Mitsubishi Montero

ragpaoa · July 2001

oac3 ... who's this cat??

standaman1 · July 2001

Hi everybody. I was fortunate to find this site from someone mentioning it at carpoint and read all the messages on this forum. I've been looking into buying a montero from the day I first saw it on a dealer's parking lot. I was shopping for Sport or 3000GT, but fell in love w/the new looks. Came close to getting one in April for $34,500 w/rear air at 4.9%, but despite the dealer's attempts, decided to wait a few, considering the 2002 are not far to come. Figured I'd wait for the price to drop, better financing, or could as well get the new model for about the same price.
With all the noise CR made, I was waiting for dust to settle, and was hoping for the price to take a plunge (not to offend the current owners), but it doesn't seem to happen. I still think it's a safe truck, I realize its limits, I testdrove it, I've read all the reviews and comments I could find.
Checking Mitsu site last night, I discovered they have a new special-0% financing for 3 years, nothing mentioning montero is not included, so I assume it does. One of the local dealers lists it at $33,215 w/rear air, so I figured I could negotiate for $33,500 or less, maybe throw sunroof defector.
My question to you, is to confirm the current deal and if you know more about the pricing, especially in Boston area, I would really appreciate it.
I was told the new model should have illuminated mirrors as well as power passenger seat. Anyone know more about it?
Thanks and sorry for the long post.

pgarrow · July 2001

"oac3" has been pissing people off in the Sequoia discussion group for some time now. Guess he is expanding his turf.

stever · July 2001

Those of you worried about Montero sales tanking may be heartened by this story:

Ford's Reputation May Be Dinged, But Explorer's Sales Still Shine

(I'm sure the rebates help).

Steve
Host
Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards

brillmtb · July 2001

Junior,

Look at the specs on the 2001 Montero and compare it to other midsized SUV's I think it is prety wide and long. Not really a skinny SUV.

Skinny in my book would be the 4 Runner. This is a quality SUV in my mind but many of my friends who own them think it is crazy that CU is trying to fault the Montero in the way they are. They say that the 4 runner could be flipped over relatively easily as well but thats not the point as all SUV's with high ground clearence are going to have very similar issues with roll over.

Whether its at 36, 39, 41 MPH in a hard turn or on hard to soft transitions like might occur in real life there is not going to be a big difference. Even cars flip in real world situations.

oac3 · July 2001

I'd like to clarify my earlier post to you. It was actually in response to one of your excellent posts where you advocated, amongst others, that "...adding stiffer spings and/or increasing the size of the roll bar is all that should be needed..." to avoid a possible roll by the Monte (see post #917). I simply wanted to comment on this specific suggestion of yours whether (a) equiping the Monte with the VSC as on the Toyo trucks would have made any difference to the purported roll-over at 37MPH in the CU test, and (b) if you could have avoided this altogether by buying the Toyo instead of the Monte when you were shopping (I remember your posts on the Seq board back then)... and, of course, (c) a light-hearted jab at you, which I am glad you take in same light-hearted fashion. Thx for being such a good sport about it..

ps: you wrote, "who is oac3? Some say he's from mars, others say he is a toyota dealer, still others believe he is on a quest to prove that the Toyota Sequoia is the only rig worth buying....we will never know!

"

brillmtb: none of the above ! I am just a simple Toyo truck owner and no different from you and everyone else who loves their trucks/cars/vans/etc... but interesting choices though... didn't realise I am that "enigmatic" :-). Of course, pgarrow thinks differently, water off my back...

regala · July 2001

Anyone already installed a trailer hitch on their 2001 Montero? Did you go with the factory or aftermarket?

bryhogan · July 2001

I went with an after-market Draw-Tite hitch. Because they have a specific model for the '01 Montero (including install instructions), it goes in easily. I ordered through the internet and paid about $140 w/shipping. The only thing I haven't done yet is install a wiring harness. (I mostly use the hitch for my bike rack, so this isn't a priority.)

brillmtb · July 2001

I think its important to laugh once and a while, call it laugh therapy.

Back to your point

I dont think the VSC on the Sequoia prevents rollovers. It is a nice system for ice mainly that shifts power to the wheel with traction and can break slipping tires and power down the engine if the tires continue to slip. I know some think it helps with this sort of thing but I think they are incorrect.

Rollover is more a factor of roll center and how soft the suspension is. If it is true the Montero rolls easier then some want then antisway bars would be my first choice and then you would more likely slid the SUV.

The problem is that some true 4wder's disconnet swaybars for better off roading so setting up your suspension is dependent on what you want the SUV to do.

That's why is is silly to be putting all this effort into the CU report.

Any high centered SUV will roll fairly easy. I saw the test and I think many other SUV they didnt test would "fail" the way they define failing.

Personally, I would like a little stiffer swaybars but if that caused too harsh a ride or too much single wheel jounce would revert back to stock.

This SUV rides very nice and what CU is doing is a shame. Many reports talk about the high speed off road capability off the Montero, it has been extensively tested and is probably no more unsafe then your Sequoia (although thats a little bigger class).

brillmtb · July 2001

I went with aftermarket and put on a trailer brake setup with a 7pin connector. I think the factory is 4 pin. Cost overall was still less than factory unless you had the factory job thrown in at purchace time.

regala · July 2001

Thanks for the info. I will be mainly using the hitch for the bike rack but will be towing a jetski trailer soon too. I don't think I will be needing the harness right away but at least I'd like to know how easy is it to install the wiring harness after the hitch is already installed? Hope you guys don't mind going back to the installation manual and check. One more thing, besides the no. of pins, what's the difference between the factory 4-pin connector and the aftermarket 7-pin?

rsholland · July 2001

I'm not sure what all the extra pins are for. I do know at least one of the extra pins pertain to electric trailer brakes.

Bob

drew_ · July 2001

Actually, electronic stability control systems do help to prevent rollovers. There are tests and pictures to back this up. A rollover usually happens as a result of a loss of control, i.e. understeer or more likely oversteer. To exacerbate this, when loss of control happens, the vehicle can clip a curb and that is enough to send it over the edge. A stability control system can not only help to keep the vehicle on its intended line, but also slow it down. The aforementioned reasons are why MB added ESP to the A-class (along with redesigning the chassis and re-tuning the suspension) after that little incident a few years ago. Audi did the same with the TT a couple of years ago, after there were concerns about its high speed handling.

Adding a larger anti-sway bar for the rear will provoke oversteer more easily, BTW. It's not necessarily better.

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

counselor2 · July 2001

After months of suffering low gas mileage (12 city/17 highway), I just returned from a road trip during which I averaged just a shade under 20 mpg with 5 passengers and the truck stuffed to the gills with gear. Maybe it's the warmer weather or the fact that I now have 4200 miles on the truck. Whatever the cause, it's certainly a welcome change -- as is the decrease in gas prices to under $1.80/gal for 87 octane. Anyone else see an increase in their mpg with the warmer weather or more miles on the odometer?

brillmtb · July 2001

I know some of the Sequoia folks have claimed the VSC system can do just about everything but preventing a rollover in the test CU ran, if you saw the footage, it will not.

This was a test where the Montero was abruptly turned. Actually I thought that they generated a little swing out then turn to magnify the effect but that's where the complaints lie.

There was no wheel slipping and throwing the weight so abruptly like that will never be compensated for by mechanisms used to prevent wheel slippage.

While the Sequoia probably does very well on ice this was not something the system would handle, nor should be expected to.

brillmtb · July 2001

7 pin adds wheel brakes and hot lead for charging any battery in your trailer.

On another note I think if we are going to tow anything over 3000lbs I would think carefully. As I learn more about towing I realize that the final weight is not the dry weight of the camper. water, gear and such will add substantially to the weight of the trailer and the combination of shorter wheelbase and no V8 makes me think that anything starting out greater than 3000lb is probably better left to larger trucks.

Just my 2 Cents.

cct1 · July 2001

Ok guys, I'm getting confused here. I thought VSC (Toyota) and ESP (Mercedes) were different concepts...Enlighten me please. I have seen the Mercedes with and without ESP, and from what I saw, it was pretty impressive--it does look like it substantially reduced body lean, and theoretically, rollover risk. VSC I thought was more of a skid control deal, I agree with Brill in that I am not sure how it would help in the CR test (On the other hand, ESP, at least from the Mercedes film footage, looks like it would.). Have at it guys.

toyotatoys · July 2001

I can see that the VSC might help reduce understeer/oversteer, but I don't know by how much. There are probably too many variables.

My complaint about the VSC of my Sequoia is that it seems to be too sensitive. Even relatively small (low) humps (or bumps) annoyingly slows down the vehicle. I assume that's the trade off that I have to take.

I agree with brillmtb that essentially any SUV can be rolled over at 40 mph if one really wants to. But if there's such thing as an objective or reproducible test, I still think these vehicles will roll over at different degrees.

On the gas issue, last Saturday I filled up with regular gas at $1.11 for the first time in a year.

madpapo2002 · July 2001

I have a 2001 4-runner Limited, it's quite nice, comfortable( not as the montero) , it's a capable off road.
BUT: The 4-runner is more dangerous than the montero. the Montero may tip on 2 wheels at 40MPH HARD turn without losing completely control.

I'm planning on selling my 4 runner for 20.000
cause my friend crashed and rolled over last month on his 4-runner at 30Mph.
When the 4-runner is fully charged(5 persons), even at 30, 36 MPH, if you take a sharp turn it will lose control and rollover.

I prefer my Montero, it's more secure and safe
That won't happen in a MONte.

What do you think?

oac3 · July 2001

glad to have started this thread. it sure is a welcome sign if other opinions are welcome, not necessarily those of the Monte owners...

Drew and Brill are right, kinda ! VSC's in whatever names and guises do help "stabilize" a vehicle in many dangerous situations - oversteer/understeer/hard cornering/bad weather....

For more read up on this system, here is a good link:

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/at_010320.htm

According to Toyota's brochure on their VSC installed in their newer trucks, the VSC (in addition to A-TRACS or Traction Control) "... help reduce excessive tire slippage due to sudden steering or a sudden change in road surface..." So Brill's point that this system would be meaningless in the Monte test is debatable, my opinion of course. BUT, if their is a driver-engineered roll-over in the CU test, then no amount of Traction control or skid control can stop a rollover. One can only hope that after all the hue and cry on this issue, the consumer will be better served, with a more improved product form Mitsu...

There has to be a silver lining in this somewhere, I hope ...

drew_ · July 2001

brillmtb: In CR's test, stability control would've first corrected the understeer during the first hard to the left, and then it would've corrected the oversteer (tail coming loose). What it does is clamp down on the wheels that are starting to break free + slow down the vehicle. Granted it cannot defy the physics, but it can sure as heck helps a lot. You have to see and experience it to believe it. Personally, I simply don't buy Mitsubishi's speculation about stability control not being able to help in this situation. Also, stability control incorporates a yaw sensor, a lateral movement sensor, and a steering angle sensor. When the vehicle's line of travel does not correspond with the driver's steering input, the system then steps in. There is no need for wheel slippage for the system to activate (that is traction control, not stability control; traction control is only a component of stability control).

ABC Primetime did a story on this a few months ago where they demonstrated this with this using a stability control system (and outrigger) equipped MB M-class. The professional safety expert and accident reconstructor did a few explanations too, and illustrated how the system helped to prevent a rollover. In fact, they performed the very test that C.R uses. MB has even fitted ESP to tour buses (they did a demo of it, pretty incredible) and demonstrated how it helps.

I was reading Car & Driver yesterday night, and in their test of the Montero, they found that it performed extremely well off-road, but also wrote that the long travel suspension which did so well off-road hampered the on-road performance, resulting in copious amounts of body lean before the progressive rate shocks took over, so to speak.

cct1: I think you're getting confused by Mercedes-Benz's ABC and ESP. MB's ABC (Active Body Control) system has a myraid of sensors located on the body of the vehicle and it can actively firm or soften a shock within milliseconds to counteract body roll. The result is a vehicle that corners nearly completely flat, even in a slalom run. This is good since all of the tires have optimal grip of the road (remember that when it leans, the tire starts losing its contact patch due to weight transfer). ESP is electronic stability programme, and is just another name for stability control. Toyota calls their similar system VSC, meaning Vehicle Stability Control.

FYI, the Lexus RX300 cleared the Consumer Reports slalom at an impressive 50.5mph, with the help of VSC (albeit with a fair amount of body lean due to its soft suspension).

For more information about stability control, please view this excellent video by clicking here.

drew_ · July 2001

Note that both tires on the left side are deflated, possibly indicating that the tires came off the rims when they were overwhelmed in a certain direction by a certain maneuver, and then the vehicle rolled onto its roof with the driver's side first making contact with the ground. Also note the severely bent roof rail section just above the driver's door. More compelling evidence that it rolled in the aforementioned manner. Both external rear view mirrors are missing. The airbags did not deploy in this accident.

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

alpha01 · July 2001

The Lexus did indeed clear CR's "long course" avoidance manuver at 50.5 mph (as good as an Audi AllRoad) but keep in mind that the Montero tipped severely ONLY in CR's "short course" avoidance manuver.
My point: you really shouldnt compare avoidance manuver times(as you implicitly did by bringing up the Lex) to prove your point about stability control being so effective by assuming that the Lexus' impressive time in the long course would mean that the Montero would have possibly done better in the short course. CR doesnt regularly print times for the short course manuver, although if they "design this test specifically for SUVs, pickups, and minivans" I feel they should.

I do agree that VSC/ESP/Stablitrak whatever you call it is a worthwhile, functional safety feature, and is probably one of the reasons that the narrowish 4Runner could post a short course speed of 41.5... quite impressive.

brillmtb · July 2001

I agree that the VSC/A-Trac will help prevent wheel slippage but in a roll over you dont have to have any slippage, just turn the wheel hard. The Toyota system works very well on Ice but there have been critics (4WD Mag I believe) that did not like the off road behavior due to the engine powering down in loose stuff that they want to maintain momentum on. Again, not necessarily bad depending on what you are buying the Sequoia for. People mover, higher towing and some 4wd ability with a good chance of reliability the Sequoia is right up there. Personally I was looking for a more Landcruiser like SUV and the Montero is the closest thing to it and beat it out in Austrailia as 4wd of the year 2001.

Its hard to compare car-like SUV to Full sized truck like suvs so I wont even go there. I think most of us know that my Accura GSR will outhandle the RX300 too but who cares.

If that Montero rolled over was it hit, what were the circumstances (? drunk driver hitting the off ramp at 80 or running on to the soft shoulder?) Either way I stand by the fact that any other SUV in the same circimstance might have rolled so showing pictures is pointless, what does it prove that we dont already know except....boy the Monte sure maintained its structural integrity.

Lastly, I hope people realize that Mitsubishi is a large company that actually is involved in a lot of R/D and sell patents to other automobile companies. They are a very technology focused group and I for one think they do a pretty good job at bringing well built, innovative vehicles to the marketplace.

Drive on!

drew_ · July 2001

You're getting traction control and stability control mixed up. Stability control does not require wheel slippage to activate. It activates once the vehicle is off its intended line. Additionally, there most certain can be wheel slippage in an emergency maneuver. It doesn't have to be very much though, and you can't necessarily see it based on the limited video footage that we've seen of C.R's test.

On some vehicles, like the MB M-class for example, you can turn off the torque reduction feature so that the traction control or stability control doesn't automatically reduce throttle for you. That way, you can get unstuck, or you can maintain your momentum. The Sequoia has a "VSC off" switch. I wonder if those critics tried that? Granted traction control is no match for locking differentials for the hardcore stuff though.

Good luck,

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

cct1 · July 2001

You are absolutely right--that is the report I saw on the Mercedes. I am still not sure VSC would make that much difference with regard to a Montero rollover, but ABC I think would--is there a link for a video of the mercedes with ABC on and off? If so, it would be worthwile to take a look at for anyone who hasn't seen it.

brillmtb · July 2001

I wounder how the VSC is going to sense something is wrong when you turn hard to the right and tip the SUV over do to the abruptness of the turn (no wheels slipping) and with the front wheels pointed in the initial direction as in the CU test.

There doesnt seem to be a steering or wheel spin imput that would tell the truck "your off course".

As far as the off road review, and not to bash the system, I think 4-5 reviewers did not like the system off road. One stated that he wished he had wire cutters.

I still think the system would work very well in snow/ice which covers 99% of current Sequoia users concerns.

Do you have a post or product literature that specifically states the VSC is designed to prevent rollovers? I didnt see that when I researched the Sequoia.

cct1 · July 2001

Anyone with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING else better to do in search of a cheap laugh, check out the lawnmower SUV site on Edmunds....

brillmtb · July 2001

Thank you for adding the links on the upper left pointing to the reviews of the Montero. I hope people will read them. These and many others do support the Montero in its ride quality.

drew_ · July 2001

As I have mentioned several times before, a stability control system also includes a steering wheel angle sensor. That's how it knows when the vehicle isn't following its driver intended line. When the data from the lateral and yaw sensors doesn't match up with the steering angle input. This means that the vehicle isn't going where it's supposed to.

The stability control system could've corrected the understeer before it exacerbated into snap oversteer. The lifting of the wheels could very well have been prevented.

brillmtb · July 2001

May I ask what SUV you drive?

drew_ · July 2001

Sure, I drive a '00 MB M-class :-) That's why I'm familiar with stability control and traction control systems. I have also attended advanced skills driving classes where we performed both a double lane change maneuver (the same short course CR test, as well as the long course test).

You can see the video clips and pictures here if you wish:
http://uk.y42.briefcase.yahoo.com/bc/aling_1/lst?&.dir=/BMWCCBC+videos&.src=bc&.view=l

http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=137587&a=12271823&f=0&sp=0

It's too bad that they don't sell Mitsubishis here in Canada though (not yet anyway).

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

thirdsuv · July 2001

I saw the same ABC primetime that showed the MB with the stability control turned off and on.
I recall that they remarked that only a few SUVs had the equivalent to the MB system. The Sequoia with VSC was one of the few listed. They sure thought it would reduce rolloves.

As for Brills comment ...
"Do you have a post or product literature that specifically states the VSC is designed to prevent rollovers? I didnt see that when I researched the Sequoia. "

I have one question. If you were a lawyer for Toyota (or any other car manufacturer) in these lawsuit-happy days would you let them put in
writing that their car computer "is designed to prevent rollovers?" I think not. As a buyer, you have to be savy enough to read between the lines. I don't know what MB says in their literature, but I'd doubt that it says that it "prevents" rollovers.

thirdsuv · July 2001

Hey Brill, Are you still going to shoot the messenger even though he wasn't riding the horse you though he was? LMAO some more!

drew_ · July 2001

The ABC Primetime report that you saw, which had the Mercedes SUV, was discussing Electronic stability control, not Active Body Control, which is something else completely different. As I mentioned, MB and Audi call their system ESP (Electronic Stability Control), Toyota calls it VSC (Vehicle Stability Control). Basically they are all similar (with only minor differences) systems which are designed to accomplish the same things. It's the marketing folks that name it differently. Honda/Acura's is VSA (Vehicle Stability Assist), Volvo's/BMW's is DSC (Dynamic Stability Control), and Subaru's is VDC (Vehicle Dynamics Control).

stever · July 2001

Mitsubishi to drop name from vehicles

Steve
Host
Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards

cct1 · July 2001

Interesting article. Mitsubishi is going to drop the name from its vehicles to increase brand awareness....Wow, great logic on THAT one..

phonos · July 2001

Anybody remember when their TV's used to carry the MGA nameplate? They had a commercial where a guy asked "What's an M-GA?" As I recall, that's when they decided to use the full Mitsubishi name.

Trivia -- What did MGA stand for? I don't know the answer.

phonos · July 2001

Just got an e-mail about ARB Sahara line of bumpers from Overlander Outfitters website:

". . . Sahara bumpers provide the advantages of a winch bumper but with a
totally new look that blends in with the smooth lines of contemporary SUVs.
The Sahara can be installed with or without a winch . . . "

"Sahara Bumpers in development:

2001 Nissan Pathfinder
2001 Mitsubishi Montero"

Glad to see "real" heavy duty off-road (as opposed to "posuer") aftermarket stuff is becoming available.

2001 Montero stuff at:

http://www.overlander.com/pages_vehindex/montero01.tpl?cart=30775861822769489

standaman1 · July 2001

Drew the article mentions Montero Sport and says nothing about Montero. I don't think they have plans to majorly redesign it yet.

raddunn · July 2001

I have read this board religiously since the CU report. I have a 2001 Monte we purchased for the arrival of our first son. Needless to say we were devastated with the CU report. Here is my concern. I received the video from Mitsu, which bashed the CU test. They say CU forced the rollover by comparing to a slalom run for a skier and keeping the straightest line possible. My take is the Monte had exceeded its handling limits, which is why it went out of line and rolled. At some point every vehicle exceeds it limit. Mitsu also shows their version of the maneuver, but they don't say how fast they were going? Hmm and by the way in their video the rt front still appears to lift a little.

The other issue they state is that CU had to try 16 times to finally get it to roll. Actually in the CU test they drive the truck through at progressively higher speeds to push it to the handling limit, which causes the roll. Monte did not roll in the first 8 or so runs at lower speeds, but when it hit its limit at the 37 or 39 depending on which run (white or red), it rolled 8 out of 9 times. This is misleading and causes me lots of concern that Mitsu will not address this issue and is pulling a firestone by waiting for people to die before they address.

Since I have a new baby boy I am weighing the %'s for his safety. The CU deal says the Monte is a bad bet if 3 Suv's out of 110+ have received unacceptable ratings. By the way, lets not lose sight that 5 of 6 other mid-sized SUV's passed the test. What I don't know and would like to, is at what speed did those vehicles hit their handling limit and roll.

The key question is what to do now? Do I sell now at the peak of negative pub? Probably not, unless I want to take the $27k my dealer offered me to get out. Do I wait a few months for the dust to settle and either sell it or see if Mitsu does a recall? If I do sell, what is a safer alternative for a guy who wants a good sized SUV? Is it a new Tahoe or used Navigator as I want to say around the same $32-$35 price point.

I am anxious to hear response.

drew_ · July 2001

Thanks standaman. I obviously skipped past the first Sport in the "Montero Sport sport utility vehicle" sentence.

raddunn: Interesting points. In Consumer Reports latest issue, they also commented on Mitsubishi's press release and video footage and noted the fact that the Carr Engineering tests do not show the vehicle's behaviour when exceeding its handling limits. They also noted that based on their own video footage, Mitsubishi's animated re-creations of the C.R test was false.

Here is the entire report for those that are interested:
http://www.consumerreports.org/static/0107mit3.html

http://www.consumerreports.org/static/0107mit2.html

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

cct1 · July 2001

I personally am going to hang on to my Monte. It was number one in the crash tests; I think it probably is more prone to rollover than the other SUVs in its class, but many more people are killed in accidents rather than rollovers. And I seriously doubt that I will be in a position to rollover. I drive the speed limits in my neighborhood (25-30 MPH); at that speed I should safely be able to perform avoidance maneuvers. At highway speed, darn near anything would tip with THAT avoidance maneuver. Bottom line: drive an SUV like a truck, not a car--that's what it is.

Also, the CR report has to be taken as a part of the whole--not the whole in and of itself (Look at the NHTSA's feelings with regard to the CR response, for example). As with anything, I use CR to ADD to my decision making, but I would never make any decision soley on a CR report (Yes, I do subscribe). CR has had its share of problems in the past as well, and their ratings aren't alway accurate (there is a web site specifically dedicated to this called consumer distorts).

I am not entirely thrilled with Mistu's response either. Mitsu is not going to recall it--don't even bother waiting for that. I personally would not sell for at least six months; let the dust settle some. 27,000 at this point is a joke--that's why your dealer offered it to you--he's in it to make money, and I am sure he will at that price.

99trooper · July 2001

To Raddun...kidding..:) I drive a 99 Trooper Ltd and was thinking about trading for a 2001 Monty, but I tell you what...I'm really thinking twice about that now. Disregarding the resale value issues, that video at Consumer Reports is PRETTY scary...what I gleaned from reading their commentary was that most of the other SUV's, when THEY reached their handling limit, skidded instead of tipped...perhaps if we just put crappy tires on the Monty it will just slide instead of gripping and tipping..:) I would say that based on that video I'm now looking at the Isuzu Axiom. I still love the Montero, but I'm going to wait and see what else comes of this whole mess. By the way I did watch Mitsubishi's videos as well, but the image of that Montero in the Consumer Reports testing VIOLENTLY tipping onto the outriggers is hard to get out of my mind..

brillmtb · July 2001

RIGHT ON! Agree with you. Can we all get past this now.

ALL SUV'S WILL ROLL AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS!

As for normal everyday driving the Montero suspension is wonderful and I'm not so sure anything hasty needs to be done.

Personally, I think that increasing the swaybar size and/or adding polyurethane bushings would be all thats needed. This would take out 90% of any "excess roll" and would force more of a sliding then rolling (having enjoyed modifing suspensions for handling for years). Adding stiffer spings should only be done for extreme racing or load carrying or it will compromise ride quality and make the SUV ride like a 3/4 ton truck.

I dont think there is a big design flaw here. There may have been a decision in going to independent suspension (which is better overall) that traded some antiroll properties but all off road accounts rate the Montero very high and it is in these situations where you are usually worried about rolling over.

So, if you want to handle better at the expense of a little ride quality increase the swaybar size/stiffness and add urethane bushings if need be but dont get all worked up as if there is some big problem here.

brillmtb · July 2001

Ageed that society is too quick to sue. Just look at this report here and you will find a generalized over reaction to a single report. It could be the beginning of something but the reaction that some are having to this report seems to be out of context given the numerous other short and long term tests of the Montero which are generally very good. Also, it is interesting that some are feeling biased to Mitsubishi's response to the claims.

As for whether stating that the VSC or any other system is capable of preventing roll overs I would think that if the design was intended to reduce accidents in some way that they could prove they would at least say something to the effect that this system "can reduce the chance of..." but that "this is no substitute for safe driving". etc. etc.

brillmtb · July 2001

Remember guys and gals some of the SUV's supposedly couldnt even make it back in through the cones, ie. they went head on into the approaching traffic.

Where is the concern about this?

brillmtb · July 2001

I looked at the MB. It sure drove nice in the sense of a car like feel. I'm sure it probably handles real nice at higher speeds than the Montero could handle on road. I think the BMW might be the only thing in front of you, the rest of use will most likely be in your rear view mirror

drew_ · July 2001

"As for whether stating that the VSC or any other system is capable of preventing roll overs I would think that if the design was intended to reduce accidents in some way that they could prove they would at least say something to the effect that this system "can reduce the chance of..." but that "this is no substitute for safe driving". etc. etc."

I agree completely with this! As the manufacturers state, while the system can significantly help to correct skids before they occur, they cannot defy the laws of gravity so please drive carefully.

On another note, I have added a link the the '01 Montero's IIHS 40 mph crash test report on the left hand column additional resources box for easy reference to newbies. For those of you who haven't seen it yet, or haven tried out the additional resources box, please feel free to do so.

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/00022.htm

Actually, the Montero and M-class have more similarities than their intials :-). Both have 4 wheel independent systems and the ability to have permanent 4WD. While the M-class will do better in on-road situations, the Montero will definitely outrun the M-class on a medium duty off-road trail. No question about that...that's also where the long travel suspension will shine.

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

claybuster · July 2001

raddunn,

I feel exactly like you do. I purchased my 2001 Montero in late Feb. this year after a lot of research. I don't feel Mitsubishi is really trying to solve the problem like MB did for their SUV when a problem was found. From talking to different dealers and service shops (several), I feel that Mitsubishi would rather stone wall, feed us BS and keep in the dark than working to see what is causing the problem. That is my very strong feeling True or Not! It is my perception! The dealers are all sing the same song, no problem with the Monte, CR is out to get Mitsubishi. Why would CR lie? So they can get sued and go to court? I saw the CR videos. These tests are too repeatable (2 different Monteros and three drivers) not to be a real problem under the smoke. The few Monte roll overs reported by is probably due to fewer Monte's on the road and maybe Monte drivers are more conservative drivers with their new rigs.

I was in VA last week and the dealers were offering 0% financing for 36 months and 1.9% for 48 months. Is that financing all over the country? Since they will not fix the problem. It would be a nice good will gesture to allow us to refinance at the lower rate to help offset the loss in re-sale value of the Monteros.

The Montero will be my last Mitsubishi product. I just don't like the way the roll over problem is being handled, I feel we are being lied to and do not trust Mitsubishi, it won't be their first or last "Cover Up"!

Mitsubishi Montero

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles