Prado or Pajero - decision time

Submitted: Sunday, Apr 15, 2007 at 02:26
ThreadID: 44321 Views:13625 Replies:11 FollowUps:5
This Thread has been Archived
Looking for some advice,

My lease is about to run out and I am considering upgrading to the new Pajero or Prado. Both these vehicles seem to be very good and I am not trying to start a range war and probably either will satisfy both my needs -but a bit of input from the forum will help.

At the moment I am leaning towards the Pajero mainly due to cost and the fact that you seem to get all their MATT features by default, the Prado does not have these features unless you go top of the range which I can't afford.

I will be using it for general driving bitumen, towing a camper trailer-and may be a caravan in the future, both off road and on road. When I say off road I don't mean rock climbing. I am looking for a vehicle which will handle dirt roads/tracks (eg Oodnadatta, Flinders tracks etc - I currently have a Forester which can do some of these but not all - specially when towing).

The prado has apparently better off road credentials(which is of interest to me, and a larger fuel tank (I found the size of the fuel tank in the forester a real pain on a recent trip to Alice Springs having to fill up nearly every stop with the high cost of petrol). The new prado is supposed to also have better fuel economy - of big interest.

As said above, the Prado does not have, unless I go top of the range, all those Pajero Matt features. My question is how important are they any way. Do you really need Traction Control etc in the Prado for offroad driving.

Sorry it took so long to get to the point. As much as I like my forester I have found it has limited the places I want to go which I am trying to overcome by one of these vehicles.

Thanks for any help,
Richard
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Topend - Sunday, Apr 15, 2007 at 08:19

Sunday, Apr 15, 2007 at 08:19
Pajero is handles better on the bitumin. Traction control does work offroad.

Prado is better off road (more clearance, more articulation), is more refined and quieter, holds a lot more fuel and is more fuel efficient. More ergonomic interior too.

Read the latest copy of Overlander. They have a road test of the base model diesels.

For my money it would be the Prado.

Topend.
AnswerID: 233491

Follow Up By: Member - MrBitchi (QLD) - Monday, Apr 16, 2007 at 12:41

Monday, Apr 16, 2007 at 12:41
"more clearance"

According to their respective web sites,
Ground clearance..
Prado 181mm
Pajero 225mm

Would love that fuel tank though.....
0
FollowupID: 494625

Follow Up By: Topend - Monday, Apr 16, 2007 at 13:29

Monday, Apr 16, 2007 at 13:29
Sorry, you are right with the clearance. I was acually thinking of approach, departure and ramp over angles at the time, not clearance.

Prado approach, departure and ramp over angles - 35, 29 & 30

Pajero approach, departure and ramp over angles - 29.1, 25.7 & 20.4

Cheers,
Topend.
0
FollowupID: 494643

Follow Up By: Member - MrBitchi (QLD) - Thursday, Apr 19, 2007 at 09:08

Thursday, Apr 19, 2007 at 09:08
Pajero VRX (LWB model) 36.6, 25, 22.5

If you're going to bag it at least get your numbers right.....
0
FollowupID: 495363

Follow Up By: Topend - Thursday, Apr 19, 2007 at 19:36

Thursday, Apr 19, 2007 at 19:36
I was not bagging the Pajero. Just stating the pros & cons for each vehicle. My father has had several Pajeros and he loves them. He uses it mostly on road and light off road.

The figures I quoted are from Overlander 4WD magazine for a DiD GLX Pajero. Couldn't get on the Mitsubishi web site to double check. If they are wrong I apoligise for the error.

I drive a V8 Landcruiser 100 (previously a TD100 and before that a Prado 90) and I have also driven my father's Pajeros over the years. We also have 3 120 Prados at work and use to have a 2002 Pajero all which I drive regularly. I stand by what I said about each vehicle.

Topend.
0
FollowupID: 495486

Reply By: Member - Arkay (SA) - Sunday, Apr 15, 2007 at 08:36

Sunday, Apr 15, 2007 at 08:36
Heather and I also started with an early model auto Forester quite some years ago, then moved to a Jackaroo (to which we added a long range fuel tank making 145 litres), and finally (January 2006) finished up exactly where you are - Pajero or Prado. We chose the Prado for 3 main reasons. Firstly the standard 180 litre fuel capacity. Secondly we were nervous about how long Mitsubishi were going to be in business. At that time there were all sorts of rumours and we were concerned about warranty, spare parts, and in particular re-sale value. Thirdly the Prado was said to be quieter inside. I believe the latest Pajeros and better in this regard now, than they were back then. Then again the Prado now has the more powerful more economical D4D diesel motor, and a 5 speed auto box (our is 4). Other issues which we considered were a proven established diesel motor with no real known problems, and the fact that Toyota were offering a $49,990 drive away no more to pay promotion for all GXL Prados including our diesel auto.
I can only say that, for us which means some pretty serious 4WD and lots of towing a 1900kg tandem caravan, we are absolutely delighted with our Prado (now nearly 30,000km on sppedo). That is not to say the Pajero would not also be an excellent choice.
Hope this opening of our hearts is of some benefit to you.
AnswerID: 233495

Reply By: Member - Vince B (NSW) - Sunday, Apr 15, 2007 at 08:55

Sunday, Apr 15, 2007 at 08:55
I recently bought a NP pajero(diesel) & I found the MATT system to be great in off road work. I previously had a detroit locker in a early model pajero(front diff) & it was very hard to steer in tight situations. The Matt system still gives you great steering control.
Regards.
Vince
AnswerID: 233499

Reply By: Member - Nick (TAS) - Sunday, Apr 15, 2007 at 09:30

Sunday, Apr 15, 2007 at 09:30
One other thing to remember, have been recently doing alot of work on Mitsubishi's(Pajeros), general servecing and some steering parts, suspension and can not believe the prices these parts cost (genuine and non genuine).
Toyota parts are dear but have nothing compared to Mitsubishi, real eye opener and something to consider.
My money would go to a Prado.
AnswerID: 233505

Reply By: Go Fishing - Sunday, Apr 15, 2007 at 11:11

Sunday, Apr 15, 2007 at 11:11
Prado won 4WD of the year in Overlander
Pajero won it in 4x4 Australia.

Both magazines were savage on the NVH levels in the Pajero.

"What you don't expect though are the NVH issues (even in the Exceed) that have plagued this model and still gaven't been properly addressed by Mitsubishi. Sure the stiff chassis and taught suspension give better handling that will be appreciated by the enthusiastic driver, but it comes at the expense of ride and comfort which are issues that every driver and passenger will experience every time they ride in the vehicle".

I suggest you research how much Pajero's devalue in comparison to the Prados.
AnswerID: 233514

Reply By: Oldman - Sunday, Apr 15, 2007 at 11:27

Sunday, Apr 15, 2007 at 11:27
Many thanks for the replies, some interesting comments The Prado seems to be the more popular choice.

Does the lack of the Pajero Matt features ,like traction control, in the Prado cause any issues.

Again thanks,
Richard

AnswerID: 233516

Reply By: T-Ribby - Sunday, Apr 15, 2007 at 11:41

Sunday, Apr 15, 2007 at 11:41
Hi Richard. I've owned a couple of Toyotas, and at times I've paid through the nose for spare bits. I like the Pajero as well, but for what you want, my money would be on the Prado.
cheers
T.Rib
AnswerID: 233519

Reply By: kimprado - Sunday, Apr 15, 2007 at 17:11

Sunday, Apr 15, 2007 at 17:11
Richard

I'm on my second (current model) Prado and happy with the car. Be aware the update model has reduced ground clearance compared to the run-out model at the end of 2006.

Very good tow verhicle, but I'd put polys on the back end.

The biggest problem with the Prado is the plastic surrounding the body. My previous car required repairs on a number of occasions, when panels were ripped off or damaged.

Never driven the Pajero, so I can't comment.

Regards

Kim
AnswerID: 233567

Reply By: lc_120man - Sunday, Apr 15, 2007 at 19:05

Sunday, Apr 15, 2007 at 19:05
Don't get hangup on Pajero MATT stuff. This is mainly for novice users who don't
know how to drive 4wd properly. Just do a 4wd course and you'll find that you don't need any of MATT stuff. Prado is much comfier and nicer to drive which
is very imprortant for long trips...
AnswerID: 233595

Follow Up By: Oldman - Sunday, Apr 15, 2007 at 19:25

Sunday, Apr 15, 2007 at 19:25
lc ,
Are you talking about me (novice user who don't know how to drive a 4wd properly)
Unfortunately you are right. :)

Attending a course is a good idea (I did one a couple of years ago in my Subaru but that only touched on some of the aspects as was designed for smaller SUVS/4wd). Another one could be on the cards when I decide as I had a great weekend doing the course.
A test drive of both is to be done with the better half, although doubt will be able to do new Prado as none here in Canberra I believe but will drive last years if possible )

Many thanks for the reply. this is what I was trying to determine.
Richard
0
FollowupID: 494455

Reply By: Diesel Power - Monday, Apr 16, 2007 at 08:51

Monday, Apr 16, 2007 at 08:51
I think you will find the MATT to be VERY useful in off AND on road applications. The active stability control and electronic brakeforce distribution are of definate value ON the road. While the traction control will allow the Paj to keep going off road even with a wheel cocked. If it is of no REAL value why does Toyota put such a hefty premium on the same thing in the Prado? And why dont they value the safety of ALL Prado owners enough to make it standard accross the range?
You can get a long range tank for the Pajero of around 81L capacity if range is of concern.
At the end of the day drive and buy the car that YOU think suits YOUR needs not what others THINK you might.

Cheers and Beers
Scott
AnswerID: 233710

Reply By: leachy_9 - Monday, Apr 16, 2007 at 16:12

Monday, Apr 16, 2007 at 16:12
I recently went through the same process and decided on the Prado based on the fact that the areas in which the Prado has lower specs than the Pajero are easily adressed but the issues with the Pajero are fundamental to the vehicle.
I went for a GX D4D diesel and added A/C, cruise, ARB rear diff locker, Lovells/Bilstein +30mm heavy duty suspension. The whole thing was cheeper than a GXL. I've had it off road in some pretty tuff situations and done much better than the standard GXL prado and Pajero I was with. An added bonus that I hadn't counted on was the much improved on road prerformane with the suspension upgrade. It took a bit more organising (Novated leased the whole package) but in the end I think I got a good package for the dollars.
AnswerID: 233800

Sponsored Links