OT Court lets Automaker sue Consumer Reports

Lloyd Parker wrote:

Watch the video - they had to violently yank the wheel and make the
turn almost half as long - and only 3 out of over 70 attempts succeeded.

If you purposely try to make it tip over, it likely will.

 

I've been watching this thread since it started, and as usual, when
faced with defeat, you start to get ridiculous Lloyd.

What part of the actual Samurai test footage found at
http://www.media.suzuki.com/auto/press02/suzukivcu/broadband/Segment3wmv.html
and
http://www.media.suzuki.com/auto/press02/suzukivcu/broadband/Segment4wmv.html
looks like a "lane change" to you?

Seen any Jeep, GM or Ford SUV commercials lately?
They may be so used, but they definitely are not so advertised. SUVs,
for the most part, are largely targeted at the market segment that likes
to imagine itself as having the capability (real or imagined) of driving
off-road.

What makes you think the Samurai, one of the most capable
short-wheelbase 4x4s in the world (along with the Wrangler and old CJ),
is designed for on-road use?

Oh, and don't worry, it won't "tip over during a lane change." As
evidenced by CU's own videos, you have to work VERY HARD to even start
to tip one.

Where did you pull this "inadvertent lane change" crap from? The driver
had to quickly and violently jerk the wheel 180 degrees from TDC *in
both directions* to get the thing to even lightly lift one side off the
ground. Not like any lane change I've ever seen.

 

They are not only self-selected, but they are self-selected from a
self-selected group with no attempt to verify a valid sample.

Who won, Dewey or Truman?

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

 

Too late, I've served on a jury. Called once, served once.

What is the point of testing? I don't understand why singling out one test
subject to fail is different from singling out one test subject to fail.

Marc
For email, remove the first "y" of "whineryy"

 

They did a lane change.

 

The sudden swerve to the left and then back to the right. A lane change.

Sure they are. Families run errands, pick up kids after school, go grocery
shopping, etc.

And if SUVs could only be used off-road, that would be different.

NHTSA, state motor vehicle departments so licensing it, etc.

In an emergency, you don't want to have to try to avoid a roll-over.

That's what sparked the short course.

A lane change -- the vevicle is swerved to the left around an obstacle and
then immediately back to the right into the original lane.

 

They observed a vehicle handling problem that their current test did
not detect as a problem so they worked with the vehicle until they
developed a new test that picked it up.

 

Around 11/19/2003 2:53 AM, Lloyd Parker wrote:

So, we're agreed on everything else up to this point, except for
definitions. Right?

Where on earth do you live that that maneuver can be considered a "lane
change?"

If anything, call it what it is: an emergency avoidance maneuver. Not
something one encounters in everyday driving.

Exactly- So used, but not so advertised.

Irrelevant, since that's how many are portrayed in their advertising.

Just because it *can* be used on-road doesn't mean it was so designed.

It isn't that tough. Even with two wheels off the ground, that Suzuki in
the video wasn't anywhere near tipping onto it's side. All the guy did
to recover was to let go of the steering wheel. He would have had to
hold the wheel hard over to keep 'er rolling.

Again, that's no lane change. It's an emergency maneuver.

See above. That's not a lane change.

 

That may be the most laughable statement I've read on this newsgroup.
INCLUDING Lloyd's drivel.

Since they couldn't even *produce* this "handling problem" when they
tried repeatedly, just exactly how can you straight-facedly believe that
they "observed a vehicle handling problem" in the first place?

 

Because their staffer whined her ass off to them about how she rolled
the thing on the way to the test track. The reality is - she hit uneven
pavement(rut at the side of the road) and flipped it like a newbie.

Couldn't be her fault, could it? No - had to be the "unsafe" SUV.

 

If a policeman witnessed a lane change like that on a highway, whether
in a Corvette, Samurai, whatever, the driver would be ticketed for
reckless driving.

Bill Putney
(to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with "x")

 

Sorry I prefer to stick to the facts. Go pull out the issue where the
defect was reported and read it.

 

Ever have a deer cross in front of you while driving 55 mph? How
about a spinning hubcap drop off a car in front of you on the highway
and spinning towards your windshield. You should have seen me change
lanes then.

 

My worst was dodging a wayward axle - from the other side of the freeway.
I saw thing thing 200 ft in the air coming down and it landed next to me,
then bounced off the freeway.

 

OK, a double-lane change. Happy?

Of course not. But people don't crash in everyday driving, yet a car that
didn't protect its occupants in a crash would be dangerous too, wouldn't it?

That's what the ads show.

No, they're sold for and licensed for on-road use.

Then it shouldn't be allowed, like farm tractors and ATVs.

Because of the outriggers.

A double lane change.

 

If a child ran out into your lane, is it your advice to hit the child rather
than swerve around him?

 

Nope; I drive faster so the deer cross behind.

An energy argument makes this incredibly unlikely.

You violently yanked the wheel one way, then the other? That's asking
for a spin, at the least. Better to hit the hubcap.

 

Is your advice to buy a vehicle that will slide into him or that will
allow you to maneuver around him?
--
Brandon Sommerville
remove ".gov" to e-mail

Definition of "Lottery":
Millions of stupid people contributing
to make one stupid person look smart.

 

Not true. If you'd actually watch the video, you would notice that it
came nowhere near *needing* the outriggers.

In fact, according to CU's documentation, the Suzuki was so stable that
they decided to remove the outriggers in the latter runs. See Bob Ward's
earlier post on this topic:

Like hell. Now you're just being deliberately obtuse.

We're getting into semantics, but I believe you're the only person here
who would call that *any* kind of lane change.