By on June 29, 2015

2016 Mitsubishi Outlander

With the Lexus IS finally ditching its dated and overripe 2.5L V6 in favor of the new Atkinson/Otto-cycle 2.0L turbocharged four-cylinder, the vehicle above will have the least powerful V6 engine in America: the 224 hp, 3.0L V6-powered Mitsubishi Outlander.

Making matters worse, it requires premium fuel … and that’s not the worst part.

It’s been a long time coming, but Lexus fans will likely welcome the new force-fed four-pot that ups the base output of its entry sedan to “241 horsepower and up to 258 lb-ft of torque” according to the Canadian Lexus release. While Lexus in the U.S. has not yet confirmed the new engine for the IS, it seems all but inevitable at this point.

Sadly, that puts Mitsubishi squarely in the crosshairs again for having a product that doesn’t match up to the competition. Even V6 turbodiesels on the market are producing 240 horsepower and above along with much, much more torque.

However, the worst of it comes when you put Mitsubishi’s V6 in context. It can only be had in the very top GT S-AWC trim, portraying the 3.0L V6 as the “premium” option, which starts at $30,995. It only drinks premium fuel. And, to top it all off, Mitsubishi is looking forward to being in this position for the next three to four years as the 2016 model year brings with it a refreshed Outlander. That refresh didn’t include any upgrades to the V6.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

113 Comments on “Mitsubishi Will Soon Sell the Least Powerful V6 in America...”


  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Speaking of a “special breed”…

  • avatar
    dal20402

    How things change. Less than 20 years ago, I owned a car with a 220 hp, 3.0L V6. It was considered a quick car with an above-average V6 engine at the time.

    • 0 avatar

      And yet this 3.0L V6 came out less than 10 years ago.

      • 0 avatar
        notferris

        From a quick scan on Mitsu’s website they RECOMMEND premium… Last I checked that’s different from requiring it.
        I’m guessing lower grade gas will reduce power output, lower fuel economy and increase emissions… Not good…
        At about 75hp/l the engine is at the lower end of the performance metric but similar to the Nissan Pathfinder, Toyota Highlander, Honda Pilot and Mazda CX-9. Out of all those only the Pilot has a SOHC engine like the Mitsu.
        The V6 Outlander is relatively light for an SUV, especially an AWD 7-seater, weighing in at under 3,600 lbs. That weight combined with the low power output engine results in a decent claimed 20/27 mpg fuel economy. The much larger and heavier Pathfinder is very close behind though, so there’s something to be said about Mitsu making an effort to modernize the engine.

        • 0 avatar
          notferris

          Correction: The hp/l for the 2015 Honda Pilot is similar but for 2016 the Pilot has a lot more power.

        • 0 avatar
          jedd

          About the premium gas: what’s the verdict? I saw on the EPA website the claim that it’s “required,” but I also read what you read in the owners manual. Will the engine really start knocking if I use 87 or 91 octane? And is using anything less than 93 actually bad for the engine?

          Also, just wanted to say, I LOVE MY OUTLANDER. I looked at all the competition – Rogue, Rav4, CRV, Escape – and much of my decision was based on interior styling (way better on the Outlander), the 3rd row of seats (only the Rogue has this too), and the price. I’ll add this, I bought a premium package SE with 4cyl, and traded it 3 months later for the GT. This car is WAY underpowered in the 4cyl; the GT is a lot more of a car, it handles much better too. Again, I’m very pleased with this car, and I guess I just disagree with all the negative comments about its style. I think it’s the best looking SUV out there.

          thanks for any info on the gas question.

          • 0 avatar

            Without premium in the V6, you will be down on power. There is a noticeable difference between running regular and premium fuel in that car, unlike one that doesn’t require/recommend premium. Also, if it says premium recommended, chances are it will get better fuel economy with higher octane fuel.

    • 0 avatar
      Waftable Torque aka Daniel Ho

      I fondly remember the 250 cu.in I-6 in my 75 Mercury Comet. With a glorious 80 or so hp and 180 lb.ft of torque, I lived for those 0-60mph runs of 17 seconds. Torque beats horsepower, right?

      And I swear, how did Ford introduce all those harmonic vibrations into an inherently smooth design?

    • 0 avatar
      sirwired

      That may very well be the case, and these numbers would be just fine if this weren’t a premium-priced option, requiring premium gas.

      The world has passed this engine by. It might be just fine if it were the base engine, but it isn’t.

    • 0 avatar

      Very strange indeed. I know its an SUV and comparing it to a sedan might not work too well. But consider the 3800 Series II. which was a massive 3.8L V6, but put out 205 horses. Also, it took unleaded

    • 0 avatar
      brn

      Yep. Never thought I’d see the day when a 224hp V6 was the weakest V6 sold in America.

      I do agree with sirwired though. Premium gas? Really?

      • 0 avatar
        Sigivald

        I confirm from looking at a download of the owner’s manual that it *recommends* premium, but says it’ll run just fine with regular 87 octane unleaded.

        Presumably at slightly reduced power, but it will run and not void the warranty or break anything.

        • 0 avatar
          JimC2

          Probably the only time regular people would notice a difference on regular gasoline (when premium is “recommended” but not “required”), is on hot days and doing something like accelerating onto a freeway, going up a big hill, or towing.

    • 0 avatar

      I was just thinking the same thing. My ’89 LaForza has the famous Ford Windsor 5.0L V8 – which makes all of 189 horsepower. The 2006 Ranger I used to own had a 4.0L V6 that put out 206 horsepower – and was the top of the line engine, a 3.0L V6 was also available on some models.

    • 0 avatar
      Frog

      Those are the same specs as my 95 Ford Taurus SHO had. I can’t think of anything else it might be.

  • avatar
    sirwired

    What, exactly, is Mitsubishi still doing here? Do they have any significant product in the pipeline that even has a prayer of turning their brand around?

    VW is struggling, but at least they have a decent-sized dealer network and a decent-looking pipeline in the works. My local Mitsu dealer’s office and “showroom” is about the size of my living room, and the service facility a couple of bays rented from a nearby independent garage.

    • 0 avatar
      ...m...

      “What, exactly, is Mitsubishi still doing here?”

      …eight-year subprime loans, that’s what they’re doing here…

      • 0 avatar
        Steven Lang

        Ally does their financing. In fact Ally is now the 800 pound gorilla of the captive finance industry.

        The 0 down, 0 payments until next year loans were a historical aberration. Mitsubishi now pretty much abides by the same lending standards as everyone else.

        If you want to look at loss leaders, I would strongly encourage to look at many of the vehicles under the VW and FIAT brands. Mitsubishi isn’t a particularly price aggressive brand at this point.

        • 0 avatar
          ...m...

          …fair point: ally took over mitsubishi financing in april of this year, and their standard terms appear to top out at 72 months…

          …if you visit some independent mitsubishi dealer websites, though, you can still find offers of 96, 120, 180, and i-kid-you-not 240 month terms…i have no idea how real those more outlandish terms may or may not be, but crazy balloon-payment schemes aren’t without precedent in the industry…

          • 0 avatar
            JimC2

            “240 month terms”

            Not that I didn’t believe you (I *did* believe you), but I had to see this for myself and yup… 240 months is at least a website menu choice.

            Hey, think of it like an expression of confidence, kinda like a really long warranty (and kinda not, ha ha!).

            (scratches head, goes back to drinking coffee)

          • 0 avatar
            Mandalorian

            I don’t know why Mitsubishi gave up around 2000. In the 80s/90s they made some good stuff like the Starion. Heck, even the original Eclipse had 5 minutes of fame. Mitsu was competitive with Mazda, Subaru and Nissan for the longest time. Then they just stopped trying.

  • avatar
    danio3834

    Peak power numbers really aren’t very meaningful by themselves. The fact that this turd requires premium fuel to achieve comparatively low peak power numbers is though.

    • 0 avatar

      And the fact they could have updated it for the refresh in 2016 and didn’t is very telling of where Mitsubishi is right now.

      • 0 avatar
        derekson

        You’d think that they’d face reality on not having the R&D to develop engines like this and just replace it by buying Camry V6s from Toyota or something. Continuing to sell their “premium trim” with this turd under the hood is just silly.

      • 0 avatar
        Scoutdude

        Just because they didn’t update it for the 2016 refresh does not mean that they will leave it as is for the foreseeable future. Mitsu isn’t rolling in cash so it makes sense to spread out the investment over a longer period.

    • 0 avatar
      EAF

      Lol…

      I currently own and STILL daily drive a ’95 GS-T. I’m averaging 22-24 mpg mixed driving, it does not consume fluids of any kind and is making nearly 50% more power than Mitsu intended! 215k miles on the 4G63T and I just recently began feeling a 3rd gear grind when power shifting at redline. :(

      I will keep this until the wheels literally fall off. It is rock solid reliable, quick and agile, I can leave the doors unlocked with the keys in it where ever I park it. The biggest perk; does not require yearly OBD2 emissions testing even though the ECM is indeed OBDII compliant.

      If I could afford an Evo VIII – X I would not hesitate to buy one. They carry high resale values and are usually raced and abused.

      Mitsu does have a V6 that can compete with the 2GR, VQ, and J, it is the 3.8 MiVec that the fourth generation Eclipse came equipped with. 265hp & 260ft-lbs. Not sure why they use this 3.0 boat anchor in the Outlander.

  • avatar
    RideHeight

    Look at that vehicle in the photo.

    Who buys one of those to go any faster than the rest of the traffic?

    Poor thing is just a mall mule. Stop whipping it.

  • avatar
    Eyeflyistheeye

    The basic design of the Mitsubishi V6 dates to 1986, and was never that great of an engine, except for the GDI versions in Japan and the rare 3.5 DOHC that saw duty in 1990’s Diamantes and Monteros.

    Since 3.0 V6 engines are practically extinct in the North American market aside from Mitsubishi, Nissan’s 3.0 V6 made 222 hp with regular fuel in 1999, Mazda’s 3.0 V6 made 220 hp with regular fuel and Honda’s 3.0 V6 made 240 hp with regular fuel both in 2002.

    To compare, since 1986, Toyota has been through three V6 engine families, Honda two, and Nissan three as well.

    Mitsubishi should start selling 6MT brown diesel wagons. Their brand image is so far in the dumps that they should try everything and anything that has a remote chance of success.

    • 0 avatar
      pc talon

      I think you have some incorrect info on this engine. The 3.0 V6 in the current Outlander uses the 6B31 engine which is almost as different from the 6G72 as the 4B11 is different from the 4G63. It is an aluminum block compared to iron block. It is a small bore/long stroke 87.5mm/83mm vs. 91mm bore & 76mm stroke of the 6G72.
      But that does not excuse Mitsubishi’s lack of development on their new engines. Something they were very progressive from 1985-2005.

  • avatar
    gtemnykh

    More relevant question: how much power does it make on 87? Because if you think the buyers of these things are going to fill it up with premium….. shiiiiiee* you trippin’

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Imagine back in the 1995-1999 time frame Mitsubishi had one of the highest output 4-cyl on the market with the 2.0 turbo in the Eclipse.

    • 0 avatar
      JMII

      Guess I was lucky then… the ONLY triple diamond products I’ve ever owned was a ’96 Eclipse GS-T which had that amazing 2.0 Turbo pushing out 210 HP & 214 TQ while still getting 30 MPG. To understand how powerful that was for its time consider the 4.6l V8 Mustang had 215HP.

      • 0 avatar
        01 ZX3

        The 2V 4.6 Mustang was considered a dog then, especially compared to the LT1 F Bodies. The 4V version in the Cobra had 305 that year though.

        • 0 avatar
          Reino

          I had an LT1 F body, and my sister had a GS-T. The Camaro had torque on demand but poor steering, and a lot of rear wheel slip. It was a rocket at 80+ mph but around town it was sloppy. On the other hand that Eclipse spooled up like mad around town and put it all down through the front wheels. It felt lighter and steered better too. If I had to choose between the two today as a resto, it would be very hard to pick.

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    I remember having the GM 4.3L V6 under the hood with 145 HP – and once upon a time, we were happy with those numbers.

    Didn’t the now defunct Ford 4.0L V6 truck motor make 210 HP at the end of its life?

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      “Didn’t the now defunct Ford 4.0L V6 truck motor make 210 HP at the end of its life?”

      The 4.2 in the F150, with 217 HP at 4800 RPM, felt more like 80HP in the 05 F150 I drove, one could literally floor it on an extremely uneven-derelict road without risk of disturbing anyone inside the cab. Though it certainly didn’t help that is was an uncomfortable SOB.

      The 4.2 lived until 08, so says my quick research.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        The 4.3L V6 I had was in a ’95 S-10 Extended Cab with a manual. It was a competent package but not a rocket ship. The GM 4.3L at least bowed at the altar of torque, as did the Ford 4.0 Cologne engine.

        I remember the 4.0 in the Mustang was just a God awful package.

    • 0 avatar
      NoGoYo

      It did! But the Cologne V6 (aside from the Cosworth DOHC version) was never a powerhouse. Even the most powerful Cosworth version made 210 horsepower, which was respectable for 1995 but not exactly stunning.

    • 0 avatar

      I think the figure for the 4.0L in my 2006 Ranger was 206hp. It was actually the top engine option in the Ranger, and it always seemed adequate for what I used it for.

  • avatar
    Panther Platform

    224 HP is more than sufficient for this vehicle. The issue is premium gas. At any rate somebody has to be at or tied at the bottom. By the way we are sure in a golden age for cars – I had several malaise era cars that probably didn’t even hit three figures for HP.

  • avatar

    As I’ve said before, Mitsubishi does not particularly care about the U.S. You all think it’s Volkswagen that doesn’t care about U.S. sales, but it’s really Mitsubishi. Mitsubishi’s cars sell relatively-well outside of the States, but in the States, the company seems to have achieved the perfect balance of minimizing R&D costs while also minimizing liability from exiting the U.S. and thereby nullifying franchise agreements. The company was actually surprised by the Mirage’s sale figures. Nothing suggests that it is in desperate to exploit the U.S. market, or even remotely interested. Mitsubishi of North America just…exists.

    • 0 avatar
      rudiger

      Yeah, it appears that Mitsubishi’s US corporate statement is ‘exit strategy’. It seems all too obvious that they’re simply winding down US sales to avoid as much franchise litigation as they can when they finally, inevitably get around to pulling the plug for good. I mean, really, who would buy a Mitsubishi product today thinking that they’ll still be around in ten years (or maybe even five).

      And to think that, at one time, they were a legitimate contender.

      • 0 avatar
        mjz

        They won’t exit the US market anytime soon. Everyone forgets about the fact that they have an assembly plant in Normal Illinois. It would cost them untold millions to shut it down. So yes, they are treading water with their product lineup here. But they will be in the market for the foreseeable future. If I am not mistaken, they had one of the biggest, if not the biggest, percentage increase in sales last month. The mirage has been a surprising hit, and they will be adding the sedan version soon. They also are now turning a profit in the US. So don’t write then off yet.

      • 0 avatar

        I still see quite a few ads for the Outlander. They are especially funny because the voiceover is something like “what would you do if you had a vehicle with touchscreen navigation and all wheel drive?”. I have a vehicle with those things, and I mostly drive it to work and the grocery store.

  • avatar
    30-mile fetch

    I’m sure Lexus will be happy to lose the “lowest hp V6 on the market” comments online, but if you weight it against displacement, the Mitsu makes fewer horsepower per liter. So by that metric, powerhouse Toyota’s luxury division wins against little Mitsubishi!

    • 0 avatar
      Galant1360

      By this rationale, Mitsu V6 3.0L is not the weakest, as we have Nissan V6 4.0L for 261hp and Toyota V6 4.0L for 270 hp. Even Nissan V6 3.5L with 260 hp has less power per displacement. Also Mazda V6 3.7L with 273 hp. And I think there are more V6 engines that are weaker than the Mitsu one in term of power per displacement.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        Makes me angry they turn down the 3.5 in the Nissan applications to 260. It CAN do 309hp.

      • 0 avatar
        Eyeflyistheeye

        Mr. Mitsubishi fanboy, the 4.0 engines are BOF RWD truck applications designed for higher torque at the cost of horsepower. They cannot be compared to transverse mounted V6s in cars or crossovers.

        • 0 avatar
          notferris

          Name calling is unnecessary and detracts from the validity of your statement.
          I should say partially valid statement. I fully agree that the VQ40 and GRN280 4.0L V6 engines were designed for truck applications.
          However, the J35Z in the pre 2016 Pilot, the VQ35DE in the current Pathfinder, the 2GRFE in the Highlander (all 3.5L V6) are crossover applications and have power/displacement ratios right around 75hp/l. The same as the Outlander.
          Again, of all these engines, only the Outlander V6 RECOMMENDS premium fuel.
          It would appear I am repeating myself quite a bit. My apologies but it seems comments aren’t being read…

          • 0 avatar
            Galant1360

            Well, I forgot to mention Subaru Boxer 3.6L with only 256 hp. That is a 71 hp/l ratio. Why no one mentions that? Is that because boxer engines have better performance in lower rpms and no one is worried about maximum hp?

  • avatar
    an innocent man

    My 2002 A4 Quattro had 220hp from a V6. It was plenty fast, and likely heavier.

  • avatar
    Steven Lang

    Until recently, Mitsubishi was the only automaker to offer an SUV for less than $20,000 that got over 30 miles per gallon.

    http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2014_Mitsubishi_Outlander.shtml

    I’ll let you guys in on a little secret when it comes to damaged brands like Mitsubishi and Lincoln. They are insanely good used car values. If you have a friend who cares absolutely nothing about cars, get them a used Mitsubishi that has been maintained well. They lose value faster than a modern day Greek bank and the mechanicals are surprisingly stout.

    http://tradeinqualityindex.com/reports/Mitsubishi.html

    Mitsubishi has benefited from long model runs over the past ten years, and much of what they sold was devoid of the unproven electronics and technologies that have hurt other brands. Four-cylinder models are particularly strong in terms of long-term reliability.

    What does that really mean to their bottom line? Not much these days, except that the value quotient on the used side is surprisingly strong for those folks who are apathetic about all things automotive. Last year we had an immaculate two year old version of the Mitsubishi Outlander Sport go through the lane with a 5-speed and less than 5,000 miles. It sold for only $10,500.

    The 2003 Eclipse I bought last week that has an auto/4cyl/cloth combo and looks positive stunning in a dark burgundy? $2,000 plus the $220 buy fee.

    You want a good cheap used car that is fairly modern and will likely hold up? Buy a Mitsubishi.

    • 0 avatar
      RideHeight

      Holy smoke…. the Outlander Sport racks up red circles in CR like a Toyota.
      New car prediction for reliability is “Much better than average”.

      Never seriously looked into Mitsu before, thanks for the eye opener.

    • 0 avatar
      LectroByte

      > If you have a friend who cares absolutely nothing about cars, get them a used Mitsubishi that has been maintained well

      Maintained well? That’s the tricky part, though, somebody who buys a Mitsubishi and is willing and able to spring for the maintenance and drive it like a grown-up is probably going to keep it until the wheels fall off. The ones I come across all seem rode hard and put up wet. But I agree with your general point, a less popular brand can be a better used car value.

    • 0 avatar
      Instant_Karma

      I keep browsing craigslist for a beater Montero Sport for three reasons, I need a cheap 4*4 beater to roll around the woods, the 81 300SD I bought came with a WeatherTech trunk liner for the Montero Sport and the fact that prices for even the most clapped out and beat down 4wd Toyotas are ridiculous.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        Good plan on the Montero Sport, they’re extremely common, but also seem to be owned by some of the most neglectful people ever. They’re incredibly similar to a 96-02 4Runner in just about every dimension and specification, just a little less nice on the interior and they have a few mostly minor issues that crop up (oil leaks, namely).

        Steve with the solid “hit ’em where they ain’t’ advice, although Lectrobyte makes a good point that late model Mitsus seem to attract abuse like no other make. It surely is a testament to the fundamental goodness of the drivetrain that I see so many of the 97-03 generation still plying the potholed roads of Indianapolis’ Eastside.

        On a related note (by way of the Mitsu/ChryCo ‘world engine’) I was in my gf’s friend’s late model Avenger this evening, escorting her to get some cash from an ATM, and it all fit together. Avengers are hands down one of the most popular cars in my area, and they fit the task fairly well. Cheap, disposable, no one cares if they scrape it up or nail a pothole in one of these, or more likely than not they don’t have insurance/money to get it fixed anyhow. The car is miles away from a contemporary Camry/Accord/Altima/Malibu/Fusion in almost every metric that car people care about. But it has decent enough power and air conditioning, and swallows up potholes with a shudder through the body but good compliance.

        This friend’s Avenger was a gift from her hardworking selfless 1st generation immigrant parents. They bought her and her sister matching base model Avengers, at fire sale prices I’m sure. Kind of funny to see a medical school decal on the back window of that Avenger, instead of a Monster sticker or God knows what else.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        I think you’ll have a hard time finding a decent Montero Sport! They’re on their sixth or eighth owner by now, and none of them ever washed the exterior or rotated the tires.

        Everything I’ve read said the biggest problem with the MS was the ride quality.

        Ever consider going for the regular Montero Limited instead? Much better ride quality, seven seats, and a MUCH nicer interior than was ever fitted to the MS. The pre-01 ones are hard to find in good shape (and rather old) even though I like the squareness. But the 01+ (you really want 03+ for ESC feature) can be found in nicer shape, by someone who paid $47,000 for a Mitsubishi when they bought it.

        They also are epically capable offroad, and a real truck.

        I might go for an 04 Anniversary Edition, in special pearl white paints (special wheel design as well).

        • 0 avatar
          gtemnykh

          I found the Montero Limiteds to be somewhat troublesome beasts when I tried to find a clean used one a few years back. Their increased complexity (IRS, 5spd automatic) over the Montero Sport create a few weak spots, while retaining the leaky nature of the Sport’s V6s. And like the other Mitsus, in my experience all of the ones I saw had gone through the wringer. I think the sweet spot with the gen III Monteros is an early 01-02 XLS model with a trouble-free 4 speed Aisin automatic, part time transfer case, and the limited slip rear diff rather than the fairly primitive traction control and “Super-Select” 4wd system. The 5spd autos are very sensitive to fluid type, the 2 I test drove had torque converter chatter which may or may not be fixed by putting in the correct Mitsubishi unicorn tear ATF. Both the front and rear suspensions on the gen III are known to have alignment issues.

          The previous, boxy fullsize Monteros are much more “Toyota-like” in their straightforward components (BOF, solid rear axle, torsion bar front suspension, 4 speed Aisin, locking rear diff) and less fastidious in general. I regularly see these things with 200k+ miles, still alive and well, maybe some blue smoke from worn valve guides. The mid 90s “SR” models had more powerful 3.5L DOHC engines with a trick intake manifold with variable length geometry. Both are a potential source of trouble: butterfly valves detach and get sucked into the engine, and the DOHC is an interference design, don’t ignore the 60k change interval.

          So with due diligence, any of the Mitsubishi options can make a really nice truck, but they’re just not quite as straightforward or as well studied here in the US as Toyotas or domestic SUVs. My ultimate pick of the litter would be a 1999 fullsize Montero with the winter package (rear locker). 3.5L SOHC with less complexity but almost as much power as the DOHC, tried and tested 4 speed auto, and all the other bells and whistles.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Good info on the Mont Limited, you know more about them than I do!

            -They dropped the limited slip diff when they went to ESC in 03+?

            -Can’t find the ATF fluid anymore, dealer won’t provide it?

            I have heard about the alignment, and also the blue smoke issues from the 3.5. I also heard they can go through brakes quite often.

            -So the SR had the 3.5 while the regular had a – 3.2? I was thinking toward the end of Gen2 they switched to all 3.5’s. I was always particularly interested in the last-of-breed Gen 2 Outlander trim for 2000 only.

            If you consider though, the money you’re saving on initial purchase price over the Toyota option (7 seats being the LC/LX), you might come out ahead still. The 4.0 I6 LC will have more miles, and WILL use up lots of parts! I also see better rust management on Monteros than similar generation LCs. And 4Runners here in particular rused away as well, and had paint issues (93-99 generation).

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            Regular second gen (“LS”) had a wheezy 3.0L V6 with 177 hp, no spring chicken but it benefits from being VERY simple and their use in Chrysler vans makes finding parts easy. My buddy bought one out in Barstow CA for like $1200 with 220k miles on it and has been happily beating on it in the desert with minimal maintenance ever since. You’re right, the electronic traction control was supposed to replace the LSD in function, and they do an okay job from what I understand. Personally, I prefer the limited slip or even better the locking rear diff. Keep in mind, with the limited slip, you again have to use the fancy pants Mitsubishi factory fluid with friction modifiers.

            You’re right, bang for the buck the Mitsus have it all over Toyotas. But I will have to disagree on rust proofing, as you are sitting across 2 4Runner generations. And judging by the rust/paint description you’re talking about the 2nd generation (90-95). They did in fact rust like hell, and had clearcoat delamination issues. The third generation (96-02) starting with my truck in ’96 was the turning point, with a lot more galvanization used on sheetmetal. Frame rust is a more real worry (rear control arm mounting bracket), although nothing as bad as C-channel tacoma frames literally falling in half. The most noticeable but ultimately superficial source of rust on third gen 4Runners are the steel bumper corners and across the rear bumper. 2nd gen Monteros start around the middle of the rocker panels, a red stain turns into a hole you can fit your hand in. Frames however are solid.

            For any of said vehicles, I’d only buy a clean truck and immediately saturate the undercarriage with Fluid Film. I’d rather be greasy working under a car than blow torching bolts off.

            There’s a super clean stick shift (!!!) 1996 Montero LS in Virginia with 62k miles on it on cars.com, but they’re asking like $8k.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            I’m learning stuff! I’d stick with the 3.0 as well, then since it’s so common. Either way 3.0 or 3.5, you’re not moving too quickly in one of the full-size Monteros. I test drove one once, which had a sketchy owner who was driving it around on a broken shock (lied over phone). I was impressed with how well it rode, detracting for that issue. It felt much less tippy than I had expected.

            I forgot about the change in generation for 96+, they look so similar. I never -see- any of the pre-96 ones, they rusted so bad. Particularly the red and black. Same deal with Pathfinders I’d say. The later ones (96+) with the more round styling and the inception of the QX4 hold up much better.

            You’re gonna have me shopping Monteros again! I just love em in two-tone.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            The IFS/IRS Gen III is a wonderful driving truck, almost car-like IMO and even the BOF Gen II probably shames my 4Runner with a longer wheelbase, more weight, and better suspension tuning.

            If I ever hunt down a clean, rust free late model winter-package Gen II, my 4Runner will be going up for sale!

    • 0 avatar
      MK

      Stop being so helpful steve, it messes things up for the rest of us.

      Long model runs and the concomitant ability to keep running with 3rd world levels of owner “care” have always impressed me with Mitsubishi. The fact that nobody appreciates this is just icing on the value proposition.

    • 0 avatar
      sirwired

      Buying a Mitsu today means hoping that MitsuUSA’s tenure upon these shores outlasts your ownership of the car. The second they finally throw in the towel, both the value of the vehicle drops even further and you start to really wonder about parts availability.

    • 0 avatar
      CoreyDL

      And while they’re still around, a “nobody cares” abandoned brand like Mercury! 08 or 09 Sable FWD? Very good large car value. You can find a well-equipped Premier trim with 60K miles etc, for $10k or under.

      • 0 avatar
        bball40dtw

        The good thing about Mercs, and even Lincolns, is that you can take them to a Ford dealership. Your local Ford dealership has pretty reasonable prices and isn’t going anywhere.

        • 0 avatar
          CoreyDL

          Do they “upcharge” you any for bringing a Lincoln in vs. a technically identical Ford product? I suppose this could vary as well if it’s a F-L dealer versus just L.

          When I needed a rubber grommet for the chassis of my GS (had fell out, caused wind noise up through door panel!), I called both the Lexus and the Toyota dealer, and gave them the same part number. The part was something like $8.50 at Lexus, and the Toyota dealer three blocks away got it for $4.95.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            No. They just look at it as a Ford product that they can service. I’ve been going to the Lincoln dealership because I can drop it off for an oil change in the morning and they’ll give me a loaner (with both the MkT and C-Max). They are also really good about cleaning the car when I bring it in.

            When I need something major done, I’ll probably take it to the Ford dealer I really like.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Gotcha. By the same token, I think I might be leery of taking my M to the Nissan dealer. Something tells me I’d leave with door dings or something broken.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            The Ford dealer I go two is very near to Dearborn and a few Ford factories. They have a good relationship with Dearborn, so I don’t worry. An added bonus is they do so much Ford employee business that they will order almost anything without a deposit. They actually encourage Ford employees to order vehicles.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Are you a Ford employee, or were you? I forget if you ever said or no.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            @Corey

            He’s Mark Fields, or at least on the FoMoCo board.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I am not. I know many and my family company used to pour concrete at many of the Ford plants during model changeover or if they were adding something like a paint shop. FWIW, I did a lot of work at GM, Chrysler, and supplier plants as well.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Thanks, I will remember that. I think you have less hair than Mark Fields.

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            Mark Fields may have more hair than me, but he looks like a midget standing next to me.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            LOL

  • avatar
    Baldpeak

    I don’t understand the hate here. That’s decent power for a normally aspirated 3 liter. No turbo lag. And doesn’t any new car get better fuel economy on premium anyway?

    • 0 avatar
      RideHeight

      This thread is a virtuoso performance of adolescent car-guyness. Let’s have some school bus reviews so they can carp about their HP, too.

      • 0 avatar
        NoGoYo

        I think a DT466 International school bus would have at least 210 horsepower and a ton more torque. :P

      • 0 avatar
        Baldpeak

        Yeah, I guess they can’t make PREMIUM (snooty rich guy voice) gas money flipping burgers.

        • 0 avatar
          CoreyDL

          The issue we’re taking here, is that A) the power figures are pathetic in 2015, as they are late 90’s power figures for 3.0L and six cylinders.

          B) Mitsubishi has very “non-premium” and credit-challenged customers, who will not actually put premium fuel in their vehicle.

          Side note: I think the uppity Diamante took only premium fuel as well.

          • 0 avatar
            notferris

            One can’t really compare power outputs from the 90’s with those of present day engines. New EPA regulations regarding fuel economy/emissions, new way the SAE calculates HP, etc. impact current power ratings.
            As mentioned above, when viewed from the hp/displacement perspective, the Mitsu 3.0L V6 is about average (or a little lower than) and premium fuel is recommended, not required. Although one could argue that with the concessions you make when using lower grade fuel it’s a moot point.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            That’s fair enough, keeping it current day only when comparing. Still, most people do it better than Mitsubishi.

    • 0 avatar
      Sigivald

      Not that I know of.

      Most of them don’t “recommend” premium, which suggests they’re not compressing enough to have need of it, which suggests they will gain nothing from it.

  • avatar
    Compaq Deskpro

    That’s nothing compared to my mom’s 02 Taurus with the 3.0 V6 pushing a whopping 155 hp. This engine is fine in comparison.

    • 0 avatar
      SaulTigh

      How about a ’96 Grand Marquis with a whopping 190 hp out of 4.6L V8? Thing is, it will easily get out of it’s own way and still storms up a freeway ramp with some authority. I’m guessing decent torque combined with decent gearing.

    • 0 avatar
      Panther Platform

      I appreciate the Panther Love! My 03 Grand Marquis LSE with a relatively modest 239 HP (but aggressive gearing) pulls like a freight train! (and it takes regular gas).

    • 0 avatar
      Bee

      That Vulcan V6 was used in the Taurus in its entire original run from 1986-2007. Originally the optional engine over the 2.5 four until 1991, it became the base engine once the Essex 3.8 and later the Duratec 30 showed up.

  • avatar
    Volt 230

    I wonder if a used Mirage is a good value as well?

  • avatar
    71charger_fan

    I remember with zero affection the 2.8l 102hp oil-leaking slug of a V6 in my ’82 Camaro.

  • avatar
    slavuta

    @Mark Stevenson – this would be an interesting read with some perspectives, like 0-60 times and fuel economy numbers

  • avatar
    jimbo1126

    A little off topic, but not really. I’m not sure if $39K is a “steal” for a $60k+ 2015 Kia K900 Luxury trim with less than 10k on the odometer, but that’s what you’ll find at Carmax now.

  • avatar
    cimarron typeR

    I’ve always like the Mitsu SUVs, maybe it’s as a kid traveling to Mexico and the Philippines I saw a ton of their body on frame SUVs. You know they had to be durable to survive with those road cond.A kind of get the serum to the village vehicle .
    Now that Toyota is the new Oldsmobile and Honda went full retard (as opposed to 1/2 retard with their styling, these still seem true to their mission.
    I’d pick up a used 2016 GT w/ the cool RF sub in the trunk , given their massive depreciation.

    Has anyone driven the 2016 updated Outlander, was wondering if the road noise levels have improved

  • avatar
    VehicrossGuy

    I recently purchased a 2016 Mitsubishi Outlander GT w/ 3.0L V6 rated at 224 hp.
    As an original owner of a 2000 ISUZU VehiCROSS w/ 3.5L V6 rated at 215 hp that with 187K miles is still my DD.
    The ISUZU is 5200# and gets 13mpg city 19 mpg highway and 15mpg combined.
    The Mitsubishi is under 3600# and gets 19 mpg city 27mpg highway and has been averaging 27.5mpg on premium gas (recommended in owners manual). I Supercharged the VehiCROSS and it goes to 60 mph in about 7.5 sec(stock about 9 sec)
    The Mitsubishi goes 0 to 60 mph in about
    7.6 sec. I run premium in both. I look at the Outlander as offering a more powerful engine option then the Honda CRV’s only 4 cyl offering along with 7 passenger capability & higher tow rating (3500#). There are alot of Outlander running around Western PA….lol.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Tagbert: What is is about the comments section on this site? Almost every article has at least one comment that is...
  • theonlydt: Easy one for me, as owned a 2009 Sentra SE-R. Buy: the Sentra! This generation had a platform/chassis that...
  • Corey Lewis: No internet yet, so no.
  • Tagbert: Yes, Elon would spread doubt on pouch cells because that is not what Tesla uses. In fact there are lots of...
  • Corey Lewis: What an amazing and powerful marketing thing AWD has become, eh?

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber