Mitsubishi Montero

toyotatoys · June 2001

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_ · June 2001

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.

Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards

syl1 · June 2001

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.

alpha01 · June 2001

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?

phonos · June 2001

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

phonos · June 2001

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/ebayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=592799481&r=0&t=0

It's started already! 1700 miles and traded in on a Toyota!

sergio6 · June 2001

That our vehicles are now worth $21,000.
And there are still some that defend Mitsubishi.
You must like losing money...

counselor2 · June 2001

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?

phonos · June 2001

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.

s852 · June 2001

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.

brillmtb · June 2001

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 this.....drive a car instead.....I'm keeping my SUV until the environmental nuts pass some law outlawing them.....

Gone fishing.......

drew_ · June 2001

viet2 · June 2001

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.

thirdsuv · June 2001

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.

vetmed3 · July 2001

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.

regala · July 2001

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.

s852 · July 2001

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.

brillmtb · July 2001

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_ · July 2001

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.

Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards

rsholland · July 2001

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.

Bob

phonos · July 2001

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

counselor2 · July 2001

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.

ken131 · July 2001

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!

regala · July 2001

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.

counselor2 · July 2001

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.

viet2 · July 2001

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?

ken131 · July 2001

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?

jmatero · July 2001

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.

cct1 · July 2001

No, Ken is right--the Expo will be much safer--depending on which loaner vehicle he gets while it is in for repairs.

brillmtb · July 2001

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.

syl1 · July 2001

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_ · July 2001

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

dmac8 · July 2001

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.

pgarrow60 · July 2001

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.

counselor2 · July 2001

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.

regala · July 2001

I just checked Kelly Blue Book value, despite of all this hype, it's still pretty high.

rgreenbe1 · July 2001

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.

vnguyen1 · July 2001

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

vetmed3 · July 2001

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.

conman2000 · July 2001

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

phonos · July 2001

Anybody remember "Christine" (Bad to the Bone)? Check the following out.

http://www.autonews.com/html/main/stories0702/probe705.htm

Hey Brill, how'd you do fishing?

-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.; 19,000 miles, slight squeak from rear brakes when dry/hot, probably glaze on rotors/disks

brillmtb · July 2001

Fly fishing in Jun/Jul isnt the best but I had fun.

brillmtb · July 2001

Yes, given the choice, roll me over. Hey, did you see the claimed rollover link that someone posted. That Montero looked great. No glass breakage or anything really...so...if that is a true rollover I'll do that anyday. Your aorta can take that a hell of a lot better than a deceleration at 40mph head on with someone else perhaps matching your speed.

By the way, my brother-in-law told me about his 3x rollover in a GJC some years back. All seven passengers walked away with minor injuries other than the one who had is hand outside (missing fingers now). They were lucky but I think it illustrates how the forces might be a little kinder.

brillmtb · July 2001

Something Interesting

Go read the Road Test of the 2001 Montero here on this site (Edmunds). They drove this vehicle and thought it handled quite well, not to mention all the safety features that are pointed out in the article.

alexjr1 · July 2001

First of all looking at the montero with its tall skinny back it looks like its going to roll over. I am not sure how much the body leans when it turns in the corners but i imagine it is enough to make you nervours some times. My brother rented one he said some times it would get him s little nervous. Not for nothing if it wasn't for the poor rating i would conisider it, it is a really nice vehicle inside and oout. I lived by consumer reports all my life and i wont stop now.

brillmtb · July 2001

http://www.nctd.com/01/suv/01montero.cfm

brillmtb · July 2001

http://www.rockypreps.com/autos/1111drive.shtml

brillmtb · July 2001

http://www.usatoday.com/money/columns/healey/0008.htm

brillmtb · July 2001

I dont know but unless all these reviewers are off thier rockers it seems that the Montero gets great ratings for its suspension all the way around. There are other articles stating good handling, great off road handling so I'm not too sure now where to place this one CU report in the mist of all the good reports.

Popular science was able to get the older Montero through the double lane change at 50.1 MPH and the new montero is 4inches wider and 2 inches longer.

oac3 · July 2001

you should've bought the Toyo when you had the chance ! Maybe what the Monte needs is a VSC just like those in the new Toyo trucks. Sometimes you just gotta bite the bullet (figuratively) and invest a little more $ in a slightly better product.

just my .02 cents

Mitsubishi Montero

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles