2003 Mitsubishi Spyder

Routine

Owners filed 7 complaints about this vehicle with federal regulators, most often about the structure. No safety recall has been issued.

What fails
ComponentReportsCrashesFiresInjuries
Visibility › Rearview Mirrors/Devices › Exterior1
100
Visibility › Power Window Devices and Controls1
000
Tires › Sidewall1
000
Structure1
000
Seat Belts › Front › Retractor1
000
Power Train › Clutch Assembly1
000
Engine and Engine Cooling1
000

What owners reported

Newest filings
Seat Belts › Front › Retractor
Filed Jan 27, 200632,000 milesAL

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE DRIVER'S SEAT BELT WILL NOT RETRACT OR RELEASE. THE SEAT BELT WAS REPLACED BY THE LOCAL DEALERSHIP LAST YEAR. HOWEVER, THE REPLACEMENT SEAT BELT IS HAVING THE SAME PROBLEM.

Engine and Engine Cooling
Filed Apr 18, 2005CA

CONSUMER LETTER COMPLAINT REGARDING THE WARRANTY ON 2003 MITSUBISHI SPYDER. VEHICLE EXPERIENCING PROBLEMS WITH THE BRAKES, HEADLIGHT EQUIPMENT, SPEAKERS, TURN SIGNALS AND A TICKING NOISE COMING FROM THE ENGINE.*MR CONSUMER FEELS THAT THEY WERE TREATED UNFAIR WITH THIS DEAL AND WANT THEIR MONEY BACK FOR THIS VEHICLE, DUE TO NUMBER OF PROBLEM THEY HAVE HAD. *BF *NM

Tires › Sidewall
Filed Sep 22, 2004CA

CONSUMER NOTICED THAT BOTH FALKEN TIRES, SIZE 225/40CR-18 WERE SPLITTING ON THE SIDEWALL. VEHICLE HAD ONLY 7,000 MILES ON THEM. THE DEALERSHIP HAD NOT YET NOTIFIED. *AK

Visibility › Rearview Mirrors/Devices › ExteriorCrash
Filed Jul 19, 200417,000 milesNY

VEHICLE HAS A BLIND SPOT BETWEEN THE MIRROR AND THE BACK WINDOW. AS A RESULT VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN A COLLISION. *AK THE OFFICE THAT FILED THE REPORT SUGGESTED THAT THE CONSUMER GET A SMALL MIRROR AND ATTACH IT TO THE EXTERIOR REARVIEW MIRROR. THE OFFICER INDICATED THAT A LOT OF TRUCK DRIVER'S USE THEM TO SEE AROUND THEIR TRUCKS. THE CONSUMER FEEL THAT THESE SMALL MIRRORS SHOULD BE STANDARD EQUIPMENT. *NM

Power Train › Clutch Assembly
Filed Jun 22, 2004CT

WHILE SHIFTING INTO REVERSE THE CLUTCH FAILED. THIS CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO STALL. CONSUMER RESTARTED THE VEHICLE, AND DROVE IT TO THE DEALER FOR INSPECTION, AND MECHANIC DETERMINED THAT CLUTCH NEEDED TO BE REPLACED AND REPLACED IT. HOWEVER, THE PROBLEM RECURRED AFTER HAVING THREE CLUTCHES REPLACED. *AK

Visibility › Power Window Devices and Controls
Filed Feb 19, 20048,200 milesNY

CONSUMER COULD NOT ROLL THE ELECTRICAL WINDOWS UP OR DOWN. CONSUMER INSISTED THAT THE WINDOWS WERE A DESIGN FLAW. TOOK VEHICLE TO THE DEALER FOR ANALYSIS, AND MECHANIC NOTICED THAT A WORN PART IN THE REMOTE NEEDED TO BE REPLACED.*AK *MR

Structure
Filed Dec 19, 20027,000 milesAZ

THE PAINT ON MY NEW VEHICLE BEGAN PEELING OFF THE HOOD IN QUARTER-SIZED CHUNKS AS I WAS WASHING IT BY HAND. ALTHOUGH THE DEALER INITIALLY ATTEMPTED TO DENY RESPONSIBILITY, THEY RELUCTANTLY AGREED TO REPAINT HOOD, ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THERE WAS AN "ADHERENCE ISSUE." I DISCOVERED THROUGH A SOURCE IN THE MITSUBISHI FACTORY THAT THERE WAS A "LOT" OF CARS THAT THEY FAILED TO PLACE AN E-SEAL ON PRIOR PAINTING. WHEN MY VIN WAS CHECKED, MY SOURCE DISCOVERED THAT IT WAS ONE OF THE VEHICLES IN THAT "LOT." I WAS TOLD TO EXPECT FURTHER PAINT ISSUES WITH THE DOORS IN THE NEAR FUTURE BY THIS SOURCE. THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT DISCLOSED TO ME PRIOR TO PURCHASE OR WHEN I TOOK THE VEHICLE IN FOR REPAIR. IN FACT, IT WAS ONLY MY PERSISTENCE THAT RESULTED IN MY VEHICLE'S HOOD BEING REPAINTED. THE VEHICLES IN THE LOT SHOULD BE RECALLED ! I PAID OVER $31,000.00 FOR THIS VEHICLE, AND I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT DEFECTIVE AND/OR SHODDY PAINTING AT THE FACTORY. PLEASE HELP ME FIND THIS INTERNAL MEMORANDA THAT GOVERNS MY VEHICLE SO I CAN FURTHER PURSUE THIS ISSUE WITH THE MANUFACTURER. OR, IF YOU CAN BE OF ASSISTANCE IN RECTIFYING THIS COVER-UP., I WOULD BE VERY GRATEFUL. MY DREAM CAR HAS TURNED OUT TO BE A REAL DISAPPOINTMENT. DIMSII IVOQ ENTRY POSTED AFTER 12/12/02 CUT-OVER TO ARTEMIS--------770771. *AK *NLM

7 of 7 complaints, reproduced as filed.

Across model years

Worst on record: 2001
YearComplaintsRecallsFiresDeathsAssessment
2003 — this page7000Routine
20023000Routine
200113000Routine
19983110Routine
19962200Routine

Compare every Spyder year →

Reading this record

No unusual pattern of severe incidents in the complaint record.

Complaint counts track how many cars were sold and how long they have been on the road as much as they track quality. A common model from 2013 has had a decade to accumulate reports; a rare one from last year has not. The signal worth weighing is in the severity columns, in whether the same component keeps appearing, and in whether the manufacturer eventually opened a recall for it.

Most recent recall on file: none. Source: NHTSA Office of Defects Investigation.