OT Court lets Automaker sue Consumer Reports

CR has been running the Suzuki test on all SUV's since it redesigned the test. I don't think any others have flunked.

Of course arguably, the test still isn't tough enuf. Maybe some day a staffer will crash another SUV and they will design a tougher test around that vehicle.

libel, slander,

spammed

unsafe

(snip)

You may be disappointed to learn they won't get "reamed" in this case. Both GM and Suzuki are much, much bigger, and also global, organizations than CU. Actually, I wonder if Suzuki is this litigious in all their markets. Seems to me they'd be better off putting their time and energy into building new and better cars, rather than rehashing and (in effect) publicizing their problems with a discontinued model. If I made cars, I'd put my time and money into trying to build better, more competitive cars.

LOL!

Well, I could, but it would be pointless, given that I have the magazine at home, where I can read it thoroughly.

(snip)

I've noticed that when people dump on CR, it's often pretty clear they really aren't very familiar with the magazine. They also attribute some incredible amount of power to CU/CR and/or that CU/CR's some incredibly corrupt organization of effectiveness that would delight any conspiracy buff. I'll point out that if CU/CR was so influential, there wouldn't be so many cruddy products out there. If anybody doesn't agree with CR's reviews, OK by me. It's only a magazine, and there are many other magazines out there.

(snip)

LOL!

Actually, CR printed several times that the Ford Focus was their highest-scoring small car, but that CR couldn't recommend it, due to the poor reliability found by Focus owners. The reliability ratings printed in April and December are the result of surveys that can be filled out by any CR subscriber. Subscribe and you can do the same.

It's the automakers who shoot themselves in the foot, which in the case of the Focus, is why there isn't one in my driveway, despite the fact that I'd enjoyed driving one I had as a rental. I have a GM car that's mechanically OK, but keeps shedding bits of plastic trim, which just doesn't project an aura of quality. It would be convenient if CR could be blamed for the problems of US automakers, but it's the US makers that are their own worst enemy, especially in the area of small cars.

If Ford and the other US makers want to please the public and/or CR, all the makers need to do is build better cars, especially in the area of reliability. It's the makers' responsibility to build reliable, desirable cars.

(snip)

It's not CU's responsibility to make Suzuki a success or failure in the US market. That's Suzuki's responsibility.

Actually, I think Suzuki's biggest mistake in the US market, especially 10-15 years ago, had nothing to do with any magazine. They simply weren't selling cars that were appropriate to the needs of US buyers. Cars like the Samurai and Suzuki Swift (AKA Geo Metro, AKA Chevy Metro) just were too small and flimsy to succeed here. And apparently the smarter sorts at Suzuki (or GM, which owns 20.1% of Suzuki and presumably can have their say) prevailed and the current lineup of Suzukis consist of more substantial vehicles.

Some SUVs are more prone to tipping, some aren't. Obviously, just looking around at what I see on my local roads, a lot of consumers don't care which SUVs are safer than others.

It's pretty interesting to read this thread and not see anybody discuss the Samurai. There were a few around my city way back when, but other than being cute, it didn't have much going for it and I've never heard of anyone missing them. Like the Swift, the Samurai was too small and flimsy to ever sell well in the US and I'd say that was the verdict of the marketplace. Personally, I like small cars, and never drove a Samurai, but did test drive a Swift, and I just felt waaaaay too vulnerable inside it.

(snip)

You say that as if it was a car that really was desirable. How many Samurai owners here? I don't see any hands up. How many people here would rush out and buy a Samurai if they could do so now? I thought so.

Very doubtful. It's all a big waste of time, and let's all keep in mind that we taxpayers are paying for a Japanese company to waste our highest court's time, as well as the time of our lower courts where Suzuki has lost previously.

As I understand the facts, CU changed their original stability test because the Samurai passed it. They felt the Samurai was unstable and had evidence of this from an uncontrolled incident. Because of this belief, they adjusted the test course to make it more severe than the original test course. Even with the more severe course, the Samurai did not fail every time they ran the course. It took multiple attempt to get the desired results. Since the Samurai was tested, CU has continued to use the "new" test course for stability tests. So, I believe CU did change the test for the Samurai, and that they then adopted this new test for all future vehicles. I don't claim this is dishonest, or that they did it because they were out to get the Samurai. I do think they could have made the facts more clear when they did the high profile announcement that they found the Samurai unacceptable and called for it to be recalled. I also think Suzuki has over reacted and that they don't have a valid case.

Ed

Art Begun wrote:

Wait a minute. In another reply you said "If you think that they made a special test for the Suzuki then you are wrong." But in this reply you essentially said they did make a special test for the Samurai - which they continued to use after the Samurai test. Which is it? I see CUs conundrum like this - Suzuki can argue that the only goal of the redesigned test was to make the Samurai look bad. The fact that they continued to use it after they made the Samurai look bad is irrelevant. CU is going to have to admit that the old test was arbitrary and of no value or explain why they suddenly changed a good test when they were evaluating the Samurai. Then CU will be asked what criteria they used to design the new test. If the only criteria was to make a test that the Samurai would fail, then CU will have to admit the new test is also of no value since it is not based on any real world performance criteria. I don't think any of this can be used to prove malice - just sloppy science.

Ed

Art Begun wrote:

Under normal driving conditions, none of them would tip/roll over.

Yet the reliability found by G.C. owners somehow is ignored while the lack of the same reliability is given as the reason they won't recommend the Focus? What gives?

They just won't give a recommendation to anything Ford or Chrysler sells.

Sloppy science that greatly impacted Suzuki's sales. That's a big problem.

Which means the data is flawed, coming from a self-selecting population.

Actually if you check around the 3 sections of the buyer's guide which indicate reliability, the Focus rating varies. Clearly CR should recall the Buyer's Guide and reprint it with corrections.

ratings

same.

You are assuming that the soundbite you heard was the entire press-release by CR. I have no idea what they released but I bet if was more than just 10 seconds worth of soundbite.

discovered

As I have also pointed out, you can spin the sequence of events and the cheers heard on the video tape 2 different ways. The jury will decide even though the judge first ruled that the evidence was so flimsy the jury should not even have a chance to decide. The appeal court over-ruled him and decided a jury should get to here the plaintiff's case.

special

wasn't

matter.

All cars roll under certain conditions. Some more than others. The Suzuki apparently is much more likely than all other cars tested.

redesigned

++++++++++++ I sure must be stupid also... !

++++++++++++ Must be a lot of cross posting going on ... lol

========Sorry but I stopped reading CR 25 years ago !. They main reason was that CR seemed to want rate a car or truck as if it were ment to be used by my grandmother... who had a hell of a time keeping gasoline in the tank not alone oil in the crank case..

Plus The forms that CR sends out (yes I have received one in the past) are so general and stupid it would take someone really stupid (or someone who purchased a case of lemons) to resist tossing them in the trash can and going no further..

====== In my case I DO NOT read the Magzine..

LOL....My opinion exactly... !

Bob Griffiths A Chevy man..(6 in the garage now) . although I do drive a Dodge Truck daily and the wife drives Dodge Van. as her dialy transportation.....

True, but the limits they went to to get it to roll over was anything but normal driving.

Your ignorance of the subject is amusing.

It would be flawed if they only accepted data on a single car, and only the negative.

What they do is allow every subscriber to return a worksheet on every product they test, both good and bad, they refuse to publish any data without a large sample, and the majority of products that data is returned on is very positive.

But then again, we all know you are an idiot.

DTJ wrote: ...

...>

Put a lid on the personal attacks. - RM

This is one area that could stand improvement in peoples driving habits. When I drive home I don't just pull in my driveway frontend first and stop & turn off the engine. I always back into my driveway. I do this for safety reasons. Approaching my driveaway from the street is it easy to see other vehicles or children in the area. I have to back my car up sometime. Why not do it when you have a clear view of your street. When you go to use your car again it is in position that it easier to see from. Not only is your line of sight to the ground less, you have windsheild wipers and defroster on the window you are trying to see out of. I started doing this years ago and I believe it makes me a safer driver & some of my neighbors are starting to do it too.

Hardly. This has been well hashed out here in the past, I am giving the highlights. You want the details, try google groups.

Wrong.

You've just defined a self selected survey. Thanks for proving me correct. It isn't a question of sample size, it's a question of being a self selecting population. Regardless of how large, it's still self selecting.

You should stop projecting.