2009 Mitsubishi Pajero Review & Road Test
May 13, 2009 by Matt Brogan
2009 Mitsubishi Pajero VRX DI-D Review & Road Test
Versatile, strong, capable… but oh so average.
Model Tested:
- 2009 Mitsubishi NT Pajero VR-X; 3.2-litre, turbo-diesel; five-speed automatic; wagon – $67,990 (RRP)
Options:
- Metallic paint $495 (fitted – Cool Silver); satellite navigation & rear view camera $2500 (Fitted)
Torquey, economical engine; towing capacity; roomy cabin
Mismatched interior plastics; engine noise; numb steering
CarAdvice Rating: 
- by Matt Brogan
You might recall quite some time ago CarAdvice took an Aston Martin DBS through the middle of the Simpson Desert.
What’s that got to do with a Mitsubishi Pajero I hear you ask?
Well as it happens very little, but what we did notice driving the long straights of Queensland’s channel country was the staggering number of Pajeros manned by grey nomads towing caravans.
So when it just so happened that my need for a tow vehicle coincided with our booking of a Pajero VRX DI-D last week it wasn’t hard to see how I put two and two together.
While the Pajero may not be the most attractive or trendsetting four wheel drive on the market, it certainly is a very capable one, something proven by the amount of recognition it has earned through the numerous FWD magazine awards received and confirmed by my brief yet muddy off-road encounter last weekend.
Although looks may be subjective, I can’t help but mention that when it comes to bland interiors, the Pajero really takes the cake.
It’s not that it isn’t practical, or that it doesn’t work. It’s just that the mass of dark, cheap plastics, gloomy matt black leather, poor colour continuity (note the centre stack, ash tray and storage compartment lids), constant plastic rattles and flat, non-supportive seating really let down what is otherwise a spacious and well equipped cabin.
Similarly I found a number of the control buttons are either too fiddly, especially those of the touch screen satellite navigation unit; poorly placed, such as the rear diff-lock, ESP or fuel lid release; or, for some strange reason, just not illuminated at night, like the power mirror switch.
They’re little, almost insignificant annoyances in the scheme of things, but really I believe in getting what you pay for, and when the rivals can manage it for the same price, it’s unfortunate Pajero is left lacking.
Perhaps the single most noticeable downside to the DI-D (direct injection diesel) Pajero is the incredible amount of engine noise.
Now I know it’s a diesel, and I know direct injection is a little louder than other fuel aspiration systems, but the 3.2-litre, four-cylinder, turbocharged unit found in the Pajero is especially noisy, and not just at idle.
It really is atrocious, almost embarrassing, and while most diesels seem to only present any sign of engine noise while stationary, the Pajero’s large capacity four-cylinder is raucous no matter what speed travelled.
That’s not to say it isn’t any good, because it really is a very confident and capable oiler developing 147kW at 3800rpm. The real strength of Pajero however lies in its 441Nm of torque availed from just 2000rpm.
There is a little turbo lag, and yes it is noticeable, but not so much that it detracts from the vehicle’s likely orientation as an urban dweller with inner city behaviour much sharper and more responsive than some of Pajero’s direct rivals.
But how does it tow I hear you ask?
Exceptionally well as it happens. Loaded with a fat tandem trailer and my 1976 Holden HJ Monaro GTS the Pajero’s 3000kg of braked towing capacity made light of the task, even managing to return 13.6 litres per 100km average while doing so.
It maintains the same steering feel as when unloaded – which isn’t crash hot by the way – yet remains planted and settled on the road, even at highway speeds.
Larger hills will knock 10 or 15km/h off the Pajero’s top speed, but with an additional 2000kg on board it’s easy to see why. So in all I have to say this part of the equation is quite impressive.
Ride and handling are about what you’d expect from a large four-wheel-drive – average – and though you don’t exactly expect a large 4WD to corner well, the Pajero has a tendency to push the front wheels, in other words understeer, at even the lowest of speeds causing a lot of tyre howl even through such fundamental manoeuvres as navigating a roundabout.
Steering feedback to the driver is also a little on the light side with a touch too much assistance offered through the wheel.
The ESP system too is a little confused in some instances with wet asphalt seeing the delayed threshold system sustain its intervention for an unnecessarily long period. Reassuringly the Pajero also offers front and side airbags to afford it a four-star ANCAP rating.
Cargo capacity of course varies depending on the car’s configuration, but as a five-seater Pajero offers a generous 1081 litres. The side hinged tailgate however is quite a bother needing a fair amount of swinging space which in urban parking bays does limit access to the rear.
The third-row of seating is handy only as a short-term solution and is serviced by pop-out windows and rear ventilation ducts, though in reality small children are perhaps the only people really suited to this style of travel.
In all I have to say the Pajero is a decent vehicle considering its intended purpose, and if you’re all for long family road trips, hooking up the van or the boat, or even towing the occasional Monaro then you could certainly do a lot worse.
Ratings:
CarAdvice Overall Rating:
How does it Drive:
How does it Look:
How does it Go:
Specifications:
- Engine: 3200cc DOHC four-cylinder (16-valve)
- Power: 147kW @ 3800rpm
- Torque: 441Nm @ 2000rpm
- Induction: Direct injection & turbocharged
- Transmission: Five-speed automatic
- Driven Wheels: Rear/All
- Differential: Lockable rear & centre
- Brakes: Discs with ABS & EBD
- CO2 Emissions: 243 grams per kilometre
- Fuel Consumption: 9.2 litres per 100km (ADR)
- Fuel Consumption: 10.8 litres per 100km (As tested)
- Fuel Tank Capacity: 88 litres
- Fuel Type: Diesel
- Ground Clearance: 225mm
- ANCAP Rating: Four stars
- Airbags: Dual front & side
- Safety: ESP with traction control
- Spare Wheel: Full size alloy
- Suspension: Wishbone(F)/Multi-Link(R)
- Cargo Capacity: 1081 litres (Five Seat Mode)
- Tow Capacity: 3000kg (Braked)
- Turning Circle: 11.4 metres
- Warranty: Five Year/130,000 kilometre
- Weight: 2285kg (Tare)
- Wheels: Alloy 18 x 7.5-inch
Road Test the Rivals:
Print it: 
I know in other models of the NT Pajero they changed the grille, why does the VRX have the same old NS grille? Sure it looks sportier, but then doesn’t the whole car look like the NS?
Interior has mass of cheap plastic? What do other cars have their interiors made of? Still plastic but maybe not one that looks cheap.
Pajero is a good reliable car that will handle off road with ease. Engine needs updating.
Actually, it MASSIVELY out-powers its direct rivals, it also produces more torque, and only marginally less power then the 4.5L turbo diesel V8 in the 70 series landcruiser.
I don’t know of any 2.0L turbo diesel that has 440nm of torque and anywhere near 147kw, Reckless your absolutely kidding yourself mate.
Also it is a 4WD engine, they have to be strong tough units, they cannot be the highly strung over turned diesels you find in road cars because they simply will not last, thats the reason that the power and torque figures of nearly all 4WD diesels seem to be slightly on the lower side. But the new Pajero motor is an absolute rocket compared to its rivals, It’s over 2 seconds quicker to 100km/h then the Prado and Pathfinder turbo diesels.
Mercedes 2.1 L found in 250CDI produces 150kW and 500Nm of torque.
This vehicle is a good example of why Mitsubishi is dead in the water, worldwide. A below-average product in a declining segment.
Matt I agree with you about the interior quality. Ive looked in the Exceed and for a $75000 motor vehicle the quality just doesnt cut it. The dash just looks too cheap and the over all interior is just bland. I like that you did a tow test in the article.
Quick question how did the rear tyres look? Ive seen NM-NS pajeros towing heavy trailers and they always look like they are eating the inside edges out on the rear tyres badly. As for those complaining about the comaprison between this vehicle and a conventional car, The Pajero is a proper 4WD(one with a transfer case) that is the closest thing to a car on the market- 4 wheel independent suspension and a monocoque body are supose to make it the best of both worlds smooth on the road and capable off it. I wouldnt call the Pajero a “heavy duty” 4WD as it has been quoted in the comments section, with its car like under pinnings I’d call it a meduim duty 4WD. Id class a heavy duty 4WD salong the lines of a Landcruiser 70 series, Defender etc
Gibbo – I’d consider an LC70 and defender a commercial vehicle more then a 4WD
The DID is loud.
Car advice recently reviewed the Sorento diesel, Freelander2 diesel etc and apart from sounding like diesels at idle, the rattle disappears when the car takes off. This isnt the case with the paj. Its unrefined compared to rivals, but offers a hell of a lot of bang for buck.
So what’s better the Pajero or the Prado? And ………will next year’s Prado be better than this year’s Pajero? And while they all seem great now….how will they be when their warranty expires?
Blink Bill – That is more or less the question I am asking myself right now… I’m looking at buying either the Prado or Pajero but having quite a bit of trouble deciding between the two.. The Prado is a bit quieter and looks a bit nicer, Pajero seems to drive slightly better and goes WAY harder… I dunno probably leaning towards the Pajero at the moment but not sure.
As for how they will go when their warranty expires, both the current model Prado and Pajero have been around for quite a while now, the current Pajero dates back to 2000 (it looks different but underneath is very similar to the model introduced in 2000) and the current Prado since 2002, both have solid reliability records
and you would hope that next years Prado is better considering it will have all the latest technology and the latest design, but next year is also when an all new Pajero is due out which should also be better, but bottom line is its impossible to tell what a model that hasn’t been launched yet will be like
Blinky Bill and Richo,
I have been in the same position pondering over these two.
Although they both a very similar vehicles, the Prado’s body on frame construction, solid rear axle, and better wheel articulation, not to mention it’s 180L fuel tank give it a slight advantage offroad.
The Pajero has an on-road advantage thanks to it’s car like monocoque construction, and rear independent suspension.
In australia Mitsubishy offers rear diff-lock for the Pajero, which is a great bonus offroad. But I prefer the aftermarket ARB air-lockers.
Looks a very subjective, but i also prefer the look of the prado, and the look of the prado’s interior.
Oi Matt when you told me you were excited at picking up the Monaro a few weekends back I thought you were driving it hun!
Sorry but after towing another hefty piece of Ozzie Muscle from one side of Oz to the other 12 years ago a 80 series Cruiser sitting on over 130 clicks at times did the job superbly……..not sure I would feel as happy with new 200 series with all the bad reports though!
IMHO The best looking 4×4 made by a major manufacturer would have to be the Mitsubishi Pajero EVO-K Concept from a couple of years ago.
Unlike most 4×4s it didn’t look like a mobile fortress it was sleek and sporty with a range of innovative features [like an X6] yet it still had the ability to go off road
Having owned 4 pajero’s and currently on my 5th which is a limited edition, and having driven to the top of cape york. across the simpson desert, dozens of weekend off road trips, and every christmas on the beach at Moreton island I have only one thing to say about 19 years of safe 4w driving with no breakdowns ever! keep up the good work mitsubishi and I will keep on buying.
Just bought the GLS 2009 Diesel Pajero asked for rear parking sensors to be installed, thinking they would be the same as advertised as for the VRX and Exceed, silly me the opitional extra rear parking sensors are different aren’t they, they have all four sensors on the rear bumper not two on the bumper and two on the spare wheel cover, and also there is no button to switch it between towbar mode or no towbar mode as shown in the book. Annoying isn’t it.
Hi All.
Dunno where Scott the tester comes from. I road tested a paj GLS yesterday, with my better half on board, who also had a drive. She liked it a lot. We could easily carry on a conversation at 110kph, speaking normally. Yes, it’s a bit prone to body roll if you chuck it around, but we can’t take the BMW into the Tanami, so I guess that’s the choice. The idea of comparing like to like should be mandatory, ‘coz anything else is just silly. But, if the vehicle is easy on the juice, comfy, will go up sandy roads, tow 3 tonnes, and feels good on HER bum, who could argue? None of the medium 4WDs are cheap, or particularly well-finished, but for equipment level, terms on warranty, and price the mitsu is a bit ahead. They also make nuclear reactors, where the reliability HAS to be good.
So, think what you want the machine to do, exactly, and make your choice based on how well it will do what YOU want. Any review that presupposes the intended uses [other than what the vehicle is primarily designed for] is probably out of line, even tho’ I take the point that many buyers use these things as taxis for the kids. Perhaps that could be built into the reviews, ie, tell how it is for use as mum’s shopping trolly, and ALSO how it stacks up as a vehicle to take the van around Oz, with some off-roading mixed in.
Happy test-drives,
Slugger
Just had one of these as a hire car yesterday and it was fantastic. Did about 1000km of highway driving – pretty quiet for a 4WD, and far better handling on the road than any other true 4WD I have driven.
Also did some serious dirt track driving with large pot holes. Averaged 100km/h and the car lapped it up. Handled very well.
Averaged 10L/100k. Agree that the interior finish is missing something, or has too much of something, but can’t put my finger on it exactly. I could put up with it though.
Have always hated mitsubishis, but I was impressed and felt compelled to defend it here. It’s a bit expensive for me, but has made me re-evaluate the triton as an option for a ute. I hadn’t even considered it up to this point.
As long as the reliability is OK, the pajero would make a fine family 4wd.
Cheers.
Went to trade my petrol NM in on a Paj DiD Exceed but was really dissapointed in the unchanged interior, general unchanged build quality, bloody noisy engine and shocking trade in valuation.
I bought a V6 Tdi Touareg….. and I can’t stop smiling. (both on and off road)
I just picked up my 09 Pajero Exceed. I had a 2002 and it lasted 270,000 km off road and towing a double horse float most weekends with out a fault. If this one is as good i will be happy.
The Sat Nav is fiddly and locks you out when the car is moving. Plus my weekender is not on the map. The Garmin Nuvi portable is way better so may be I should have got a VX.
Any way does any one know how to upload speed cameras and school zones into it ?
I always buy petrol as I can never work out how the life time cost of a Diesel is cheaper with inital cost feul price and serviceing plus smell noise and lower power.
Can anyone advise on the running and service costs?
Thanks.
Just to clarify few things about the NT Pajero’s engine. The Pajero’s main rivals are Toyota Land cruiser Prado & Nissan Path finder. The Toyota Land cruiser Prado hasn’t had a significant upgrade since 2003. This cheap looking plastic is perception. I have rented a few new Holden’s the interior plastic is soft and brittle breaks easily, they might not look cheap, but breaks like egg shell. The Mitsubishi’s chap looking plastic interior is hard and won’t break. What is the use in having nice looking cracked plastic interior.
NT Pajero DI-D – 147kW/441Nm
Toyota Land cruiser Prado 127kW/410Nm
Nissan Pathfinder 126kW/403Nm
Well had my GLS 3.2 for 2 months now and loving it, great to drive, makes my R51 Pathfinder feel like a tractor. Couldnt be happier. Only issue I have is the rear door, cant be opened when towing. Well not far anyway. But its all about comprimises isnt it?