Last post on May 18, 2007 at 9:33 PM
You are in the Pickups
What is this discussion about?
Mitsubishi Raider, Truck
#1 of 33 2006 Mitsubishi Raider Large Truck
by Kirstie@Edmunds HOST
Mar 18, 2005 (12:51 pm)
Will the Dakota clone give Mitsubishi's slumping sales a boost?
Mar 18, 2005 (1:27 pm)
I almost hope so for Mitsubishi's sake. I mean, the redesigned Galant was a flop, as was the Endeavor. Neither of them were bad cars.... I think that people who are shopping for a Dakota vs. a Raider will buy the Dakota unless the Raider is a bunch cheaper. The Raider does look nice, though.
#3 of 33 Indeed looks hot!
May 05, 2005 (10:24 pm)
I honestly think the Raider is a appealing choice plus it looks hot. The Dakota itself doesn't look like another bland Ford pick up......Dodge has nice lookin cars and trucks....and the Mitsubishi version of the Dakota gives it a sportier kick. Mitsubishi needs to dump that corporate grille design from newer cars.....that in big part killed the new Galant, Endeavor and Outlander. And it didnt helped the Lancer since now looks like a Pontiac. They need to go back to the chrome grille like 97'/99' Galant's....Anyway.....in order to boost sales they have to go "the Hyundai way"....lots for less....keep down the prices while offer tons of equip in their cars. And...oh yeah....DUMP THAT CORPORATE GRILLE. Nobody want Pontiac's anymore.
#4 of 33 The only V8???
Sep 07, 2005 (11:33 am)
The only import pickup to offer V8 power??? (as stated on the "Featured Specs" portion of the Edmunds article)
Umm... What happened to the Nissan Titan and Toyota Tundra? I guess the meant the first compact/mid-size import pickup to offer V8 power.
#5 of 33 Raider
Sep 07, 2005 (7:32 pm)
Last time I checked the Dakota wasn't that big of a seller. On top of that, I heard that
DaimlerChrysler wasn't too cooperative in helping Mitsubishi come up with a competitive
truck. And does Mitsubishi even have money to advertise this vehicle?
Sep 08, 2005 (4:34 am)
From everything that I have read, the Raider will have a very car like interior - more so than any other truck on the market - I guess they are hoping to snag a lot of first time truck buyers.
I would like to see specifics as to what exactly the differences are between the Raider and Dakota. I have heard that they only share chasis and drivetrain components, and I have also heard that they share a lot more.
What I wonder is how many sales will the Raider take from the Dakota? With the Raider, if it is consistent with other Mitsu products, it should offer a 60K bumper to bumper and a 100K drivetrain warranty. With the Dakota, I believe the bumper to bumper is only 36K. Now, a 60K/100K warranty is great as long as the manufacturer is around long enough to honor it. Some people believe Mitsubishi won't be around in North America much longer, and some believe they will pull through their current problems. Couple the warranty with the possibility that there will be more incentives offered on the Raider than the Dakota, and that could potentially lure some Dakota shoppers over to the Raider.
Sorry for the rambling, but these are my general thoughts / questions about the Raider.
#7 of 33 Re: Raider [dave82]
Sep 08, 2005 (4:52 am)
"Last time I checked the Dakota wasn't that big of a seller."
That is a good point. When the Dakota first came out years ago, it had a niche. It was larger than the S-10, Ranger, Tacoma, Frontier, but smaller than the F150, Silverado, Ram. Then, over time the S-10 became the larger Colorado, and the Tacoma and Frontier both grew larger as well. The Dakota offers the only V-8 in this group, but the Tacoma's V-6 puts out more hp than the Dakota's V-8. I'm not sure of the hp rating on the Frontier off the top of my head, but the way Nissan cranks out hp these days, I would imagine their V-6 probably has more hp than the Dakota's 4.7 V-8 as well.
The mid sized niche strategy worked well for Dodge for a while - they even utilized this same strategy with the Durango when it first came out. Now, their are a lot of SUVs out there that are the same size as the Durango. In my part of the country you don't see many of the new Dakota and Durangos on the road - which is odd, because trucks are very popular.
Seems like now, the only "compact" pickup that has a niche is the Ranger/Mazda B truck. It has kept it's "petite" size while the rest of their competitors has upsized.
#8 of 33 raider vs taco?
Oct 09, 2005 (9:02 am)
as per the specs on the raider for it's v-8. 230 hp and 290 lb/ft. the taco with the 4 liter has 236 hp and 266 lb/ft. i don't believe too many people will be comparing the radier v-6 (210 hp/235 lb/ft ) with anything, except the gm twins. the nissan frontier outdoes all on hp (265) and falls by 6 lb/ft (284) to the v-8 of both the raider and dakota. the raider commercial had me laughing! this is gonna be the hottest pickup segment in years. let the rivalries begin!!! i'll put my nissan up against any rival, and happily accept their defeat.
#9 of 33 Re: raider vs taco? [firestang]
Oct 10, 2005 (10:58 am)
lets not forget about Honda Ridgeline- 247hp V6 that powers like a V8. With the Honda name behind it, the Raider doesn't have a chance
#10 of 33 Re: raider vs taco? [remus1]
Oct 10, 2005 (11:07 am)
If I were shopping for a mid sized truck, I think I would take the Tacoma or Frontier. I don't really classify the Ridgeline as a "truck". It's more of a vehicle for a buyer that wouldn't really typically buy a truck, but would buy a car based SUV with a bed - It doesn't even come with a full size spare. Imagine towing your 4000# boat with a donut spare on. (disclaimer - just my opinion)
In regards to the Raider, it has a tough road in front of it.