Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
I don't think the author meant that the Montero was rollover proof just because he drove it for a thousand miles and had no problems--I think he intended as a "for what its worth" more than anything else...
At a minimum, they should reinforce people's understanding of the handling limitations of these types of vehicles.
One thing is for sure, if anyone here comes close to what CU attempted to do, the results would be disastrous. Because of the sheer numbers sold, many more people have died in flipped Explorers, tires notwithstanding, than in the Monte.
If CU has applied the exact same testing to all of the other SUV's, and can prove it, then Mitsu has an inferior handling vehicle.
So Mitsu needs to run these tests and be very transparent about the results. Invite CU participation. If CU is wrong, and seen to be, a retraction should be forthcoming. If not, Mitsu can fortify any action against them.
Short to medium term however, this vehicle will take a big hit and hopefully, it doesn't also get re-assessed by the insurance companies.
When do we see the Mitsu video, without outriggers?
1. a monocoque structure vs. body-on-frame construction (lowers center of gravity and improves rigidity)
2. Increased width by 4 inches
3. Decreased height by 1.7 inches
4. Increased wheelbase by 2.2 inches
5. 4 wheel independent suspension vs leaf springs in the rear (reduces unsprung weight at the corners of the vehicle)
I specialize in neuropharmacology not engineering, but even my understanding of physics 101 tells me that we should have heard something on this topic prior to last month had CR been consistent and accurate in their testing of previous models of Monteros.
What if I developed a new Alzheimer's medication that was clinically proven MORE effective and BETTER tolerated than the previous treatment only to be surprised when the FDA gives this new medication the 3rd worst rating of any drug ever tested based on its efficacy and tolerability even though it is an IMPROVEMENT over the former.
I've not seen this fact brought up by anyone on this board as well as any other source. Someone smarter than me (and that is 90% of you who read this) please explain this to me.
I think you should look at the press information and video on www.motortrend.com .
I really do appreciate CR pointing out potential safety defects in my new SUV. But, I do not appreciate it when they base their conclusion on flawed, unscientific testing. The NHTSA even says that CR tests are not scientific and could have led to the rollover of almost any vehicle tested.
As far as CR being anti-SUV goes. They are. At least the SUV as we know it. They would have us driving car like SUV's. This is an attack on all truck-like SUV's by picking on one of the smaller manufacturers with a newly re-designed, award wining vehicle. Its just much easier to pick on the little guy.
All SUV owners should beware. There are many SUV haters out there that would like to have these vehicles declared not street legal.
I just scanned the NHTSA rollover resistance ratings--the Monte ltd isn't on there (yet), but for what its worth, the Montero sport only got 2 stars out of five (but then again, the best I saw for an SUV was 3 stars, on the 'burbs. Expos also got 2 stars. Didn't see that any toyota's had yet been tested--the list of tested vehicles is rather sparse at this point).
As I am taking all this in, my overall impression is that it is way too soon to call the Monte unsafe off of a single CR test, which, according to some of the links and the NHTSA, may not necessarily reflect how the vehicle performs in the real world. I am bummed out about what this will do to the Monte's depreciation; even if Mitsu is vindicated, all of us who own the Monte will still lose on resale value.
Rather than suing Mitsu, maybe we should be thinking of a class action suit agains CR (just kidding--I agree with Drew that any mention of lawsuits is premature; IMHO, we have become a much to litiginous society anyway....).
Maybe there would need to be 100 Monteros tested instead of just 2.
The repeated tests did not cause a roll over in "almost any vehicle tested," only the Monteros out of all the vehicles tested recently.
Maybe it is not completely scientific since the second vehicle had to be accelerated to a whopping 39 MPH to flip like the first one did at 37.7 mph. Meanwhile some other SUVs managed the maneuver at over 50 MPH without rolling.
Whenever a manufacturer does not not like the NHTSA's own crash tests, the manufacturer attacks the test and says "in the real world" the vehicle performs well (Ford F-150, PT Cruiser etc.).
Maybe the NHTSA should crash 100 examples of each car they test into a wall before they assign a crash rating instead of relying on the results of one car.
You are confusing the NHTSA crash tests with the insurance industry's IIHS offset test where one of the F-150 models performed very poorly.
It is a very confusing situation, the F-150s are the best full size pickup in on crash test (NHTSA full frontal) and the worst in the other (IIHS offset).
Your statement ". Mitsubishi is not handling this well at all and THAT'S why owners are upset." I agree with totally!! Due to this "Cover Up" and it is a "Cover Up", I will continue to harass Mitsubishi until the results of CS are fully addressed. My last post on this board was much longer, but was censored, so I will be looking for another board (with less censorship) to discuss this HOT topic!!
Steve
Host
Vans, SUVs and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
With regard to a "Mitsu" cover up: where in the link that Steve provided in post 846 is there a cover-up? Examine the post, and let us know what Mitsu should do differently. It seems to me they are doing the things they should be doing, although perhaps they could be a bit more vocal about it. It seems to me that some people have become the judge, jury and prosecutioner; I think its much too early for that--let's slow down a little bit and see how things play out. I was tremendously alarmed when all this started, but as more stuff comes out, it does not appear to be a slam dunk against the Montero.
What is going to need to happen is another 3rd (or should I say 4th) party, not paid for by either CR or Mitsu, to test the vehicle. Hopefully, the NHTSA will take it upon itself to do so (they do rate vehicles for rollover risk), and hopefully soon. You seem to be saying that Mitsu should do something because of the bad publicity, wether you beleive the reports or not...If Mitsu doesn't believe the report, and can prove that its findings are erroneous (again, this is still up in the air), why should it do anything to placate CR? Just looking at the jury decision on the Trooper/CR case (this can be found on CNN's website) brings in CR's methods of testing into question (not to mention the NHTSA's opinion of CR's tests...).
This will not fix the depreciation issue--nothing will--even if other tests do not confirm CR's tests.
I don't think the issue is cut and dried, and I personally am not angry with Mitsu, at least not yet. Things may turn out to prove CR right, but until then, innocent until proven guilty....
Mitsubishi is far from being a "small" company. In relation to other automakers, it might be small but it's automobile division is only a twig in the massive Mitsubishi corporate tree. Thier pockets run deeper than Ford, GM, Honda, Toyota, and Nissan COMBINED!
Bob
birger "Mercedes-Benz M-class" Jun 20, 2001 9:50am
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
Right now, you can get a Limited in S. Cal with the option you spec, for around $32,000, without breaking a sweat. It's a given it will go down, when the full effect of the negative publicity kicks in.
Whether $27k is right for your vehicle, is difficult to determine. It obviously represents a substantial loss, but the loss, if you sell it in the near future, is only going to increase.
My guess is you would really get whacked on the value by trading it on a non Mitsu product, where those dealers are sure to tell any Monte prospects about the CR test, if they happen to be in the dark.
What might tempt me to sell it is the fact that Mitsubishi has proven itself to be a pretty recalcitrant company.
The right move on this is to reassure customers, even if CR can't be convinced. The first step, is to replicate the test exactly, preferably, with the same drivers.
If it's true, find a fix fast.
If you could be assured Mitsu would do the right thing, you could hold onto the truck knowing they will correct any defect, at their expense.
Otherwise, a stark loss now, might look better as time goes by. Good luck, nobody needs this when you shell out this kind of money!
You mentioned problems towing with your 2001 Montero. Were you using AWD or 2WD white you were towing? Did you have brakes on the trailer? Do you have radial tires on your boat trailer? I have heard several people say that radials are bad on trailers, as they tend to roll a lot and cause stability problems similar to your problems. That doesn't help the power problem; but stability is a bigger concern to me. I am planning to tow a boat that weighs about 3800 lbs. with my 2001 Montero ("Roll Over King") It does not look good, if your experience towing is any indication. Thanks for any comments or experiences towing.
Maybe a stiffer suspension on the Monte would help a lot of things.
http://www.npr.org/programs/totn/index.html
http://easylink.playstream.com/hittv/carr_test.rm
Also same test (?) perform by mitsu can be seen here. This appears to be mitsu's own test from 2000:
http://easylink.playstream.com/hittv/mitsubishi_test.rm
If these won't play directly, do a right click "save target as" to your desktop (or where ever), start "Real Player" and drag into Player. Realplayer will then connect to the source video.
A comment on another board was made that the results of the test depend more upon the driver of the vehicle than upon the vehicle itself (?)
Since neither of these tests have outriggers attached to the vehicle, are they a key to the CU rollovers?
Are these vehicles Limiteds or XLT's without rear LSD?
What is the effect of rear LSD? Seems to me that once you lose traction on the lifting rear wheel, the LSD on the inside wheel could force the vehicle over (??)
However, for offroad use you deffinitely want LSD or a locking rear differential. Maybe for on-road you don't?? Maybe this is why Mitsu, does not offer the push button locker option in the U. S. of A as shown in the book in your glove compartment.
You can roll ANY SUV under emergency situations. It has been known for years that Jeeps flip, SUV's are high centered vehicles.
Give me a break. Dont drive them like cars!
I have taken my Monte on some hard driving and I just dont see any real concern yet.
I for one will wait for someone elses review to confirm that this vehicle is any more likely than any other SUV (non-car based) to turn over.
I would expect the lower, car based vehicles to do better but then I took that into consideration in my decision to get a better off road vehicle.
For those looking to buy a Monte your so lucky because so many people will over react to this that you should get a great deal based on unreasonable fears.
Press Release
SOURCE: Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc.
Mitsubishi Motors Validates Stability of 2001 Montero, Criticizes Consumers Union for Staged Rollover
Records Show No Reports of Accidents, Complaints, or Problems; Consumers Union Forces Tip-up With Maneuver Criticized by U.S. Government
CYPRESS, Calif., June 20 /PRNewswire/ -- Mitsubishi Motors today released information that validates the safety and stability of the 2001 Montero. The company also produced forensic evidence that Consumers Union drivers forced a rollover using an unrealistic, test-track maneuver.
``Safety is a matter of utmost importance to Mitsubishi Motors, and this is a safe vehicle,'' said Pierre Gagnon, president and chief operating officer of Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc.
``We have searched our records and found no reported incidents or complaints of rollover crashes in this vehicle -- not one,'' Gagnon said. ``We have invested thousands of hours in the design and testing of the 2001 Montero, and we have validated its stability with additional testing over the past two weeks.''
Gagnon criticized Consumers Union for using a maneuver that has been widely criticized as unreliable in assessing a vehicle's stability against rollover.
``In the real world, this vehicle's performance has been outstanding,'' he said. ``We are disappointed that Consumers Union chose to attack our vehicle despite overwhelming evidence that their conclusions are wrong.
``We acted immediately and responsibly to assess CU's concerns,'' Gagnon added. ``Our investigation shows that in this case their conclusions are false. They forced an outcome that misrepresents the safety of our vehicle, using a maneuver the federal government says is unreliable and not scientific.''
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has concluded that CU's procedures ``do not have a scientific basis and cannot be linked to real-world crash avoidance needs or actual crash data.''
``Using the same procedures, probably any light utility vehicle could be made to roll over under the right conditions and driver input,'' NHTSA has concluded.
A forensic reconstruction based on physical evidence collected from the vehicles and CU's own course was performed by Carr Engineering, a respected third-party engineering and testing firm. This reconstruction of CU's activities shows that CU violated its own procedures and aggressively drove the vehicle off course and at extreme angles, forcing the vehicle to tip up.
``The evidence gathered by Carr Engineering raises serious questions about the methods Consumers Union used to force this vehicle to tip up,'' Gagnon said.
In addition, Carr Engineering conducted its own runs of the Montero following CU's protocol -- and was unable to duplicate CU's result.
``All of the evidence validates our strong confidence in the stability of this vehicle and the safety of our customers,'' Gagnon said.
Consumers Union notified Mitsubishi Motors on May 31 that it had forced the Montero to tip up during avoidance maneuvers on its test track. The company took immediate steps to understand CU's results and evaluate the safety of the vehicle.
Those steps included:
-- Advising the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of the
situation, and of the company's commitment to cooperation on safety
issues;
-- Pulling together all relevant engineering, design and test data that
document the performance, stability and safety of the 2001 Montero
Limited;
-- Going back to Mitsubishi Motors Corporation's test track to conduct
extensive retesting of the 2001 Montero Limited;
-- Hiring Carr Engineering to conduct a full range of independent
tests -- and asking it to do whatever is necessary to judge the safety
of this vehicle;
-- Asking Carr Engineering to accompany Mitsubishi Motors executives and
engineers to Consumers Union's course to inspect the track and the
vehicles, and to conduct a detailed assessment of what happened;
-- Meeting with Consumers Union representatives to go over our findings,
including results of the company's investigation.
``While we strongly disagree with CU's conclusions in this case, Mitsubishi Motors takes very seriously any question about the safety of our vehicles,'' Gagnon said. ``We are continuing our investigation of this matter, and will keep NHTSA and the public informed.''
For more information, please visit the media news center at www.mitsubishicars.com/newscenter/medianewsevents. With a username of ``Montero'' and a password of ``safety.''
STATEMENT BY PIERRE GAGNON, President and Chief Operating Officer, Mitsubishi Motor Sales of America, Inc.:
``Mitsubishi Motors has been providing Consumers Union with information since we first learned of their intentions regarding the 2001 Montero.
``CU's conclusions about this vehicle are false. They are based on a widely criticized, unrealistic maneuver that can be used to force vehicles to tip up under extreme conditions. The federal government has concluded that this maneuver is unscientific and cannot be linked to real-world safety matters.
``SAFETY IS A MATTER OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE TO MITSUBISHI MOTORS. There is no higher priority than ensuring the well-being of people who ride in our vehicles.
``We have searched our records and found no reported incidents or complaints of rollover crashes in this vehicle -- not one.
``We have invested thousands of hours in the design and testing of the 2001 Montero, and we have validated its stability with additional testing over the past two weeks.
``THIS IS A SAFE VEHICLE.
``Consumers Union created an outcome that misrepresents the safety of the vehicle and misinforms the public.
``Our evidence shows that CU broke its own rules.
``Their conclusion runs counter to everything we know about this vehicle, and conflicts with the Montero's real-world performance.
``In the real world, this vehicle's performance has been outstanding.
``There is no correlation between CU's avoidance maneuver and real-world safety.
``While we strongly disagree with their conclusion, Mitsubishi Motors takes very seriously any question about the safety of our vehicles.
"We immediately examined the questions raised by CU.
-- We advised the National Highway Traffic Safet
As for me, you won't be getting my 2001 Limited for a song or any other price. Except for Consumers, all other reviews and crash test results that I have seen on this truck, combined with the safety features (excellent braking, front and side airbags) and lack of any reported roll-overs indicate that it is a safe vehicle. (And I take safety seriously; I traded-in a Volvo wagon for my Monte and I still have another Volvo wagon.) As for Consumers, count me as one of those taking a "wait-and-see" attitude. Brill (#875) is right -- you're going to get a great deal based on people's gut reaction to a situation that requires deeper analysis.
BTW, has anyone seen a source for VHS copies of the Consumers or Mitsu/CARR Engineering testing that has been made available on the CU and Mitsu websites?
Now all I have to figure out who is telling the truth...
Mitsubishi or Consumers...
Then I'll know what to do with my LTD if anything at all.
Has anyone used synthetic or the synthetic blend
in their SUV'S thanks
Please do not copy and paste articles from other websites since this may be copyright infringement. Instead, provide a URL for us to see the article for ourselves on that site. I have let the press release posted above stay though, at least for now, since it's for the press to utilise anyway.
Thanks!
Drew
Host
Vans, SUVs, and Aftermarket & Accessories message boards
http://copartfinder.com
Punch in "11714" as the zip code for search...then type in 2001 in search dates...Mitsubishi in "make" field...then "Montero"...I also have 3 other different vehicle pictures of our beloved "no rollover issue" Monty,s...Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
You mention three other pictures you have of rolled 2001 full-size Montes. I say that if you've got 'em, post 'em, or give us a link to a website where we can see for ourselves.
There are only 3 Montero's on that site. Which one in the picture you think that rolled over? It looks like they are frontal crash.
None of the Monteros on CoPartFinder - even on other zip codes - look like they've rolled on thier own. The three I saw that sustained roll damage also sustained massive side impact damage, can you say "T-Bone"?
Any vehicle can be made to roll over if hit hard enough, but that in itself doesn't mean that particular vehicle has a natural tendency to roll over.
I am thankful to CU for bringing up this issue that now I know of my truck's own weakness. I will be more extra careful in my driving as I am used to. I like the ride of this SUV and I am not thinking of a trade. This is a good deal with all of its features. I'll just wait and see on Mitsubishi's decision, I hope that they will recall it and do something favorable to the consumer and their company to get people's trust back (change suspension with stiffer ones). It is doubtful though since their is no single incident of rollover.
So, to other Montero owners out there, just relax, take extra caution in steering and see what's going to happen next...
Hi5543il is just one example. excuse me if you thought you were trying to help but every truck I picked had photos of accident damage. This dosent tell us anything other than people get into accidents.
Let us all remember that the Montero has been around for a long time. I think this one is longer and wider than previous models. I dont remember hearing any concerns about those vehicles.
These things are extensively used off road in other countries and if there was a high center of gravity problem leading to a high rollover rate I would imagine we would of seen it discussed by now.
I saw the footage of the "roll over" and I can tell you honestly it seemed that the driver did more than an emergency lane change. he seemed to whip the Monte in a way that could induce roll over in any high clearence SUV.
Well the fact that Mitsu, during litigation lied and refused to turn over evidence of other lemon law claims doesn't exactly show responsibility now does it? The fact that they took my deposition and tried to characterize me and my family as deadbeats--while having nothing to do with the lemon law claim--doesn't exactly scream accountability.
To split hairs about whether it (the Montero) rolls over at 37 mph vs. 42 mph; or whether the driver drove it slightly different from the others is nonsense. This company has made vehicles with defects for years. And their practice is to do and say whatever they can to make the consuming public believe otherwise.
My advice is to get a copy of CR's test; complain to the NHTSA en masse; see an independent technician to find out what it costs to make the Montero comply with CR-type test criteria; obtain market value trade-in estimates; and then contact Kimmel & Silverman in PA for a lemon law attorney in your area.
Go Musky, Deputy Dogs a gainin on us.
Zero (0) warranty repairs --
Zero (0) rollovers --
Zero (0) tips on 2-wheels
since August, 2000.
If we can keep the pot stirred, and the price really drops due to all this BS, I may buy another one (used ?). My wife drives this one during the week. I only get it for long trips and offroad weekends (which are becoming far too few).
-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
OOPS wrong signature. Correct one below (to keep the pot stirred).
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
PS to Steve/Drew: Last signature, I received your e-mail
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/aw-cgi/ebayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=592811698&r=0&t=0
How come these things weren't reported to NHTSA?
Someone should forward this web page to MITSUBISHI, CU and NHTSA(?). If it was indeed a rollover then was it the drivers, another cars or its own fault.
I AM VERY IMPRESSED WITH ITS CONDITION. DAMAGE INDICATES THERE WERE PROBABLY NO INJURIES!!! WOW!!
I dont know if there really is a problem here and certainly Mistu had to answer (in Japan) to the lockering of complaints and why they were not made public but my limited understanding is that they corrected the issues, they just did not make them public. I dont like this approach either but the Mitsu rep in the US stated that reported problems over here would have been made public. Is he telling the truth, I will never know for sure.
I have driven just about everything out there and many older SUV's and I sense no unreasonable tendency to roll over. The jeeps and smaller cars in general have me more concerned. Toyotas 4 runner even more concerned given the additional clearence and narrower profile but most of those guys love the 4 runner for its clearence and reliabilty so whos right......no one...the main thing is to understand the physics here and drive accordingly.
KickMan1, seems like you have some hot issues with them, dont know the details, but I think it is too early to lump this one in with whatever other problem you had. If it was a lemon law problem get in line. My Dad had no luck, as an attorney, getting a refund of some kind on his Jeep GC 1999 and there are known, admitted issues on that baby. this is not limited to Mitsu. Lemon laws do not protect the customer.
I think I'll wait for the NHTSA rollover risk on the Montero before passing final judgement.