over" risk in their years of testing. None of which was the Explorer. How many have died in Tropper Roll overs? How many have in Explorer Roll Overs?

    I realize we are going to be the biggest losers due to resale but the blame for that problem is yet to be determined. I'm not about to jump on Mitsu just yet. I will if it's appropriate but to be talking about getting together of legal action at this point is just plain stupid IMO. You don't know who to sue yet.

    Drew
  • jmaterojmatero Member Posts: 253
    The deaths reported to the NHTSA that were a result of Ford Explorers "flipping" were overwhelmingly the result of rear tire failure... not cutting the wheel in an emergency situation.

    You're right about not knowing who to sue. BUT... I think the owners of these vehicles should DEMAND that Mitsubishi INVESTIGATE these findings and THEN make a conclusion. The reason so many owners here are talking about suing is because of Mitsubishi's response to this report. THEY HAD A PREPARED STATEMENT RELEASED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE CR REPORT WAS PUBLISHED. THAT'S why owners are upset. How can they trust a company that doesn't take such results seriously and instead, starts a campaign of character assassination against a magazine that has only issued 2 OTHER BUYER BEWARE AUTO WARNINGS in its ENTIRE HISTORY. Mitsubishi is not handling this well at all and THAT'S why owners are upset. They have done NOTHING to give a current owner piece of mind. Understand this...

    CR has looked pretty favorably on Mitsubishi products over the years. Many purchased mitsubishis after following quality ratings and other data presented by Consumer reports... the most respected publication of its kind in the country (like it or not). Now it's telling people who respect CR AND own Mitsubishis that suddenly, "CR is lying". THAT won't sit well with most consumers. Mitsubishi needs some new PR people.... STAT.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Here's another link of interest (Mitsu's response).

    Steve
    Host
    Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards

  • viet2viet2 Member Posts: 66
    This morning, I walked into my office and there was a question from my co-worker: "I heard the Montero rolled over at 37 miles. I feel really scared man. Do you think it is ok to drive the truck? People are irrational like that. Now they believed that if you take a turn at 37 miles, the truck will rolled over! I have driven this vehicle over a year now, and I have make freeway emergency manuver at 40 miles or maybe more. I have take mountain road curve that is at the limit of the truck. It is scary because of the body lean, but I did not rolled over. The Montero is no sport car, and Mitsubishi put the warning in the manual and even on the sun visor. If anyone want to buy a good handling SUV then buy an X5. The Montero is a SUV built more for off road condition, not a handler and it should be driven with care. About the CR test, if there is anything fishy about their test, I hope Mitsubishi sue the crap out of them.
  • tomswensontomswenson Member Posts: 1
    I just traded in my 2000 Avalon for a Montero Limited. I think I got cheated by the dealer (I have to accept some responsibility for this... I believed what the dealer told me... I should have know better.), then two days later, the CU story comes out, then the next day a big rock hits my windshield and I now have to replace it.

    I really like the Monty, but I'm going to lose a pile of money on this deal I think. I also got this to pull my 2000 lb trailer which contains my Gold Wing, and I'm getting scared that it won't do this well either.

    Is there anyone out there that can reassure me a little. Any pulling a trailer who is happy with it?
  • cct1cct1 Member Posts: 221
    Thanks for the links--very helpful. Keep 'em coming...
  • dskidski Member Posts: 414
    Thanks Steve for providing that link. I only hope those writing irrational posts here (like the one above) will read it.

    What all this has to do with a rock hitting a windshield is beyond my comprehension.

    I think Mitsu did respond appropriately so far. How stupid it would be for them to just bend over and let CU destroy them when they believe the test to have been flawed and have evidence to support them. The NHSTA has been saying this about the CU test for years.

    Drew
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles