>Mitsubishi Pajero I see these for sale where I live, but

stay away from the sport models,stick to the normal ones
no idea about the diesels but the v6s are solid
the montero is just a rename for spanish markets
where do you live?

>>17009870
Ontario, Canada

whats the problem with the sports model?
Also, are they reliable with the autotragic tranny?

thank you

>>17009901
the older sport model is gutless and isn't as well built as the normal model,they're also uglier imo
auto should be fine,most of the old ones around here are auto and they make for some tough shitboxes
but,wait a little bit for someone from north america to check the thread because i'm pretty sure the ones that we got are somewhat different from the ones that you guys got

>>17009870
I gather you're talking about the PA, PB and PC Challenger/sports. Honestly, they're not bad. The first gen was literally a rebodied second gen fullsize Montero, which was marketed as a more budget model to be sold along side the then cutting edge 3rd gen fullsize Montero. The PB/PC are just SUV versions of the L200.
>>17009856
If you're looking at a gas V6 second gen, get the larger 3.5L 6G74. It has a larger drivetrain than the smaller 3.0L and is a lot less anemic.
My recommendation though is the 2.8 turbo diesel if available. It's originally developed as a light industrial/commercial powerplant that saw duty in everything from stationary gensets and waterpumps to 8 tonne Caterpillar excavators. It also shares the 8"/9.5" front/rear differential drivetrain the 3.5 V6 has.

Avoid the 2.5 diesel.

>>17009931
2.5 diesel would probably be better than what my 84 paj had... 2.6 4 cylinder petrol/lpg dual fuel... was fucking awful to drive, top speed of about 90k (55mph), uncomfortable as fuck, obscene amounts of body roll, and just generally a shit motorcar..

0/10 would not recommend

>>17009931
>Avoid the 2.5 diesel.

there's a '91 2.5 diesel for sale near me

why avoid the 2.5?

>>17010084
>>17010139
The diesel's based on the mentioned 2.6 gas motor with a different head and high compression. Honestly, apart from being just as gutless as the 2.6 (especially on the highway), it's a reasonably frugal thing. It also had extremely short gearing (about 5.3:1 from memory) differentials, that made it pretty competent offroad, but had the motor screaming in excess of 3k rpm at 100km/h. Also, it shares the smaller 7.4"/9" diffs of the 3.0L V6.
If it's a short wheel base like OP you're looking at, I guess the 2.5 is adequate. It's just not the light truck motor the 2.8 is.

File: 1488398562130.jpg (71KB, 481x495px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 481x495px

>>17009856
Pajero means wanker in Spanish

I got a 95' LS, and it's at 277k, it's pretty gutless but it gets shit done, the starter has probably been the most replaced part on it so just watch for that

>>17011800
>the more you know