1992 MITSUBISHI MONTERO — Problems, Recalls & Safety Data

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

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. I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANY INFORMATION ON THE NHTSA WEB SITE STATING THAT OTHER NON-RELATED REPAIRS CAN NEGATE THE LIABILITY ON A SAFETY RECALL. SO I BELIEVE THAT MITSUBISHI IS WRONG IN THEIR DENIAL OF REPAIR. MY CAR FALLS UNDER THE RECALL AND MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS STATED BY THE NHTSA. SO PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHAT I CAN DO TO REMEDY THIS SITUATION, AND IF I AM ENTITLED TO ANY LEGAL RECOURSE. *TR

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