challenger any good ?

Submitted: Sunday, Jan 12, 2003 at 14:44
ThreadID: 2921 Views:2372 Replies:11 FollowUps:14
This Thread has been Archived
im currently looking at mitsubishi challenger 3l v6 ,5speed.can anyone give me a run down on its good and bad merits .thanks
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Member - Moggs - Sunday, Jan 12, 2003 at 19:06

Sunday, Jan 12, 2003 at 19:06
dc, we test drove the Challenger recently while in the market for a medium size 4wd. Do yourself a favour and drive the Pathfinder, prado and Challenger all on the same day. My wife and I were less than impressed by the Challenger due to poor visibility (short windows), harsh ride and all round general lack of refinement. In addition, we couldn't find anyone to provide any meaningful comment on their offroad ability - even the Mitsubishi reps. I don't mean to bag the Challenger, however you don't see many off the bitumen - to me this says something. For the same price we purchased a Pathfinder and have never regretted it. The only drawback is that it is an automatic (don't make 5 speed...yet). If we had a bit more cash we would have gone the Prado - which not as well appointed as the Pathfinder in standard trim. If you purchase a Challenger you may very well be happy, but if you drive it on the same day as the Pathie or Prado you will notice significant variance in ride / quality.
AnswerID: 11134

Follow Up By: Goodsy - Sunday, Jan 12, 2003 at 20:35

Sunday, Jan 12, 2003 at 20:35
Challenger has leaf sprung rear torsion bar front
Pathfinder has coil sprung rear torsion bar front
Prado has coils front and rear.

This should tell you a lot about the ride qualty of each car. But price is also very different. Challenger is basically a triton. Very strong. If the Chanenger fits your price range go for it. Few more dollars will get you a Pathfinder. And a lot more will get you a Prado. Buy what you can afford. Each is a good 4x4 ride quality will differ with diferent suspension set ups though. Another thing Leaf springs are a lot better at carrying a load.
0
FollowupID: 6096

Reply By: Eric - Sunday, Jan 12, 2003 at 22:39

Sunday, Jan 12, 2003 at 22:39
Dc.
The challenger has better fuel economy and is more stable with a heavy load. Had one and a pathfinder on a trip and the challenger used much less fuel and was able to carry more gear. Eric.
AnswerID: 11158

Reply By: dc - Sunday, Jan 12, 2003 at 23:23

Sunday, Jan 12, 2003 at 23:23
thanks for your imput guys i drove the pathy and found it asoild all round car but had the feeling it may sit a little low and the prado i must agree was a pleasure to drive but after looking thru the explorer archives i came to the conclusion they were a little to thirsty any more imput especially on off road ability of the challenger would be greatly appreciated thanks again dc
AnswerID: 11160

Reply By: Member-John - Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 00:22

Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 00:22
We have had a challenger 2000 model 3L Auto for about 2 years now.Bought it used and had a extra seat put in rear for extra kiddies.We have done all kinds of 4wdriving all WA(north and south) and also travelled interstate with 4 kids + C'van(average fuel econ. 6.5 - 7.5 L/100km on interstate trip).We have found the Challenger to be a great package both on and off road.We fitted our car with Pirrelli Scorpion A/T Tyres.We have had to pull all kinds of 4wd out of beaches(not once been stuck on beach ourselves(yet)),Done heaps wet winter 4wd down south through forests,climbed all kinds of hills both sand and rocky.Regular 4wd days out of Perth are now a part of our weekends(+camping).We have never been let down by our cars incapabilities on any surface wether bitumen , gravel, or sand.Couldn't be happier with the vehicle and would recommend to anybody.Bad merits-not as roomy as a Landcruiser but also not as pricy(LOL).Hope this info helps some.
AnswerID: 11161

Follow Up By: Trentski - Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 11:08

Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 11:08
4 kids + C'van(average fuel econ. 6.5 - 7.5 L/100km on interstate trip)

Are you sure? I would expect that sort of fuel consumption from a Mitsi Mirage not a Challenger, let alone one with Caravan and 4 kids.
0
FollowupID: 6115

Follow Up By: Member - Moggs - Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 12:48

Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 12:48
I agree Trentski - maybe John forgot the '1' in front of the 6 & 5. My wifes little 1.3ltr Suzuki would be comparable to those figures - John must travel with a hell of a tail wind.
0
FollowupID: 6117

Follow Up By: Member-john - Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 14:11

Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 14:11
Hard to beleive fuel economy?- The C'van was a Jalark pop-up 6 sleep. I also was expecting worse economy. We travelled at approx. 90-110 km hr. The best economy was 7.43L/100km on Nullabor and worst was 5.8L/100km on Darling river run NSW.We travelled back from QLD with friends tandem and used similar amount fuel as them driving a EB falcon wagon. Total trip 9490 km and 1329 Litres ULP.U do the maths. BELIEVE IT OR NOT ITS TRUE.
0
FollowupID: 6121

Follow Up By: Member - Moggs - Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 14:30

Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 14:30
Ummm...John - maybe you should re-do the math. Try total ltrs used divided by total distance travelled to get litres per 1km - then multiply by 100 to get the L/100km.

i.e. (1,329 ltrs / 9,490km)*100 = 14 Ltrs / 100kms

Sounds more reasonable and well within what could be considered normal fuel consumption for the type of driving.

I'd say you have made the mistake of just dividing km's by ltrs which would result in something close to your answer (actually 7.14).

Hope you don't calculate the fuel usage for any group trips - you could end up stranded high and dry.
0
FollowupID: 6123

Follow Up By: Trentski - Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 14:30

Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 14:30
Looks like it is a maths problem.
If you do 10,000km on 1000litres of fuel you are doing 10km/l or 10 l/100km.
or 10,000km on 500l you are doing 20km/l or 5l/100km

You are doing 9490 km on 1329 litres of fuel so you are doing 7km/l or 14l/100 km. (still respectable I might add)
The give away was saying 5.8l/100km was the worst fuel consumption, you need to divide 100 by 5.8 to get 17.2l/100km, which sounds a lot more likely.
Easy mistake, I had to do some thinking to remember how it all worked, just don't ask me for mpg.
cheers
trentski
0
FollowupID: 6124

Follow Up By: Trentski - Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 14:32

Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 14:32
moggs ya bet me :-)

comforting to note we got the same figures

trentski
0
FollowupID: 6125

Follow Up By: Member - Moggs - Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 14:37

Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 14:37
It can get confusing can't it - just got to think logically through the steps.

My follow up above second line should read "....to get kms per 1 Ltr - then multiply ....", and not "... to get Ltrs per 1km ...."

I agree with Trentski that it is still good fuel economy - I could only dream of these numbers in the Pathfinder.
0
FollowupID: 6126

Follow Up By: Member-john - Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 17:00

Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 17:00
OK Trntski & Moggs

I'll swallow my pride & stand corrected.Thank you both for putting me right on Economy so now when plan next trip(Tanami road & Great Central Road) I know we will make it all the way instead of half way with 4 screaming kids & winge'n wife(LOL).

All in all we are still more than happy with economy & performance of Challenger on & off road.

Cheers.
0
FollowupID: 6141

Reply By: flappan - Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 11:09

Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 11:09
I don't think a comparison between a Prado and Challenger is worthwhile. Might as well chuck a Pajero into the Mix, probably better then all of them.

Compare between the Pathfinder and Challenger, and yep would agree the Pathy is probably a better vehicle
AnswerID: 11170

Reply By: KIM - Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 13:31

Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 13:31
Hi
I have owned a Challenger for three years now and have had no trouble with the vehicle at all. The car has travelled on some of the roughest tracks in the Nth Territory, Sth Australia, Queenland and Victorian high country.
Mine has leaf springs on the back, but the new one's now have coils all round. When it's due to be traded in, I will probably buy another one, as they are as tough as nails and very dust proof. The fact that they are relative cheap is also an attraction.
AnswerID: 11176

Follow Up By: Member - Moggs - Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 14:47

Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 14:47
Kim, and when all is said and done - if you are happy with the performance then good on you. I didn't like the Challenger and bought the Pathfinder - this doesn't mean its a bad car in my eyes, it just wasn't for me. I'm happy that you like the Challenger and would get another - there are too many people out there who spend to much energy on 'wanting' something bigger and better instead of enjoying what they've got (unless of course your a Landcruiser owner, then you spend all your time enjoying the fact that everyone else has an 'inferior product' and you just know that all those pretend car owners are envious!) (sorry, had a run in at the servo the other day with a Landcruiser city dad (you know the kind, squeaky clean black wheel arches) who told me to move the Pathie so he could put som 'juice' in a real 4wd. Yes, I am stereo-typing - but I'm still fuming when I remember the smug look on his face.
0
FollowupID: 6127

Reply By: KIM - Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 14:59

Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 14:59
Moggs, I agree with what your saying, "get the vehicle that suits you". I have been driving 4wd's in the bush for over 40 years now (early starter) and have found that the drivers ability and experience is far more important than supple differences between vehicles.
As far as fuel consumption is concerned I can attest to it being very good.
AnswerID: 11180

Reply By: Steve - Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 20:26

Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 20:26
Now: ... anyone want to give us the correct fuel consumption figures ....... given that most of the aforementioned figures are rubbish ?
AnswerID: 11223

Follow Up By: Member - Moggs - Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 21:06

Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 21:06
Steve - I'd be interested to know where I've gone wrong with the figures - is there something that I'm missing?
0
FollowupID: 6170

Follow Up By: Member - Moggs - Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 21:19

Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 21:19
You there steve? I've had another look at the calc and think its good - if its wrong then 99% of everyone else is getting it wrong to. Are you refering to the actual 14ltr/100km for the Challenger being rubbish?
0
FollowupID: 6177

Reply By: Member - Moggs - Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 21:22

Monday, Jan 13, 2003 at 21:22
You by any chance didn't fill up a Landcruiser at a Thornleigh servo the other day did you Steve???
AnswerID: 11228

Follow Up By: Steve - Wednesday, Jan 15, 2003 at 21:36

Wednesday, Jan 15, 2003 at 21:36
No - I think i was in Albury....
0
FollowupID: 6275

Reply By: dc - Tuesday, Jan 14, 2003 at 01:16

Tuesday, Jan 14, 2003 at 01:16
to john and kim thanks for your reply .i feel quiet confidant that i have made the right decision but your 1st hand experiance with the challenger on and off road has just confirmed to me that the challenger is the right car for me .thanks for your time guys and its nice to know their are people out their who happily give good advice to novice 4wd owners like myself . hope you dont mind if i pick your brains again soon.cheers dc
AnswerID: 11248

Follow Up By: Member-john - Monday, Jan 20, 2003 at 02:28

Monday, Jan 20, 2003 at 02:28
DC.

No probs.Hope you have as fun and enjoyment from your car as i do in mine.
0
FollowupID: 6472

Reply By: Member - Rohan - Thursday, Feb 13, 2003 at 21:59

Thursday, Feb 13, 2003 at 21:59
dc, how'd you go? Make a choice yet? If not, check out some other comments in a discussion comparing the Pathfinder to the Holden Frontera. Do a search from 01/07/2002 using "pathfinder" as the key word. Good luck with you decsion.

Rohan
AnswerID: 13073

Sponsored Links