Tweet
I am thinking of replacing my trusty 1993 Pajero, and thought others may be interested in my findings re the cargo space in the currrent Pajero, Prado, Pathfinder and Challenger. I don't need the 3rd row of seats, so everything written here is with respect to either removing or folding down the third row of seats.
I hadn't even heard of the Challenger until a few weeks ago. I had looked in great detail at the current Prado and Pajero, and was generally unimpressed with the size of the cargo area, which sadly has shrunk relative to the much older models. I was about to leave the Mitsubishi dealer, when the salesman said, 'Have you looked at the Challenger?'
Never heard of it, but guessed it was some sort of silly softroader thingy, but became intrigued when I saw the Hi/Lo gear lever, ladder chassis, proper 70% profile tyres and live rear axle. I swung up the tailgate, and thought wow, this thing looks to have a much bigger cargo are than the Pajero or Prado.
I carry a tape measure and notebook everywhere I go (don't you?), and had already meticulously written down the cargo area dimensions for the other vehicles, so set about methodically measuring up the Challenger.
My eyes did not deceive. The Challenger beats them all for cargo space. Details :-
CARGO LENGTH WITH REAR SEATS UP
(ie, distance from tailgate to back of rear seats)
Grand Vitara: 730mm
Freelander: 900mm
Prado: 990mm
Pajero: 1020mm
Pathfinder: 1140
Challenger: 1200
CARGO LENGTH WITH REAR SEATS FOLDED
Grand Vitara: 1240mm
Freelander: 1700mm
Prado: 1900mm (but not very useable, see text)
Pajero: 1500mm
Pathfinder: 2000mm
Challenger: 1700mm
CARGO HEIGHT (Cargo floor to roof)
Freelander: 900/830 mm
Prado: 900/800mm
Pajero: 1110/1110mm
Pathfinder: 920/890mm
Challenger: 1000/1070mm
The Grand Vitara is just plain small, with or without seats folded, which is fine if you want an economical, smaller class of vehicle, but too small for my needs.
The Freelander is also a smaller vehicle, but makes good use of the cargo space that it has. The rear seat folds in an intelligent way, giving an impressive 1700mm of cargo length with the front seats slid forward, with an essentially flat floor. However, the useable cargo height is quite limited, only 900mm in the rear boot area, and an even lesser 830mm at the front of the cargo area, when the rear seats are folded. Exceptional (diesel) fuel economy of 7.0 l/100km (ADR Combined Cycle) was seductive, but lack of dual range, and poor reliability record brought me to my senses, and the freelander was rejected.
The Prado is just an all round poor performer for cargo space, given the weight and exterior dimensions of the vehicle. With the rear seats up, the cargo volume is tiny, just 990mm long, and only 900mm from the cargo floor to the roof. Things only get worse when attempting to fold the rear seat, which must surely rate as the dumbest and most primitive folding arrangement I have ever seen. The only folding option available is for the vertical part of the seat to fold forward, such that it ends up sort-of horizontal on top of the lower part of the seat. Arguably, this does not really increase the cargo area at all, for the folded rear seat sticks up way above the rear cargo area, only 800mm from the roof, and creating a huge step in the cargo floor. It is a total mess, so this vehicle was crossed of my list early as a consequence. HOWEVER, only Toyota has that fantastic long range fuel tank, which of course, is largely why the interior cargo area is so poor. It is no coincidence that the Toyota website and brochures do not quote cargo space.
Next is the Pajero, certainly superior to the Prado for cargo space, and with a respectably high cargo height of 1110mm to boot. However, with the rear seats folded, the cargo length only increases to a modest 1500mm, not long enough to sleep in, and not long enough to carry a mountain bike without turning or removing the front wheel. If the Prado cargo space was underwhelming, I rate the Pajero as fair. I was not impressed by the ill thought out centre-mounted spare wheel, which would probably need to be relocated to one side or it would get in the way when towing.
The Pathfinder is a mixed bag for cargo space. The cargo area length easily beats the Pajero, both with the rear seats up or down. The folding arrangement for the rear seats is easily the smartest, most flexible of all these vehicles, resulting in a beautifully flat cargo area up to 2000mm long with the rear seats folded and the front seats slid forward, more than enough to sleep in, or to accommodate a mountain bike. However, this advantage is offset somewhat by a cargo height of only 900mm, resulting largely from the decision to stow the spare wheel under the vehicle, rather than on the rear tailgate door. I liked the pathfinder, at least until I later found the Challenger, though was concerned about reliability, for example, the manual model has known clutch problems, and the plastic door handles are known to break. Offroad performance is compromised by limited wheel articulation at the independently sprung rear end, but still a very capable off road vehicle.
Finally we come to the Challenger. With the rear seats up, which is how the vehicle will be used by most people for most of the time, the rear cargo area is cavernous, with a superior length of 1200mm, and a respectable height of 1000mm. Folding the rear seats extends this to an impressive 1700mm of cargo length, with a height of 1070mm at the front of the cargo area previously occupied by the rear seat. The length and volume of the Challenger cargo area, with rear seats up or down, beats every other vehicle in this class. This is a remarkable achievement, given that the spare wheel is under the vehicle, and the overall length of the Challenger is around 200mm less than the Pajero, Prado and Pathfinder.
It might be suspected that the larger cargo space is achieved with reduced passenger legroom, but not so. The Pajero quotes front and rear legroom as 895mm and 820mm, while the Challenger is, if anything, very slightly better at 915mm and 840mm.
Clever design can achieve only so much. With more internal space from a shorter vehicle, something had to give, and that something is the size of the Challenger fuel tank, at a less-than-ideal 70 liters. If only Mitsubishi had placed the Challenger spare wheel on the rear door like everyone else, they could have slotted a second 70 liter long-range tank under the rear of the vehicle .....
On balance, I can put up with the smallish fuel tank, but the superior cargo length and volume will be extremely useful. Off-road performance is good, fuel consumption (at least in manual form) is good, towing capacity is good, and mechanical reliablity appears to be good, so I have decided to buy the Challenger.
I hadn't even heard of the Challenger until a few weeks ago. I had looked in great detail at the current Prado and Pajero, and was generally unimpressed with the size of the cargo area, which sadly has shrunk relative to the much older models. I was about to leave the Mitsubishi dealer, when the salesman said, 'Have you looked at the Challenger?'
Never heard of it, but guessed it was some sort of silly softroader thingy, but became intrigued when I saw the Hi/Lo gear lever, ladder chassis, proper 70% profile tyres and live rear axle. I swung up the tailgate, and thought wow, this thing looks to have a much bigger cargo are than the Pajero or Prado.
I carry a tape measure and notebook everywhere I go (don't you?), and had already meticulously written down the cargo area dimensions for the other vehicles, so set about methodically measuring up the Challenger.
My eyes did not deceive. The Challenger beats them all for cargo space. Details :-
CARGO LENGTH WITH REAR SEATS UP
(ie, distance from tailgate to back of rear seats)
Grand Vitara: 730mm
Freelander: 900mm
Prado: 990mm
Pajero: 1020mm
Pathfinder: 1140
Challenger: 1200
CARGO LENGTH WITH REAR SEATS FOLDED
Grand Vitara: 1240mm
Freelander: 1700mm
Prado: 1900mm (but not very useable, see text)
Pajero: 1500mm
Pathfinder: 2000mm
Challenger: 1700mm
CARGO HEIGHT (Cargo floor to roof)
Freelander: 900/830 mm
Prado: 900/800mm
Pajero: 1110/1110mm
Pathfinder: 920/890mm
Challenger: 1000/1070mm
The Grand Vitara is just plain small, with or without seats folded, which is fine if you want an economical, smaller class of vehicle, but too small for my needs.
The Freelander is also a smaller vehicle, but makes good use of the cargo space that it has. The rear seat folds in an intelligent way, giving an impressive 1700mm of cargo length with the front seats slid forward, with an essentially flat floor. However, the useable cargo height is quite limited, only 900mm in the rear boot area, and an even lesser 830mm at the front of the cargo area, when the rear seats are folded. Exceptional (diesel) fuel economy of 7.0 l/100km (ADR Combined Cycle) was seductive, but lack of dual range, and poor reliability record brought me to my senses, and the freelander was rejected.
The Prado is just an all round poor performer for cargo space, given the weight and exterior dimensions of the vehicle. With the rear seats up, the cargo volume is tiny, just 990mm long, and only 900mm from the cargo floor to the roof. Things only get worse when attempting to fold the rear seat, which must surely rate as the dumbest and most primitive folding arrangement I have ever seen. The only folding option available is for the vertical part of the seat to fold forward, such that it ends up sort-of horizontal on top of the lower part of the seat. Arguably, this does not really increase the cargo area at all, for the folded rear seat sticks up way above the rear cargo area, only 800mm from the roof, and creating a huge step in the cargo floor. It is a total mess, so this vehicle was crossed of my list early as a consequence. HOWEVER, only Toyota has that fantastic long range fuel tank, which of course, is largely why the interior cargo area is so poor. It is no coincidence that the Toyota website and brochures do not quote cargo space.
Next is the Pajero, certainly superior to the Prado for cargo space, and with a respectably high cargo height of 1110mm to boot. However, with the rear seats folded, the cargo length only increases to a modest 1500mm, not long enough to sleep in, and not long enough to carry a mountain bike without turning or removing the front wheel. If the Prado cargo space was underwhelming, I rate the Pajero as fair. I was not impressed by the ill thought out centre-mounted spare wheel, which would probably need to be relocated to one side or it would get in the way when towing.
The Pathfinder is a mixed bag for cargo space. The cargo area length easily beats the Pajero, both with the rear seats up or down. The folding arrangement for the rear seats is easily the smartest, most flexible of all these vehicles, resulting in a beautifully flat cargo area up to 2000mm long with the rear seats folded and the front seats slid forward, more than enough to sleep in, or to accommodate a mountain bike. However, this advantage is offset somewhat by a cargo height of only 900mm, resulting largely from the decision to stow the spare wheel under the vehicle, rather than on the rear tailgate door. I liked the pathfinder, at least until I later found the Challenger, though was concerned about reliability, for example, the manual model has known clutch problems, and the plastic door handles are known to break. Offroad performance is compromised by limited wheel articulation at the independently sprung rear end, but still a very capable off road vehicle.
Finally we come to the Challenger. With the rear seats up, which is how the vehicle will be used by most people for most of the time, the rear cargo area is cavernous, with a superior length of 1200mm, and a respectable height of 1000mm. Folding the rear seats extends this to an impressive 1700mm of cargo length, with a height of 1070mm at the front of the cargo area previously occupied by the rear seat. The length and volume of the Challenger cargo area, with rear seats up or down, beats every other vehicle in this class. This is a remarkable achievement, given that the spare wheel is under the vehicle, and the overall length of the Challenger is around 200mm less than the Pajero, Prado and Pathfinder.
It might be suspected that the larger cargo space is achieved with reduced passenger legroom, but not so. The Pajero quotes front and rear legroom as 895mm and 820mm, while the Challenger is, if anything, very slightly better at 915mm and 840mm.
Clever design can achieve only so much. With more internal space from a shorter vehicle, something had to give, and that something is the size of the Challenger fuel tank, at a less-than-ideal 70 liters. If only Mitsubishi had placed the Challenger spare wheel on the rear door like everyone else, they could have slotted a second 70 liter long-range tank under the rear of the vehicle .....
On balance, I can put up with the smallish fuel tank, but the superior cargo length and volume will be extremely useful. Off-road performance is good, fuel consumption (at least in manual form) is good, towing capacity is good, and mechanical reliablity appears to be good, so I have decided to buy the Challenger.
"
Comment