Consumer Report's Bulb Test

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?

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:

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