Mitsubishi Pajero 2004 Problems

This sounds – on the surface – very much like a problem with the car’s body computer. The body computer controls all the electrical functions you’ve just listed as well as potentially being responsible for controlling the immobiliser. If the computer isn’t telling the immobiliser to switch off, you could easily find that the engine will turn but not fire.

It doesn’t work every time, but one way to reboot the body computer is to disconnect the battery and leave it overnight. This will sometimes restore the computer to factory settings (for want of a better term). If the computer is on the way out, however, this reboot may not be permanent. The other thing to check is the battery inside the ignition key. A flat or weak battery here can also mean the immobiliser doesn’t switch off and the engine will refuse to start. If none of that does the trick, an auto electrician is your best bet.

I don’t know of any insurance companies that will pay out an increased amount because of recent repairs. The presumption would have been that your car was worth the $6000 agreed-value amount only if it was in good working order and not in a damaged state. Following that presumption is the fact that, if it needed $1500 spent on it to bring it back to that condition, that’s simply a wear and tear cost that is not the insurer’s problem. It’s a cruel world, no?

As for the payout figure including (or not) the registration refund, I’d imagine that would be up to the insurer and would be included in the dreaded fine-print. From what I can gather, this is a pretty common inclusion on most policy wordings, and many insurers will adjust the payout down to include the policy excess (if, unlike your case, Tracey, you were at fault) and the unused portion of the CTP insurance and registration. But get this: Some insurers will even deduct the costs of the rest of the year’s insurance premium from your payout, even if you were paying the premium monthly! Never gloss over the fine print.

In this case I would be tempted to go for the older car with the fewer kilometres, as long as you were sure the odometer reading is correct.

I would strongly argue the case that the failure is a safety related issue and shouldn't affect the warranty. Besides the company has already admitted to you that there is a problem, which it seems to me leaves them with nowhere to go.

Timing chains do not need to be replaced regularly as timing belts do, so there is no requirement in the service schedule for such a replacement. But they do wear and can become slack over time, and when that happens they do need to be replaced. If you don't replace them in that situation you risk them breaking or jumping teeth on the drive gears and if either of those things happened you could do serious internal damage to the engine. I'd be inclined to follow your mechanic's advice.

That's correct, the 3.2-litre turbo-diesel engine has a timing chain, not a belt, so doesn't need to be replaced.

I too have read the claims made by makers of these chips as well, but I don’t have the evidence that confirms the benefits, so I would leave well enough alone. By your admission the Pajero is doing the job, so I wouldn’t change it.