Last post on May 18, 2007 at 9:33 PM
You are in the Pickups
What is this discussion about?
Mitsubishi Raider, Truck
Feb 20, 2007 (9:39 pm)
People please....Raider its not a Mitsubishi, its a VERY BIG mistake that Mitsubishi made by accepting crap from Chrysler and rebadging as a Mitsu. These trucks are unreliable as usual with DCX products. Raider its for people who likes a domestic pick up with a sporty japanese styling. The only big plus is the warranty that you wont get at Chrysler dealers. But that hurts Mitsubishi image because as this Dakotas/Raiders keeps falling apart....people will see the Mitsubishi badge and they will think that all Mitsubishi's are unreliable. Which is a BIG mistake. But lets hope the Raider dies SOON and will be forgotten, so new Mitsubishi products arrive to keep strengthing the product line.
#31 of 33 Re: Raider [mirde98]
Apr 05, 2007 (2:32 pm)
I donít know how you define "crap" or what youíre comparing a Dakota to, and by implication the Mitsubishi Raider. You have a right to your opinion, of course. So do I, and I think your hatred of Chrysler is glaringly obvious and noticeably obsessive. It damages your credibility as a potential neutral commentator.
It should be noted that the relationship between Mitsubishi (MMC) and Chrysler goes back three decades and better. If youíre a true Mitsubishi fan I hope youíll be honest enough to admit that MMC built those "crap" Plymouth Breeze, Dodge Stratus, Dodge Conquest, D50, Plymouth Sapporo and Dodge Challenger (2nd gen).
Mitsi also built a lot of engines for those "crap" Chrysler products, of which the 2.6 was quite famous for breaking the balance chains and causing engine seizure (the oil pump was driven off of that chain), broken balance shafts, premature chain stretching, chain guides falling apart, premature main bearing scuffing, cracked or warped heads (they used sacrificial head bolts on that engine), and the valve guides falling into the combustion chamber on the 3.0 V6 engines.
This is not intended to be a harangue against Mitsubishi, but as a point of drawing perspective. Even in the pure state Mitsubishi has given the motoring public its fair share of "crap" as you might refer to it.
I don't think the previous generation of the Raider was a shinning star by any means, and as far as I can tell some might consider the new Raider a marked improvement, Dakota under pinnings or not. Yes, Chryslers' made its share of junk, to be sure, but so has GM and Ford and even Nissan and Toyota. During my tenure as a automotive technician I would say that the definition of "crap" was just about everything made by GM, Ford, and Chrysler between the years of 1977 to 1989, some more, some less.
On the other hand there are some Chrysler products that stand out in both performance and reliability. When my company had Chrysler B-bodies (Satellite, Coronet, Charger, etc) along with the competition from GM and Ford, the Chrysler products were far and away the better built and most reliable, with the lowest repair incidence. In recent times Dodge trucks are a standout for the same reason, especially the full size RAM.
I will offer a far different opinion of the Dakota, and comensurately the Raider. I was in the automotive repair business for 30+ years and part of that experience has been in the fleet management business. I can testify that the Dakota is far from "crap." In fact, compared to the domestic competition, especially the S-10 or even the new Canyon, the Dakota shines in both reliability and durability and is a very popular truck with fleet buyers and civilians for good reason. It has the heaviest load and towing capability, the stiffest frame, the largest interior size, largest box size, and the most available horsepower of any current mid-size pick-up. And it gives people the most for their money.
The Dakota is a true truck, built to perform work tasks first, instead of being designed for car-like performance characteristics. Yes, it has its negatives, but it has its pluses. Now maybe the repair incidence rate isnít quite as low as a Tacoma or a Frontier, but the Dakota/Raider is not that far behind either of those two nameplates in reliability. I know and have known people that own Dakotas, some have thought highly enough to buy another. Overall the majority are pleased with their performance, reliability, and cost of ownership. My son had a í91 that has to be testimony to the abuse a person can give any vehicle. That oneís still on the road with almost 400K on the original engine and drive train.
I think your dismal characterization of the Dakota and the Raider is bias driven, very much exaggerated and totally undeserving.
#32 of 33 Re: Raider [dustyk]
May 18, 2007 (9:33 pm)
I totally respect ure opinion and point of view. And believe me i like some Chrysler products. And the "cloud cars" were Chrysler cab foward design products made in USA and Mexico mostly and those sir, were NOT made my MMNA. The only MMNA dna on the "cloud cars" were the 2.5L V6 engine. Thats it. The 4cyl was Neon derived, which we all know those were excellent and refined vehicles........... Dodge Stratus and Sebring (2 door only) were actually Mitsubishi cars with Chrysler's badges. Dodge Colt's (late 70's) were Mitsubishi Lancer's everywhere in the world and those, even today's day they are still use for racing. About the Sapporo, Challenger and the infamous 2.6L engine ure absolutely right. Crap. But while Chrysler was delivering in the late 80's and early 90's those lovely Aries K, Dynasty, Le Baron, Shadow, Daytona, etc, Mitsubishi was providing them with Dodge/Plymouth Colt's and Eagle Summit (Mitsubishi Mirage's) Dodge/Plymouth Colt Vista and Eagle Summit Wagon (Mitsubishi Expo), Eagle Talon and Plymouth Laser (Mitsubishi Eclipse)......and those Mitsu you still see them running on the road today. The other Chrysler vehicles you may still see them, mostly on junkyards. But then again thats why we are in a free country, everyone is entitled to their opinion.