Another new pickup topic. Enjoy!

[ridger]

I have not driven the latest one, the model before it, for some reason felt like you were in an F1 car, sat on the floor with your legs out too far, my Navara by contrast, was the most carlike to drive at the time.

My old one was like that as well, got used to it! It was a 2002 d4d. Good pickup bit very thirsty. Never got over 20 mpg

 

[ollie989898]

My old one was like that as well, got used to it! It was a 2002 d4d. Good pickup bit very thirsty. Never got over 20 mpg

I am not short but found I was near struggling to see over the dash almost, it was a weird thing.

 

[west coast angus]

"huge improvement, looks wise over the last model"


I was all over the current L200 at the Highland Show... I wouldn't touch one unless I just wanted a run-a-bout/car. I expect this one to be just the same

I was too, did you just get a feeling of cheapness and poor quality?

 

[Nithsdale]

I was too, did you just get a feeling of cheapness and poor quality?

Wee bit yeah. Just soft built in general.

But the figures don't stack up. It is by far the lightest of all the pickups and they've rated it 3.5t tow capacity (a priority for me) then the sales patter goes on to brag it's the only pickup with active YAW control as standard blah blah... Man from Mitsubishi squirmed like feck when I asked why it needed it and the competition don't

Truth is they HAD to fit it, as it is unstable as hell otherwise, and likely to be bullied by fully loaded trailers. All they've done is throw more electronics at something to cure what is a fundamental design oversight/failure IMO which was brought about by Mitsubishi being forced to up their tow capacity or be left behind and lose out to all the competition who have brought out superior models...

 

[JP1]

Has the running gear changed?

The cab in the middle looks the same

 

[ford4000]

Wee bit yeah. Just soft built in general.

But the figures don't stack up. It is by far the lightest of all the pickups and they've rated it 3.5t tow capacity (a priority for me) then the sales patter goes on to brag it's the only pickup with active YAW control as standard blah blah... Man from Mitsubishi squirmed like feck when I asked why it needed it and the competition don't

Truth is they HAD to fit it, as it is unstable as hell otherwise, and likely to be bullied by fully loaded trailers. All they've done is throw more electronics at something to cure what is a fundamental design oversight/failure IMO which was brought about by Mitsubishi being forced to up their tow capacity or be left behind and lose out to all the competition who have brought out superior models...

In the adverts I've seen for the L200 in the farming press, it says they can tow 3.5 tons, but in the small print at the bottom of the advert it seems they are only rated to pull 3.5tons on a three axle trailer!!

 

[Nithsdale]

In the adverts I've seen for the L200 in the farming press, it says they can tow 3.5 tons, but in the small print at the bottom of the advert it seems they are only rated to pull 3.5tons on a three axle trailer!!

Because the vehicle itself is too light!

It needs more weight dispersed across the trailer axles which lowers the nose (hitch) weight put onto the vehicle.

 

[Cowabunga]

Mitsubishi pickups are built in one of the most efficient pickup factories in the world. They have several advantages over rivals, most obviously the super-select four wheel drive transfer box which allows full time four wheel drive on the road.
On the other hand it has several disadvantages too. It is a bit light weight, which does give it a 10mph legal speed limit advantage on many roads but it does mean that the towing limit is somewhat compromised. It can only tow 3.5 tons if the trailer is a triple-axle.
Traditionally and until the last facelift they had a propensity to like a drop or two of juice more than some, but more seriously they blew head gaskets. Hopefully that was sorted some four years ago.
The styling was a bit oriental but not sure what to say about this new model yet. It might grow on me, but so might a fungal infection.

It is certainly a contender that I would not rule out. A personal opinion, of course, but I would have one before a Navara or an Isuzu. More powerful than a Toyota. Good warranty. Reasonably priced. Proven reliable apart from the head gasket issue, which is hopefully consigned to history.

Mitsubishi is part of the Renault/Nissan/Mitsubishi alliance, but unlike the other two and Mercedes, it does not source its pickup from the Spanish Nissan Navara plant and does not use Renault engines.

A bit disappointing that it has only upgraded to the AW six speed automatic transmission when it could have chosen to use the Jatco seven speed unit used in the Navara or even the AW eight speed unit. Six speeds just isn't enough for best performance and economy, especially when rivals offer more. It will be interesting to see how the Ford ten speed unit performs mated to a four cylinder diesel Ranger. Over the top with gears perhaps? I've a car with a nine speed automatic and in 6000 miles it has yet to engage ninth gear. It needs 80mph to do so I think and it hasn't seen a stretch of dual carriageway or motorway yet.

 

[west coast angus]

Wee bit yeah. Just soft built in general.

But the figures don't stack up. It is by far the lightest of all the pickups and they've rated it 3.5t tow capacity (a priority for me) then the sales patter goes on to brag it's the only pickup with active YAW control as standard blah blah... Man from Mitsubishi squirmed like feck when I asked why it needed it and the competition don't

Truth is they HAD to fit it, as it is unstable as hell otherwise, and likely to be bullied by fully loaded trailers. All they've done is throw more electronics at something to cure what is a fundamental design oversight/failure IMO which was brought about by Mitsubishi being forced to up their tow capacity or be left behind and lose out to all the competition who have brought out superior models...

Suppose that lightness is the reason why they are ment to be the most economical pick-up, and all so they are ment to be quite nippy as well.

I do alot of miles between farms, so mpg is near the top of the list, and it keeps drawing me to the L200.

 

[Cowabunga]

Because the vehicle itself is too light!

It needs more weight dispersed across the trailer axles which lowers the nose (hitch) weight put onto the vehicle.

The need for a low nose weight isn't the issue. It can carry over a ton in the bed after all and, better than most of the opposition it can carry most, if not all that in the bed while also towing 3.5 tons. IIRC the Ranger can only legally carry 200kgs including the driver while towing 3.5 tons and is also over the unladen weight limit for car speed limits, so on most roads is downrated by 10mph compared to L200.

The problem is that it is indeed lighter than most pickups. That means its back end is less planted and may be more prone to instability if the nose weight is low or on the recommended weight, whatever that is. 150kgs? That's an absurd low nose weight for hauling livestock of course, where the nose weight might vary by up to 750kgs if not more, just depending which way round the cattle were standing. Never mind the extra weight when braking down hill or the possibly lifting weight off the back of the pickup [which is the dangerous bit] when pulling, braking or turning over a crest.

 

[Cowabunga]

Suppose that lightness is the reason why they are ment to be the most economical pick-up, and all so they are ment to be quite nippy as well.

I do alot of miles between farms, so mpg is near the top of the list, and it keeps drawing me to the L200.

Not sure about the latest models but traditionally Mitsubishi diesels have been far from being the most economical. Better check the official urban figure for an idea of the potential in real life. Forget the extra-urban and mixed figures as they are usually beyond what mortals can achieve

 

[west coast angus]

Not sure about the latest models but traditionally Mitsubishi diesels have been far from being the most economical. Better check the official urban figure for an idea of the potential in real life. Forget the extra-urban and mixed figures as they are usually beyond what mortals can achieve

Yea it's the new series 5 that uses the new 2.4l all alloy engine, that's ment to be quite economical, think it has variable valve timing too.

 

[Cowabunga]

Has the running gear changed?

The cab in the middle looks the same

Six speed automatic instead of five. Updated engines for the latest version of tier6 and the new tests for it. Lots of new [to L200] safety features.

 

[Robert K]

Just asked Brenda from Bristol and she said

 

[Nithsdale]

The need for a low nose weight isn't the issue. It can carry over a ton in the bed after all and, better than most of the opposition it can carry most, if not all that in the bed while also towing 3.5 tons. IIRC the Ranger can only legally carry 200kgs including the driver while towing 3.5 tons and is also over the unladen weight limit for car speed limits, so on most roads is downrated by 10mph compared to L200.

The problem is that it is indeed lighter than most pickups. That means its back end is less planted and may be more prone to instability if the nose weight is low or on the recommended weight, whatever that is. 150kgs? That's an absurd low nose weight for hauling livestock of course, where the nose weight might vary by up to 750kgs if not more, just depending which way round the cattle were standing. Never mind the extra weight when braking down hill or the possibly lifting weight off the back of the pickup [which is the dangerous bit] when pulling, braking or turning over a crest.

The Mitsubishi load carrying capacity was downrated at the same time as it's tow tow capacity was uprated. I'm not sure of the figures now - it's limited to the same MAM limit as all other pickups are, so by being the lightest in class it will always can 'carry' the most.


Agree I would be very nervous transporting livestock with the l200 due to its weight. As I said in my initial post, I would not consider one unless i didn't do any towing.

 

[Cowabunga]

My vet was here all day today, TB testing, and she's got a new Series 5. Only had it a couple of weeks and she loves it. Her last one, a Series4, was only four years old and the engine failed due to the head gasket issue. Unfortunately it only had a three year warranty, although Mitsubishi have come to the table to help with parts prices. The Series 5 has a 5 year warranty and new engines. Not heard anything bad about them.

 

[Beowulf]

I actually quite like the look of it. Then again I'm probably the only person on the planet that thinks the Lamborghini Urus is good looking.

If they offered a petrol version I'd quite happily buy one tomorrow.

 

[Cowabunga]

I actually quite like the look of it. Then again I'm probably the only person on the planet that thinks the Lamborghini Urus is good looking.

If they offered a petrol version I'd quite happily buy one tomorrow.

Come to think of it, there is some resemblance to the Lambo Uranus