Government to do rollover tests

And it's a static "test," not a driving test.

BTW, Consumer Reports does rollover testing on all SUVs reviewed by the magazine. See back issues at library or at:

CR uses driving tests to check for rollover. Can't remember the specifics of CR's tests, but they put outriggers on the SUVS so if the SUV starts to roll, the outriggers prevent the rollover.

I see your point, but that assumes that in a situation like an accident involving a rollover, everyone will have taken time to think out in advance what might happen. If people really did that, there'd probably be many fewer accidents and rollovers.

It'd be simpler just to ban future sales of the flunking SUVs.

Perhaps, but I'll add that I think a lot of the SUV rollovers are single-vehicle accidents. We've had several of those that have been in the newspaper where I live. The driver (because of unknown reasons and/or alcohol) lost control of the SUV, and the SUVs rolled over, because SUVs are prone to rollovers. No other vehicles were involved.

Because the Pacifica is a car-based SUV, and lower than typical SUVs, my guess is that the Pacifica would have a lower tendency to roll than typical SUVs. If it has any stability or traction control features, that would probably also help.

CR's comments on the proposed federal standards:

"Consumers Union comments on NHTSA's new system for rating rollover risks

Consumers Union (CU), the publisher of Consumer Reports, is dissatisfied with the new system for rating the rollover risks of motor vehicles unveiled this January by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

After an initial review of the new ratings system, CU repeated its concerns that NHTSA has based its rollover rating system solely on the vehicle's so-called static stability factor (SSF), rather than basing it on driving tests and the dynamic performance of the vehicles.

"While we believe that providing consumers some information is preferable to providing no information at all, Consumers Union has serious reservations about using a static measure such as SSF to determine for comparative purposes the stability of vehicles" says Dr. R. David Pittle, CU's Senior Vice President and Technical Director.

Dr. Pittle noted that SSF utilizes only two aspects of the vehicle, both of which are static measurements?the center of gravity height and the track width. [SSF is calculated as T/(2H), T being the track width and H being height above the ground of the vehicle's center of gravity with one or more occupants in place]. Important vehicle-design elements such as the suspension, tire design, and steering response affect a vehicle's stability and differ from vehicle to vehicle?but are not accounted for by SSF.

"There is no real way to know how a vehicle will act in an emergency situation by simply measuring its shape at rest," Pittle says. "We must see how it performs when it is driven, when the whole vehicle is acting as a complete dynamic system. We are encouraged that under the recent TREAD Act, Congress has directed NHTSA to develop a dynamic test for vehicle stability."

CU has been in the forefront of testing vehicles for routine handling and emergency handling, as well as braking, acceleration, fuel economy, comfort and convenience. The test results appear in Consumer Reports and other CU publications.

In 1996 CU petitioned NHTSA to develop a consumer information program that provided consumers comparative data on the rollover risks of SUVs based on dynamic testing?that is, a program based on actual driving tests.

NHTSA granted CU's petition. However, CU was disappointed last May when it learned that NHTSA had abandoned its plans for dynamic testing in favor of a static formula such as SSF, which CU believes is too coarse a measure to compare vehicle stability within the same class of vehicles.

Last year, Congress passed an auto safety law called the TREAD Act (Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act). The law directs NHTSA to develop a dynamic test for rollover risks to be used as the basis for its consumer information program.

"We applaud Congress for its efforts to uphold and improve the government ratings for rollover risks. When NHTSA develops a valid dynamic test, the results should provide a far more accurate measure of vehicle stability than what is being offered today," says Sally Greenberg, Senior Product Safety Counsel for CU.

In comments filed with NHTSA last August, CU noted that, despite its reservations about SSF, the static measure does have some positive attributes.

"The SSF metric shows the importance of vehicle load conditions. We note that on NHTSA's website, the SSF rating for a given vehicle, particularly SUVs and minivans, may vary depending on whether the vehicle is carrying a full load of passengers and cargo. When loaded, many of these vehicles drop one star in NHTSA's rating. SSF could also be a useful element of evaluating the propensity for tripped rollovers, but needs to be used in conjunction with a dynamic stability test," says David Champion, director of CU's Automotive Testing Division."

Thank you. But I feel compelled to point out that most of what I contributed was a quote from Consumer Reports. BTW, and I realize some readers will already know the following, CR has been sued several times by automakers (Isuzu, Mitsubishi, Suzuki) when CR found some of their SUVs to be unsafe due to rollovers in CR tests.

Suzuki has been suing intermittently ever since CR found the Suzuki Samurai unsafe in 1988. None of these suits has been successful, yet all these companies have deep pockets and apparently would rather spend money to sue CR than put the money and effort toward making safer SUVs that would pass CR's rollover test. In a recent letter to the editor published in CR, GM (which owns a large chunk of Suzuki) tried to distance itself from the Suzuki lawsuit, BTW.

I don't happen to own a Chrysler, but I work near a dealer, so I tend to notice the new models and be curious about them. (But this job will end soon, which means my chances of buying any new car will be about zero.)

Styles come and go, and SUVs have been a popular style, just like minivans were for awhile. Automakers, with cars like the Pacifica and Nissan Murano, seem to be positioning themselves for a shift away from the big, heavy SUVs, or at least the automakers are making vehicles now for people who want something less extreme than the SUVs.

One thing I read a few months ago is that one problem that the US makers have is that sales will go up when there's a new style, such as minivans, but then sales will decline to a point lower than where they were before the fad started, meaning that except for bubbles like minivans and SUVs, overall sales of US brands are shrinking, while foreign brands steadily take more of the market. So I imagine that Chrysler is probably hoping that the Pacifica and their other new models will be able to (at the very least) lead the market with new, popular styles and pick up sales as people eventually lose interest in SUVs. I imagine Chrysler's choice was to either do a big, heavy, luxury SUV, like the Escalade, or try to move in a new direction, with the Pacifica.

While I'm rambling on, I'll add that according to the following, Ford and GM sales were down for October, while Chrysler sales were up: