Challenger ready to rough it

WELL, it did take a few days for us to get properly acquainted.

I’d stepped out of a Mitsubishi Outlander, which I thought just lovely, straight into a Mitsubishi Challenger. Which I found comparatively boofy and noisy.

Of course, one should not compare one model to the next, especially when they’re of quite different classes.

But the new Challenger looks very much like a muscled-up version of last year’s Outlander, so it was natural to expect it to be almost as sophisticated. It’s not.

Like many of its serious 4WD ilk, the Challenger is truck-based, using a modified version of the Triton chassis.

It’s kitted out with front and rear diffs, high and low range transmission, long-travel coil suspension and all the other bits that allow it to go just about anywhere.

Like the Triton, it is also built in Thailand.

It fits between the Outlander SUV and the Pajero, both of which have modern monocoque construction and electronically-selectable 4WD systems.

The Challenger still has a separate manually-worked lever for that.

The vehicle comes in two spec levels: the five-seater manual LS from $44,490 with a five-speed manual, and the XLS, as tested, which gets leather, SatNav, a reversing camera and seven seats and five-speed automatic, at $56,990.

Both have six airbags, ABS and traction and stability control, plus full audio connectivity, alloy wheels and a full-sized spare, and roof rails. Both use a 2.5litre, turbo-diesel four-cylinder with 131kW/400Nm output.

It’s the sole powerplant on the new range.

The motor is fairly noisy, but it’s a lusty thing that enjoys being worked and is remarkably efficient. It’s a new design and replaces the earlier 3.0litre turbo-diesel (and 3.0litre petrol V6), which had less power and torque, and also used a bit more fuel.

Despite its impressive off-road abilities – they were put through some super-tough terrain at launch – the test vehicle was shod with road tyres.

So I get the feeling a lot of them will never see a bush track.

The Challenger is pretty decent inside, but has poor instrumentation in that the dials are hard to read in almost any kind of daylight. Much better with the lights switched on.

And although the two-tonne vehicle has a tight turning circle, the steering wheel needed far too many turns.

Ran OK though, despatching the sprint to 100km/h in 12.0seconds and our (tarmac) route through city and suburbia resulted in a fuel consumption average of 10.5litres/ 100km.

Colleague Craig Hayes owns an earlier, petrol-powered Challenger. He took the test car for a spin and this is his summary:

“It’s a beautiful car, drives nice on the road but it doesn’t seem to have the same acceleration that mine has, even on gas.

“I liked the dash layout and the steering wheel is much better, having the cruise control built-in.

“I can also fold my back seats down perfectly flat which is good because I sleep in the back sometimes when we go camping.

“It wouldn’t be as comfortable in the new one because of the extra seats in the back don’t fold down as flat.

“It also has a better turning circle which is the main gripe I have with my car, and most other owners on the forums feel the same way.

“I liked it, but don’t think it is worth upgrading to.”

I’ve always advocated that you buy the kind of car you need.

So unless you really plan to tackle the Tanami and really have five kids, or like to sleep in your car, do yourself a favour and get an Outlander.

But if you’re a genuine desert- dweller with a small tribe, go ahead, knock y’self out.

Profile

Site Search

Share your thoughts in 60 seconds!

Friday 25 May 2012

Saturday

Sunday

Most Popular Articles

Latest Competitions

Featured Video Clips

2012 RAAF Pearce Air Show promo

Circus performer Brenna Day

Site Sections

Site Information

Community News Group Links