Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to learn more!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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.
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
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.
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...
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).
Bob
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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 ...
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
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
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.
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!
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Steve
Host
Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Trivia -- What did MGA stand for? I don't know the answer.
". . . 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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Where is the concern about this?
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
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"!