Consumer Report's Bulb Test

> wrote in message
...
>
> On 31-Dec-2005, "Marc" > wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> 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.
>

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.


"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Art" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>> Thank you for the link. Since it was cut off I am posting it again in
> case
>> people have problems with it:
>>
>>
> http://www.consumersunion.org/cgi-bi...36/print_entry
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> 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
>
>

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.

Richard wrote:
> 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.

Steve wrote:
> Richard wrote:
> > 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