Additional Response by Consumer Reports to Mitsubishi's Statements

    NEW YORK--June 21, 2001--"Mitsubishi's claim that it took Consumer Reports more than 60 test runs to get its results is misleading," said Consumer Reports Technical Director David Pittle. The following background explains why.

Background on the Consumer Reports Emergency Avoidance-Maneuver Test

    Consumer Reports' emergency avoidance maneuvers are designed to simulate real-world situations in which a driver needs to suddenly steer around an obstacle in the road. Consumer Reports auto-test engineers run two types of avoidance maneuvers: "long" and "short" course tests. In both, a vehicle is driven at progressively faster speeds so that test engineers can assess its handling characteristics under emergency-avoidance conditions. The tests are not designed to elicit a rollover, but CU considers vehicles that tip up severely in its tests to be exhibiting dangerous behavior.
    The speed at which a test vehicle completes the short course is not as important as what happens when it exceeds its handling limits. Typically, the vehicle will slide or skid sideways, knocking over cones that define the course. In most circumstances, this is a more controllable situation for an SUV driver than a tip-up or rollover.

Consumer Reports' Testing of the 2001 Mitsubishi Montero Limited

    Consumer Reports' "Not Acceptable" rating of the 2001 Mitsubishi Montero Limited is based solely on the results of testing on its short-course avoidance maneuver. Runs made on its long-course are not relevant to this rating.
    There were two different days of short-course testing on the Montero, along with other similar SUVs, May 16 and May 30.
    On May 16, three Consumer Reports test engineers drove the first (red) Montero sample a total of 23 runs, two of which were aborted. Out of 21 completed runs, they experienced eight tip-ups at speeds at or higher than 36.7 mph.
    The first driver made a total of six runs at speeds ranging between 35 mph and 37.8 mph. He experienced tip-ups in run 2, 4, 5, and 6. On the sixth run (37.7 mph), the vehicle tipped up severely, and the safety outriggers contacted the ground. That behavior is what Consumer Reports considers "Not Acceptable."
    The second driver made six runs at speeds ranging between 32.3 mph and 37.1 mph, and experienced less severe tip-ups in runs number 3 and 6. The third driver made 11 runs at speeds ranging between 31.3 mph and 37.7 mph, and experienced tips-ups in runs number 8 and 11.
    None of the six other SUVs tested with the Montero Limited on May 16 exhibited tip-ups or other unusual behaviors, even at speeds exceeding 38 mph; they all skidded or slid sideways. All vehicles in the test were equipped with safety outriggers to protect our test engineers.
    Because of the vehicle's tip-up behavior on May 16, CU's Auto Test Department purchased a second sample, a silver Montero Limited, which was manufactured in March 2001. Along with some other SUVs from this test group, both Monteros were tested on May 30 on the same short course by vehicle dynamics consultant R. Wade Allen, who also assessed the previous avoidance-maneuver test results. When driven by Allen, both Monteros tipped up severely, and both, CU believes, would likely have rolled over if not for the safety outriggers.
    Allen completed a total of eight runs at speeds ranging between 30.4 mph and 38.1 mph in the first (red) Montero Limited. He experienced one severe tip-up on run number 8, at 37.8 mph.
    Allen drove the second (silver) Montero Limited a total of 17 runs at speeds ranging between 30.2 mph and 39.4 mph. He experienced one severe tip-up on run number 17, at 39.4 mph.