(first posted 7/3/2017) One of these is a Mitsubishi badged as a Dodge. The other is a Dodge badged as a Mitsubishi. Both are called Raider, but they were sold two decades apart. Neither were particularly popular, and yet by sheer coincidence I found these two a block apart from each other.
Let’s start with the Dodge… err, Mitsubishi. By the time of the Raider’s launch in 1987, the Chrysler Corporation had been selling captive Mitsubishi imports for over a decade. With SUV sales increasing, Chrysler decided the Dodge brand needed product as all it had to offer was the full-size Ramcharger. Chrysler negotiated with Mitsubishi to get a version of its Montero off-roader.
The Dodge Raider was sold for only an abbreviated run of three model years. The Montero gained a four-door variant in 1989 and an optional 3.0 V6 but Dodge received only the V6. The standard engine on both Montero and Raider was Mitsubishi’s venerable 2.6 Astron four-cylinder with 109 hp and 142 ft-lbs; the V6 was a relatively pricey option at $1727 but added a healthy 32 hp and 29 ft-lbs.
Mitsubishi was surprisingly slow at getting the four-door Montero to the North American market, considering it launched in Japan back in 1983. This poor planning reminds one of GM’s lengthy delay in developing a four-door S-10 Blazer. It’s also surprising Dodge didn’t receive the four-door version. Was Mitsubishi keeping it all to itself? Was Chrysler trying to protect the hot-selling Cherokee at its newly acquired Jeep division? Dodge dealers, after all, were trying to get their hands on the Wrangler and Cherokee but Chrysler management decided against rebadging the Jeeps.
The Raider proved to be a fairly slow seller for Dodge dealers. The short (92.5 inch) wheelbase made for a choppy ride, a tippy feel, and poor on-road refinement but the Raider was in its element off-road. Then again, so was a Cherokee and it managed to behave better on-road and achieve better fuel economy. The Raider mustered only 16/19 mpg with the four-cylinder/stick combo or 17/17 mpg with the V6/auto – similar figures to the contemporary Isuzu Trooper – while a Cherokee could achieve 3 mpg better in both the city and on the highway.
Bizarrely, when I was visiting our Brendan Saur in Boston, I spotted an identical Raider. I had to check the license plates to make sure the Raider hadn’t followed me up from NYC.
a mid-range 2006-07 Raider DuroCross
Although the Mitsubishi Mighty Max pickup was discontinued from the North American market in 1996, Mitsubishi has continued to sell the popular L300/Triton pickup in a multitude of global markets since then. Maybe Mitsubishi North America wouldn’t be in such dire straits if they brought over the L300 and its SUV companion, the Pajero Sport. Nevertheless, Mitsubishi went without a rival to the Dodge Dakota until 2006 when it, well, rebadged a Dodge Dakota.
Even when Chrysler and Mitsubishi haven’t been building cars together, they’ve partnered on numerous projects like the Global Engine Alliance. The 2006 Raider was a little more of a one-sided collaboration. Although the truck wears the contemporary corporate look of the Mitsubishi range – and wears it quite well – the truck is little more than a Dakota with some new sheetmetal and a slightly different interior design.
Why choose a Raider over a Dakota? Besides the different styling, Mitsubishi offered a best-in-class 5-year/60,000-mile warranty while the Dakota had only a 3-year/36,000-mile one, although Mitsubishi’s dealer network was much smaller than Chrysler’s. Otherwise, the Raider was no different from a Dakota.
That meant the same engine line-up – a 210 hp 3.7 V6 and a 230 hp 4.7 V8 – although the high-output 260 hp 4.7 remained exclusive to Dodge. A regular cab option was also missing, with the Raider offered only in extended cab and crew cab styles. A six-speed manual was standard with both engines, with automatics of four speeds (with the V6) or five (with the V8) optional. 2WD was standard, with part-time or full-time 4WD available; niceties like Bluetooth, leather seats, and seat heaters were also available on the higher-end variants.
2006 Raider XLS Double Cab
With with just 235 ft-lbs of torque on tap, the 3.7 V6 struggled to haul around 4300 lbs of truck. Even the V8 was outpunched by rivals: the V6 in the Nissan Frontier, for example, had more horsepower and came close to matching the V8 in torque. Also unimpressive were the Raider’s brakes: rear drums and anti-lock brakes on only two wheels. However, critics otherwise found the Raider (and Dakota) to be a very pleasant truck to drive with a comfortable ride and capable handling.
Mitsubishi had been out of the market for so long that it was no longer on pickup buyer’s minds. First year sales failed to exceed 10,000 annual units while Dodge sold more than seven times as many Dakotas. Dealers quickly found themselves with a six-month supply of the slow-selling truck and so for 2008 Mitsubishi slashed the model range down to a single V6 trim in either regular cab or double cab styles. Mitsubishi’s first V8 pickup was short-lived.
By its final two years on sale, the Raider was selling only a few thousand units per year, languishing with the other “loser” pickups like the Mazda B-Series, Isuzu I-Series, and Suzuki Equator which all sold in the same numbers. Mitsubishi finally pulled the plug.
Both times the Raider name was used in North America, the truck was unsuccessful. There’s an expression that twice is coincidence, thrice is a pattern. There’s only one way to find out if that’s true: dust off the Raider name again, slap it on something, and see if it sells.
Raiders photographed in Washington Heights, NY in May/June 2017.
Related Reading:
COAL: 2003 Dodge Dakota – Perfection?
CC Capsule: 1989 Mitsubishi Montero V6 – Rare Raider
Obscure Rebadges From Around the World – Part 1; Part 2; Part 3; Part 4
I have seen a whopping 3 Mitsu Raider pickup trucks in the last few years. 2 of them were at CarMax and the other was parked in a parking lot.
I don’t see why these did not sell better. The Raider looks better then the Dakota with its front end sheet metal flowing better then the blunt front of the Dakota.
Looking better than the Dakota is like saying Rosie O’Donnell looks better than Roseanne Barr…
I’m not positive, but the actual expression might be “Once is happenstance, twice is circumstance, three times is enemy action”.
I occasionally see one of these and always notice it. For some reason, these have always reminded me of the short-lived 1940s Hudson pickup, and I’m not sure why – perhaps its general stance and a resemblance in the grille? In fact, I think there is one out in my office parking lot right now. (The Mitsubishi, not the Hudson).
American companies have always been able to sell a captive import when they lack something in a given market – perhaps there are buyers who prefer to “buy American” and like that service is available at their traditional dealer. But foreign brands offering a different flavor of an American vehicle here? I’m not sure I can recall a successful one. The Mazda Navajo and the Isuzu Hombre come to mind and both are rare as can be.
I always thought the old Raider was kind of cool.
The Mazda B-Series actually sold pretty well in the early years that it was a re-badged Ranger, The Tribute sold reasonably well too in its early years. The Navajo was held back by the fact that Ford only let them have the 2dr when the market had shifted to 4drs.
Comparisons to the 1946-’47 Hudson Carrier Six pick-ups are apt: 3,374 Series 58 1946’s and 2,917 Series 78 1947’s comprised about 3-3.5% of total Hudson production.
Actually noticed a Mitsu Raider club cab in the TSC parking lot just last week, had totally forgotten such an animal was made!
It’s funny that you bring up the Hudson pickup truck. I have a 1999 Dodge Dakota reg cab with an eight foot bed. Every time I look at it I think of a Hudson pickup. Like you mentioned, something about its stance. It would be interesting to know if the Dodge stylists even knew of the Hudson and were influenced by it.
My wife and I bought a Dodge Raider in 88. We loved that car and drove it all over Florida. In 91 I took a job in the San Francisco bay area and we brought the Raider along. We soon realized it was under powered to lug 5 people up the foot hills. It struggled trying to go up the hill in on hwy 92 from Foster City to San Mateo over to I280 so in 95 we traded it in on a 4 door Montero with the V6. We wanted a 2 door V6 Raider but they stopped making them by then and the Montero was only available as a 4 door. The only thing we had to do was to adjust to the longer turning radius as the Raider seemed to turn on a dime. The Montero did us well for over 22 years and 190,000 miles when it started leaking oil all out the top end of the engine filling up the well around the spark plugs on top of the cyl heads. $2,000 later it was fixed and back on the road, A while later we sold it to the Son Inlaw’s brother who still is driving it today. Too bad they don’t make those anymore I would buy a new one in a minute. We still miss the Raider and I keep an eye out for an 89 V6 but they are very rare,expensive and usually pretty beat up.
“Although the truck wears the contemporary corporate look of the Mitsubishi range – and wears it quite well” we’re gonna have to disagree here, the Mitsu Raider pickup is a level beyond ugly, beyond Aztek ugly. Simply hideous. An assault on the eyes. I’d be just fine if all of them were dumped in a pit and burned…
I agree, not a good looking truck.
Speaking of the Suzuki Equator, I was behind one in traffic just the other day.
I had a coworker who had the Raider truck, which he bought used for the same reason that the NUMMI Cherolet Nova/Prizm sold.
Nobody knew what it was, so it sold at a significant discount over what a Dakota would have cost.
Many (former) owners of the Dodge Raider will swear BY how well built they are, while former owners of the Mitsubishi Raider will swear ABOUT how their truck was such a pile….but then, so was the concurrent Dakata (apparently?).
For folks who think the Mitsubishi Raider is so ugly, I ask you to add the current and previous generation of Toyota Tacoma, in 2WD guise, to the list of Aztek-level ugly vehicles.
Agreed! Definitely a dog.
“Dodge dealers, after all, were trying to get their hands on the Wrangler and Cherokee but Chrysler management decided against rebadging the Jeeps”
That, my friends is a very big reason as to why Jeep has such a high brand equity to this day and most of its vehicles hold a high resale value.
I honestly forget about the Raider pickup most of the time. Considering the 2nd gen Dakota was doing so poorly, I can only imagine how hard it was to sell these, even with steep incentives.
And Will, I very much enjoyed showing you around Boston that day!
3rd gen the 2nd sold very well.
I worked with a guy who bought new, an ’86 Raider, and thought it was the bomb. My ’75 Chevy (Isuzu) LUV made it look silly, both in the reliability department, and out on the trail. And his was 4WD, mine 2WD.
I LOVED the Raider back in 1987, and really wanted one, for it seemed a better and more modern version of the old Ford Bronco. Alas, resources and family responsibilities said otherwise.
The Raider pickup? I’m not sure if I have ever seen one, but you know what I’ve seen a lot of lately? Suzuki vehicles. Go figure!
I know we got the Dodge Raider here in Canada as I remember a friend of my parents having one but I don’t think we got the Raider truck as I would have remembered that. I agree with Leon in the very first comment. It does look nice. Like a Dakota that got sent to finishing school!
About 15 years ago, a friend that sold cars at a local hole-in-the-wall used car lot, loaned me an ’89 2-door Montero version to try out. It was pretty clean, I was OK with the 2.6, and he offered it to me at a real attractive price. I would’ve preferred a 4-door, but the Torqueflite automatic was the deal-breaker, as it made the vehicle a horrible slug!
Happy Motoring, Mark
There is another Mitsubishi-Dodge flip flop…the Lancer.
Dodge produced the Lancer in 1955-59, 1960-62 and then my personal favorite, which is the sister to the LeBaron GTS, the 1984-89.
My brother in law had a ’12 Lancer before getting a new Audi A4. When I told him there was another kind of Lancer, one that wasn’t a boy-racer Mitsubishi, his jaw dropped.
He was also astounded when I clued him in on the depths of the Mitsubishi-Chrysler relationship, starting in the 70s (way before the both of us were born) starting with the captive imports and the Mitsubishi diesel in the Dodge pickup.
SEV:
Mitsubishi used the Lancer name for decades, though obviously never in the U.S. while Dodge used it.
According to Wikipedia, Mitsubishi has been building the Lancer since 1973, and is still building a car it calls Lancer today.
I’m the proud owner of a 2008 Raider. Bought it new in ’09 and there were steep discounts at the time because it was being discontinued. $8500 in total rebates and they put a 10 yr. 100K mile bumper to bumper warranty at the dealer on it. Only 66k miles and it has been a great truck. Outside of the typical Dodge issues with the front suspension and a bad window regulator, no problems in 9 years. Mileage could be better with the V-6, but it tows a small RV well and I still get asked questions about it. Very rare and very happy
Chrysler was doing some weird things with VW too.
Remember this Chrysler minivan?
I drove the early version you show as a loaner while my Truck was being services it was called a Pajero here and turbo diesel for what it was it drove ok almost car like and preferred to the usual 90s Corolla diesel vans usually handed out.