What do y'all know about the Mitsu Montero/Dodge Raider? I see a lot of them for sale for cheap... Good trucks, bad trucks, OK trucks? Thanks.
I think they were pretty reliable. I'd also look at a Rodeo or Passport.
A girl I knew had a late 80s/early 90s Montero for about 5 years before it pooped out (that or she crashed it, I don't know)
I used to have a 1996 Mitsubishi Pajero 2500 Turbodiesel. It was a 5-speed and had a 2.5-l 99-hp engine. Great car. We took it offroading a lot and it never let us down. It wasn't the best onroad, but offroad, it kicked ass. As far as reliability was concerned, it was bullet-proof. The only trouble we ever had with our 4 Mitsubishi's was the A/C system, which broke on all cars around the 60,000 km barrier.
A pic of our ex-Pajero with me in it shortly after my dad bought it. Man I miss this car. The slowest car I've ever driven (0-62 mph in 34 seconds), but one of the most fun cars I've ever driven. It'll always have a special place in my heart and I'd take one over the new M-Class anyday. :rockon:
(http://www.phototalk.net/photos/data/654/1081phototalk_wimmer_pajero.jpg)
One of the best looking SUVs of all time, IMO ^^
We had a Short Wheel Base 2 door Pajero in Haiti.
Great truck, slow as hell but good off road and decently reliable.
We had a diesel, wasn't offered in North America.
Avoid the V6 versions (I think it's a Chrysler engine, Mark would know), I heard the engine have a tendancy to seize.
QuoteAvoid the V6 versions (I think it's a Chrysler engine, Mark would know), I heard the engine have a tendancy to seize.
V6 was a Mitsubishi. 6G72. It was used in many Chryslers, but it wasn't a Chrysler engine. The only problem they have is they tend to burn oil.
'87 and '88 Raiders and Monteros were only available with the 2.6L I4. It was decent: 109hp, 142 ft-lbs.
The V6 was introduced in '89. 146hp and around 170ft-lbs of torque. Noticeably nippier.
'89 was also the last year for Raider.
They're OK trucks. Like any used car ask to give it a spin and be wary of any strange noises, smells, leaks, etc.
Meh, that's what my dad said about their V6 ones in Haiti.
I keep tabs on the ones that show up on eBay and there have been couple on there with seized engines too.
Any differences in the Montero application and all the other cars that used the V6?
QuoteMeh, that's what my dad said about their V6 ones in Haiti.
I keep tabs on the ones that show up on eBay and there have been couple on there with seized engines too.
(http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/fragend/confused-smiley-013.gif)
QuoteAny differences in the Montero application and all the other cars that used the V6?
Different oil pump, different oil filter location, different intake and exhaust manifolds, different cams, different timing... And it was mounted longitudinally (3000GT/Stealth was the only other longitudinal application).
Well that would very easily explain it righ there...
Engines usually seize because of poor oiling or no oil at all to the bearings, and if the oil pump was different that could easily explain it.
I still don't think it's any more prone to seizing than any other engine.
There was an industrial version of the engine too, used in stuff like mobile cranes, forklifts, etc. They were pretty stout, and they were closest the Montero/Raider version of the engine as far as I know.
QuoteI used to have a 1996 Mitsubishi Pajero 2500 Turbodiesel. It was a 5-speed and had a 2.5-l 99-hp engine. Great car. We took it offroading a lot and it never let us down. It wasn't the best onroad, but offroad, it kicked ass. As far as reliability was concerned, it was bullet-proof. The only trouble we ever had with our 4 Mitsubishi's was the A/C system, which broke on all cars around the 60,000 km barrier.
A pic of our ex-Pajero with me in it shortly after my dad bought it. Man I miss this car. The slowest car I've ever driven (0-62 mph in 34 seconds), but one of the most fun cars I've ever driven. It'll always have a special place in my heart and I'd take one over the new M-Class anyday. :rockon:
(http://www.phototalk.net/photos/data/654/1081phototalk_wimmer_pajero.jpg)
Wow, 34 seconds. I didnt know they made cars that slow :P
Thanks. Sounds like it could work...
QuoteQuoteI used to have a 1996 Mitsubishi Pajero 2500 Turbodiesel. It was a 5-speed and had a 2.5-l 99-hp engine. Great car. We took it offroading a lot and it never let us down. It wasn't the best onroad, but offroad, it kicked ass. As far as reliability was concerned, it was bullet-proof. The only trouble we ever had with our 4 Mitsubishi's was the A/C system, which broke on all cars around the 60,000 km barrier.
A pic of our ex-Pajero with me in it shortly after my dad bought it. Man I miss this car. The slowest car I've ever driven (0-62 mph in 34 seconds), but one of the most fun cars I've ever driven. It'll always have a special place in my heart and I'd take one over the new M-Class anyday.? :rockon:
(http://www.phototalk.net/photos/data/654/1081phototalk_wimmer_pajero.jpg)
Wow, 34 seconds. I didnt know they made cars that slow :P
It was actually pretty quick from 0-80 km/h (0-50 mph), the slow part came from 50-62 mph: that took literally forever since the 5-speed manual had such short geat ratios. In 1st gear, the top speed was 25 km/h (16 mph), in 2nd gear, 25 mph could barely be reached. But it was a fun car. :lol: