Consumer Report's Bulb Test

Well, "retraction" wouldn't be their word of choice. CU calls it a
"clarification".

But here's their carefully worded compromise statement:
http://www.consumersunion.org/cgi-bin/db-mt/mt-view.cgi/1/entry/1236/print_e
ntry -- Small excerpt: "CU's 1996 statement that the 1988 Samurai "easily
rolls over in turns" was limited to the severe turns in CU's short course
avoidance maneuver. CU's use of the adverb "easily" may have been
misconstrued and misunderstood. CU never intended to state or imply that the
Samurai easily rolls over in routine driving conditions. Subsequent to 1988,
several other SUVs have tipped up either in CU's tests or in U.S. government
tests."

 

I think what mostly bugs me about CU in this case was the rehash -- years
later after the Samurai was already discontinued -- in a 1996 magazine
article just to promote how they're looking out for everyone's safety. They
just added more injury -- for what? They've had a major influence over the
decades on product safety from children's toys to power tools -- wasn't
there a better example to choose from? It seemed almost predatory, but it
was certainly tacky at best.

 

There's a case of a lady who won -- get this -- $25 million from Suzuki
because her Samurai rolled. The funny thing is that the jury disregarded
evidence that the driver was impaired by alcohol and that the vehicle
because she hit an embankment. How much do you want to bet that the jurors
were influenced by the CR story?

Accuracy In Media did a nice article where they talk about the that
lawsuit... http://www.aim.org/aim_report/A3726_0_4_0_C/

 

Actually the first trial verdict was a $90 million award which was later
reversed. The second trial was $25 million plus $12 million in punitive
damages. I've found the Supreme Court reversed that verdict in 1999 and the
parties settled in a confidential agreement rather than have a third trial.

 

Thank you for the link. Since it was cut off I am posting it again in case
people have problems with it:

http://www.consumersunion.org/cgi-bin/db-mt/mt-view.cgi/1/entry/1236/print_entry


I suggest people interested in this discussion read the entire statement and
not rely on the small portion you posted which may be miscontrued out of
context.

 

By the way the history of the test was kind of interesting as I remember it.
Initially the car tested well but then one CU employee rolled the vehicle
over driving in snow when he tried to transverse a rut of snow between the
wheels. That incident led CU to design more rigorous turn over tests.
Their goal was to design a test that would make the Suzuki turn over. When
they finally got it to lift its wheels they applauded and yelled and that
was caught on tape. Suzuki argued that the applause and yells indicated
malice but CU argued it indicated they had finally been successful designing
a good test. An interesting jury question indeed.

 

You must have really liked your Samurai...

 

LOL sounds like it doesn't it, but I guess the incident just bugged me...
Never owned a Suzuki yet, though I read reviews on their new models now and
then. Haven't seen a model yet that I really would care to have.

Vehicles my wife and I have had over the past few years include an '01 300M,
a '98 3.2L Intrepid ES, and a '97 Grand Cherokee. We currently have an '01
Durango and an '05 Durango, both 4.7L V8's. I'd love to trade the '01 in on
a 300C in '06. I don't think Suzuki has anything along those lines, and
even if they did, the engine would probably still be the same 2.7L V6, which
I think is their largest engine.

Suzuki doesn't seem to have much of a development budget. Even their latest
models tend to just rate average at best in acceleration, handling, ride,
etc., compared with current competitors. They seem to struggle just keeping
up. Would be nice to see them introduce a large sedan along the lines of
Hyundai's new Azera that's getting tremendous reviews.

 

Yes, But Suzuki is the best selling vehicle in Japan, for 6 years in a row.
Other then that they do not really have the capacity to fully sell to the
world. they do have a niche in developing countries as they actually are one
of the only companies in the world that sell basic vehicles. And there are
tons of them in developing countries world wide. So to spend alot of money
to compete with every other manufacturer at a piece of the Developed world
needs and wants is pretty stupid as there is over capacity in this market.
So they trudge along at doing what they do best, a basic vehicle that the
masses can afford.

 

I can't see how it was misconstruced, the operative phrase there was:

"CU never intended to state or imply that the
Samurai easily rolls over in routine driving conditions"

This is a retraction because CU certainly did imply that the Samurai
easily rolled over in routine driving conditions. They may not have said so
explicitly, but the positioning of the article implied it.

In order for interested parties to really understand the discussion, you
have to not only read the entire thing he posted, but also the original
copies of CR, and their front covers, plus the additional buzz that
CR planted in the industry during the time that this was an issue. But
that would be difficult for most people who were not adults in 1988.
I was, and I clearly recall the flurry of copycat articles in news media
that killed the Samurai back in the last 80's, I didn't know then
that CR was the trigger to these. Frankly at the time I thought the
Samurai was a stupid, ugly, fadmobile purchased by poseurs and
I was happy to see it go away, also I though their commercials were
boneheaded.

Many people don't seem to understand that the news media feeds
off each other. Everyone is looking for the next story, and when
someone publishes a 'scoop' they all jump on it like flies on rotting
dogcrap. If it comes out later on that the initial scoop was nothing
more than poop, well that doesen't make the front page, and rarely
do retractions get the kind of press that the initial lying story did.

Ted

 

That might sound right if their vehicles were in the under-$10,000.00 USD
range but they are not, they are in the $14,000.00 range and higher for a
new 2005
model. In fact you can get a new 2005 Chevy Cavalier for less money,
significantly
less money in fact.

Ted

 

Sounds to me that you are really bitching about our sound bite system of
news. As a subscriber of Consumer Reports at the time, I knew that the
model had turned over while crossing a rut of snow in normal winter driving
and as a result, CU decided that their current rollover tests were
inadequate. Therefore their goal was to come up with a test that would
demonstrate the problem in the Suzuki and then use that test on all future
models. Were it not for CU's work, there would be no government rollover
standards now.

 

In today's news it was reported that due to the fact that an SUV is twice as
likely to roll over than a car, it wipes out the safety advantage that
otherwise would be associated with its larger size. Of course the news
headline was was featured was that your kids are not any safer in an SUV.
That is an eye graber but not really the subject of the objective study
being reported.

Richard.

 

I saw the article. It also doesn't take into account that the DRIVER is
in control of whether he/she drives the SUV as if it were a sports car
and risks rollover, or drives it knowing that its a high-CG vehicle and
doesn't put him/herself at risk of a rollover. OTOH, the greater mass
benefits you when the *other* driver does something stupid and hits you.

 

The following is only my opinion and based on nothing more than
personal observation. OK, disclaimer over. In my daily travels, I
don't see any difference between the way an average SUV is driven and
the average small passenger car. Some of the more aggressive drivers
actually use the bulk of their SUVs to force their way into traffic
where otherwise they wouldn't. Therefore I am not surprised that
statistically SUVs aren't any safer even though their greater mass
theoretically offers a passive safety advantage - the active safety
disadvantages aren't being compensated for by their operators.

nate