OT Court lets Automaker sue Consumer Reports

Then you don't remember it. Driven on their normal accident avoidance course, the car lifted 2 wheels very high. So CR instituted a shorter, tighter course (which they have used for all SUVs since); the Samurai lifted the wheels so high they rated it unsafe and thus unacceptable.

Of all the SUVs tested on this tighter course, the Samurai, the Trooper, and the Montero are the only ones to get the "unacceptable" label. And the Montero has now added stability control and is no longer unacceptable. The other two are gone.

I think CR will have a problem with this case. If I remember it all correctl it went like this: The model in question had rolled over when an employee drove over a snow rut so they decided to revise their roll over test so the car would roll. So basically they video'd tests until they made it extreme enuf so the car would roll over and you can here them cheering when they are successful making the test extreme enuf. (I've seen the video of the test.) The jury could interpret this as being out to "get" the car.

Art, is this post below a forgery or did you suddenly forget how to spell?

DS

Cars flip when the driver loses control of the steering wheel. Thats a fact.

CU should go for a courtroom demonstration out on the parking lot. Using a stunt driver, two test cars will be used, both loaded to full rated load and minimum fuel: a regular station wagon and the Japsuzi-Q. At 20 mph, the driver loses control of the steering wheel. One will flip and the other will slide around. I think the Pacifica will pass, -Suzi-Q will go over, maim its driver, and the case won.

The judge will conclude its okay to sell an unsteady car and its okay to tell the world about it. There is only one reason why this is going to court: if CU wins, a flood of wrongful death and injury claims will be filed against Japsuzi for selling tipsy ones. Good riddance to bad trash. But Chrysler, Suckzusi does use a roller timing chain, so take note that they did do one thing right. P.S. Their screwed on body cladding on the yellow and black V-Cross model really sucks and further illustrates their cars are built for show and that sucker really looks so tipsy I think I could blow it over.

...with large, wide and extremely heavy outriggers bolted to the underbody of the Samurai, yes. Outriggers which changed the moment of inertia (look it up if you don't remember your physics) of the vehicle substantially from its as-sold configuration.

Be sort of interesting to compare real-world rollover stats to see if CR's ratings are predictive of greater frequency of rollovers for the Samurai and the Trooper than for comparable vehicles from other manufacturers. I'm sure it'll happen as the lawsuit progresses.

DS

Actually the outriggers will increase the moment of inertia around the longitudinal axis of the vehicle, hence making it *less*, not more, likely to rollover.

Sorry Lloyd but you don't remember the whole story. Indeed it lifted the 2 wheels on the old test and they were disappointed because of the accident involving a staffer and snow rut. Therefore they decided to make the test tougher. The process consisted of making the test tougher on the Suzuki until it flunked. That test became their new test for all future SUV's.

avoidance course,

tighter course

Trooper, and

unacceptable. The

It is not a forgery and I've never been famous for my typing or spelling.

extreme

interpret

That is CU's argument. I suspect there'll be some fairly extensive analysis of their outrigger setup and its effect upon the MoI of a Suzuki Samurai during the court proceedings.

DS

Yes, almost as bad as the exploding pickup gas tank that one of the major networks staged. I think CBS, but I'm not 100% on that.

Even though I've been a subscriber to CR for probably 20 years, I'd almost like to see them lose this one. I think they have gotten too extreme of late and seem to think they are untouchable.

Matt

Yes, the bigger issue is did they raise the center of gravity. Also, they certainly increased the weight on the suspension and tires and who knows what affect that had.

Matt

I would guess the most important part of the proceedings will be the attempt to prove CU acted with malice. Just conducting a less than valid test, arriving at poor conclusions, and publicizing those conclusions is not the stuff winning libel suits are made of (otherwise millions of scientist would be in court). Suzuki will need to prove that CU acted with the intent to harm Suzuki. If Suzuki only proves sloppy journalism, then nothing much will happen. The court may agree with Suzuki that the test and article were wrong, but unless Suzuki can prove there was a deliberate attempt by CU to fake results to damage Suzuki, I can't see where this case is going anywhere. I don't see where Suzuki can expect to recover damages when GM didn't get anything out of Dateline. or Audi get anything out of 60 Minutes when both those "news" organizations were shown to have faked tests to support erroneous conclusions.

Regards,

Ed White

GM got what it wanted out of Dateline.... a very embarrassing over-the-air apology.

Regarding the malice in the Suzuki/CU case.... it will be interesting. It depends on the interpretation of the cheers from CU staffers on the videotape as the Suzuki finally failed a test drive. Was it cheers that they finally "broke" the Suzuki or was it cheers because they finally came up with the specs for an improved test. I believe that is the judgement the jury will have to make.

conclusions is

acted

journalism,

expect

The GM/Dateline case was more clear cut. Clearly Dateline wanted to make sure the vehicle would catch fire and used an ignition system to ensure it. Clearly malice.

In CU's case, they were arguably trying to improve their tests because they found a vehicle which passed it and in their judgement, it shouldn't have. Therefore they concluded that the test wasn't properly designed. What becomes the sticking point is the cheers that you hear on the videotape when they finally get the Suzuki to flunk an improved test. Suzuki says it shows malice. CU would say that it they were cheering the design of a new test (that the Suzuki happened to flunk).

extreme

interpret

Or another way of putting that is if the average mass of the outriggers is below the normal vertical center of gravity of the unmodified vehicle. That should be easily provable one way or the other. I guarantee you that a vehicle's mfgr. knows the CG of his vehicle. The remaining question would be is the center of mass of the outriggers above or below that vertical level (roll taken into account, but the averages should remain pretty much the same). Bill Putney (to reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with "x")

:)

Ain't that the truth! :D ~~~

Firing wasn't enough for Grady. >:(

My eBay stuff:

I generally agree with you. For most lawyers it is about winning and losing, not right or wrong, justice or correctness. However, the jury, assuming a jury trial, should be concerned with what is true and false. Unfortunately, most lawyers will try to exclude people from the jury like engineers, physicists, etc. who will make decisions based more on logic than emotion. They much prefer people they can appeal to emotionally. The easiest way I've found to get excluded from a jury is to simply state my occupation. :-)

Matt

Which were attached to the underside of the car, making it harder to roll.