Consumer Reports testing video

I remember all the stories very well but don't have a source for the video. It probably has been pulled. CR was sued by both Isuzu and Suzuki. The case was settled out of court with details not made public as far as I know.

Isuzu and Suzuki claimed that trial lawyers paid CR to conduct the tests in their favor and both vehicles were subjected to tests that other SUV's were not subject to.

I owned a 1988 Samurai. Fun little 4x4. Never had any trouble.

Rick K wrote:

Hey Pongo 26, =20 Found this. Maybe some of the dates will help you with a more in depth = search. Hope this helps...

myTOYisaRodeo =20

Isuzu Case Against Consumer Reports Goes to Trial Copyright =A9 Strategic Safety, 2000 Consumers Union (CU), publishers of Consumer Reports, are defending = claims of defamation and product disparagement because of its article = that claimed the 1996 Isuzu Trooper was unstable and prone to roll over. = As a result of its tests, CU petitioned NHTSA to recall the vehicles in =

1995; however the agency closed its investigation without a defect = finding. Isuzu argues that CU rigged the tests to urge NHTSA to adopt a = rollover standard and to show that the 1995-1996 Isuzu Trooper would = roll over during evasive and/or emergency maneuvers. The company claims = that it suffered heavy sales losses after the article was published and = seeks $300 million in damages. CU says this is an attempt to silence = them and are defending the case on the consumer=92s right to = information. Isuzu used the agency's decision to base its lawsuit = against CU (see "FOIA Abuses Undercut Public Access to Documents").=20 In 1996, CU performed tests on several vehicles to assess handling = performance and rollover tendency. Professional test drivers performed a = rapid zigzag maneuver intended to simulate what might happen if a driver = had to swerve to avoid striking a child who darted into the path of the = vehicle. During the tests, both right wheels of the Trooper lifted high = off the pavement while rounding the turns at 33 mph. CU published the = data in an article in Consumer Reports stating that the Trooper "would = have rolled over completely were it not for our test driver=92s quick = and skillful steering." After the Trooper tipped up, CU conducted the = remainder of the tests with outriggers. CU reported that the Trooper = tipped up on its two right wheels during 75 of 192 maneuvers.=20 Isuzu claims that the test driver input more abrupt steering maneuvers = than real drivers would ever do in emergencies. Isuzu also claims that = CU falsified some of its test data, concealed other information to = bolster its case against the Trooper, and that the Consumer Reports = article was being written before the tests were complete. Defense expert Lee Carr testified for Isuzu in the trial that began on = February 8, 2000, stating that based on his testing, the Trooper was no = more prone to rolling over than any other sport-utility vehicle. He also = stated that, based on his review of the CU testing, the tests did not = treat all vehicles the same.=20 CU has conducted a total of 89 tests of sport utility vehicles, = minivans, and small trucks, and only the Suzuki Samurai and Isuzu = Trooper have suddenly tipped up so severely that CU declared them "Not = Acceptable." A companion suit by Suzuki is next in line because of = CU=92s testing in 1988 that showed the Samurai to be highly prone to = rollover. Isuzu claimed that CU maligned the Trooper because subscriptions were = falling off and that CU rigged the tests to urge NHTSA to adopt a = rollover standard. In June 1988, CU petitioned NHTSA to initiate = rulemaking to establish a minimum stability standard and requested that = the agency establish a performance test requirement for all passenger = cars, utility vehicles, and pickup trucks. NHTSA stated that it would = initiate a research program that could set performance criteria for = rulemaking and defect investigations. However, the agency responded that = the current test procedures for assessing rollover propensity were = unsatisfactory because they do not provide for repeatable, reproducible = results. On August 20, 1996, CU again petitioned NHTSA to initiate = rulemaking to create an emergency-handling standard for SUVs. Because = the agency decided against establishing a stability test in response to = CU's last petition, the organization suggested that NHTSA establish a = test to rate vehicle performance in emergency maneuvers. CU also asked = that the rating be included in a warning, and that vehicles exhibiting a = high rollover propensity be modified to achieve acceptable performance. = NHTSA granted CU's petition request stating that it would initially = explore whether it could develop a practical and repeatable = emergency-handling test. The agency is expected to publish proposed = rules for a rollover test soon.

BUT, if you try to get to the site now you get:

File Not Found The requested URL was not found on this server.=20

"Rick K" wrote in message = news:hBAod.31395$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...

10 -- Verdict on Consumer Reports: false, but not damaging. After atwo-month trial, a federal jury found Thursday that the magazine had madenumerous false statements in its October 1996 cover story assailing the1995-96 Isuzu Trooper sport utility vehicle as dangerously prone to rollover, but declined to award the Japanese carmaker any cash damages. Thejury found that CR's "testing" had put the vehicle through unnaturalsteering maneuvers which, contrary to the magazine's claims, were not thesame as those to which competitors' vehicles had been subjected. Juryforeman Don Sylvia said the trial had left many jurors feeling that themagazine had behaved arrogantly, and that eight of ten jurors wanted toaward Isuzu as much as $25 million, but didn't because "we couldn't findclear and convincing evidence that Consumers Union intentionally set out totrash the Trooper". The jury found eight statements false but in only oneof the eight did it determine CR to be knowingly or recklessly in error,which was when it said: "Isuzu ... should never have allowed these vehicleson the road." However, it ruled that statement not to have damaged thecompany, despite a sharp drop in Trooper sales from which the vehicle laterrecovered. The magazine sees fit to interpret these findings as "a completeand total victory for Consumer's Union" (attorney Barry West) and "acomplete vindication" (CU vice president David Pittle)

I believe Toyota is too "big" to bully around. Unlike Isuzu. Poor Isuzu.

This disgraceful episode just expose their agenda.