Howdy, Stranger!

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

Mitsubishi Montero



  • blazer610blazer610 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 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 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 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.

  • jmaterojmatero 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 Posts: 52,683
    Here's another link of interest (Mitsu's response).

    Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards

  • viet2viet2 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.
  • 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 Posts: 221
    Thanks for the links--very helpful. Keep 'em coming...
  • dskidski 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.

  • cct1cct1 Posts: 221
    I don't think the author is "ranting," as s852 states..He also points out in the article that the NHTSA has not a single report of a rollover and that the tests,according to the NHTSA, "do not have a scientific basis and cannot be linked to real-world crash avoidance needs or actual crash data." You can access the article through the Washington post homepage, for those of you who are interested (I can't get the link to post.)

    I don't think the author meant that the Montero was rollover proof just because he drove it for a thousand miles and had no problems--I think he intended as a "for what its worth" more than anything else...
  • dmac8dmac8 Posts: 54
    The vehicle everyone has is the same one as before these "test" results were published.

    At a minimum, they should reinforce people's understanding of the handling limitations of these types of vehicles.

    One thing is for sure, if anyone here comes close to what CU attempted to do, the results would be disastrous. Because of the sheer numbers sold, many more people have died in flipped Explorers, tires notwithstanding, than in the Monte.

    If CU has applied the exact same testing to all of the other SUV's, and can prove it, then Mitsu has an inferior handling vehicle.

    So Mitsu needs to run these tests and be very transparent about the results. Invite CU participation. If CU is wrong, and seen to be, a retraction should be forthcoming. If not, Mitsu can fortify any action against them.

    Short to medium term however, this vehicle will take a big hit and hopefully, it doesn't also get re-assessed by the insurance companies.

    When do we see the Mitsu video, without outriggers?
  • rnrxlowe1rnrxlowe1 Posts: 2
    I've read most of the comments posted here as well as CR and other articles. I'm wondering why the 2001 Montero is the 3rd SUV to roll over and not previous Monteros. In my research I have discovered that Mitsubishi enhanced stability and handling characteristics on the 2001 vs previous models by:
    1. a monocoque structure vs. body-on-frame construction (lowers center of gravity and improves rigidity)
    2. Increased width by 4 inches
    3. Decreased height by 1.7 inches
    4. Increased wheelbase by 2.2 inches
    5. 4 wheel independent suspension vs leaf springs in the rear (reduces unsprung weight at the corners of the vehicle)
    I specialize in neuropharmacology not engineering, but even my understanding of physics 101 tells me that we should have heard something on this topic prior to last month had CR been consistent and accurate in their testing of previous models of Monteros.

    What if I developed a new Alzheimer's medication that was clinically proven MORE effective and BETTER tolerated than the previous treatment only to be surprised when the FDA gives this new medication the 3rd worst rating of any drug ever tested based on its efficacy and tolerability even though it is an IMPROVEMENT over the former.

    I've not seen this fact brought up by anyone on this board as well as any other source. Someone smarter than me (and that is 90% of you who read this) please explain this to me.
  • rsrogersrsrogers Posts: 4
    jmatero, the thing that will most affect the resale value of your Monty is your desire to rapidly get rid of it and take a huge loss. The more people want to sell them, the lower the market value. I plan on keeping my Monty a long time.

    I think you should look at the press information and video on .

    I really do appreciate CR pointing out potential safety defects in my new SUV. But, I do not appreciate it when they base their conclusion on flawed, unscientific testing. The NHTSA even says that CR tests are not scientific and could have led to the rollover of almost any vehicle tested.

    As far as CR being anti-SUV goes. They are. At least the SUV as we know it. They would have us driving car like SUV's. This is an attack on all truck-like SUV's by picking on one of the smaller manufacturers with a newly re-designed, award wining vehicle. Its just much easier to pick on the little guy.

    All SUV owners should beware. There are many SUV haters out there that would like to have these vehicles declared not street legal.
  • cct1cct1 Posts: 221
    To play the devils advocate: all the things you listed are true and will increase stability, however, weight distribution is extremely important, and can potentially offset the other improvements--ie if the wieght distribution of the new Monte is higher, thereby raising its center of gravity, it could overcome the other things you noted.

    I just scanned the NHTSA rollover resistance ratings--the Monte ltd isn't on there (yet), but for what its worth, the Montero sport only got 2 stars out of five (but then again, the best I saw for an SUV was 3 stars, on the 'burbs. Expos also got 2 stars. Didn't see that any toyota's had yet been tested--the list of tested vehicles is rather sparse at this point).

    As I am taking all this in, my overall impression is that it is way too soon to call the Monte unsafe off of a single CR test, which, according to some of the links and the NHTSA, may not necessarily reflect how the vehicle performs in the real world. I am bummed out about what this will do to the Monte's depreciation; even if Mitsu is vindicated, all of us who own the Monte will still lose on resale value.

    Rather than suing Mitsu, maybe we should be thinking of a class action suit agains CR (just kidding--I agree with Drew that any mention of lawsuits is premature; IMHO, we have become a much to litiginous society anyway....).
  • s852s852 Posts: 1,051
    I am not sure what their definition of scientific would be.
    Maybe there would need to be 100 Monteros tested instead of just 2.
    The repeated tests did not cause a roll over in "almost any vehicle tested," only the Monteros out of all the vehicles tested recently.
    Maybe it is not completely scientific since the second vehicle had to be accelerated to a whopping 39 MPH to flip like the first one did at 37.7 mph. Meanwhile some other SUVs managed the maneuver at over 50 MPH without rolling.

    Whenever a manufacturer does not not like the NHTSA's own crash tests, the manufacturer attacks the test and says "in the real world" the vehicle performs well (Ford F-150, PT Cruiser etc.).
    Maybe the NHTSA should crash 100 examples of each car they test into a wall before they assign a crash rating instead of relying on the results of one car.
  • pgarrow60pgarrow60 Posts: 2
    The F150 4 door 4x2 just got double 5 star crash test ratings from the NHTSA, other F150s have received 4 stars or higher. So Ford has not attacked those results.

    You are confusing the NHTSA crash tests with the insurance industry's IIHS offset test where one of the F-150 models performed very poorly.

    It is a very confusing situation, the F-150s are the best full size pickup in on crash test (NHTSA full frontal) and the worst in the other (IIHS offset).
  • claybusterclaybuster Posts: 90

    Your statement ". Mitsubishi is not handling this well at all and THAT'S why owners are upset." I agree with totally!! Due to this "Cover Up" and it is a "Cover Up", I will continue to harass Mitsubishi until the results of CS are fully addressed. My last post on this board was much longer, but was censored, so I will be looking for another board (with less censorship) to discuss this HOT topic!!
  • onebrt464onebrt464 Posts: 6
    Has anyone been tracking prices before and after the CR article?
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    Excellent question, onebrt464. I wonder how our Ph.D statisticians in the True Market Value department will handle this blip.

    Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards

  • cct1cct1 Posts: 221
    s852: you are correct--the lexus did manage it at 50 mph, but you are comparing a car based SUV to a truck based SUV--not a valid comparison in my mind.

    With regard to a "Mitsu" cover up: where in the link that Steve provided in post 846 is there a cover-up? Examine the post, and let us know what Mitsu should do differently. It seems to me they are doing the things they should be doing, although perhaps they could be a bit more vocal about it. It seems to me that some people have become the judge, jury and prosecutioner; I think its much too early for that--let's slow down a little bit and see how things play out. I was tremendously alarmed when all this started, but as more stuff comes out, it does not appear to be a slam dunk against the Montero.
  • lvbearamlvbearam Posts: 3
    Whether you believe the Consumer Reports findings or not, there is no doubt CR has a major impact on what vehicles people buy. Mitsubishi can not afford any more bad publicity; it can whine all it wants about CR's accident avoidance test but it does not solve the problem. What Mitsubishi should do (something that Isuzu and Suzuki did not do) is say this: Look, we disagree with CU, but this company puts its customers first. Then it should have it engineers find a solution; recall all the Monteros; and fix the problem. By doing that, Mitsubishi can neutralize the Consumer Reports findings; build trust and help restore its good name. I truly believe CR has no ax to grind (I subscribe to CR, Automobile and am a frequent reader of Edmunds.) And CR has a point about the design of SUV's. Too many drivers handle them as if they were Miatas; they were not designed to be sports cars.
  • jinjalijinjali Posts: 3
    of the tests/indepened analysis (in detail) which they did after they heard the report of cr.if any body knows the link to details(not the press conference)please post.thanks
  • cct1cct1 Posts: 221
    I doubt Mitsu will find a solution to a problem they don't feel exists in the first place--it would make no sense to dispute CR's report, then go ahead and fix what they were disputing doesn't exist. Mitsubishi claims it could not duplicate CR's test results with an independent 3rd party analysis (I agree with the above post--would like to see a link for this). Until it has been proven that the problem exists (which has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt as of yet), I don't think its reasonable to demand that Mitsubishi does something to placate CR. The impression I get is that many people on the forum are taking CR's test as definitive proof of the problem, and are demanding Mitsu acknowledges and corrects it.If third party testing establishes the problem, then I agree that Mitsu should do something, and quickly. So far, that has yet to happen. Mitsu has done all the right things as far as I'm concerned--tested it itself, contacted NHTSA, etc.
    What is going to need to happen is another 3rd (or should I say 4th) party, not paid for by either CR or Mitsu, to test the vehicle. Hopefully, the NHTSA will take it upon itself to do so (they do rate vehicles for rollover risk), and hopefully soon. You seem to be saying that Mitsu should do something because of the bad publicity, wether you beleive the reports or not...If Mitsu doesn't believe the report, and can prove that its findings are erroneous (again, this is still up in the air), why should it do anything to placate CR? Just looking at the jury decision on the Trooper/CR case (this can be found on CNN's website) brings in CR's methods of testing into question (not to mention the NHTSA's opinion of CR's tests...).

    This will not fix the depreciation issue--nothing will--even if other tests do not confirm CR's tests.

    I don't think the issue is cut and dried, and I personally am not angry with Mitsu, at least not yet. Things may turn out to prove CR right, but until then, innocent until proven guilty....
  • agh15agh15 Posts: 90
    My mom has 2000 montero sport and she drives hers like a sports car and I have never been worried that the montero would roll over. I know she has montero sport and not big the montero, but my point is mitsubishi makes good suvs and cars that are safe. The reason why CR is coming after mitsubisi is that it is smaller company than ford or nissan. If you look at the pattern you will see that they went after small japenese car makers.
  • Pattern? What pattern? Using that rationale, one could also say that CR gave out not acceptable ratings because the failing test subjects had 4 wheels. 3 failed test subjects in 15 years doesn't constitute a "pattern".

    Mitsubishi is far from being a "small" company. In relation to other automakers, it might be small but it's automobile division is only a twig in the massive Mitsubishi corporate tree. Thier pockets run deeper than Ford, GM, Honda, Toyota, and Nissan COMBINED!
  • rshollandrsholland Posts: 19,788
    You made mention of the Montero doing poorly over in Europe. If I'm not mistaken, you said it actually flipped over doing a similar kind of test, but not using outriggers. Have you had any luck tracking down that report?

  • ken131ken131 Posts: 20
    I have the 2001 Monty Ltd, rear air conditioner....7200 miles and perfect condition...mitsu dealer has offered me 27 K to buy back the this a good deal or not? Any input on trade in / resale value would be greatly appreciated.
  • drew_drew_ Posts: 3,382
    Still looking...unfortunately I don't think it's available online. The test was conducted by Auto Motor und Sport magazine in Germany. The only reason that I knew about it was because several months ago, someone living in Europe mentioned it to me. I didn't think much of it at the time though, but now that C.R has reported something similar, it piqued my interest.

    birger "Mercedes-Benz M-class" Jun 20, 2001 9:50am

    Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
  • dmac8dmac8 Posts: 54
    You have an interesting choice. If you researched the vehicle and you like it, your first option is to keep it until the wheels fall off.

    Right now, you can get a Limited in S. Cal with the option you spec, for around $32,000, without breaking a sweat. It's a given it will go down, when the full effect of the negative publicity kicks in.

    Whether $27k is right for your vehicle, is difficult to determine. It obviously represents a substantial loss, but the loss, if you sell it in the near future, is only going to increase.

    My guess is you would really get whacked on the value by trading it on a non Mitsu product, where those dealers are sure to tell any Monte prospects about the CR test, if they happen to be in the dark.

    What might tempt me to sell it is the fact that Mitsubishi has proven itself to be a pretty recalcitrant company.

    The right move on this is to reassure customers, even if CR can't be convinced. The first step, is to replicate the test exactly, preferably, with the same drivers.

    If it's true, find a fix fast.

    If you could be assured Mitsu would do the right thing, you could hold onto the truck knowing they will correct any defect, at their expense.

    Otherwise, a stark loss now, might look better as time goes by. Good luck, nobody needs this when you shell out this kind of money!
Sign In or Register to comment.