1992 Mitsubishi Montero

Defect. VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES: MIRAGE MODEL VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH 1.5L ENGINES; MONTERO SPORT MODELS EQUIPPED WITH 3.0L ENGINES; AND MONTERO MODELS EQUIPPED WITH 3.0L ENGINES. THE BOLT SECURING THE CRANKSHAFT PULLEY CAN BECOME LOOSE AND THE PULLEY COULD FALL OFF THE VEHICLE.

Risk. THE CONDITION CAN RESULT IN A LOSS OF POWER STEERING ASSIST, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.

Remedy. ON THE MIRAGE VEHICLES, THE DEALERS WILL INSTALL A NEW, IMPROVED CRANKSHAFT PULLEY BOLT ON THE OLDER ENGINES. ON NEW ENGINES WHICH ALREADY HAVE THE IMPROVED BOLT, THE DEALER WILL TIGHTEN THE CRANKSHAFT PULLEY BOLT TO THE CORRECT TORQUE SPECIFICATION. ON THE MONTERO MODELS, DEALERS WILL TIGHTEN THE CRANKSHAFT PULLEY BOLT TO THE CORRECT TORQUE SPECIFICATIONS. IF THE BOLT IS DAMAGED, IT WILL BE REPLACED.

Defect. UNDER CONDITIONS OF FULL LOCK STEERING AND FULL SUSPENSION TRAVEL, THE LEFT OR RIGHT FRONT WHEEL-SIDE BRAKE HOSE CAN CRACK, RESULTING IN BRAKE FLUID LEAKAGE.

Risk. BRAKE FLUID LEAKAGE WILL CAUSE ILLUMINATION OF THE BRAKE WARNING LAMP AND REDUCTION IN BRAKING EFFECTIVENESS INCREASING THE RISK OF A VEHICLE ACCIDENT.

Remedy. DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE LEFT AND RIGHT FRONT WHEEL-SIDE BRAKE HOSES WITH REVISED HOSE ASSEMBLIES.

Defect. UNDER CONDITIONS OF FULL LOCK STEERING AND FULL SUSPENSION TRAVEL, THE LEFT OR RIGHT FRONT WHEEL-SIDE BRAKE HOSE CAN CRACK, RESULTING IN BRAKE FLUID LEAKAGE.

Risk. BRAKE FLUID LEAKAGE WILL CAUSE ILLUMINATION OF THE BRAKE WARNING LAMP AND REDUCTION IN BRAKING EFFICIENCY INCREASING THE RISK OF A VEHICLE ACCIDENT.

Remedy. DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE LEFT AND RIGHT FRONT WHEEL-SIDE BRAKE HOSES WITH REVISED HOSE ASSEMBLIES.

Defect. THE WELD ON THE RECEIVER UNIT OF THE TRAILER HITCH CAN BREAK.

Risk. IF THE FAILURE OCCURS, THE TRAILER CAN SEPARATE FROM THETOWING VEHICLE, AND COULD RESULT IN A VEHICLE CRASH WITHOUT WARNING.

Remedy. REPLACE THE TRAILER HITCH.

MITSUBISHI MONTERO 1992. NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID:00V311001 AND 96V143002. DEALERSHIP CLAIMS THAT THE RECALL IS VOID BECAUSE THE BOLT BROKE AND THEY ASSUME THAT IT BROKE NOT BECAUSE OF RECALLED PART BUT IMPROPER REPAIR. *TR

I OWN A 1992 MITSUBISHI MONTERO. THIS VEHICLE IS UNDER RECALL, DETAILED BELOW: NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER : 00V311001 EXACTLY WHAT IS STATED IN THE RECALL, HAPPENED TO MY VEHICLE. EXCEPT WHEN IT HAPPENED, INSTEAD OF COMPLETELY FALLING OUT, WHEN THE CRANKSHAFT PULLEY BOLT BECAME LOOSE IT CAME PARTLY OUT AND BROKE OFF LEAVING HALF OF THE BOLT SEIZED INSIDE THE CRANKSHAFT. I WAS UNAWARE OF THE RECALL ON THE PART AT THAT TIME. BUT AFTER CONTACTING MITSUBISHI FOR A DIFFERENT REASON (TO ORDER A SPARE KEY FOR THE VEHICLE) I WAS INFORMED OF THE RECALL ON MY VEHICLE. SURPRISED, I INFORMED THE MITSUBISHI REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT HAPPENED. SHE INSTRUCTED ME TO TAKE THE VEHICLE TO THE NEAREST MITSUBISHI DEALERSHIP AND TOLD ME THAT ALL THE REPAIRS NECESSARY WOULD BE DONE AT NO COST TO ME. SO I TOWED THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP TO BE REPAIRED. THE NEXT DAY THE SERVICE MANAGER AT THE DEALERSHIP CALLED ME AND TOLD ME THAT MITSUBISHI INSTRUCTED HER NOT TO REPAIR THE VEHICLE BECAUSE THEY FOUND THAT THE TIMING BELT HAD BEEN REPLACED, AND THIS NEGATED MITSUBISHI'S REPAIR RESPONSIBILITIES. THE VEHICLE HAD ABOUT 155,000 MILES ON IT AT THE TIME OF BREAKDOWN. REPLACING THE TIMING BELT ON A CAR WITH THAT MANY MILES ON IT IS CONSIDERED ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. I INFORMED THE MITSUBISHI REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MILEAGE, SO THEY WERE WELL AWARE OF THE MILEAGE ON THE VEHICLE. APPARENTLY THE REASON FOR THE DENIAL OF REPAIR WAS THAT THE CRANKSHAFT PULLEY BOLT HAS TO BE REMOVED AND PUT BACK IN TO REPLACE THE TIMING BELT

WHILE DRIVING THE FRONT WHEEL LOCKED UP. *NLM

CRANKCASE BOLT WAS UNDER RECALL AND WAS INSPECTED AT DEALER LAST APRIL OF 2001. DEC . 28TH NOISE FROM ENGINE FORCED ME TO GO TO INDEPENT SHOP I HAVE USED PREVIOUSLY THE CRANKCASE BOLT THAT WAS UNDER RECALL AND WAS INSPECTED 10,000 MILES EARLIER AND FOUND TO BE AT PROPER TORQUE HAD LOOSENED .I SPOKE TO CALIFONIA CUSTOMER NO SERVICE TO HAVE THE VEHICLE REINSPECTED AND TO BE REIMBURSED 67.00 TO TIGHTEN BOLT WITH NO SUCCESS. IF YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. .BUT THE RECALL AT LEAST IN MY CASE DIDN'T FIX THE PROBLEM IT.*AK

ENGINE FAILURE DUE TO DEFECTIVE ENGINE MODULE, REPLACING SECOND MODULE. DEALER NOTIFIED. *AK SPARK PLUGS WERE NOT OPERATIVE DUE TO ECM FAILURE. THE DEALER INSTALLED THE REPAIRED ECM. *YH

THIS CAR HAS BEEN A LEMON MITSUBUSHI HAS THE COMPLETE REPAIR RECORD THEY SAY ITS THE ONLY ONE I FIND THAT HARD TO BELIVE AS THERE OWN DEALER SAID VALVE TRAIN PROBLEMS WERE FREQUENT.

WHILE DRIVING AND PUTTING ON BRAKES PEDAL WENT TO THE FLOOR. CONSUMER SAW A SCHOOL BUS AND SWERVED AND HIT ANOTHER VEHICLE. CAR WAS STILL GOING AND IT WOULD NOT STOP. CONSUMER RAN UP AN EMBANKMENT AND USED EMERGENCY BRAKE THAT DIDN'T REALLY HELP, TOOK TO MECHANIC, AND THERE WAS A BIG SPLIT IN THE BRAKE LINE, LEADING TO THE CALIPER. *AK

DRIVING ON THE ROAD APPROX 20-25MPH AND APPROACHING A STOP LIGHT HIT THE BRAKES, WENT STRAIGHT TO THE FLOOR, SWERVED TO AVOID HITTING A SCHOOL BUS PUMP. BRAKE DIDN'T SLOW THE VEHICLE DOWN. VEHICLE CONTINUED DOWN THE ROAD, TURNED OFF INTO ALLEY. AND THREW IT IN PARK IN ORDER TO STOP. *AK

ABS WARNING LIGHT REMAINS ILLUMINATED, INDICATING MALFUNCTION WITHIN THE SYSTEM. CAUSE UNKNOWN. ALSO REPLACED DOME LIGHTS, AND DRIVER'S SIDE DOOR SWITCH JAMS. *AK

THERMOSTAT FAILED TO FUNCTION PROPERLY. *AK

THE CAR HAS EXPERIENCED LEAKING OF THE BRAKE SYSTEM.PLEASE DESCRIBE. TT

WHEEL RUSTING AROUND THE OUTER RIM ON ALL FOUR WHEELS. WHEELS COATED WITH WHITE PAINT. TT