Mitsubishi cars

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: 01rangerxl
I think a big mistake for Mitsubishi in the US was dropping completely out of the pickup market for the entire duration of its peak. That made no sense. They let the Mighty Max become the most dated truck offering available, then when things took off in 1996/7 they just dropped out. The rebadged Dakota (Raider) was too little, too late.

When I was growing up in the 1990s Mitsubishi seemed to have a good reputation and a pretty full lineup for the time. By the early 2000s quality was suffering and their vehicles seemed to age really fast. I know someone who bought a 2003 Montero Sport new, and while it was a nice SUV, the trans was done by 75K miles with mostly highway driving. In the late 2000s I remember seeing 3-4 year old Galants and Eclipses with badly fading and oxidized paint. Now that they are down to the Lancer and Outlander/Outlander Sport in the US, I don't think they will hang on here much longer.


Yeah, I don't think they'll be around much longer either.

Mazda and Subaru sell a lot more cars than Mitsubishi and they are far behind Nissan, Honda, and Toyota. Mitsubishi was just barely outselling Suzuki.

The Mighty Max wasn't a good pickup anyway.

By 1996, Japanese truck makers were either making their trucks in North America (Frontier/Tacoma) or using rebadged domestics (Mazda-B/Isuzu Hombre).

I don't think that importing a cab/chassis truck from Japan and having a separate assembly facility assemble the bed would have been much cheaper than just a grill and badge alteration to the Dakota. Chrysler and Mitsubishi missed the boat by waiting so long to make the Raider.

 

[cptbarkey]

Mitsubishi's are quite reliable, but as most have already pointed out their terrible product line in the US has stagnated beyond even being an inside joke.

 

[artificialist]

Diamond-matic transmissions are weak, so when I read that my Ralliart didn't have one, I made my decision to buy the Ralliart.

I think I would have bought a Subaru if certain things were different about them.

 

[zzyzzx]

I think the people why buy Mistsubishi cars are those who aren't familiar with their legendary poor reliability.

And it's not just their cars, their airplanes got shot down pretty easily during WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Philippine_Sea

The battle was nicknamed the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot by American aviators for the severely disproportional loss ratio inflicted upon Japanese aircraft by American pilots and anti-aircraft gunners.

The four Japanese air strikes involved 373 carrier aircraft, of which 130 returned to the carriers, although many of these survivors were subsequently lost on board when the two carriers were sunk on the first day by submarine attacks. After the second day the losses totaled three carriers, more than 433 carrier aircraft, and around 200 land-based aircraft. Losses on the U.S. side on the first day were only 23 aircraft.

The Japanese had spent the better part of a year reconstituting their carrier air groups, and the American's Fast Carrier Task Force had destroyed 90% of it in two days.

 

[mrsilv04]

I had a 2011 or 2012 Galant as a rental car. I never knew that a car *that* *bad* was being made in the 21st century.

What a piece... One of the few rental cars that I couldn't turn back in quick enough.

I would have taken a 15 year old Buick LeSabre Custom, that smelled like an old woman's perfume, over that thing.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: zzyzzx
I think the people why buy Mistsubishi cars are those who aren't familiar with their legendary poor reliability.

And it's not just their cars, their airplanes got shot down pretty easily during WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Philippine_Sea

The battle was nicknamed the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot by American aviators for the severely disproportional loss ratio inflicted upon Japanese aircraft by American pilots and anti-aircraft gunners.

The four Japanese air strikes involved 373 carrier aircraft, of which 130 returned to the carriers, although many of these survivors were subsequently lost on board when the two carriers were sunk on the first day by submarine attacks. After the second day the losses totaled three carriers, more than 433 carrier aircraft, and around 200 land-based aircraft. Losses on the U.S. side on the first day were only 23 aircraft.

The Japanese had spent the better part of a year reconstituting their carrier air groups, and the American's Fast Carrier Task Force had destroyed 90% of it in two days.


At the onset of WWII, the A6M Zero was the best air-cooled carrier based fighter in the war. The Wildcat, Tomahawk, and Airacobra were badly outmaneuvered and outranged by the Zero. The A6M had a crazy amount of kills with no losses in China.

We simply got better. Hellcat matched the Zero's performance and the Corsair was just so big, powerful, and tough that the lightweight agile Zero wasn't as much of a threat. Later in the war we got high altitude fighters like the P-51 Mustang and P38 Lightning. They could pick their fights with the Zeros from above.

The A6M Zero was a good design....for 1939. By 1943 it was outclassed. Weapons developed quickly. The Imperial Japanese developed an A7M but it came too late.

 

[panthermike]

My sister in law bought an '02 Lancer OZ Rally right after she met my brother. Basically, she though it was "cool". It's actually been a decent car though, especially considering the very poor maintenance it has received.

It has just under 200K now. Changed the radiator at 90K, a cat at 170K, and the trans at 192K(only had one service, which was at 36K). It burns a quart of oil every 2K or so, and maybe gets an oil change with dino every 8-13K. It has had one set of plugs, one coolant service, rare air filter change and original(awful now) shocks. She's still running, although possibly on borrowed time since they refuse to change the timing belt on this interference engine.

 

[pandus13]

oddball here:
Jackie Chan had a long time partnership/preference with Mitsubishi cars (I'm guessing Mitsubishi Asia).
had some interesting scenes in some movie where they filmed at a car testing facility. old tech now, but it was an engineering wet dream 30 years ago....

 

[andrewg]

Originally Posted By: zzyzzx
I think the people why buy Mistsubishi cars are those who aren't familiar with their legendary poor reliability.

And it's not just their cars, their airplanes got shot down pretty easily during WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Philippine_Sea

The battle was nicknamed the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot by American aviators for the severely disproportional loss ratio inflicted upon Japanese aircraft by American pilots and anti-aircraft gunners.

The four Japanese air strikes involved 373 carrier aircraft, of which 130 returned to the carriers, although many of these survivors were subsequently lost on board when the two carriers were sunk on the first day by submarine attacks. After the second day the losses totaled three carriers, more than 433 carrier aircraft, and around 200 land-based aircraft. Losses on the U.S. side on the first day were only 23 aircraft.

The Japanese had spent the better part of a year reconstituting their carrier air groups, and the American's Fast Carrier Task Force had destroyed 90% of it in two days.

The 'Turkey Shoot' was at a fairly late time in the war. As such, Japanese aircraft had not kept up performance wise with various American products. The pilots the Japanese were putting into the skies at that time were quickly trained and many had little experience due to attrition.
To be fair, many of Mitsubishi's aircraft, early in the war, were indeed SUPERIOR to our own. I really don't think that reliability was the issue later in the war as was antiquated design.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: andrewg
Originally Posted By: zzyzzx
I think the people why buy Mistsubishi cars are those who aren't familiar with their legendary poor reliability.

And it's not just their cars, their airplanes got shot down pretty easily during WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Philippine_Sea

The battle was nicknamed the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot by American aviators for the severely disproportional loss ratio inflicted upon Japanese aircraft by American pilots and anti-aircraft gunners.

The four Japanese air strikes involved 373 carrier aircraft, of which 130 returned to the carriers, although many of these survivors were subsequently lost on board when the two carriers were sunk on the first day by submarine attacks. After the second day the losses totaled three carriers, more than 433 carrier aircraft, and around 200 land-based aircraft. Losses on the U.S. side on the first day were only 23 aircraft.

The Japanese had spent the better part of a year reconstituting their carrier air groups, and the American's Fast Carrier Task Force had destroyed 90% of it in two days.

The 'Turkey Shoot' was at a fairly late time in the war. As such, Japanese aircraft had not kept up performance wise with various American products. The pilots the Japanese were putting into the skies at that time were quickly trained and many had little experience due to attrition.
To be fair, many of Mitsubishi's aircraft, early in the war, were indeed SUPERIOR to our own. I really don't think that reliability was the issue later in the war as was antiquated design.


"I don’t think I have ever flown a fighter that could match the rate of turn of the Zero. The Zero had ruled the roost totally and was the finest fighter in the world until mid-1943." Captain Eric Brown, the Chief Naval Test Pilot of the Royal Navy

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: andrewg
Originally Posted By: zzyzzx
I think the people why buy Mistsubishi cars are those who aren't familiar with their legendary poor reliability.

And it's not just their cars, their airplanes got shot down pretty easily during WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Philippine_Sea

The battle was nicknamed the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot by American aviators for the severely disproportional loss ratio inflicted upon Japanese aircraft by American pilots and anti-aircraft gunners.

The four Japanese air strikes involved 373 carrier aircraft, of which 130 returned to the carriers, although many of these survivors were subsequently lost on board when the two carriers were sunk on the first day by submarine attacks. After the second day the losses totaled three carriers, more than 433 carrier aircraft, and around 200 land-based aircraft. Losses on the U.S. side on the first day were only 23 aircraft.

The Japanese had spent the better part of a year reconstituting their carrier air groups, and the American's Fast Carrier Task Force had destroyed 90% of it in two days.

The 'Turkey Shoot' was at a fairly late time in the war. As such, Japanese aircraft had not kept up performance wise with various American products. The pilots the Japanese were putting into the skies at that time were quickly trained and many had little experience due to attrition.
To be fair, many of Mitsubishi's aircraft, early in the war, were indeed SUPERIOR to our own. I really don't think that reliability was the issue later in the war as was antiquated design.


Also: most of the Japanese planes weren't fighters. About half were bombers...there were as many Hellcats as there were Japanese PLANES!

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
Originally Posted By: andrewg
Originally Posted By: zzyzzx
I think the people why buy Mistsubishi cars are those who aren't familiar with their legendary poor reliability.

And it's not just their cars, their airplanes got shot down pretty easily during WW2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Philippine_Sea

The battle was nicknamed the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot by American aviators for the severely disproportional loss ratio inflicted upon Japanese aircraft by American pilots and anti-aircraft gunners.

The four Japanese air strikes involved 373 carrier aircraft, of which 130 returned to the carriers, although many of these survivors were subsequently lost on board when the two carriers were sunk on the first day by submarine attacks. After the second day the losses totaled three carriers, more than 433 carrier aircraft, and around 200 land-based aircraft. Losses on the U.S. side on the first day were only 23 aircraft.

The Japanese had spent the better part of a year reconstituting their carrier air groups, and the American's Fast Carrier Task Force had destroyed 90% of it in two days.

The 'Turkey Shoot' was at a fairly late time in the war. As such, Japanese aircraft had not kept up performance wise with various American products. The pilots the Japanese were putting into the skies at that time were quickly trained and many had little experience due to attrition.
To be fair, many of Mitsubishi's aircraft, early in the war, were indeed SUPERIOR to our own. I really don't think that reliability was the issue later in the war as was antiquated design.


"I don’t think I have ever flown a fighter that could match the rate of turn of the Zero. The Zero had ruled the roost totally and was the finest fighter in the world until mid-1943." Captain Eric Brown, the Chief Naval Test Pilot of the Royal Navy


He's full of it! Off the top of my head, two planes bested it before then: the Focke-Wulf Fw-190a, the F4U Corsair, and the Republic P-47 Thunderbolt. All three were fast, well-armored, tremendously armed, and utterly outclassed the A6M.

 

[Spazdog]

In Malaysia, the Brits' Hawker Hurricanes got ripped to shreds by Zeros. Fighting the Zero on it's own terms was disaster. It was too nimble. The British brought in their fabled Supermarine Spitfire. In two engagements, the Zeros downed 17 and lost 2.

The Spitfire and Hurricane handled the FW-190 and ME-109

You're going to take a P-47 Jug into a dogfight vs a Zero?

I mentioned that the F4U Corsair was just too big and too powerful for the Zero. You didn't get into a turning fight with the Zero in the Corsair but it could fight. Unfortunately it was still doing carrier trials in 1942. 1943 it was in combat service.
1943.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Anyone who dogfighs a Zero (in ANYTHING) is a moron. The Thunderbolt (like the Corsair) is a speed fighter...note: at 430MPH, it's almost 50MPH faster than the Hellcat!

Also note: the Fw-190's tore apart the contemporary Spitfires. It wasn't until the Spitfire Mk. IX arrived (a year later) that they matched the Focke-Wulf. The early Fw-190 is about 25MPH faster than the Hellcat, the later "Dora" (Fw-190d9) is 50MPH faster than a Hellcat and 100MPH faster than a Zero!

The Spitfire pilots tried to fight Zeros on their terms...and got torn apart. Using proper tactics (that is: speed) even a Mk. Vb Spitfire should be a match for a Zero.

 

[Spazdog]

The Hellcat was made specifically to address the shortcomings of the Wildcat. It didn't see combat against the Zero until late in 1943.

Before 1943, nothing could match the range and turn rate of the Zero. The Allied rule was, "Don't turn against a Zero."

"It is hard for modern researchers to understand just how dominant the Zero was in the early years of the Pacific War. No Allied plane could stand against it. The obsolete Brewster Buffalo and the sleek looking but comparatively low performance Bell P-39 fared poorly against the Zero. The best of the early American Army fighters was probably the Curtis P-40, and the early models of this fighter were distinctly inferior in most respects to the Zero. Even the contemporary models of the famous British Spitfire and Hurricane fighters, which had won the Battle of Britain, had major problems with the Zero when they met in 1942.

At sea, the situation was hardly much better. The U.S. Navy's Grumman F4F Wildcat was out classed by the Zero, although it probably provided the best competition of any of the Allied fighter in the theater. Navy and Marine pilots used the stubby fighter's maneuverability to good advantage in the desperate early battles in the Pacific.

Most of Japan's many top aces flew the Zero. Prominent among them is Saburo Sakai (with 64 victories), the top scoring Japanese ace to survive the war, and Hiroyoshi Nishizawa (actual total of victories unknown, but 104 confirmed), perhaps the greatest Japanese ace of them all. Among other Japanese aces, Shoichi Sugita had 120+ victories, Tadashi Nakajima 75+, Naoishi Kanno 53, Teimei Akamatsu 50+, and Kinsuke Muto 35.

Not only could the Zero out fight any Allied fighter, it also out-ranged them. Many people do not realize that the Zero was the world's first long range escort fighter. Zeros flew long range bomber escort missions during the war in China, before the Pacific war even began, and throughout WW II Japanese carrier air groups out-ranged their US counterparts, primarily because of the great range of the Zero fighter. If the Germans had the long range Zero instead of the short range ME 109, the outcome of the Battle of Britain might have been very different. As famous as the Zero was, it is probably still under rated by most people...."
http://www.chuckhawks.com/zero_A6M.htm

 

[Robenstein]

Basing the quality of a 2013 car by machines the same company built 70 years ago is not a valid argument, even if it were basing it on their cars, let along airplanes.

That is saying look at how awesome the new Ford auto lineup is because of their old Tractors.

The Zero was made by a culture that saw dying in battles as glorious so they did not armor it, seeking agility and range instead of making it tough. It was agile, but like with the Germans in ww2, they simply ran out of good pilots, and unlike the Germans they stagnated in design. While the ME109 and FW190 were updated to keep it competitive, the Zero changed little.If you must bash Japanese ww2 engineering look at their service pistol the Type 94.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
The Hellcat was made specifically to address the shortcomings of the Wildcat. It didn't see combat against the Zero until late in 1943.

Before 1943, nothing could match the range and turn rate of the Zero. The Allied rule was, "Don't turn against a Zero."

"It is hard for modern researchers to understand just how dominant the Zero was in the early years of the Pacific War. No Allied plane could stand against it. The obsolete Brewster Buffalo and the sleek looking but comparatively low performance Bell P-39 fared poorly against the Zero. The best of the early American Army fighters was probably the Curtis P-40, and the early models of this fighter were distinctly inferior in most respects to the Zero. Even the contemporary models of the famous British Spitfire and Hurricane fighters, which had won the Battle of Britain, had major problems with the Zero when they met in 1942.

At sea, the situation was hardly much better. The U.S. Navy's Grumman F4F Wildcat was out classed by the Zero, although it probably provided the best competition of any of the Allied fighter in the theater. Navy and Marine pilots used the stubby fighter's maneuverability to good advantage in the desperate early battles in the Pacific.

Most of Japan's many top aces flew the Zero. Prominent among them is Saburo Sakai (with 64 victories), the top scoring Japanese ace to survive the war, and Hiroyoshi Nishizawa (actual total of victories unknown, but 104 confirmed), perhaps the greatest Japanese ace of them all. Among other Japanese aces, Shoichi Sugita had 120+ victories, Tadashi Nakajima 75+, Naoishi Kanno 53, Teimei Akamatsu 50+, and Kinsuke Muto 35.

Not only could the Zero out fight any Allied fighter, it also out-ranged them. Many people do not realize that the Zero was the world's first long range escort fighter. Zeros flew long range bomber escort missions during the war in China, before the Pacific war even began, and throughout WW II Japanese carrier air groups out-ranged their US counterparts, primarily because of the great range of the Zero fighter. If the Germans had the long range Zero instead of the short range ME 109, the outcome of the Battle of Britain might have been very different. As famous as the Zero was, it is probably still under rated by most people...."
http://www.chuckhawks.com/zero_A6M.htm


Did you actually read my post?

 

[jimbrewer]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Basing the quality of a 2013 car by machines the same company built 70 years ago is not a valid argument, even if it were basing it on their cars, let along airplanes.

That is saying look at how awesome the new Ford auto lineup is because of their old Tractors.

The Zero was made by a culture that saw dying in battles as glorious so they did not armor it, seeking agility and range instead of making it tough. It was agile, but like with the Germans in ww2, they simply ran out of good pilots, and unlike the Germans they stagnated in design. While the ME109 and FW190 were updated to keep it competitive, the Zero changed little.If you must bash Japanese ww2 engineering look at their service pistol the Type 94.


Perhaps. But I think their advertising slogan: "From those wonderful folks who brought you Pearl Harbor" may have had something to do with their lack of success (just kidding).

Still, its weird to see a more or less full line manufacturer just fade away like that. It just seems like every single car they make is always an also-ran. Always.

My only brush with Mitsu was in the late 1980's when the Montero 4X4was being lauded to the skies by the car magazines. My Nissan truck had about 120K on it by then, so I thought I would give it a test drive. It was top heavy and a complete dog. The car salesman who was a very young kid trying to get into the business asked somekind of carefully phrased question like "For the right price can I get you into this car today?" I had to reply: "There is no price at which I would buy this car."

 

[kkreit01]

We went from cars to dogfights?

 

[Superbuick96]

Just opinion I guess, although I recently read that Mitsubishi may be leaving the American market soon. Here's my take on your list:
Toyota: quality, the new GM
Honda: quality, can't go wrong
Nissan: quality, but Japanese [censored] step child
Mazda: chick cars
German cars: solid, but maybe a little buggy
Korean cars: Who the [censored] buys a Kia, or Hyundia!?!? Seriously!? Plummeting resale
Mitsubishi: Meh....last cool vehicle made was a Eclipse Spider circa 1996