Mitsubishi Montero

phonos · June 2001

They have to make statements like this since it wasn't tested. But it makes as much since as stating the first one tested was red, the second silver. As if color would make a difference?

What I cannot understand is how Mitsubishi would even market this vehicle in this country, knowing that CU might perform this test. Something doesn't seem right here. The test has been around for a long time, and is not expensive to set up.

The 2001 Montero design was marketed in other parts of the world as the 2000 Pajero beginning in 1999.

Are management and engineers at Mitsubishi damn stupid or just stupid?

--
-PHOnos; White/Silver Limited w/Rear A/C; July 2000 build date; $34,500 + TTL in August, 2000 (no extras included); zero down, 4.8% for 48 months; Orange County, CA.; 18,000 miles, slight squeak from rear brakes when dry/hot, probably glaze on rotors/disks.

shane2 · June 2001

Maybe Mitsubishi should install those safety outriggers in the CR test as standard equipment.

counselor2 · June 2001

Let's hold off on judging until we see how Mitsu responds. Our trucks are the same vehicles that they were before the article was released today, and judging from the fact that I did not see anyone post their concerns about stability before today, I think that we can continue to have just as much confidence in the trucks for the time being.

I agree with rs rogers that the way you drive your Monte (or any other SUV) is a key to how safe it is stability-wise. And these trucks have been around as the Pajero for a few years. Also, 28,000+ have been sold in the U.S. over the past year, and neither NHTSA nor Mitsu has reportedly received any complaints about roll-overs in them. I, for one, plan to slow down even more and pay more attention to my driving, but the CR article does not affect my confidence in my truck. I am, however, very concerned about resale value, or even my ability to trade the truck in if and when that time comes.

I agree, though, that Mitsu needs to do something and do it fast. Whether it is some type of "fix" to the suspension a la the Mercedes A car, proving the safety of the Monte in terms of its stability, or whatever, they can't just sit on the sidelines and criticize CR. I am afraid, though, that the damage has been done on the resale value, and that, short of a physical "fix," nothing is going to help the resale value.

phonos · June 2001

"There's a bigger picture here.

By sensationalising the failure of a truck to handle like a car, CR is helping drive the vehicle manufacturers to produce more car-like trucks.

The biggest misconception is that of the driver who fails to recognise the inherent difference in handling between a car and a truck.

The manufacturer sells what the public wants. If that's a roll-over proof truck, then we're going to see trucks with car-like suspensions and car-like handling. That's not a truck anymore.

Maybe trucks should be like motorcycles, and require a different driver's licence rating and training.

CR is being irresponsible. But they got the press hit that they wanted.

And for the rest of us outside the law-suit crazed USA, we're stuck driving whatever survives litigation, rather than good engineering."

cberes · June 2001

the video of the Mitsu's performance in CR's test is NOT very pretty-- take a look.

sergio6 · June 2001

There are two issues here:
1. SUV handle differently than cars. We all know it and accepted it as part of our decision process.
2. The Montero handles worse that its peers. This is the news and we the owners didn't know about it when we made our decision.
This is the problem and I don't think CR is being irresponsible. They are not comparing the Montero to a sedan. They are properly comparing the Montero to other trucks, all of which are more unstable than a car but also all of which passed the same tests.

phonos · June 2001

"What the report fails to mention is the speed at which the other vehicles tipped or lost control. And, if the test was so damn scientific and controlled, why did the "silver" Montero not tip until it was going over 2mph faster than the other Montero?

. . . There is an adgenda here, allright. CR does not like SUV's because they are not "politically correct" with them. They are too big, pollute, waste fuel, and destroy the off road wilderness. They would not like me. I'm a conservative, talk on my cell phone while driving and display an NRA membership sticker on my vehicles."

phonos · June 2001

after a through investigation because it was better engineered than the VHS system.

--
New signature:

FOR SALE: White/Silver Limited w/Rear A/C; July 2000 build date; $34,500 + TTL in August, 2000 (no extras included); zero down, 4.8% for 48 months; Orange County, CA.; 18,000 miles, slight squeak from rear brakes when dry/hot, probably glaze on rotors/disks. Willing to negotiate on price (big discount probably available).

Contact: PHOnos

cct1 · June 2001

This is a major bummer. The resale value issue is bad enough, but what about avoidance maneuvering on the highway or at speeds above 40 mph--that's what scares me. I think everyone who participates in this forum recognizes the capabilities and limitations of the Monte, and I don't think the average Montero owner is the person out there driving their suv at 100 mph, weaving in and out of traffic (although I have to admit I drive while talking on my cellphone too, phonos). What I am concerned about is the potential for roll over for someone who is driving responsibly, and makes an avoidance maneuver.

I LOVE my Montero, and am in no hurry to get rid of it. It's the same vehicle I bought in August; I have always cornered at low speeds anyway--its a common sense thing. But I wouldn't blame anyone for not purchasing it at this time--I probably wouldn't either. Hopefully Mitsu will give info that this is overblown (which unfortunately I think is doubtful) or come up with a way to reduce the risk of rollover. I noticed a post above about the Mercedes--that won't work on the Montero--there is no way that you can have ESP engineered into a vehicle AFTER production, at least to my knowledge.

Again, this is all preliminary, but it doesn't look good from my perspective. Here's hoping that it all works out in Mitsu's favor....

cct1 · June 2001

You might try selling your betamax instead--the way the message board is lighting up, at this point you'd probably get more for it...lol..

karno1 · June 2001

WROoooong!!

ML was reported to have unsafe ratings too in regards to their high ground clearance level, which in result caused the vehicle to roll on top of other cars fenders/bumpers/hoods while involved in a collision.

phonos · June 2001

Circa 1970-74.

Got a Marantz 4270 receiver with CD-4 and SQ matrix decoder, BIC 970 turntable, cartrige with Shebata stylus and lots of 33-1/3 4-channel albums that are probably worth more too.

I can't believe it. Everything I touch turns to s**t.

dmac8 · June 2001

I have a 95 Toyota LC, and for some time, have wanted to get the current model, and have also considered the Monte.

In the last 12 months, I've driven my car and truck on several round trips from LA to Chicago. At this point, I vastly prefer my car for the journey.

Truck is great off road or for towing, things I rarely do.

On the long highway ride from LA to Chicago, the highway twists and turns in several places. My car, and probably any car for that matter, is much less stressful. I've experienced quick lane changes in my truck, and they are scary.

If the Monte is worse than the LC, or any other SUV in this respect, it is only incremental.

In going to an all independent suspension with the Explorer, I think Ford is implicitly acknowledging the roll over danger of these vehicles. Their problems with roll overs are not, imho, attributable solely to Firestone tires. Car and Driver did an excellent test with an older Explorer where they blew out the tires at various speeds, up to 80mph, and the thing tracked straight.

Most likely, when a Firestone blew in one of these Explorers, the panicked driver yanked the steering wheel and the truck flipped. This is a key point, as it relates to the Monte and every other SUV.

Lets say the Monte is the worst. So what? Compared to any car, from a pure manouverability standpoint, all SUV's are dangerous!

So instead of buying a new SUV, I'm going to stick with the old one and try to gravitate towards the sort of use it was designed for.

My only enthusiasm for it, at present, is that in this urban jungle, it affords me a good view of the road, and some protection if I collide with one of the many others on the road.

As another poster said, the Monte is the same truck today, as yesterday. I would think about holding on to it for a long time and getting or keeping a car.

Also, Mitsubishi will likely come to their senses and try to act quickly to calm owners nerves.

jmatero · June 2001

My brother warned me about this 6 months ago when he got his. His wife was driving with him riding in the pass. seat. After leaving my Dad's place they were driving around 40 tops when a Buck and a fawn jumped in front of them. He told me he felt the car slam down again and it rattled his nerves because his old '91 jeep cherokee had been through harder handling that that and was planted on the ground. One thing to keep in mind here is that other popular SUVs were also tested like the Pathfinder and the 2002 Ford explorer. The complete videos were shown on tonights NBC news and they were tossed around just as hard with no lift at all. Apparently, after the initial test, CU tried again with a different driver and the results were the same. Then, they hired an independent driver and again the results were the same. The even went out of their way to order another Limited model and invited Mitsu. reps to the track. Again, all 3 runs produced the same result. Mitsubishi reviewed the CU footage and said that based on the "tire marks" on the pavement, the Mitsubishi was obviously tossed harder than the others. But CU showed the tire marks were from the Nissan Pathfinder (had video to verify this) and that the Montero was actually turned LESS abruptly and Mitsu changed their comments to indicate the "test was flawed" and that the results are "incorrect". I mean, it's not like this is some kind of witch hunt here... the other SUVs tested did just fine. I called my brother tonight and he's keeping his (3 year lease) but he wasn't shocked at all and he sure wouldn't recommend the Montero to friends/family.

jaynedough123 · June 2001

I bought a Montero Sport. I wonder if the Sport has the same problems, I would think the sport would be even more likely to tip over seeing that its not was wide but pretty much just as tall. I definitely don't feel as safe in the Monte that I did in my GMC Jimmy(a vehicle I hated with passion.) The Monte just feels flimsier and lighter. I do speed on the freeway -75-80 mph and I can feel the speed a whole lot more on my new Monte than I did in my Jimmy, even when it was 3 yrs old.

rberard · June 2001

Don't feel bad phonos. We just spent a bundle
replacing our "synthetic stucco" because of moisture problems. Now I learn that my new vehicle could be a hazard to my health. Next time I want to make a big investment, I better let someone else make the decisions. It seems that CR conducted a fair test, and Misubishi failed. Is there any way data could be collected to see how many actual roll over accidents involving the
Montero have occured? This vehicle has not been on the road that long. There doesn't seem to be many Monteros around here either. The percentage
of problems compared to other vehicles should be studied. I for one would rather learn of this hazard from CR than from personal experience.

claybuster · June 2001

Hot Topic!

<http://dailynews.yahoo.com/htx/ap/20010620/bs/consumer_reports_Montero_2.html>

I have not seen the video yet so it's hard to believe that the Monte is that much worse than other similar SUVs (real ones with low range 4WD and good ground clearance. But to me it's all a matter of "Center of Gravity", Track Width" and "Wheel Base",and Physics 101. I have got to think that all the SUVs with similar ground clearance and same or less track width and wheelbase have the same or worse problem. That covers a lot of SUVs, most of the older models for sure. Comparison of the specification on the wheelbases of the SUVs in the tests would be interesting. Anybody looked the different "Track Width" and "Wheel Bases" on the other SUVs in the test?

aprilanddoug · June 2001

Hi Folks,
My wife and I were planned this morning to buy an XLS but in light of today's report, are hesitant. Does anyone hear know the real difference between the XLS and the Limited? The only thing I can think of is that the limited weighs 100 lbs more and the options package, full time 4WD and the rear-slip differential. I know CR only tested the Limited but it seems the same might as well apply to the XLS. I don't see either the rear slip or the full time 4WD causing a problem with handling. We love the XLS and the test drive today seemed fine- I took the truck up to 25 MPH and made a couple of hard turns ( I think I alarmed the dealer a little!- she was not aware of the problems...), no problem I could feel. Any input would be great. Thanks

counselor2 · June 2001

The real issue here is how the Monte performs in the real world. I see that the anecdotes about the Monte's predisposition to tip in real-world situations are starting to come out of the woodwork. Now, I note that there are something like 760+ posts on this forum. I have been following it since last November, and maybe I missed it, but I don't ever recall seeing anyone post anything about problems with stability. Where have all these people been since last year when the Monte hit the market? And why are they only coming forward now with their Monday-morning quarterback, "I knew it all along" comments? The value of forums like these is to raise concerns or issues when you know of them (if, in fact, you really do), rather than waiting around.

Okay, as for data about Monte safety, rberard asks above whether data can be gathered to see how many roll-overs there have been of 2001 Montes. The answer is that there are several possible sources. NHTSA maintains two general databases that that track injuries: the FARS database, which records fatal injuries; and the NASS database, which records all injuries. Neither has data so recent, though, that it would reflect injuries in 2001 Montes, which have only been on the road (in the U.S., at least) for little more than a year. Auto manufacturers also generally keep their own statistics on the field performance of their vehicles, so that when there is an accident with injuries, they will know about it. But that is proprietary information that they are unlikely to share unless requested by NHTSA or ordered by a court to do so. Here, Mitsu says they have not been informed of any 2001 Monte Limited roll-overs, and Consumer Reports also says that they are not aware of any. Is that true? Your guess is as good as mine, but you can rest assured that the lawsuits will be filed within the next few days and Mitsu's knowledge about roll-overs and any resulting injuries or deaths will be item Number One on the list of information that will be sought.

Other information that might be pertinent to Monte safety can be found on NHTSA's website. Go there and do a search for the 2001 Montero. You will find some technical service bulletins that are interesting (e.g., power steering, which is well-documented above). The only injuries in an accident involving a Monte that I could find on NHTSA's website are from a guy who says that his 2001 Monte collided at 50 mph with another car doing 50 mph, and his airbags didn't deploy. The entry lists 3 injuries, but doesn't say how severe they were. From the guy's comments, he was mostly ticked off because his truck was heavily damaged. Now, a head-on collision between 2 cars doing 50 mph is a very, very severe accident. The fact that there were no deaths in the accident is, to me, reasuring.

You can also go to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's website (www.hwysafety.org) and check their testing of the 2001 Monte Ltd. in their 40 mph offset barrier tests. Again, a 40 mph delta-V is a big, big hit. The Monte rated "Acceptable" (second best rating out of four -- "Good," "Acceptable," "Marginal," "Poor"). Note that the airbags did deploy, and the main concern of the IIHS was that the steering wheel moved up too far and the dummy's head contacted the wheel. Still, the HIC values ("Head Injury Criteria") were not too high. Again, pretty reassuring, especially considering that frontal impacts are the most prevalent type of collisions. If anything, the IIHS testing just confirms that you should move your seat as far back from the wheel as you can and still maintain good control of the vehicle, which is something that is recommended anyway in all vehicles with airbags.

NHTSA has not yet issued its "star rating" on the 2001 Monte for its likelihood to roll-over, but given the formula that NHTSA uses, Mitsu has calculated that it will earn a three-star rating, which is better than many other SUVs.

Am I trying to reassure myself that I and my family (wife and 3 kids) are safe the truck? Perhaps. But after reading all the CR stuff and seeing the videos, I took my truck for a drive. I still love it. Drive it cautiously, at moderate speeds, and maintain a greater following distance than you otherwise would. In other words, drive it like what it is -- a truck. I, personally, will also heed CR's recommendation not to put any cargo on the roof; I was all set to get a Yakima box to go up top, but I think that I will look into hitch-mounted cargo carriers now. If this whole CR flap makes us drive our trucks more cautiously, so much the better. Let's just keep it in perspective and not panic.

karno1 · June 2001

I agree 101% with Counselor2!
I did all my possible research when purchasing this vehicle. One of which consisted of following this post very closely. Never did I see anyone mention anything about flipping over. I'm utterly shocked to see how many avid owners of this vehicle now agree w/ this CR report. What a sell out! I for one, will continue being an avid fan. If this truck can handle being the CHAMPION of the Paris Dakar Rally w/o flipping over, then it can surely handle any of our US roads. Don't forget, this truck was out a year before all over the world and there were no reports of it flipping over.

By the way, after they tested the Monte, they tested the JGC, and it didn't look as if it was going as fast......hmmmmmmm.

Note: no true vehicle is ever safe!
Thus, Mitsu did heed warnings on their trucks located on the visors (if you haven't noticed) that there are chances of flipping over while making turns at HIGH speeds. Lets just drive with caution guys.....

sr_body · June 2001

Isn't the one they used in the Paris-Dakar Rally a shorter wheelbased, 2-door, Euro/Japanese-spec model?

s852 · June 2001

It may not be likely that you will need to make the manuever that causes the Montero to roll over, just as it is not likely that you will ever run into a brick wall at exactly 40MPH the way that crash tests are done.
The tests only tell you how the vehicle is likely to perform in that situation.
The test shows that is even more likely to roll over than other SUVs, but it is still more likely that it will not rollover than that it will during your term of ownership. If people in the real world have, so far, been able to avoid making that abrupt lane change in their Montero's over the last year, statistics are not going to show any roll overs.

karno1 · June 2001

I just couldn't get this out of my mind. Therefore I taped the report, and reviewed it thuroughly.

1. What I could make of it, the Monty tipped up at 39.4 mi. the next vehicle they tested, was going at the rate of 38.4.....making a total of 1 mile off.....hmmmmmmm. I know its just one mile, yet it can make a difference i'm sure. Why weren't they tested at the same exact speeds?

2. I definitely noticed, the Monty was driven MUCH HARDER. The test run is done on an "S" shaped run (making a total of 2 curved turns). On the 2nd turn, it is obviously shown that the Monty was turned much more harder than the second vehicle was on the same test. The 2nd vehicle just ends up going straight after the 2nd turn, whereas the Monty is turned completely, thus obviously it'll tip over........hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

If anyone agrees, or has studied the video report, do let me know. It really does show a difference btwn the 2 tests

cct1 · June 2001

The Pajero is not comparable to the Monte w/r to rollover--different wheelbase, weight, length and width, so with regard to rollover, you can't compare the Monte with the Pajero.

I'm not sure I see anyone "selling out" on the forum--I personally just see alot of justifiable concern. The jury is still out on all of this, but looking at the video and reading consumer report's fairly detailed accounts of the tests, it is disheartening (or at the very least concerning). Mitsubishi's reply (this can also be found in the consumer report's article) was pretty much pathetic.

Do I like my Monte? Absolutely. I am hoping more info will come to light to refute the CR data, but I'm not holding my breath. I hope that NHTSA's testing of the Monte (the Monte has not yet been tested by NHTSA and they use a different set of criteria--I hope they test it soon) supports the safety of the vehicle. If, however, it confirms CR's data, then I would hope Mitsubishi would fix the problem, although I seriously doubt they will, judging from their intitial response.

I sense the forum is becoming divided into two camps--one side that is concerned and ticked off about this this; the other side minimizes the issue with questions the validity of the tests and their applicability to everyday driving, and contends that SUV's in general are more prone to rollover. Both sides have reasonable arguments, but PLEASE let's try to keep this thing civil (if anyone wants to get nasty, that's what the Seqouia forums are for). I have a sneaky suspicion a few non-Monte owners will really try to stir this up more than it already is--may I humbly suggest we ignore inflammatory posts, and try to rationally discuss this and respect each other's opinions (unless it varies with my own, in which case its ok to belittle the poster unmercifully--just kidding).

One bright spot--when I drove home from work today, all the traffic in both directions, fearing an inevitable rollover of my vehicle, stopped and pulled over to the shoulder. This siginificantly decreased my commute by several minutes.

Brill, are you out there? What do you think about all this?

kahkgozinya · June 2001

You are correct.

Also, the "Mitsubishi" Pajero that won the Paris-Dakar Rally had a custom powertrain built from the parts bin of it's older stepbrother - DaimlerChrysler.

*5.9L 240hp Magnum V8 (found in all Dodge trucks/98 Jeep Grand Cherokee)

*NV242 transfer case FT/PT/2WD (all Dodge trucks & Jeep vehicles)

*Chrysler 9.25 LSD SOLID rear axle (all Dodge trucks)

*Dana 35 SOLID front axle (Jeep Grand Cherokee)

They originally wanted to install the QuadraDrive & QuadraTrac systems along with the VariLock axles (all from the Jeep Grand Cherokee), but declined due to persistent failures on production Grand Cherokees.

The suspension components were obviously custom made. A whopping 12" of wheel travel!

The coolest thing was the near-stock looking, bead-locked wheels.

I like the Montero. The rental I had a year ago was AWESOME! I would've bought one two years ago if it came with a boat-pulling V8. Maybe prices will come down due to the CR flap and I could afford to buy one and have enough money left over to buy a supercharger...

jmatero · June 2001

I only saw the videos of the Mitsubishi, the Explorer and the Pathfinder, but I can tell you it didn't look like the mitsu. was driven any harder than the others. In fact, the pathfinder was driven a little harder and left tire marks on the track outside the area that the explorer and mitsu were tested. To the best of my knowledge, CU has only "failed" 3 models: the samuri, trooper and now montero. That said, the comments of "they are out to destroy SUVs" and "it's a scam" are without merrit. Also, of the zillions of cars/trucks/suvs tested on that track, only THREE have ever flipped over. Now, you can call the test flawed all you want.... you can say CU is "out to get mitsubishi" all day... but the fact of the matter is that every other car/truck/suv (sans the trooper and suzuki) kept all 4 wheels on the ground. CU tested the First Montero 4 times... the first at low speed and the driver stopped and the "roll over protect. bars" were installed because it seemed unstable. You'll notice the Pathfinder and Explorer videos didn't even have the roll-bars. The next two tests were done by 2 different CU drivers and the Montero tipped. They then hired an indep. driver and it flipped. Then, before coming forward with the results, CU purchased a SECOND Montero and tested it numerous times and each time it Tipped. Now, I'm no engineer, but I HAVE cut the wheel in my vehicles to avoid deer, children, "stuff" in the road and other objects and I can tell you that if 99.999999999 percent of the SUVs out there DIDN'T tip in a CU test and the Mitsubishi and Isuzu DID... that's enough for me.

As for comparison with the Sport, the Sport is shorter in length, but is closer to the ground and not as tall.

rs_rogers · June 2001

If CR, or anyone else for that matter, wanted to objectively and comaritively test several vehicles for their stabilty, wouldn't you test vehicles with the same tract, length, ground clearance, calculated COG, tires, and run them at the exact same speed? And in the best situation, the vehicles would be driven exactly the same by a computer via remote control. CR did none of that. Looks like CR was comparing apples to oranges and calling that science.

CR wants Mitsu to recall the new Monty and "fix the problem". Did CR even suggest what exactly the problem was? Uhhh, "it wanted to rollover?".

CR's adgenda here is to arm twist the goverment into immediately establishing roll-over ratings for vehicles. CR needed to show-out and grandstand to get attention. Objective science was not a priority here. This "rollover rating" will of course show that SUV's are in fact inheirently more rollover prone - and, therefore they must be unsafe. Hence "we need to do something about all these unsafe SUV's on the road". The proposed legislation has probably already been written that will regulate SUV's. You can bet on it.

counselor2 · June 2001

cct1, I don't know that there are two emerging "camps" on the CR issue. I certainly am startled by the CR tests, and it does give me some concern. Watching those videos evokes some very visceral reactions in all, which are understandable. I am also confident that all here will keep the discussion civil and refrain from flaming each other.

Again, though, I think that the focus should be on the overall safety of the 2001 Monte, and by all counts (save the CR report), it is a very safe vehicle. It is true that NHTSA has yet to conduct any dynamic tests of the 2001 Monte, but note that the ONLY dynamic crash-testing that NHTSA conducts is through its NCAP ("New Car Assessment Program") testing, which consists of performing a full-frontal (as opposed to offset, like IIHS) fixed-barrier crash-test at 30 mph. This is a much less severe impact than the IIHS test, so vehicles that perform acceptably in the 40 mph frontal off-set generally do very well in the NHTSA NCAP test. I would expect the Monte to get a four or five-star rating from NHTSA if and when it is tested.

Also, the truck has been subjected to long-term on- and off-road testing by all major consumer publications and car magazines, and every one that I have read gave it very positive reviews. Sure, it only pulls .65 g on the skidpad, and all testers noted more pronounced body lean in cornering at speed, but everyone agrees that it is a superlative off-road performer, which is, of course, its intended use.

I do not mean to "minimize" any concerns that anyone has about the CR tests. If, in fact, there is a "fix" that could be made that would permit the Monte to pass the CR test, I would love it if Mitsu would recall the truck and make it (as much for resale value as anything). I just urge all to keep their heads about it, consider the overall safety of the truck (superior brakes, airbags all around, no roll-overs or deaths yet reported, good crash-test performance), and slow down.

Finally, this forum has been a very objective place for people to exchange information on the Monte, both good and bad. As a result of some of the detective work that has been posted here, we all know much more about potential problems, e.g., the power steering pump. If anyone has any concerns about the truck, please bring them to the attention of all. As for anyone who is considering purchasing a Monte, I am confident that they will now be able to cut one heck of a deal.

solid101 · June 2001

Think back, during the Suzuki Samurai era, is the Samurai the only that suffers from tip over design? NO! But why did CR only mention them? HUH? Now out of the blue, the Montero, while the whole market is watching the Ford-Firestone drama, why not the Ford expedition or Lincoin Navigator? Those are cars that's clearly suffers from tip over design, because it's in different class? I don't think so, for decades, CR has it's own political agenda, and it's not always in the public's interest, if they really got guts, they would have challenge the big three long time ago, but did they? No! It seems the CR's been saving the big three's butts more than once, only now Chrysler is more desert able than others since it's run by the German, for years, I been waiting for someone to stand up and speak out about the poor quality control of Mercedes-Benz, but is CR the one to depend on? No, since they are now the employeer of thousands of UAW workers, CR is not going to challenge them until the right time arrives,(that is... when Chrysler is ready to be spin-off MB control again), According to CR, all REAL-Ameriacn should also purchasing GE and RCA
home electronic produts instead of any other imported brands, too bad
they are unable to stop the current on this one. If we elect the president of CR to become the president of the United States, then
GE-Honeylwell deal will not get rejected by EU at all, since CR knows the game better than President Bush does.

rsholland · June 2001

that SUV manufacturers, before releasing them to the public here in the USA, would try to duplicate CR's test procedures on their own. They know, at some point CR is going to test their vehicle. If Mitsu had put the Montero through the CR test ahead of time, they could perhaps have avoided this whole controversy in the first place.

Bob

dmac8 · June 2001

At a minimum, I'd wait several days, maybe a week, before laying out the cash. There are still rational reasons to buy the Monte but the price, at least in the short term, will take a hit.

The worst effect of this CR article is going to be on resale value. Paying a price to a dealer that doesn't reflect this enormous dose of bad publicity would not be prudent.

But you can be sure, a lot of people who were put off by the price, will buy if Mitsu has to slash it.

Just remember, if they do, after you buy, it's unlikely they'll reward you for it!

rjlim · June 2001

My sister owns 5 Pajero's for the last 10 years, and she lives in NT Australia. They go out from there city to drive to the nearest major city, like Darwin, Townsville, or Cairnes. And once a year, they go south, to Sydney or Melbourne. When I was there, we went to Darwin from Gove, where they live, and as far as I can tell, going off roading from Gove to Darwin, was a good experience. That was my first time off roading, and I was a bit scared the first time, 'coz sometimes, only two of the wheels are on the ground. My brother-in-law, told me that they never had any problems with there Pajero, As a matter of fact, from there town, Gove, 45% owns Pajero, and one of his friends, have a Toyota 4 runner, rolled over. I currently own an ML now, just because the dealer had given me a good deal, but as far as getting an SUV, Montero would still be the second choice on my list.

rsholland · June 2001

that sells SUVs in the USA know that their vehicle will, at some point, be tested by CR. If Mitsu had subjected the Montero to the CR test, they would found this out well ahead of time, and a fix would have occurred.

The issue is not whether CR's test is valid or not. The issue is that that Mitsu should have predicted this might happen before the vehicle ever went on sale in the USA.

Everybody knows that SUVs, as a class, have higher centers of gravity, and are more likely to roll over than a car. You would think that any company that wants to sell one here would take every reasonable precaution, by putting the vehicle through testseven those like CR's, which they may disagree with.

It's pretty much a "given" that CR is going to test the vehicle, so to me it's in their best interest to put it through the CR tests too.

Bob

alpha01 · June 2001

Interesting and educated debate on this forum; it seems to be one of the more purposeful ones around, thanks.
About the Montero/CU report.. although I'm always skeptical of such negative bad Press, after seeing the videos, which clearly show the Nissan Pathfinder at an indicated 40mph negotiate the manuver with no problems, I feel that allegaing that CU's testing is "unscientific" skirts the issue at hand... Since CU started testing SUVs, Pickups, and Minivans on their tighter Emergency Handling course designed specifically to test the stability of these vehicles, only 3 vehicles out of 118 tested demonstrated such tipping tendencies. Is CU sensational in its warning? Perhaps, but I don't feel they are unmerited. Support: In the Dec 2000 issue of Car and Driver Magazine, the Montero was criticized for poor handling characteristics... "bottom feeder handling" was one of the "Lows" C/D listed in its Verdict section.

Side Note- When I first got my driver's license three years ago, I experienced first hand the "moose" manuver (as it is called in Europe...) Driving in the right lane of a 3 lane hwy in NJ at about 50, I was forced to swerve hard left to avoid some dumbass who pulled out from a shopping center into my lane. I had to then swerve hard right (at a slower speed b/c I slammed the brakes) b/c there was now a car directly in my way. (Looking back, maybe I could have gone one more lane over to the left, but I dont even recall if someone was in that lane or not.. it happened fast) Anyway, I was in a 97 Camry, I was shakin like a wet dog afterwards, and I thanked God I wasnt in any SUV.

Questions I have for the rest of you..
Do you think the Monteros results would have been different if the brakes were applied hard at the beginning of the manuver?
Do you think the Montero would have negotiated the manuver with no problems if a stability control system was available?

Thanks for your time.
-alpha01

sergio6 · June 2001

First. As Bob puts it, Mitsubishi should have "put the Montero through the CR test ahead of time." Clearly, Mitsubishi is at fault in not putting their trucks through basic rollover test as that of the avoidance maneuver.
Second. When the customer buys a new Montero, he/she assumes it has the same handling characteristics as previous Montero models. Therefore, not delivering the same characteristics would be at least misrepresentation or even false advertising.
Third, lemmon lawsuits are a given if the vehicle fails three times. The Montero has failed 8 out of 9 tests. Does the consumer have to personally experience this failure three times to be elegible for compensation.
Once would be enough to kill.

rsholland · June 2001

I'm a big fan of the new Montero. Here we finally have an excellent off-road vehicle that has IFS/IRS, something I have long waited to see. So my kudos to Mitsu for being the first mass-market company to do so. Some may argue the Mercedes ML was the first, but everything I've read to date indicates the Montero is a much better off-road vehicle than the ML.

I'm also very surprised and sorry to read these roll over reports from CR, as everyone else here is too.

Having said that, if, as I stated earlier, Mitsu didn't duplicate the CR tests beforehandshame on them. They have nobody to blame but themselves.

CR, right or wrong, carries a lot of weight when it comes to buyers making decisions. Mitsu should have done their own testing (which I'm sure they did), but they also should have catered to CR, knowing full well the test may (or may not) be flawed.

Bob

conman2000 · June 2001

They have always favored cars because cars are designed to get you from point A to point B safely. CR does not take into affect the other population(which is getting bigger) Off-road drivers. Noticed how only the very capable off-road SUVs failed(Suzuki, Isuzu, and Mitsu)?!?

I guess that is why there are sooooo many SUV "cars" out there(Rav4, Aztek, etc).
True, the easy fix for any high clearance SUV is to lower it, but will defeat the purpose of an SUV. That is why there are so many models of SUV, people who want mini-van replacements can get the Rav4/highlander, and those who want Trucks, get the 4Runner, etc., etc.
The new Montero was on my list of SUVs myself because it was a capable off-roader.
I guess I have to live with my 01 Trooper(the other tipper) that can really be taken off-road(a few times already too!).

Cheers,
Con
2001 Trooper LS 4x4 with 8+ inches of ground clearance which CR hates!

BTW, Former Suzuki owner too!

conman2000 · June 2001

BTW, remeber there was a report(I don't remember who) out that said all Pickup trucks are unsafe because when the bed is empty, they flip over too easy? Because this affected all manufatures, The report seemed to have fallen off the radar very quickly.......hmmmmmmmm.........

Who killed JFK?!?

Con
2001 Trooper LS 4x4

counselor2 · June 2001

Let me address your question about a lawsuit. I defend a major auto manufacturer (NOT Mitsubishi) in the type of lawsuits that you mention. Generally, we have been very successful in getting class-action lawsuits dismissed where the owners of vehicles are claiming that the vehicle, in general, has exhibited a tendency to fail to perform properly (i.e., others have had problems resulting in injuries), but where the people suing have never themselves experienced a problem nor have they suffered any economic or physical harm. It varies a bit state-by-state, so that such lawsuits have a better chance of succeeding in a few states, but, generally, you are going to have a very hard time. Particularly so, here, where no one has ever been identified as having been harmed by any tendency to roll-over in sharp maneuvers. I am sure, though, that some plaintiffs' lawyer would be happy to have you as a representative plaintiff in a class-action case.

As to what you might get out of such a lawsuit, even if you succeed, be prepared to be disappointed. No court has ever ordered a manufacturer to recall a vehicle to "fix" a potential problem; most conclude that this is the exclusive jurisdiction of NHTSA. The court that came the closest was a California state court in San Francisco, which is still considering whether to order Ford to recall 2 million vehicles to replace an ignition switch. That case is scheduled for a re-trial in the fall. What would be likely to happen, if you were even to prevail, is that each owner would get some nominal amount of money (we're talking probably hundreds of dollars here, folks) for the "decrease" in value of the truck, or to "fix" the problem. The plaintiffs' lawyers, though, would get somewhere between 15%-33% of the entire class recovery (potentially 28,000 owners nationwide x the dollar value of recovery to each plaintiff).

I have to ask you, though, how you feel that you were deceived? CR didn't run the tests until more than one year after the 2001 Monte was on the market and after you bought your vehicle, so how could Mitsu have known what the outcome would be? You mention that they should have run the CR test themselves(and I agree that it would have been smart from a business standpoint to do so), but they didn't. Maybe your real contention is that they failed to test the vehicle properly. But that is not a "deception" type of situation. Second, you mention your "assumptions" about how the vehicle would handle. Did anyone from Mitsu ever tell you that, or did you just assume it to be true? Thank God, people can't (yet) be sued in this country for assumptions that other people make about them or their products. If someone from Mitsu (not the dealer, who is independent) told you that this is a very stable vehicle, won't roll-over, etc., but had information to the contrary, then you might have a good case. Third, are you aware of any false advertising? I haven't seen Mitsu make any claims about Monte stability in ads. I've seen ads with pictures of a Monte cruising a city street at night (it looks pretty boss), but nothing about stability during high-speed maneuvers.

The lemon laws are not going to help you. Generally, they address situations where a consumer takes a car in to be fixed several times and the problem just can't be resolved. I would say that your only shot would be through the consumer protetion statutes that states have passed. Again, those laws vary from state-to-state, so whether you might have any shot at all will depend on where you live.

Finally, I suggest that if you want to do something about your concerns, you raise them with NHTSA. You can look on the website (www.nhtsa.org) to see how to file a complaint with NHTSA and request that they look into the Monte's performance. The back of the Monte owner's manual probably also has information on contacting NHTSA. Andy why not contact Mitsu while you're at it; maybe copy them on a letter to NHTSA. As others have suggested, maybe they will shrug it off, but you ought to at least give them the opportunity to do something.

rsholland · June 2001

is to lower the center of gravity, and/or give the vehicles a wider track so that rollovers are less likely.

We have a couple of Subarus, of which one is a Forester. As you probably know, Subaru builds their cars with boxer engines. This is ideal for an SUV, because the center of gravity is much lower with this type of engine configuration. And, yes I know the Forester is not a "true" SUV like the Montero. However, if the Montero had a boxer engine like Subaru, had a wider track, and a slightly lower body (not ground clearancebut body), I don't think we would be having this discussion.

Bob

cberes · June 2001

in my book. The point is-- in real-world driving (like the "moose" maneuver described in post #783) things can/do happen-- causing you to swerve. Being a safe and cautious drive is one thing (and wise)-- BUT its the other guy or the unexpected that cause you to go into defensive mode-- and perhaps unpredictably as well. This IMO is where the danger lies-- and it really irritates me that these vehicles-- once marketed as fun AND safe for families-- are still not being designed properly. A test is a test-- BUT who's to say once of us won't be called upon to make the same split-second driving decision-- one that we may live to regret.

cberes · June 2001

(couldn't edit my message due to posting problem)

Just wanted to say-- call me naive, but if it can happen in the test, it CAN happen in the real world (dodging that drunken driver, child, muffler in the roadway, bucket that fell off the pickup in front of you, dog running into traffic,etc.). THAT's the real world-- and no amount of planning ahead can determine exactly how you--the driver-- will react! However, your vehicle should be designed to deal with these real-world events by staying upright, for god sake.

Shame on Mitsubishi and any other automaker that continues to design unsafe (and apparently un-properly-tested) vehicles after all this time and all the bad press.

And doesn't it make you mad that now-- to be safe-- you can't haul things on the Monty's roof (like that kayak, maybe)-- the very feature you may have bought this "outdoor adventure" vehicle for??

My 2 centavos.

phonos · June 2001

The test looks spectacular to most people. I do see a lot of strange things. When they test the silver one after it spun out of control the front tires produce some smokes too which means they are in full time 4WD. It might show some defect with the drive system or it just mean the viscous coupling is too good and very sensitive speed variation. I know that if I drive my truck in part time 4WD it tends to lift the inside wheels during hard cornering.

The burn out also means the driver does not even slow down in the whole exercise. They just stomp on the throttle and let it go out of control knowing it would not roll due to the outrigger.

The first video with the red one it shows the inside wheel raise slowly and then accelerate suddenly which means the driver are inducing the roll even more.

Both test vehicle show it lift front wheel first which could mean they are still accelerating or just a way too stiff front torsion bar which induce oversteer like what happened.

We don't know how heavy is the outrigger and adding the outrigger could throw the whole balance of the vehicle.

Just my observation of the test. There are a lot of parameter involved that we don't know.

counselor2 · June 2001

Just wondering what easy "improvements" might be made to make the Monte perform better in the CR test. Stiffer springs? Stiffer shocks? Has anyone modified their suspension yet?

BTW, did anyone hear whether the Montes that tipped up were in RWD mode? As the message that phonos posted above notes, the videos appear to show the front tires smoking as the trucks spun out, which might indicate that they were tested in full or part-time 4WD mode.

conman2000 · June 2001

IMHO, CR hates SUV because they are poor in on-road performance than cars which I agree 100%(sorry, did not state this earlier). If I wanted the best on-road safe/performing car, I would follow CR as they do very good testing for the masses. Which tends to blow my mind that people were "baited" to buying these bad performing SUVs. There must be a reason why people want Real 4x4 SUVs. Well, CR test have made manufactures to make "less tippy" "SUVs"(If we can call them SUVs). Well, we have the car based, Aztek(thanks CR!), RX300, Highlander. So why did you guys buy a Montero? I know why I bought my Trooper. IMHO, if I wanted a mini-van replacement, I would not have bought my Trooper.

BTW, many aftermarket companies selling lowering kits for those who are using your 4x4 SUV as a minivan replacement.

Cheers,
Con

conman2000 · June 2001

IIRC, the new Montero has coil springs all around the SUV. IMHO, I would assume if you lower the center of gravity, this will make it less tippy. So if you go to a custom spring shop(many of them around the country BTW) you could get shorter springs say 2" drop which should make a change in handling. Many 4x4 owners who lift their trucks go to these same places to get longer springs. Bell Tech makes lowering "kits" for some GM 4x4 SUVs and markets them to reduce rollovers.

www.todayssuv.com June 2001 mag had a custom Montero done by a "Tuner" by the name of James Chen and his company called Axis Sport Tuning(sorry no number or address in the article) so many you can find out if they have any suggestions.

Cheers,
Con

sergio6 · June 2001

Mitsubishi already lost a lawsuit in Japan for their lack of transparency.
Maybe it's time for them to experience what a dissapointed American consumer can do for their brand.
Besides, of the 30,000 Monteros sold this year only 8800 have been full size Monteros so a recall/compensation would not be that onerous for them.

jmatero · June 2001

True, center of gravity is an issue here... but not the only reason the Montero tips. There are many other factors at work here. Spring rates can be changed, Shock valving adjusted, etc. One HUGE factor mentioned about involves the 4wd system. The Mitsubishi ActiveTrac system is fully electronic and allows the vehicle to drive in Full-time AWD mode. In other words, a computer decides when the front/rear engage and at what percentage. This *could* have something to do with the CU results. Just food for thought. I can say one thing... before some of you attack CU for failing the Montero... there is a possibility here that the CU test *may* have uncovered a flaw in the Mitsubishi 4wd software. If this IS the case, but failing the vehicle... and by Mitsubishi fixing the problem... CU has saved lives.

rsholland · June 2001

It will be interesting to see what, if anything, Mercedes might do here. As you know, their A-Class failed the "moose test" over in Sweden a couple of years ago. Their response was to stop production and fix the vehicle.

Think MB will pressure Mitsu to do the same? That's probably the best damage control that could be done at this point.

Bob

dmac8 · June 2001

Aculex, I don't think C2 provided a diatribe, just an opinion.

As someone who has more experience with litigation than I care to admit, allow me to say, anticipating and understanding the merits of any case exceed bravado and indignation.

As mentioned in an earlier post, I own a 95 Land Cruiser and the Monte is on my list as a potential replacement.

If you drove a Monte, or Land Cruiser for that matter, and were not aware of the highly compromised handling, as opposed to a car, that these vehicles exhibit, then you must have been driving a double decker bus.

For all of the brouhaha Ford is stirring up with Firestone tires, the real disaster that is befalling some Explorer owners is when it flips.

While there may be some problem with the tires, what you are really seeing, IMHO, are the statitistical results of a lot of people driving vehicles with a high center of gravity.

Proportionally, the Monte may have a better record than the Explorer!

The real deal is that if one drive around the neighborhood doesn't convince you that the Monte, and SUV's in general, need to be driven with much greater caution, then you must sell it immediately, regardless of loss.

Mitsubishi Montero

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles