Mitsubishi Raider Large Truck

Kirstie_HKirstie_H Administrator Posts: 11,134
edited March 2014 in Mitsubishi
Will the Dakota clone give Mitsubishi's slumping sales a boost?

Need help navigating? - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews


  • chris65amgchris65amg Member Posts: 372
    I almost hope so for Mitsubishi's sake. I mean, the redesigned Galant was a flop, as was the Endeavor. Neither of them were bad cars.... I think that people who are shopping for a Dakota vs. a Raider will buy the Dakota unless the Raider is a bunch cheaper. The Raider does look nice, though.
  • mirde98mirde98 Member Posts: 95
    I honestly think the Raider is a appealing choice plus it looks hot. The Dakota itself doesn't look like another bland Ford pick up......Dodge has nice lookin cars and trucks....and the Mitsubishi version of the Dakota gives it a sportier kick. Mitsubishi needs to dump that corporate grille design from newer cars.....that in big part killed the new Galant, Endeavor and Outlander. And it didnt helped the Lancer since now looks like a Pontiac. They need to go back to the chrome grille like 97'/99' Galant' order to boost sales they have to go "the Hyundai way"....lots for less....keep down the prices while offer tons of equip in their cars. And...oh yeah....DUMP THAT CORPORATE GRILLE. Nobody want Pontiac's anymore.
  • tayl0rdtayl0rd Member Posts: 1,926
    The only import pickup to offer V8 power??? (as stated on the "Featured Specs" portion of the Edmunds article)

    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.
  • dave82dave82 Member Posts: 43
    Last time I checked the Dakota wasn't that big of a seller. On top of that, I heard that
    DaimlerChrysler wasn't too cooperative in helping Mitsubishi come up with a competitive
    truck. And does Mitsubishi even have money to advertise this vehicle?
  • 1racefan1racefan Member Posts: 932
    From everything that I have read, the Raider will have a very car like interior - more so than any other truck on the market - I guess they are hoping to snag a lot of first time truck buyers.

    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.
  • 1racefan1racefan Member Posts: 932
    "Last time I checked the Dakota wasn't that big of a seller."

    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.
  • firestangfirestang Member Posts: 1
    as per the specs on the raider for it's v-8. 230 hp and 290 lb/ft. the taco with the 4 liter has 236 hp and 266 lb/ft. i don't believe too many people will be comparing the radier v-6 (210 hp/235 lb/ft ) with anything, except the gm twins. the nissan frontier outdoes all on hp (265) and falls by 6 lb/ft (284) to the v-8 of both the raider and dakota. the raider commercial had me laughing! this is gonna be the hottest pickup segment in years. let the rivalries begin!!! i'll put my nissan up against any rival, and happily accept their defeat.
  • remus1remus1 Member Posts: 1
    lets not forget about Honda Ridgeline- 247hp V6 that powers like a V8. With the Honda name behind it, the Raider doesn't have a chance
  • 1racefan1racefan Member Posts: 932
    If I were shopping for a mid sized truck, I think I would take the Tacoma or Frontier. I don't really classify the Ridgeline as a "truck". It's more of a vehicle for a buyer that wouldn't really typically buy a truck, but would buy a car based SUV with a bed - It doesn't even come with a full size spare. Imagine towing your 4000# boat with a donut spare on. (disclaimer - just my opinion)

    In regards to the Raider, it has a tough road in front of it.
  • merc1merc1 Member Posts: 6,081
    I don't know how well it will sell, but I do know that this is one good looking pickup truck. It also has some neat features too like Bluetooth.

    The commercial in which it stares down Nissan smaller truck is pretty bold. The Raider causes the Nissan truck to lose some fluids. :surprise:

  • cracoviancracovian Member Posts: 337
    ...but it's the crappy outdated version - no HEMI for the Raider - ChryCo wouldn't give it to Mitsu. I saw the commercial during Seinfeld reruns yesterday - it was very good, unique, and memorable.
  • bubs892bubs892 Member Posts: 1
    Way better looking then the Dakota + free gas for a year. Its different...... in looks anyways. And lets face it most trucks nowadays haul groceries, kids, dogs, ikea trips etc...... This truck kicks [non-permissible content removed] in looks, options, cool features, and did I mention free gas for a year? The Dakota looks like an "ugly little brother" to the Ram truck. The Raider is big without being "too" big. have you tried parking some of these full size "tanks" in the parking spaces nowadays? I hope Raider gets Mitsu out of their slump. The Evolution gave car buyers a second look at Mitsubishi in terms of performace and brand image.
  • 1racefan1racefan Member Posts: 932
    "but it's the crappy outdated version - no HEMI for the Raider - ChryCo wouldn't give it to Mitsu"

    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.
  • dave82dave82 Member Posts: 43
    The Raider has been out for just one month and Mitsubishi is already slappng on a $1500 free gas incentive? I though the purpose of free gas campaign was to clear out the 2005 models. That doesn't sound too good for Raider sales....
  • 1racefan1racefan Member Posts: 932
    I think it was intended originally to help clear out '05s, but since gas prices are still relatively high they are using it as a marketing gimmick to help move a vehicle that isn't known for producing good gas mileage. I wouldn't be suprised to see it eventually used for the Raider, '06 Endeavor, and '06 Montero - if not for all of their '06 cars. With the Raider, I don't think they are already worried it won't sell, but are just trying to sweeten the deal so to speak (give it any advantage they can).

    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.
  • dave82dave82 Member Posts: 43
    I guess that we'll see on Tuesday, but judging by the number of posts to this forum, I don't see a lot of interest in the Raider. I think that it's a little ironic that Mitsubishi is spending a reported $40 million on the Raider launch, whereas Isuzu seems to have spent almost nothing on their new truck, yet both forums have almost the same number (or lack of) postings. Contrast the number of posts here to that of another new 2006 vehicle--the Lexus IS 250/350, which has almost 6000 forum postings.
  • 1racefan1racefan Member Posts: 932
    "I guess that we'll see on Tuesday"

    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.
  • dave82dave82 Member Posts: 43
    I'm in Southern California--my local dealer has had eight Raiders sitting on his lot for the past two weeks. Browsing the inventory of seven other dealers in the area via their web sites, they all appear to have approximately the same allocations.

    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.
  • raiderfan2006raiderfan2006 Member Posts: 2
    I loved my 1990 Mitsubishi 4x4 Mighty Max. It's still running. Just picked up my 2006 Raider Duro Cross yesterday. WOW! I'm one happy camper!
  • 1racefan1racefan Member Posts: 932
    If you don't mind me asking, what kind of a deal did you get on it from the dealer? How far did they come off the sticker? Is is an extended cab or crew? 2wd/4wd? v6/v8?
  • asaasa Member Posts: 359
    I was pleased to read that Mitsu had re-entered the truck business, but when I saw that the Raider's length is 220", I crossed it off my list. I garage my truck and 220" is far too long for the space I have. Contrast that with Frontier's 205-1/2", Tacoma's 208" (short bed) and Colorado's 207" and Raider is in a whole new league. For those that need a truck of that size, it's desirable, but like the Tacoma long bed, it borders on almost full size length.

    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.
  • raiderfan2006raiderfan2006 Member Posts: 2
    It wasn't so much the off the sticker as they gave me a very good trade-in and $1500 factory rebate. But it is one sweet truck. If you don't need the 4 door, the length is obviously shorter. But I have a big dog in the back seat and a bed extender for the kayak! Like I said, I'm one happy camper.
  • asaasa Member Posts: 359
    Just watched MotorWeek on the Speed Channel and they reviewed the Raider. They like it a great deal -- very good handling, excellent braking and great accelleration, despite a wet test track.
  • kodenamekodename Member Posts: 141
    How can I put this without offending Raider owners....The Raider brings nothing new to the table except it's styling, and the styling is not proving to be much of a draw. I find it looks very ockward and is no improvement over the Dodge. It's not available as a standard truck(w/o extended cab) so selection is limited.Now it's being reported that they are just not moving at all even with a $3K rebate. Mitsubishi dealers have a 200+ day supply already on hand and Mitsubishi is asking Dodge to cut back production. I like Mitsubishi, and I'd like to see them get back on track. They need a quick & easy way to sell more units.The Raider wasn't much of a good idea to begin with, and the numbers say it loud and clear:This was not a success. I think they should kill the Raider and move on to plan "B", can they afford to do that? Bill C.
  • asaasa Member Posts: 359
    Agreed. It's akin to Isuzu selling the Chevy Colorado and GMC Canyon under a third name. It doesn't add anything to the market. With $3 ($4 ?) gasoline, perhaps Mitsu might try something sized like the Ford Ranger, except modernized. But then again, buyers seem to want higher horsepower at any cost.
  • idtelleridteller Member Posts: 1
    The Raider is sufficient for most outdoors and towing or hauling needs. It does fall behind when it comes to drivetrain specs, but I am very happy with my raider. It handle great and the interior is very nice. I wish it accelerated like my '03 Chevy S-10 Vortec V-6, but I don't race or haul stuff around much so it is sufficient. I do hope that Mitsubishi adds more HP and Torque to later models. Having the power is important in a truck because you never know when you'll need it.
  • notahappycamprnotahappycampr Member Posts: 2
  • mirde98mirde98 Member Posts: 95
    People please....Raider its not a Mitsubishi, its a VERY BIG mistake that Mitsubishi made by accepting crap from Chrysler and rebadging as a Mitsu. These trucks are unreliable as usual with DCX products. Raider its for people who likes a domestic pick up with a sporty japanese styling. The only big plus is the warranty that you wont get at Chrysler dealers. But that hurts Mitsubishi image because as this Dakotas/Raiders keeps falling apart....people will see the Mitsubishi badge and they will think that all Mitsubishi's are unreliable. Which is a BIG mistake. But lets hope the Raider dies SOON and will be forgotten, so new Mitsubishi products arrive to keep strengthing the product line. :)
  • dustykdustyk Member Posts: 2,926
    I don’t know how you define "crap" or what you’re comparing a Dakota to, and by implication the Mitsubishi Raider. You have a right to your opinion, of course. So do I, and I think your hatred of Chrysler is glaringly obvious and noticeably obsessive. It damages your credibility as a potential neutral commentator.

    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.

  • mirde98mirde98 Member Posts: 95
    I totally respect ure opinion and point of view. And believe me i like some Chrysler products. And the "cloud cars" were Chrysler cab foward design products made in USA and Mexico mostly and those sir, were NOT made my MMNA. The only MMNA dna on the "cloud cars" were the 2.5L V6 engine. Thats it. The 4cyl was Neon derived, which we all know those were excellent and refined vehicles........... Dodge Stratus and Sebring (2 door only) were actually Mitsubishi cars with Chrysler's badges. Dodge Colt's (late 70's) were Mitsubishi Lancer's everywhere in the world and those, even today's day they are still use for racing. About the Sapporo, Challenger and the infamous 2.6L engine ure absolutely right. Crap. But while Chrysler was delivering in the late 80's and early 90's those lovely Aries K, Dynasty, Le Baron, Shadow, Daytona, etc, Mitsubishi was providing them with Dodge/Plymouth Colt's and Eagle Summit (Mitsubishi Mirage's) Dodge/Plymouth Colt Vista and Eagle Summit Wagon (Mitsubishi Expo), Eagle Talon and Plymouth Laser (Mitsubishi Eclipse)......and those Mitsu you still see them running on the road today. The other Chrysler vehicles you may still see them, mostly on junkyards. But then again thats why we are in a free country, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

This discussion has been closed.