Are all new challengers lacking in low dwn grunt power

[fuelconsumption]

Mine is manual, so I can't comment on exactly what the auto is like to drive.

There is nothing wrong with the torque of the engine above 1600 RPM, once the turbo has the boost pressure wound up. I have my scangauge set to monitor boost, so I am very confident about that statement. Once you are moving, and after your foot has been down long enough for the boost to be there, I guarantee the Challenger will match the Sorrento at any revs above 1600 RPM. Technically then, you are mistaken in saying the engine won't pull until you get to 3000 RPM, what you are really observing is time lag until the boost comes on song.

That said, the Challenger engine does have very noticible lag, and in addition the torque does drop off very fast below 1500 RPM, even after waiting. It is probably true that the Sorrento has less lag, and you may never like feel of the Challenger by comparison.

Economy wise, the auto version of Challenger is known to be thirsty, using maybe 10% more fuel than the (very frugal) manual.

I find it fine for towing a 1300 kg van, though the lag and lack of torque off idle is annoying at times.

I hear what you are saying about the Pajero lack of chassis, but in practice it may not be an issue, as the metal in the body is thicker and heavier than in a passenger vehicle, and I suspect the strength and stiffness is as good as a chassis. Arguably the max towbar rating is a guide. It would be worth test driving the Paj, for it will have better torque /lag charqcteristics if only because of 3.2 liters vs. 2.5.

I don't understand your comment that the Paj or Prado is too big and off-roady for normal use. The Challeneger is essentially the same size and weight, and I doubt it is any less truck-like to drive.

[Goodsy]

Chassis has nothing to do with it. What does a typical Challenger weigh?

I reckon the turbo on these things must be pretty big and need a bit of spooling up.
Is the turbo similar to the Pajero?

[260DET]

It seems to me that you are used to the Kia and have not yet adapted to the Challenger. Mine is an suto and after a short familiarisation period now have no problems accelerating away from a standing start. In fact every now and then, just for the fun of it, it gets a bit of a nudge away from the lights. Always with satisfactory results

I have driven a Santa Fe but not a Sorento, the SF was two front wheel drivey for me. Can't beat a good rear driver, much more enjoyable dynamics.

[gazza73]

Couple of feedback points from what you've all mentioned, and just a quick acknowledgement that I'm taking people's input seriously - thanks.


1. I prefer lift back tailgates with no rear wheel on them. Easier for my wife, Betty, to see through when she drives it, and dryer when delving into the boot for things in wet weather. (which I do a lot in my technical servicing business). Hence I've never been a fan of the Pajero back door setup. I had one for 12 years once, and the Pajero door arrangement at the back could allow rain to penetrate the cargo area being a swing-out style.

2. I understand there is a rear-spare-wheel lift kit to permit better access to the towbar on Pajeros, but that just puts more spare wheel high on the rear door. Otherwise you're left with the hitch very close to the spare for removing, and meantime, the door swing-out can foul your a-frame equipment. Again, the lift back design on the Challenger wins hands down in this regard. (in my opinion, for my use).

3. As I don't do real heavy off-road work, I'm prepared to risk the spare wheel sitting under the car. So models like Sorento, Challenger are nice.

4. I tow an older, 2000 design, 6.6" wide poptop, and the thin lines of the Challenger and its size for my particularly thin driveway/garage entrance are a couple of the factors why I prefer the 'size' of the Challenger to the Pajero.

5. Price wise I can't see the benefit of a $12K-18K dearer Pajero over a Challenger when only towing way under 2000kg and not doing any serious off-road work which traditionally Pajero, Landcruiser and Patrol vehicles are well suited.

6. More feedback today in the last 6-7 posts further mention LAG, and other factors that seem to affect power loss if traction / throttle movements are not taken care of. Again, I'll try to separate the two things. What I'm hearing is very clear: lag does exist, get used to it. I can handle that, but first impression, as you'd expect was disappointing as to why a brand as long and established as Mitsubishi, sells a car with lag in the first place, when other brands don't have such an issue.

7. I'm trying NOT to consider the Challenger on the basis of a process of elimination, despite the fact that the Challenger is pretty much the only rear 2WD plus 4x4 plus low range plus diff-lockable chassis based unit on the market for under $42K these days. Limited choice unless you want a tradesman/ute styled unit. Guess I'm disappointed at lack of choice in the market in this price bracket.

So, lag: yes, but gentle and better educated use of the HiVECII/MATT system is the answer to enjoying 2000rpm for the rest hopefully.

Cheers

Gaz

[greig]

I have a manual, so I can't give any auto towing advice but, one reason I bought the manual was I didn't like the high revving nature of the auto when taking off or under accelleration...

But I would have thought that same high revving would have got it out of the lag " zone " ??

But I do know some cars have a bad percieved lag problem ( a friends Sante Fe is one ) that is actually a trait of the gearbox not to shift back to 1st when either stopped or rolling to an almost stop ( like an intersection or traffic lights ).......and unless you tramp on the gas, it will take off in 2nd ( fuel economy !! ) which gives the distinct impression of turbo lag !!

Maybe under those circumstances you could manually select 1st ??...... or the auto owners could give more feedback on that ??

[260DET]

Interesting discussion and feedback from other owners. Just a brief comment on turbo engine characteristics. All turbo engines have lag to some extent, generally speaking the more lag the higher the top end performance and vice versa. Secondly, load helps to spool a turbo up more quickly, auto drivers who tow (I will be towing in a couple of months time) may like to comment on that aspect.

Another thing concerns the sequential shift feature which I love and use quite often. If you want more control then use it.

Remember too that the auto has a learning feature which moves shifting characteristics according to driver input. When you drive a demo, for a while it is going to behave in the way it was last driven, this is important to remember when taking a test drive.

Finally, on towing, the auto engine is limited to 350nm of torque which is relatively low for a modern CRD engine in a 3000kg towing capacity vehicle. So it will tow accordingly, that is inevitable.

[Goodsy]

Pajero does this on occasion. Only at that point when its thinking of going to first and you floor it to get across a round about etc. Once you're use to it its easily avoided.

[260DET]

Good point about the auto hesitating during the 2 to 1 downshift Goodsy and greig, now that you remind me and thinking about it that is what I got used to and avoided. Or else use the sequential shift. Maybe the hesitation is a transmission protection characteristic to smooth out the shift.

[picard]

Gazza, about towing, don't disregard monocoques in towing, there is no difference in strengths between separate ladder and mono`s

[picard]

Mine is manual, so I can't comment on exactly what the auto is like to drive.

There is nothing wrong with the torque of the engine above 1600 RPM, once the turbo has the boost pressure wound up. I have my scangauge set to monitor boost, so I am very confident about that statement. Once you are moving, and after your foot has been down long enough for the boost to be there, I guarantee the Challenger will match the Sorrento at any revs above 1600 RPM. Technically then, you are mistaken in saying the engine won't pull until you get to 3000 RPM, what you are really observing is time lag until the boost comes on song.

That said, the Challenger engine does have very noticible lag, and in addition the torque does drop off very fast below 1500 RPM, even after waiting. It is probably true that the Sorrento has less lag, and you may never like feel of the Challenger by comparison.

Economy wise, the auto version of Challenger is known to be thirsty, using maybe 10% more fuel than the (very frugal) manual.

I find it fine for towing a 1300 kg van, though the lag and lack of torque off idle is annoying at times.

I hear what you are saying about the Pajero lack of chassis, but in practice it may not be an issue, as the metal in the body is thicker and heavier than in a passenger vehicle, and I suspect the strength and stiffness is as good as a chassis. Arguably the max towbar rating is a guide. It would be worth test driving the Paj, for it will have better torque /lag charqcteristics if only because of 3.2 liters vs. 2.5.

I don't understand your comment that the Paj or Pajero is too big and off-roady for normal use. The Challeneger is essentially the same size and weight, and I doubt it is any less truck-like to drive.

Actually, the monocoque has far more lateral stiffness than the ladder frame and is torsionally stronger as well. ( results in far better handling)
The only advantages with separate ladder frames, is its ability to flex and absorb stress which hopefully will reduce metal fatigue over time hence "tuffer" And also supposedly gives better road vibration isolation.

[old Jack]

I have been reading this thread with interest, both Gazza's and the regular PBer's comments. I have an Auto PB and although I don't tow regularly we did hire a RV Vista hybrid off road camper/caravan for 10 days and toured the Gippsland area and I was reasonably impressed with the performance of the 2.5 litre turbo with the auto trans when towing 1400kg on and off road. We sat on the posted speed limit when safe to do so and got 14 to 18lts/100km on the highway and up to 24lts/100km off road.

When I first got the Challenger it took some time and changes to how I drive to get the best out of the car having come from a EFI petrol manual. Pottering around was no issue but when I wanted performance ie; pulling out into busy traffic flow from a standing start the "floor it and hang on" technique was not getting the 2.2 tons up and moving quick enough. so after much trial and error I use the brisk feed in of accelerator to 2000rpm then flat to the floor, up changing the sports shift at 2500 to 3000 rpm. After reading Gazza's comments I thought I would do some acceleration tests.

I have out of hours access to a private road in an Industrial Estate which is flat bitumen and about 150 metres long. I did each of the test 3 times and got a range of results that obviously vary due to reaction times on the stopwatch and the accelerator, I test 0 to 60 kph time and distance.
Test 1. In "Drive", flat to the floor, gear changes occurred at 4000rpm and there was a significant pause between foot to the floor and actually moving.
Test 2. In Sports Mode, flat to the floor, manually up changing at 3000 to 3500 rpm and still there was a significant delay.
Test 3. In Sports Mode, my usual technique of brisk feed in of accelerator until 2000rpm then flat to the floor, up shifting at 2500 to 3000 rpm and the pause/delay had been lessened significantly, you could still feel the turbo surge but all a bit smoother.
I was expecting big differences in times and distances but times ranged from 7.2 to 8.4 seconds and distance between the 60 and 70 metre marks so it appears that no matter how hard you drive this is what you get, obviously with automatic time and distance measuring equipment the results would be more scientific and may prove otherwise.

Why is does this happen? My thoughts are the combination of the Engine & Auto ECU programs receiving input from the electronic throttle and wheel speed and other sensors then controlling the Variable Geometry Turbo, gear changes, throttle body opening, fuel flow and valve timing trying to compensate for a large turbo and high gearing.

I did some calc's on gear ratios between manual and auto, the auto is 12% higher in 1st & 2nd, 1% higher in 3rd, 0% in 4th and 7.5% higher in 5th so it stands to reason the auto will be slower of the mark than the manual and uses 17% more fuel (using ADR81/02 figures) as the torque convertor doesn't get up to speed to lockout during acceleration or at variable engine rpm.

Can this be fixed? Maybe to some extent by!

Engine ECU reprogramming (MRT EcuTek).
A/T ECU reprogramming (not available yet)
Nomad valves and torque convertor lockup override (Wholesale Automatics)
Change exhaust.
Smaller Turbo or Supercharger.
Change front and rear diff ratios.
Fit smaller diameter tyres.

All this will put a dent in your wallet and may cause other issues and warranty / insurance concerns.

Or you can just learn to live with it and change your driving style and expectations.

Or you can buy another car that ticks all your boxes.


cheers, old Jack.

PS. Whilst thinking about this I read the Owners Manual for a 2007 Sorrento Diesel (on the Net) it states when driving up hills on hot days, near or at max weight and towing, limit speed to 70 kph and down shift to prevent over heating of engine and auto trans. On steep hills ( greater than 6% gradient) under the same temp, weight and tow conditions limit speed to 30 kph!
And this is my favourite! No towing with less than 10 lts of fuel (when low fuel light comes on) due to fuel over heating that will cause lose of power and possible injector damage!
Sorrento or Challenger? Let me think!

[gazza73]

Jack - terrific feedback and testing.

You've hit a couple of nails nicely here. That 17% manual versus auto gearing difference, coupled with the extra 50nM of power with manuals, and the research you've done which points to manually shifting gears under a more controlled environment, all seems to agree with the feedback of so many 'manual' owners contributing to this topic.

I also respect your comments about the user manual on the Sorento. What I can tell you, driving a modest 1400kg van thru temperatures of say 35 degrees outside up the Gregory Development Rd in Far North Qld for instance - never any worries with heat or power. We've always been able to travel at about 90 - 95km'h with ease everywhere and anywhere on the straight and level. Of course Mudgee and Bathurst is more like 50km/h on winding roads - but equally no worries with temperature.

The Kia has only 80 litres of tank, but the warning light comes on at 62 ltrs leaving 18 in the tank. I've run the tank down to 5 ltrs a few times. But worse, I ran it down to 2ltrs and fortunately there is a manual PUMP for bleeding the whole system conveniently accessible under the bonnet. So no worries on that occasion just out of West Wyalong trying to get home one day too early. Few vehicles offer a pump/bleeder system, so the Sorento was well respected on that occasion.

Don't get me wrong - the Kia has been a top job for the last 5 years, but a few issues, well looked after by warranty. But time to move on now, and hence the quest for what the next vehicle should be with 5+ years of warranty and easy towing motoring.

Of all the replies so far, 80% are from MANUAL drivers, and of those, only half are towing people. SO it has been interesting chiselling away at the fact that there IS LAG, and there ARE DIFFERENCES.

Unlike brochures and ill-prepared info from sales people, the point of this whole discussion has been to nail down what the reality of the matter is.

So, some more quests like Jack's that attempt to illustrate the issue and offer compromised solutions or 'warnings' - they're great. So thanks Jack!

With your input, and Alan's yesterday, plus some slow but eventual acknowledgement from other contributors that there is in fact these two issues, we can start to look at solutions.

a) be aware of higher auto gearing
b) drive for 50kms or more and re-teach the HIVECSII what you want
c) be aware of the ECU playing with traction, power, boost
d) then decide if the overall package, FOR THE NICE PRICE, satisfies.

This is all a mile from the inital comments which were bluntly:
1. Kia is never any good and has no power
2. Mitsubishi is perfect, free of any issues and 'loads more power'
3. etc etc etc ..... as sales, brochures and biased people tend to say.

I've already confessed that despite the 2007 Kia having done its job, that the replacement Sorento lacks offroad/caravanning capabilities by comparison. I'm open minded to Toyota, Nissan, Mitsubishi - its a matter of value for money, and finding the right (be-it-all compromised) solution.
But one thing is for sure, I can't tolerate brand biassed people who haven't done their homework, and haven't actually experienced the problem in question, yet state the problem 'doesn't exist' - when, after a few days of thrashing it out, they say ..... well, yes, there IS LAG. So the question now, is how to drive to compensate for that, given the rest of the features, size, weight, price, comfort and options look quite attractive. That's why I commend Jack for his input tonight - finding solutions. Nice.

Cheers

Gaz
(still keen on Challenger)

[alan4106au]

G’Day
Old jack quoted
“And this is my favourite! No towing with less than 10 lts of fuel (when low fuel light comes on) due to fuel over heating that will cause lose of power and possible injector damage!”

This is the best advice that any manufacturer could give for any common rail diesel!
It has been a common thing right through since the time that diesel engines have had injectors supplied by any thing other than an injector pump direct.
A lot of engines also have the injectors in a jacket that has water around the injector as well!
The injectors in most engines today use the fuel to cool the injectors and a lot have for a long time. It is the case in our Challenger engines.
I am the proud owner of a G.M.C. 4106 bus that was built by General motors in the very early 1960s and it has an 8V71 Detroit diesel in it.( Ansett Pioneer had imported 35 of these new) I did an apprenticeship with them at the time!
The Injectors in this engine (a two stroke) are driven by the same camshaft that drives the exhaust valves. The air for the inlet enters through the ports of the cylinder liners.
Now to the point the fuel tank on this old bus has the pickup line set high enough to maintain 15 US gallons so as to make sure that the injectors don’t over heat.
This is and has been common practice in the truck industry for a long time now!
It’s a shame that other manufactures (Mits.) are not up front with this fact.
We shouldn’t run low on fuel if possible and if you do take it easy.
Check the temp of your fuel return after a good run if you get a chance! I might just surprise’


Be safe Alan

[RMX]

Christ, It's taken 3 pages to get to the answer I provided in the 2nd post of this thread... It appears you blokes can call your mothers club meeting adjourned.

Another forum I'm on is currently hashing out the pros and cons of Challenger V Holden Colorado 7.. I'd link it but the other forums general propensity for language (Mainly the C-bomb) may leave some here a little offended. If your interested, googling "PF Colorado 7" will lead you there.

[Goodsy]

Thanks Alan
I had no idea that running a common rail low on diesel could harm the injection system.
I will be filling more frequently now. This would explain why the fuel light in the Pajero comes on with near on 20L's in the tank.

Do petrol suffer the same?