Howdy, Stranger!

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

Mitsubishi Montero



  • brillmtbbrillmtb Posts: 543
    I went to Europe last summer. Just an incredable number of Pajeros over there. Really suprised me. Same style as the Montero's. I didnt see a single LC or 4 Runner.

    With respect to Austrialia, the guys at Old Man Emu told me that thier suspension engineer drives the current model Montero and that the Montero is well repected and purchaced there. They would also agree that the LC is an excellent choice.

    I dont think the Montero is as popular in the US then overseas, but I dont think there is any question about it being very repected overseas.

    Oh ya, I read what you wrote I just dont like comparing brand names but rather systems, I always sense a lot of defensiveness with the Toyota group however. I dont know why but always out of proportion to the statments being made.

    Have a nice Thanksgiving
  • dskidski Posts: 414
    Okay... As many here know.. the whole octane debate has been bugging me. Mitsu has been vague on the whole issue IMO.

    To make a long story short.. I had a little problem with the engine that Mitsu claimed could be due to not using Premium as recommended. The dealer called Mistu when they couldn't find a problem. I asked for documentation on Mitsu's fuel requirement and they gave me a copy of a Technical Service Bulletin (TSB-00-13-03) which clearly states 91 Octane ONLY for Montero's 2001 and up with 3.5L engines.

    If your interested, here's what it says in the bulletin:

    -Using fuel with a higher than recommended octane may result in poor startability, engine stumble. hesitation, and/or stalling.

    -Using fuel with a Lower than recommended octane number may reduce engine performance.

    Model- Montero
    Year - 2001
    Fuel - Premium

    I used the arguement about ratings being different other countries resulting in the Premium Only Sticker. They said they've heard that arguement but not to vary from what Mitsu is recommending in this Bulletin which applies to U.S. customers.

    I'm sure I'll get arguements here but at least I have official Mistu Documentation to base my choice on now. I'm going back to Premium. Nice to see prices dropping a little lately.

  • viet2viet2 Posts: 66
    The fuel door of the has a label "Premium fuel recommended", not "Premium fuel only" like my Subaru WRX . Technically speaking, the engine compression ratio is only 9:1. If it is 10:1 then I would put premium without anyone asking. I have been running regular since I bought the car new, all is well. I did not even hear even slight pinging or valve float. IMHO, the extra money for synthetic oil is better.
  • I can buy 93-octane or 89-octane (mid-grade), after reading, I've been changed to just 89-octane. I think I am going to go to synthetic oil changes.

    While driving highway, getting close to empty, computer said 33 miles left and we were running 93-Octane. Car started loosing power and died. Wouldn't start after 4 turns of the key. While calling AAA, I rocked the car (this works in my classic car) turned the key and it fired right up and went to the nearest gas station. The situation freaked out my wife, but I said it was probably just a "burp" in the fuel line. Flat driving. Anyone else want to comment on how good their computer is on predicting miles left?
  • dskidski Posts: 414
    >>The fuel door of the has a label "Premium fuel recommended", not "Premium fuel only<<

    All I can say is read the statements about using fuels different from the recommended. I used Premium the first year then dropped back in the second from comments here. Now I'm having problems.

    As far as synthetics? I'll spare you what they said about those for this engine. I'm not interested in any arguements for the Synthetic fans here. Suffice it to say.. they recommend NOT using them in this engine. I'll spare the TSB on that.. doesn't seem to help my arguements, LOL

  • I have used regular and premium and see no difference. As far as oil, my service writer reccommended synthetic after 10,000 milea. He allows me to bring my own oil in (Mobil 1) and the car now has 22000 miles with not a peep. All in all, one really great car. My Lexus should only be as well put together!!!
  • phonosphonos Posts: 206
    Indicator only. Not precision instrumentation down to the last PPM.
  • brillmtbbrillmtb Posts: 543
    No arguments here but what do you know about synthetic use. I have changed to Mobil 1 on all my vehicles except my KTM bike which runs semisynthetic due to wet clutch, electric start issues. I have not heard anything about newer motors being harmed by synthetic oil but in situations where you have things like wet cluthes you have to be careful about the super slick additives.

    I did the same as softhds above and ran on regular oil to be sure things seated first just to be safe. I would also agree that regular changing is more important then the oil.

    I suspect it might be more a viscosity issue than friction. i.e. are the lifters not acting appropriate with low viscosity oils

    Is there a TSB on oils.
  • brillmtbbrillmtb Posts: 543
    Any opinion on tires. I went to the Tire Rack site and the survey stated the Bridgestone Deuler Revo as #1 and Yok Geo A/T II plus as #2 but I find it hard to believe that there is much track record on the new Bridgestone to give it such a high rating. i.e. How do you rate a new tire so high on wear when it hasnt been out long enough to put serious miles on it?

    Also, would be interested to know what width would fit without sending mud up/down the sides. As most of you know the paint on the plastic part does not seem to hold up too well...or...I need to stay off those high speed rocky roads.
  • brillmtbbrillmtb Posts: 543
    I really pushed it the other day, ran over 400miles on a tank, all the lights on for low fuel. I think the computer was going to be very close but this is dumb on my part for two reasons.

    1. The computer only does estimates and
    2. Running my tank that low is just inviting sucking sediment into my fuel filter.
  • brillmtbbrillmtb Posts: 543
    I think high reving but also high load applications benefit from synthetic or any higher heat situations. Viscosity is for other issues.
  • Somebody asked before but no one answered, has anyone found a way to up the output of the engine, ie intake or exhaust modification?
  • viet2viet2 Posts: 66
    I should have said money in the pocket is better! The only thing about synthetic is the Montero is for 1st 1k mile after oil change it runs much better. But recently I cheaped out and switched to Valvoline synthetic blend. Normally on long trip, I use full Synthetic oil because of the sustained high RPM. I have a Tracer with the Mazda engine, and when I was on the long trip I held the engine to 5 to 6k rpm for minutes at a time. The car now is over 100k miles and run just as good, so I give credits to frequent oil changes and synthetic oil under high stress condition. Dyno oil is sufficient too, I have no argument about that.
  • viet2viet2 Posts: 66
    I would not rip out the intake air box. May be a K&N filter, otherwise I have not heard any one in the US that sell performance products for the Montero. I have post this before, but I tried an extra ground cable from the battery to the engine block, and the engine run much smoother, and have some more pick up.
  • Here is a link to a place in Australia that has created an exhaust modification.
  • my monty is on 22" rims with 285/50 tires. i put a K&N FILTER oh my lord did my car start trippin. whenever i start the car the whole engine shakes and it wants to stall so bad but when i drive it its cool . any one knows why its doing that?. performance exhaust helped me a lot too. i placed dual exhaust. so my other question is what else can i do to my car (performance wise) well besides Super Charging which am thinkin of doing.
  • dskidski Posts: 414
    Easy.. trade it for a 2003 Montero. All the exhaust changes.. super charging etc probably would cost you more the trading for the new 3.8 version.

  • brillmtbbrillmtb Posts: 543
    A supercharger would be nice, especially the belt driven ones that are much more efficient. An inline 6 cyc desiel would be even better. There is a desiel offered overseas and it has a lot more torque. That really is the answer to these heavy SUV if you want good mileage.
  • dskidski Posts: 414
    That has to be even slower than the 3.5 though. Most of the ones I've driven have been Painfully slow and those were Turbo Mercedes. I couldn't live with one personally.

  • brillmtbbrillmtb Posts: 543
    I think you will find with the newer diesels that the performance gap is closing fast. The 0-60 times may be the last to fall but if you look at the larger truck segment the diesels are the perfered way to go. With the new govt regs coming out we will see better performance and better mileage with increased use od diesels.

    I am looking at a large crew cab pickup for towing. The diesels with 300hp 550 ft pound torque are getting almost 21 mpg on the highway. The gas versions, 11-14 mpg. The 0-60 times are better with gas but the diesels dont slow down going up hills and especially when towing so you need to chose the type of performance you want. I dont stop light race anymore, thats why I really dont care if the Montero does 0-60 in 9 vs 10 seconds.
  • dskidski Posts: 414
    Oh yeah, I realize that torque and mileage are superior with the diesel's. I just couldn't live with the draw backs. It's just a personal thing with me. I'll probably never consider one. I'm not being critical of them though. If I wanted a heavy duty pick up it would makes sense except for the purchase price.

  • brillmtbbrillmtb Posts: 543
    One disadvantage is that if you get the fuel on your shoe or hand it does not come off fast like gas and you can get it all over.

    As far as break even point, trailer life stated something like 85K miles. After that the cost rapidly falls in favor of diesel.
  • brillmtbbrillmtb Posts: 543
    Has anyone who has the 3.5L Montero driven the 3.8 to see how much difference there is in power in real life situations, would be interested to know.
  • Hi All,

    Looking for suggestions for replacement tires for our 2002 Limited. We have had the truck for 11 months and have 37K on it. As you can tell from the mileage, it is mainly a pavement princess. We do tow our pop up from Colorado to Glacier park in Montana each summer and various other camping trips but dirt roads are about as much off roading as we do. We do go skiing almost every weekend during the winter, 2-hour drive, so we are looking for good all season tires. But as you can tell by the mileage, we want highway comfort. So with all that said we are considering Cross Terrains and Bridgestone Revos. Any experience with these or others?

    By the way, we have had 0 problems with the vehicle other than one moron twisted off one of the wheel studs during a tire rotation. It was easy to fix and the stud was cheap. I guess I should have expected this relability but after 2 Explorers I am thrilled with the build quality and reliability. A little disappointed with the Geolanders wearing out so quickly but it is a minor thing. We just love the vehicle.

  • dskidski Posts: 414
    37K? Heck, that's nothing! I have 66K on mine. Well, mine is 2 years old so we're on a similar pace.

    I replaced my tires with Bridgestone H/L's. The H/L's are an upgrade to the original Bridgesones that came with the Monti. They did seem to provide a Slightly better highway ride than the originals. They are diffinately wearing better too. One struggle if you want a better highway ride: If you follow the Low Pressure recommendations from Mitsu, you get a better ride. If you go with a higher pressure like 35psi you get a worse ride but much longer tread life.

    I've decided to up the psi. This seems to be the main reason why these are wearing better and those tires aren't cheap.

  • brillmtbbrillmtb Posts: 543
    I am looking at three tires, all A/T's as I need something a little more aggressive, better snow, mud, sand than an H/T can offer.

    1. Bridgestone Dueler Revo
    -advantage, I think, new users rate it high but it has only been out for a short time it seems and I dont know if it would be fair to fully give it #1 when #2, the geolander, has 8x the miles experience based on the raters
    2. Yok Geolander A/T Plus 2
    -rated very well, used to be #1 until the Revo and may still be number one at the Tire Rack rating site since there are too few miles to really give #1 to the Revo in my opinion.
    -advantage that it comes in stock Monte size so you dont have to buy a 5th tire right away as the H/T could be used as a spare.
    -disadvantage, only comes in SL load rating then jumps to 8 ply. A 6 ply is what I am looking for, generally better ride on an SUV of this weight and tougher in the rocks
    3. Toyo Open Country
    - advantage, 6 ply available
    - disadvantages, I cant find it rated by users yet, I think 6 ply may be a 75 series which will change diameter. I dont know if spare could be used with the LSD rear as one tire would be turning at a different speed. Lastly, expensive, $138 vs the Geolander 8 ply 115 and SL under $100.

    If the Geolander A/T came in a 6 ply that would be my choice. I think the 8 ply would be too stiff. I may give up the toughness for the other qualities of this tire and go with the SL load rated tire. I hate to do this because all the off roaders I spoke with stated that SUV like this gain a nice handling improvement with the stiffer sidewall and squared off tread pattern that comes with 6ply tires over SL.
  • dskidski Posts: 414
    Brill... I replaced my H/T's with H/L's. I'm not really sure what the differences are. They did provide a better ride but I'm sure they won't provide the off-road ability your looking for.

  • I'm about to get rid of our Geo Tires at about 37k. They still have some life, but the noise is a bit loud on the highway. I had to get a new spare and looking at TireRack for a better handling and quiter tire, I chose Goodyear Fortera HL. It has a pattern on the side wall and I'm not too happy that I can't fit my Spare cover over it (standard size). Luckly the Monty's spare is a good looking alloy wheel. I'll report later when I buy 3 more Fortera's this spring and transfer one of the Yoko's to the back under the spare cover. Truck is great.
    I broke the rear window washer nossle right off, just cleaning the window at a gas station. Wonder how much that is going to cost me for a little piece of plastic. I feel like James Bond now that if someone is tailgating, I can hit the switch and shoot washer fluid straight back on their car. ha ha, haven't used it yet.
    Tire rack was $20 cheaper than Sam's Club and that was without Sam's charging tax...
  • dmetzgerdmetzger Posts: 160
    Would like to hear from any 2003 owners on what they think about their new ride. Power and fuel economy are my two top concerns. Thanks!
  • dskidski Posts: 414
    Do you use the spare tire in your rotation schedule?

    If not, you could just use one of the exisiting old tires as your spare and fit the cover over that. That option also saves you the expense of a fifth tire. Only problem is that you will not want to drive any distance should if you ever use the spare.

Sign In or Register to comment.