Mr. Gould, comments below:

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
It seems that back in 1988 CR gave the Suzuki Samurai an unacceptable
rating after finding it had a tendancy to tip over while turning, a
quality I would find alarming in a motor vehicle.


The Samurai tipped over on a test course where the following stunt was
performed.

The driver floored the accelerator, and then began turning the wheel
rapidly
back and forth. After a number of "swings" the Samurai became dangerously
tippy.
Suzuki's perspective was that the test did not duplicate any normal
driving
situtation.
How many people keep the pedal to the metal when swerving around an
obstacle?
How many people encounter situations where they must repeatedly swerve
around
obstacle after obstacle without slowing down?

Mr. Gould 0738, I don't know where you get your information but I think
you're streching things a bit here. A quote from the origional article from
1988:

"Early this year a staff member was driving our new Suzuki Samurai slowly,
in second gear, along a snow-covered dirt road leading to our auto test
track when he felt the tires grab in a rut worn by earlier traffic. The
driver turned the wheel to the right to steer clear. The front wheels pulled
out of the rut and climbed approximately six inches up a ridge of plowed
snow at the side of the road. Then, as the driver tried to straighten the
wheels, the Suzuki flopped over on its side.

The driver climbed out uninjured, but with new respect for the laws of
physics.

The laws of physics say a vehicle with a high center of gravity is more
likely to roll over than a vehicle with a low center of gravity. All
four-wheel-drive utility vehicles have a higher center of gravity than
passenger cars, a consequence of the extra ground clearance needed when
driving on rough terrain rather than a paved road.

The laws of physics say a narrow vehicle with a high center of gravity is
more likely to roll over than a wider vehicle with a high center of gravity.
The Suzuki Samurai is one of the narrowest vehicles on the road. Its "tread"
width--the distance from the center of the left front wheel to the center of
the right front wheel--measures only 51.2 inches.

A short narrow vehicle with a high center of gravity is more likely to roll
over than a longer narrow vehicle with a high center of gravity, The Suzuki
Samurai is also one of the shortest vehicles on the road, only 80 inches
between the centers of the front and rear wheels.

Finally, a light vehicle is more likely to tip over than a heavy vehicle,
other things being equal. The Suzuki weighs 950 pounds less than the Jeep
Wrangler, the small utility vehicle that's closest to it in general
configuration. It weighs 1220 pounds less than the Jeep Cherokee and 1590
pounds less than the Isuzu Trooper II, the two larger utility vehicles
tested for this report.

Given their physical characteristics, it's not surprising that utility
vehicles roll over two to three times more frequently than do passenger
cars. Nor is it surprising that the fatality rate among occupants of small
utility vehicles is more than double that of small passenger cars and small
pickup trucks, the second most hazardous types of vehicle.

When the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety analyzed auto-accident
fatalities in one- to three-year-old cars and trucks for the years 1981 to
1985, it found that occupants of small utility vehicles were being killed at
the rate of 5.7 for every 10,000 vehicles registered. For small passenger
cars and small pickups, the rate was about 2.4 deaths per 10,000; for large
cars, about 1.2 deaths per 10,000.

The Suzuki Samurai was not marketed in the U.S. during the years those
accident fatalities were occurring. However, it is rapidly compiling
mortality statistics all its own.

The Center for Auto Safety, a nonprofit consumer group, says it has received
reports of 20 Suzuki Samurai rollover accidents resulting in 21 injuries and
four deaths. It has also received reports of six rollovers in variants of
the Samurai, such as the Suzuki SJ410, which is sold in Hawaii and the
Virgin Islands; those resulted in seven injuries and one death. The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration has received 44 reports of Samurai
rollovers, resulting in 16 deaths.

That's an ominous record of rollovers, considering that there are only
150,000 Samurais on U.S. roads so far, and that many of them have been in
use for less than a year.

The physical characteristics of four-wheel-drive utility vehicles, the
accident statistics, and our own experience were very much on the minds of
our auto testers as they prepared to run the Suzuki Samurai, the Jeep
Wrangler, the Isuzu Trooper II, and the Jeep Cherokee through their paces.

Our regular test program includes a maneuver designed to see how
controllable a car remains when a driver is forced to steer sharply--to
avoid, say, a child who unexpectedly darted into the road. To simulate that
kind of sudden emergency, our drivers run each car through a lane-changing
course marked off by traffic cones. One cone blocks the right-hand lane, a
stand-in for the obstacle to be avoided. The drivers begin their left turn
out of the lane 60 feet before the obstacle. They then must steer sharply
enough to get back into the lane no more than 60 feet beyond the obstacle.

Our test drivers take the cars through the course at increasingly higher
speeds, noting how fast they can swerve around the obstacle without knocking
over cones and without losing control.

The cars get the benefit of the doubt in this test. We run the test on dry
pavement with expert drivers who've steered through the course hundreds of
times before. The drivers don't brake while steering, as a nonprofessional
driver might in an emergency, so the cars aren't forced into premature skids
or spins. Nor do they accelerate. This "accident-avoidance maneuver"
realistically simulates a situation that could confront any driver any day.
We never attempt unrealistic stunts, such as U-turns at high speeds.

Most vehicles weave through the course easily up to about 50 mph, then start
hitting cones or skidding at some point above 50 mph. During the 10 years
we've used this test, no vehicle we've tested--and these have included many
vans and small trucks with high centers of gravity--has threatened to roll
over.

Under the experienced touch of our drivers, all four utility vehicles got
through the course at 52 mph or better. The Suzuki Samurai was actually more
maneuverable than the others, since it's so much smaller and lighter.

With concern about a potential rollover somewhat allayed, a staff member who
does not normally drive the course tried to steer the Suzuki around the
obstacle. All went well for several runs at moderate speed. Then, on a run
at 45 mph, the driver made a slight steering misjudgment: He turned wider
than necessary to clear the obstacle, something many ordinary drivers might
do in an emergency turn. That forced him to turn back a bit more sharply
than our regular testers had. As he turned the steering wheel to the right
to get back into lane, the Suzuki teetered to the left. The two right-side
tires lifted about a foot off the pavement before the driver was able to
bring the vehicle back under control.

The Suzuki had come within a hair of rolling over at a moderate speed in a
maneuver that shouldn't put daylight under the tires of any car. A
poor-handling car might skid or spin when turned sharply at these speeds.
That's hazardous enough. But a rollover at moderate or high speed would very
likely injure or kill the occupants. A rollover in an open vehicle, such as
the Suzuki featured in the company's "fun" commercials aimed at young
people, is especially deadly.

Would the other utility vehicles show similar instability if steered the way
the Suzuki had been steered?

To find out, we put all the vehicles through a slightly different maneuver.
We realigned the cones so that our test drivers had to start the turn 50
feet from the obstacle instead of 60 feet from it. That meant they needed to
steer around the obstacle and back into lane in a total of 110 feet rather
than the usual 120 feet. We also moved the obstacle three feet farther to
the left.

As a result of those changes, our drivers would have to sharpen their turns
a little.

For this test, we equipped the two small vehicles, the Suzuki Samurai and
the Jeep Wrangler, with the outriggers shown in the photos at the left. If
one of them tipped during the test, the outriggers would contact the road
first and keep the vehicle from landing on its side. (The outriggers also
added about 300 pounds, making the Suzuki and the Jeep Wrangler somewhat
harder to roll than they normally would be.)

In this more demanding test, the Isuzu Trooper, the Jeep Wrangler, and the
Jeep Cherokee began knocking over cones at about 40 mph. But they remained
stable. We also tried the Jeep Wrangler without the outriggers. Still
stable.

The Suzuki Samurai, by contrast, toppled onto the outriggers when turned
through the course at about 40 mph. Without the outriggers, it would have
rolled over.

During the period we were testing these vehicles, Suzuki introduced a
modified version of the Samurai, a "1988 1/2" model with a softened
suspension. We acquired the latest version and ran it through the same
accident-avoidance maneuver. It proved even less stable than the Samurai we
originally tested. The front right wheel lifted in turns at low speed. And
the vehicle rolled onto the outriggers at 38 mph.

In our judgment, the Suzuki Samurai is so likely to roll over during a
maneuver that could be demanded of any car at any time that it is unfit for
its intended use. We therefore judge it Not Acceptable."

Your next bit about Chevy Nova's may be true, I'm not going to try to fugure
out where you got your info for that but if it's from the same source as the
first bit, I think it's questionable to say the least... ; )
--
Ken Heaton & Anne Tobin
Cape Breton Island, Canada
kenheaton AT ess wye dee DOT eastlink DOT ca

You've got to watch Consumer Reports.
About the same time this Suzuki test came out, they rated the Chevrolet
Nova as
a clearly inferior choice to a Toyota Corolla. One small problem- at this
time
both vehicles were built in California at a plant that was a joint
enterprise
between GM and Toyota. The cars literally came down the same assembly
line.
Differences were the valve covers, and the plastic trim piece that spelled
out
either Toyota or Chevrolet. There was *nothing* else different between the
two
cars.

When questioned about the disparity in the ratings, CU said, "The Nova
doesn't
have as good a track record as the Toyota."
And that was more important than recognizing that the products had merged
to
become virtually indentical. :-(

I remember that test.
My question would be......did they test other SUVs in the same manner?
Was the Suzuki much worse than the others under the same test? That would
influence how I buy.

Several SUV's did badly in that particular test. The Samurai was the worst,
probably due to a relatively highg ground clearance and narrow track. If you
remember news coverage about rear wheels of SUV's leaving the ground during
certain maneuvers, this was the test those reports
referred to.

Personally, I tend to agree with Suzuki and
some of the other manufacturers who cried "foul" at the time. If you found
yourself in a situation where you were required to dodge
a series of consecutive obstacles and slalomed back and forth between them,
would you continue at full throttle? I'd hazard a guess that few people are
often at full throttle in a motor vehicle to start with, and most would slow
down if encountering such a situation.

The tests proved only that if a vehicle is driven in an extremely stupid manner
a disastrous accident could result. Maybe CU expects all manufacturers to build
products that are totally idiot proof under any circumstance.

I remember that test.
My question would be......did they test other SUVs in the same manner?
Was the Suzuki much worse than the others under the same test? That would
influence how I buy.

Several SUV's did badly in that particular test. The Samurai was the worst,
probably due to a relatively highg ground clearance and narrow track. If you
remember news coverage about rear wheels of SUV's leaving the ground during
certain maneuvers, this was the test those reports
referred to.

Personally, I tend to agree with Suzuki and
some of the other manufacturers who cried "foul" at the time. If you found
yourself in a situation where you were required to dodge
a series of consecutive obstacles and slalomed back and forth between them,
would you continue at full throttle? I'd hazard a guess that few people are
often at full throttle in a motor vehicle to start with, and most would slow
down if encountering such a situation.

The tests proved only that if a vehicle is driven in an extremely stupid manner
a disastrous accident could result. Maybe CU expects all manufacturers to build
products that are totally idiot proof under any circumstance.

Investigating the Consumer Report incredulity about Corollas and
Novas coming down the same line, I found the following site.

From the Dutch site:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~mjs/corollastory.html

I marked with asterisks the lines describing US badge engineering:
Nova, Prizm, and Prizm respectively.

Brian W

The fifth generation Corolla (May, 1983) saw the switch to
front-wheel-drive and independent rear suspension, but not for the
separate body 2- and 3-door Coupes which were built on the same floor
pan as the last series, and were from now on called Corolla Levin and
Sprinter Trueno for the whole range. The wheelbase for the 4-door
Sedan and the new 5-door (6-window) Sedan was 243 cm. These were the
only two body syles (rated at 7.5), the Wagons were not changed; in
October 1984, a short back Hatchback (3- and 5-door) was added, called
Corolla FX in Japan. The Sprinter, for the first time had its own
sheet metal pressing, though it hardly differed from that of the
Corolla. It was also built as 4- or 5-door Sedan, the 4-door with a
6-window roof as well (where the Corolla had only 4).

This Sprinter was sold in USA as Chevrolet Nova. **************

May 1987 saw the introduction of the sixth generation Corolla and now
things became quite complicated. Wheelbase remained the same at 243
cm, but the cars were 2 cm wider. There were two bodies, called here
Corolla-shell (an 8) and Sprinter-shell (a 9, the most balanced shell
ever) for reasons of convenience. Suspension remained the same, but
the more commercial versions of the Wagons featured a rigid axle with
leaf springs at the rear. This was the first year for the
front-wheel-drive Wagon (5-door). The Corolla body shell existed also
as a 4-door (4-window) Sedan, and a 3-door and 5-door (6-window) short
backed Hatchback (still called Corolla FX in Japan). The Sprinter body
existed as a 6-window 4- and 5-door Sedan (called Sprinter Cielo in
Japan) as well as a 5-door Wagon, called Toyota Sprinter Carib (intro
February, 1988) in Japan with 4-wheel drive and a coil-sprung live
rear axle. This Sprinter Carib succeeded to the earlier Tercel-based
Sprinter Carib. The 4-wheel-drive lay-out was already introduced on
the 4-door Sedan in October, 1987. The Toyota Corolla Levin and
Sprinter Trueno now were front-wheel-drive also, the 3-door was
deleted; the car was called Corolla in the export. The Corolla-shell
Wagon appeared also as Toyota Sprinter by August, 1988.

The Sprinter-shell was sold in USA as Geo Prizm
(not the Wagon). *********

The Sprinter-shell Wagon, always with 4-wheel-drive was named Corolla
in the export markets. The Sprinter-shell 5-door Sedan was part of the
Corolla line in the export.

Then, in June 1991, the seventh generation was introduced with a
rounded body shell, I rate it a 6. Wheelbase rose to 246.5 cm. These
cars appeared in Europe and USA about a year later. Again Corolla and
Sprinter had different bodies, Corolla started as a 4-door Sedan only,
the 5-door Wagon was added in September, 1991, and 3-door and 6-window
5-door short backed Hatchbacks in May, 1992 (again called Corolla FX
in Japan).

The Sprinter-shell existed as a 4-door Sedan and a 5-door
Sedan, the latter not available in Japan;
Geo Prizm in USA only as 4-door Sedan; ***********************


5-door Sedan part of the Corolla line in Europe. The Corolla Levin
and Sprinter Trueno had their own new body as a 2-door Coupe and were
for Japan only. Suspension lay-out was the same as for the sixth
generation, except that there was now also a 4wd Wagon (Van) with a
rigid rear axle and leaf springs. There was no Sprinter-shell Wagon,
the Sprinter Carib carried over from the previous generation. The
Corolla-shell Sprinter Wagon was repeated. May 1992, saw the
introduction of a separate body shell as a 4-door pillared Hardtop,
the Corolla Ceres and Sprinter Marino, for Japan only.





On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 21:04:53 -0400, "Ken Heaton"
wrote:

Mr. Gould, comments below:

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
It seems that back in 1988 CR gave the Suzuki Samurai an unacceptable
rating after finding it had a tendancy to tip over while turning, a
quality I would find alarming in a motor vehicle.


The Samurai tipped over on a test course where the following stunt was
performed.

The driver floored the accelerator, and then began turning the wheel
rapidly
back and forth. After a number of "swings" the Samurai became dangerously
tippy.
Suzuki's perspective was that the test did not duplicate any normal
driving
situtation.
How many people keep the pedal to the metal when swerving around an
obstacle?
How many people encounter situations where they must repeatedly swerve
around
obstacle after obstacle without slowing down?

Mr. Gould 0738, I don't know where you get your information but I think
you're streching things a bit here. A quote from the origional article from
1988:

"Early this year a staff member was driving our new Suzuki Samurai slowly,
in second gear, along a snow-covered dirt road leading to our auto test
track when he felt the tires grab in a rut worn by earlier traffic. The
driver turned the wheel to the right to steer clear. The front wheels pulled
out of the rut and climbed approximately six inches up a ridge of plowed
snow at the side of the road. Then, as the driver tried to straighten the
wheels, the Suzuki flopped over on its side.

The driver climbed out uninjured, but with new respect for the laws of
physics.

The laws of physics say a vehicle with a high center of gravity is more
likely to roll over than a vehicle with a low center of gravity. All
four-wheel-drive utility vehicles have a higher center of gravity than
passenger cars, a consequence of the extra ground clearance needed when
driving on rough terrain rather than a paved road.

The laws of physics say a narrow vehicle with a high center of gravity is
more likely to roll over than a wider vehicle with a high center of gravity.
The Suzuki Samurai is one of the narrowest vehicles on the road. Its "tread"
width--the distance from the center of the left front wheel to the center of
the right front wheel--measures only 51.2 inches.

A short narrow vehicle with a high center of gravity is more likely to roll
over than a longer narrow vehicle with a high center of gravity, The Suzuki
Samurai is also one of the shortest vehicles on the road, only 80 inches
between the centers of the front and rear wheels.

Finally, a light vehicle is more likely to tip over than a heavy vehicle,
other things being equal. The Suzuki weighs 950 pounds less than the Jeep
Wrangler, the small utility vehicle that's closest to it in general
configuration. It weighs 1220 pounds less than the Jeep Cherokee and 1590
pounds less than the Isuzu Trooper II, the two larger utility vehicles
tested for this report.

Given their physical characteristics, it's not surprising that utility
vehicles roll over two to three times more frequently than do passenger
cars. Nor is it surprising that the fatality rate among occupants of small
utility vehicles is more than double that of small passenger cars and small
pickup trucks, the second most hazardous types of vehicle.

When the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety analyzed auto-accident
fatalities in one- to three-year-old cars and trucks for the years 1981 to
1985, it found that occupants of small utility vehicles were being killed at
the rate of 5.7 for every 10,000 vehicles registered. For small passenger
cars and small pickups, the rate was about 2.4 deaths per 10,000; for large
cars, about 1.2 deaths per 10,000.

The Suzuki Samurai was not marketed in the U.S. during the years those
accident fatalities were occurring. However, it is rapidly compiling
mortality statistics all its own.

The Center for Auto Safety, a nonprofit consumer group, says it has received
reports of 20 Suzuki Samurai rollover accidents resulting in 21 injuries and
four deaths. It has also received reports of six rollovers in variants of
the Samurai, such as the Suzuki SJ410, which is sold in Hawaii and the
Virgin Islands; those resulted in seven injuries and one death. The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration has received 44 reports of Samurai
rollovers, resulting in 16 deaths.

That's an ominous record of rollovers, considering that there are only
150,000 Samurais on U.S. roads so far, and that many of them have been in
use for less than a year.

The physical characteristics of four-wheel-drive utility vehicles, the
accident statistics, and our own experience were very much on the minds of
our auto testers as they prepared to run the Suzuki Samurai, the Jeep
Wrangler, the Isuzu Trooper II, and the Jeep Cherokee through their paces.

Our regular test program includes a maneuver designed to see how
controllable a car remains when a driver is forced to steer sharply--to
avoid, say, a child who unexpectedly darted into the road. To simulate that
kind of sudden emergency, our drivers run each car through a lane-changing
course marked off by traffic cones. One cone blocks the right-hand lane, a
stand-in for the obstacle to be avoided. The drivers begin their left turn
out of the lane 60 feet before the obstacle. They then must steer sharply
enough to get back into the lane no more than 60 feet beyond the obstacle.

Our test drivers take the cars through the course at increasingly higher
speeds, noting how fast they can swerve around the obstacle without knocking
over cones and without losing control.

The cars get the benefit of the doubt in this test. We run the test on dry
pavement with expert drivers who've steered through the course hundreds of
times before. The drivers don't brake while steering, as a nonprofessional
driver might in an emergency, so the cars aren't forced into premature skids
or spins. Nor do they accelerate. This "accident-avoidance maneuver"
realistically simulates a situation that could confront any driver any day.
We never attempt unrealistic stunts, such as U-turns at high speeds.

Most vehicles weave through the course easily up to about 50 mph, then start
hitting cones or skidding at some point above 50 mph. During the 10 years
we've used this test, no vehicle we've tested--and these have included many
vans and small trucks with high centers of gravity--has threatened to roll
over.

Under the experienced touch of our drivers, all four utility vehicles got
through the course at 52 mph or better. The Suzuki Samurai was actually more
maneuverable than the others, since it's so much smaller and lighter.

With concern about a potential rollover somewhat allayed, a staff member who
does not normally drive the course tried to steer the Suzuki around the
obstacle. All went well for several runs at moderate speed. Then, on a run
at 45 mph, the driver made a slight steering misjudgment: He turned wider
than necessary to clear the obstacle, something many ordinary drivers might
do in an emergency turn. That forced him to turn back a bit more sharply
than our regular testers had. As he turned the steering wheel to the right
to get back into lane, the Suzuki teetered to the left. The two right-side
tires lifted about a foot off the pavement before the driver was able to
bring the vehicle back under control.

The Suzuki had come within a hair of rolling over at a moderate speed in a
maneuver that shouldn't put daylight under the tires of any car. A
poor-handling car might skid or spin when turned sharply at these speeds.
That's hazardous enough. But a rollover at moderate or high speed would very
likely injure or kill the occupants. A rollover in an open vehicle, such as
the Suzuki featured in the company's "fun" commercials aimed at young
people, is especially deadly.

Would the other utility vehicles show similar instability if steered the way
the Suzuki had been steered?

To find out, we put all the vehicles through a slightly different maneuver.
We realigned the cones so that our test drivers had to start the turn 50
feet from the obstacle instead of 60 feet from it. That meant they needed to
steer around the obstacle and back into lane in a total of 110 feet rather
than the usual 120 feet. We also moved the obstacle three feet farther to
the left.

As a result of those changes, our drivers would have to sharpen their turns
a little.

For this test, we equipped the two small vehicles, the Suzuki Samurai and
the Jeep Wrangler, with the outriggers shown in the photos at the left. If
one of them tipped during the test, the outriggers would contact the road
first and keep the vehicle from landing on its side. (The outriggers also
added about 300 pounds, making the Suzuki and the Jeep Wrangler somewhat
harder to roll than they normally would be.)

In this more demanding test, the Isuzu Trooper, the Jeep Wrangler, and the
Jeep Cherokee began knocking over cones at about 40 mph. But they remained
stable. We also tried the Jeep Wrangler without the outriggers. Still
stable.

The Suzuki Samurai, by contrast, toppled onto the outriggers when turned
through the course at about 40 mph. Without the outriggers, it would have
rolled over.

During the period we were testing these vehicles, Suzuki introduced a
modified version of the Samurai, a "1988 1/2" model with a softened
suspension. We acquired the latest version and ran it through the same
accident-avoidance maneuver. It proved even less stable than the Samurai we
originally tested. The front right wheel lifted in turns at low speed. And
the vehicle rolled onto the outriggers at 38 mph.

In our judgment, the Suzuki Samurai is so likely to roll over during a
maneuver that could be demanded of any car at any time that it is unfit for
its intended use. We therefore judge it Not Acceptable."

Your next bit about Chevy Nova's may be true, I'm not going to try to fugure
out where you got your info for that but if it's from the same source as the
first bit, I think it's questionable to say the least... ; )

Investigating the Consumer Report incredulity about Corollas and
Novas coming down the same line, I found the following site.

From the Dutch site:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~mjs/corollastory.html

I marked with asterisks the lines describing US badge engineering:
Nova, Prizm, and Prizm respectively.

Brian W

The fifth generation Corolla (May, 1983) saw the switch to
front-wheel-drive and independent rear suspension, but not for the
separate body 2- and 3-door Coupes which were built on the same floor
pan as the last series, and were from now on called Corolla Levin and
Sprinter Trueno for the whole range. The wheelbase for the 4-door
Sedan and the new 5-door (6-window) Sedan was 243 cm. These were the
only two body syles (rated at 7.5), the Wagons were not changed; in
October 1984, a short back Hatchback (3- and 5-door) was added, called
Corolla FX in Japan. The Sprinter, for the first time had its own
sheet metal pressing, though it hardly differed from that of the
Corolla. It was also built as 4- or 5-door Sedan, the 4-door with a
6-window roof as well (where the Corolla had only 4).

This Sprinter was sold in USA as Chevrolet Nova. **************

May 1987 saw the introduction of the sixth generation Corolla and now
things became quite complicated. Wheelbase remained the same at 243
cm, but the cars were 2 cm wider. There were two bodies, called here
Corolla-shell (an 8) and Sprinter-shell (a 9, the most balanced shell
ever) for reasons of convenience. Suspension remained the same, but
the more commercial versions of the Wagons featured a rigid axle with
leaf springs at the rear. This was the first year for the
front-wheel-drive Wagon (5-door). The Corolla body shell existed also
as a 4-door (4-window) Sedan, and a 3-door and 5-door (6-window) short
backed Hatchback (still called Corolla FX in Japan). The Sprinter body
existed as a 6-window 4- and 5-door Sedan (called Sprinter Cielo in
Japan) as well as a 5-door Wagon, called Toyota Sprinter Carib (intro
February, 1988) in Japan with 4-wheel drive and a coil-sprung live
rear axle. This Sprinter Carib succeeded to the earlier Tercel-based
Sprinter Carib. The 4-wheel-drive lay-out was already introduced on
the 4-door Sedan in October, 1987. The Toyota Corolla Levin and
Sprinter Trueno now were front-wheel-drive also, the 3-door was
deleted; the car was called Corolla in the export. The Corolla-shell
Wagon appeared also as Toyota Sprinter by August, 1988.

The Sprinter-shell was sold in USA as Geo Prizm
(not the Wagon). *********

The Sprinter-shell Wagon, always with 4-wheel-drive was named Corolla
in the export markets. The Sprinter-shell 5-door Sedan was part of the
Corolla line in the export.

Then, in June 1991, the seventh generation was introduced with a
rounded body shell, I rate it a 6. Wheelbase rose to 246.5 cm. These
cars appeared in Europe and USA about a year later. Again Corolla and
Sprinter had different bodies, Corolla started as a 4-door Sedan only,
the 5-door Wagon was added in September, 1991, and 3-door and 6-window
5-door short backed Hatchbacks in May, 1992 (again called Corolla FX
in Japan).

The Sprinter-shell existed as a 4-door Sedan and a 5-door
Sedan, the latter not available in Japan;
Geo Prizm in USA only as 4-door Sedan; ***********************


5-door Sedan part of the Corolla line in Europe. The Corolla Levin
and Sprinter Trueno had their own new body as a 2-door Coupe and were
for Japan only. Suspension lay-out was the same as for the sixth
generation, except that there was now also a 4wd Wagon (Van) with a
rigid rear axle and leaf springs. There was no Sprinter-shell Wagon,
the Sprinter Carib carried over from the previous generation. The
Corolla-shell Sprinter Wagon was repeated. May 1992, saw the
introduction of a separate body shell as a 4-door pillared Hardtop,
the Corolla Ceres and Sprinter Marino, for Japan only.





On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 21:04:53 -0400, "Ken Heaton"
wrote:

Mr. Gould, comments below:

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
It seems that back in 1988 CR gave the Suzuki Samurai an unacceptable
rating after finding it had a tendancy to tip over while turning, a
quality I would find alarming in a motor vehicle.


The Samurai tipped over on a test course where the following stunt was
performed.

The driver floored the accelerator, and then began turning the wheel
rapidly
back and forth. After a number of "swings" the Samurai became dangerously
tippy.
Suzuki's perspective was that the test did not duplicate any normal
driving
situtation.
How many people keep the pedal to the metal when swerving around an
obstacle?
How many people encounter situations where they must repeatedly swerve
around
obstacle after obstacle without slowing down?

Mr. Gould 0738, I don't know where you get your information but I think
you're streching things a bit here. A quote from the origional article from
1988:

"Early this year a staff member was driving our new Suzuki Samurai slowly,
in second gear, along a snow-covered dirt road leading to our auto test
track when he felt the tires grab in a rut worn by earlier traffic. The
driver turned the wheel to the right to steer clear. The front wheels pulled
out of the rut and climbed approximately six inches up a ridge of plowed
snow at the side of the road. Then, as the driver tried to straighten the
wheels, the Suzuki flopped over on its side.

The driver climbed out uninjured, but with new respect for the laws of
physics.

The laws of physics say a vehicle with a high center of gravity is more
likely to roll over than a vehicle with a low center of gravity. All
four-wheel-drive utility vehicles have a higher center of gravity than
passenger cars, a consequence of the extra ground clearance needed when
driving on rough terrain rather than a paved road.

The laws of physics say a narrow vehicle with a high center of gravity is
more likely to roll over than a wider vehicle with a high center of gravity.
The Suzuki Samurai is one of the narrowest vehicles on the road. Its "tread"
width--the distance from the center of the left front wheel to the center of
the right front wheel--measures only 51.2 inches.

A short narrow vehicle with a high center of gravity is more likely to roll
over than a longer narrow vehicle with a high center of gravity, The Suzuki
Samurai is also one of the shortest vehicles on the road, only 80 inches
between the centers of the front and rear wheels.

Finally, a light vehicle is more likely to tip over than a heavy vehicle,
other things being equal. The Suzuki weighs 950 pounds less than the Jeep
Wrangler, the small utility vehicle that's closest to it in general
configuration. It weighs 1220 pounds less than the Jeep Cherokee and 1590
pounds less than the Isuzu Trooper II, the two larger utility vehicles
tested for this report.

Given their physical characteristics, it's not surprising that utility
vehicles roll over two to three times more frequently than do passenger
cars. Nor is it surprising that the fatality rate among occupants of small
utility vehicles is more than double that of small passenger cars and small
pickup trucks, the second most hazardous types of vehicle.

When the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety analyzed auto-accident
fatalities in one- to three-year-old cars and trucks for the years 1981 to
1985, it found that occupants of small utility vehicles were being killed at
the rate of 5.7 for every 10,000 vehicles registered. For small passenger
cars and small pickups, the rate was about 2.4 deaths per 10,000; for large
cars, about 1.2 deaths per 10,000.

The Suzuki Samurai was not marketed in the U.S. during the years those
accident fatalities were occurring. However, it is rapidly compiling
mortality statistics all its own.

The Center for Auto Safety, a nonprofit consumer group, says it has received
reports of 20 Suzuki Samurai rollover accidents resulting in 21 injuries and
four deaths. It has also received reports of six rollovers in variants of
the Samurai, such as the Suzuki SJ410, which is sold in Hawaii and the
Virgin Islands; those resulted in seven injuries and one death. The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration has received 44 reports of Samurai
rollovers, resulting in 16 deaths.

That's an ominous record of rollovers, considering that there are only
150,000 Samurais on U.S. roads so far, and that many of them have been in
use for less than a year.

The physical characteristics of four-wheel-drive utility vehicles, the
accident statistics, and our own experience were very much on the minds of
our auto testers as they prepared to run the Suzuki Samurai, the Jeep
Wrangler, the Isuzu Trooper II, and the Jeep Cherokee through their paces.

Our regular test program includes a maneuver designed to see how
controllable a car remains when a driver is forced to steer sharply--to
avoid, say, a child who unexpectedly darted into the road. To simulate that
kind of sudden emergency, our drivers run each car through a lane-changing
course marked off by traffic cones. One cone blocks the right-hand lane, a
stand-in for the obstacle to be avoided. The drivers begin their left turn
out of the lane 60 feet before the obstacle. They then must steer sharply
enough to get back into the lane no more than 60 feet beyond the obstacle.

Our test drivers take the cars through the course at increasingly higher
speeds, noting how fast they can swerve around the obstacle without knocking
over cones and without losing control.

The cars get the benefit of the doubt in this test. We run the test on dry
pavement with expert drivers who've steered through the course hundreds of
times before. The drivers don't brake while steering, as a nonprofessional
driver might in an emergency, so the cars aren't forced into premature skids
or spins. Nor do they accelerate. This "accident-avoidance maneuver"
realistically simulates a situation that could confront any driver any day.
We never attempt unrealistic stunts, such as U-turns at high speeds.

Most vehicles weave through the course easily up to about 50 mph, then start
hitting cones or skidding at some point above 50 mph. During the 10 years
we've used this test, no vehicle we've tested--and these have included many
vans and small trucks with high centers of gravity--has threatened to roll
over.

Under the experienced touch of our drivers, all four utility vehicles got
through the course at 52 mph or better. The Suzuki Samurai was actually more
maneuverable than the others, since it's so much smaller and lighter.

With concern about a potential rollover somewhat allayed, a staff member who
does not normally drive the course tried to steer the Suzuki around the
obstacle. All went well for several runs at moderate speed. Then, on a run
at 45 mph, the driver made a slight steering misjudgment: He turned wider
than necessary to clear the obstacle, something many ordinary drivers might
do in an emergency turn. That forced him to turn back a bit more sharply
than our regular testers had. As he turned the steering wheel to the right
to get back into lane, the Suzuki teetered to the left. The two right-side
tires lifted about a foot off the pavement before the driver was able to
bring the vehicle back under control.

The Suzuki had come within a hair of rolling over at a moderate speed in a
maneuver that shouldn't put daylight under the tires of any car. A
poor-handling car might skid or spin when turned sharply at these speeds.
That's hazardous enough. But a rollover at moderate or high speed would very
likely injure or kill the occupants. A rollover in an open vehicle, such as
the Suzuki featured in the company's "fun" commercials aimed at young
people, is especially deadly.

Would the other utility vehicles show similar instability if steered the way
the Suzuki had been steered?

To find out, we put all the vehicles through a slightly different maneuver.
We realigned the cones so that our test drivers had to start the turn 50
feet from the obstacle instead of 60 feet from it. That meant they needed to
steer around the obstacle and back into lane in a total of 110 feet rather
than the usual 120 feet. We also moved the obstacle three feet farther to
the left.

As a result of those changes, our drivers would have to sharpen their turns
a little.

For this test, we equipped the two small vehicles, the Suzuki Samurai and
the Jeep Wrangler, with the outriggers shown in the photos at the left. If
one of them tipped during the test, the outriggers would contact the road
first and keep the vehicle from landing on its side. (The outriggers also
added about 300 pounds, making the Suzuki and the Jeep Wrangler somewhat
harder to roll than they normally would be.)

In this more demanding test, the Isuzu Trooper, the Jeep Wrangler, and the
Jeep Cherokee began knocking over cones at about 40 mph. But they remained
stable. We also tried the Jeep Wrangler without the outriggers. Still
stable.

The Suzuki Samurai, by contrast, toppled onto the outriggers when turned
through the course at about 40 mph. Without the outriggers, it would have
rolled over.

During the period we were testing these vehicles, Suzuki introduced a
modified version of the Samurai, a "1988 1/2" model with a softened
suspension. We acquired the latest version and ran it through the same
accident-avoidance maneuver. It proved even less stable than the Samurai we
originally tested. The front right wheel lifted in turns at low speed. And
the vehicle rolled onto the outriggers at 38 mph.

In our judgment, the Suzuki Samurai is so likely to roll over during a
maneuver that could be demanded of any car at any time that it is unfit for
its intended use. We therefore judge it Not Acceptable."

Your next bit about Chevy Nova's may be true, I'm not going to try to fugure
out where you got your info for that but if it's from the same source as the
first bit, I think it's questionable to say the least... ; )

I guess they would be a bad choice for the offroad rally type of racing.
A couple of years ago one was hit in a busy intersection 2 blocks from my
home. It looked comical laying 'tits up' until the towtruck arrived.

Gould 0738 wrote in message
...
I remember that test.
My question would be......did they test other SUVs in the same manner?
Was the Suzuki much worse than the others under the same test? That
would
influence how I buy.

Several SUV's did badly in that particular test. The Samurai was the
worst,
probably due to a relatively highg ground clearance and narrow track. If
you
remember news coverage about rear wheels of SUV's leaving the ground
during
certain maneuvers, this was the test those reports
referred to.

Personally, I tend to agree with Suzuki and
some of the other manufacturers who cried "foul" at the time. If you found
yourself in a situation where you were required to dodge
a series of consecutive obstacles and slalomed back and forth between
them,
would you continue at full throttle? I'd hazard a guess that few people
are
often at full throttle in a motor vehicle to start with, and most would
slow
down if encountering such a situation.

The tests proved only that if a vehicle is driven in an extremely stupid
manner
a disastrous accident could result. Maybe CU expects all manufacturers to
build
products that are totally idiot proof under any circumstance.

I guess they would be a bad choice for the offroad rally type of racing.
A couple of years ago one was hit in a busy intersection 2 blocks from my
home. It looked comical laying 'tits up' until the towtruck arrived.

Gould 0738 wrote in message
...
I remember that test.
My question would be......did they test other SUVs in the same manner?
Was the Suzuki much worse than the others under the same test? That
would
influence how I buy.

Several SUV's did badly in that particular test. The Samurai was the
worst,
probably due to a relatively highg ground clearance and narrow track. If
you
remember news coverage about rear wheels of SUV's leaving the ground
during
certain maneuvers, this was the test those reports
referred to.

Personally, I tend to agree with Suzuki and
some of the other manufacturers who cried "foul" at the time. If you found
yourself in a situation where you were required to dodge
a series of consecutive obstacles and slalomed back and forth between
them,
would you continue at full throttle? I'd hazard a guess that few people
are
often at full throttle in a motor vehicle to start with, and most would
slow
down if encountering such a situation.

The tests proved only that if a vehicle is driven in an extremely stupid
manner
a disastrous accident could result. Maybe CU expects all manufacturers to
build
products that are totally idiot proof under any circumstance.

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 23:52:48 GMT, "Don White"
wrote:

I remember that test.
My question would be......did they test other SUVs in the same manner?
Was the Suzuki much worse than the others under the same test? That would
influence how I buy.

Yes. They did all the same way. They always do.



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a


The sound of a Great Blue Heron's wingbeats going by your head

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 23:52:48 GMT, "Don White"
wrote:

I remember that test.
My question would be......did they test other SUVs in the same manner?
Was the Suzuki much worse than the others under the same test? That would
influence how I buy.

Yes. They did all the same way. They always do.



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a


The sound of a Great Blue Heron's wingbeats going by your head

CU made a hasty decision to give Suzuki an unacceptable rating a long,
long time ago. To save face, they have stuck to their guns, which is to
be expected. Today there are some very well rated and very
environmentally friendly cars made by Suzuki. You don't see Exxon-Mobil
suing because the vehicles don't use enough fuel?
For the most any application, Suzuki outboards are worth considering as
a good powerplant for your boat.
Because CU is posturing for litigation against Suzuki, this is no reason
to take sides, as you and CU suggest.

Peter
http://cgi6.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/e...sort=3&rows=50

Messing In Boats wrote:
While I believe that Suzuki makes a very good outboard motor, I would
hesitate to recommend one to a prospective buyer after reading about
their "scorched-earth" litigation tactics dealing with Consumer Reports.

It seems that back in 1988 CR gave the Suzuki Samurai an unacceptable
rating after finding it had a tendancy to tip over while turning, a
quality I would find alarming in a motor vehicle. Read the March 2004
issue of Consumer Reports to get their side.

Based upon this information, I would hesitate to recommend the purchase
of any Suzuki product for fear of facing these tactics should one have
any product liability dealings with the firm.

Capt. jeff