Last post on Nov 22, 2012 at 3:00 AM
You are in the Mitsubishi Montero
What is this discussion about?
Mitsubishi Montero, SUV
#869 of 2830 Motortrend.com Article / Mitsubishi Response to CR
Jun 22, 2001 (11:41 am)
After reading Mitsubishi's reponse and viewing their video, I feel much, much better about my new 2001 Montero. EVERYONE on this list should look at this video.
I do appreciate CR's concern for the safety of my vehicle
However, CR's tests are badly flawed and nowhere near scientific. CR has no case to support their claims. They made multiple runs (some faster than 37 Mph) with the Montero and they could only MAKE it tip a few times. Where are the videos from these other runs? Give me a break. And, on those runs where the Monty tipped, they drove the vehicle outside of the course. In other words, they could not get it to tip following their rules, so they set their rules aside and FOUND a way to MAKE it tip.
They could have made any one of those vehicles tip if they wanted. They just chose the Montero. They don't even have the guts to go after some of the real dangerous vehicles - ones built by big US automakers.
People should realize that CR intent here is to attack all truck-like SUV's with their claims. They hate these SUV's because, in their mind, they are too big, waste gas, and might pollute too much for them. (If you doubt this, then you should read their glowing reviews of the car-like SUV's they tested in their May issue). You have to look at CR's motivation behind all this. They have an adgenda and they urgently needed video of an SUV tipping to help their cause. Co-incidentally now, they just happen to be trying to convince the NHTSA of the need for a dynamic rollover test for all new vehicles. Then here comes a shocking video of an SUV rollover.
CR has an adjenda - and thats makes them biased.
I hope Mitsubishi sues the heck out of CR for damages. They will likely win if they do.
#870 of 2830 OK. So you think Mitsu's response will give us our value back?
Jun 22, 2001 (12:08 pm)
Give me a break...
Just ask thousands of Suzuki and Isuzu owners.
Our cars are already probably worth less than $25K. Mitsu's lack of testing has already cost us thousands. Keep on paying them if you want.
#871 of 2830 "I just watched the video", From DougM, ID
Jun 22, 2001 (12:11 pm)
". . . I just watched the video where Mitsu's legal counsel goes over the engineering and test track evidence and I'm going to do a complete flop on this and agree with you that these results were mortally flawed.
Mitsu engineers actually found gouge marks where the outriggers dug into the pavement and evidence the truck had pivoted up into the air from this. When it came down, it is clear that both right side wheels broke. In the real world, there is no way to do this to a vehicle and this new evidence makes it clear that CU was way out of bounds.
In addition, I watched the video shown on TV and am embarassed something did not occur to me. Not only did the outriggers themselves likely cause the actual roll when they caught and dug into the tarmac, but they significantly altered the maneuvering in the entire course. The truck is clearly leaning on the outriggers well before it reached the rollover angle. This means the suspension is not being loaded as it would in the real world, with the outside springs providing more and more resistance to roll. Instead, they were only partly compressed and then weight was transferred onto the outriggers. What kind of lateral force the outrigger wheels had with this weight on them is unknown, but it in no way would it correspond even weakly to a Montero in the same turn with all weight on its tires as Mitsubishi designed it. It is safe to say the presence of the outrigger and its contact with the ground significantly altered the suspension's interaction with the track surface in a way that makes it no longer representative of the real world. Can't believe I missed that, but there you have it. Of course, the weight of the outriggers themselves would by itself dramatically impact the truck as someone pointed out. I won't go into too much detail, but this test was a travesty and I hope CU finally pays the price. I hope Mitsu calls Isuzu and Suzuki and applies for class action status for a group approach to kicking CU's a**.
#872 of 2830 Regardless...
Jun 22, 2001 (12:29 pm)
...the damage has already been done. Potential buyers aren't going to do a frame-by-frame analysis of the test tape. Uninformed consumers are going to make a snap judgement based on a top-segment news report and, unfortunately, Consumer Reports.
Jun 22, 2001 (12:35 pm)
Just try to explain THAT to anybody you are trying to sell your vehicle to.
Hope they buy into it and give you the $35K you are asking.
#874 of 2830 Outriggers
Jun 22, 2001 (12:38 pm)
Why would the outriggers be the cause of the rollovers for the Montero when they also tested so many other SUVs (Pathfinder and others) with the same setup and they did not have the same result?
#875 of 2830 All things being equal...
Jun 22, 2001 (1:49 pm)
only the Montero, Trooper and Samurai tipped. How do you explain that none of the other SUVs they've tested got up on two wheels?
Did you really expect Mitsu to agree with CR? I was hoping that they might have learned something, at least from a PR standpoint, from the MB A-Class "moose" test. I guess not.
As to CR having an agenda. Yeah, it's to inform the public.
#876 of 2830 Washingtonpost article about the CR test
Jun 22, 2001 (2:01 pm)
#877 of 2830 Outriggers (s852)
Jun 22, 2001 (2:18 pm)
The outriggers were not on the other vehicles--they were placed on the Montero after the first run through because the driver was concerned that the vehicle would tip. They don't routinely put the outriggers on unless they are worried that the vehicle will tip.
That brings up the next question: what happend before the outriggers were placed? Did the vehicle raise up off the ground and if so is there any videotape of this? Or were they just concerned that it would tip?
#878 of 2830 Washington Post & outriggers
Jun 22, 2001 (2:29 pm)
The Post editorial made some very valid points. However, I still trust CR's judgment, or perhaps track record, more so than I do those defending the Montero.
My understanding is that CR puts outriggers on all SUVs they test.