(Gould 0738) wrote in message ...
I'm glad I'm not in CU's position. `Reliability' is a difficult
quality to observe or visualize, or even measure - until after the
fact......

That was the basis for the disparity between the ratings for the NUMMI Toyota
and the NUMMI Chevy. "Toyota has a better repair history." Slavery to system
over substance. Two identical products, produced on the same day in the same
plant by the same people should, in theory, be equally reliable in use.
Certainly the plastic trim that spells out one brand name or another doesn't
effect anything mechanical about the car.

But the Chevy Nova was sold and serviced by a dealer network that was
part of the equation for the reliability rating (actually a projection
based on repair history) of all Chevy products.

%mod%

I'm glad I'm not in CU's position. `Reliability' is a difficult
quality to observe or visualize, or even measure - until after the
fact......

That was the basis for the disparity between the ratings for the NUMMI Toyota
and the NUMMI Chevy. "Toyota has a better repair history." Slavery to system
over substance. Two identical products, produced on the same day in the same
plant by the same people should, in theory, be equally reliable in use.
Certainly the plastic trim that spells out one brand name or another doesn't
effect anything mechanical about the car.

I sold a ton of used Novas in the 90's. They generally traded for about 75% the
price of the *identical* car that said "Toyota" on the back. Only downside was
that the people looking for affordable used cars who were educated enough to
know they were actually getting a Toyota quality car at a Chevy price tended to
be either tight fisted or underfunded intellectuals. :-)

On 17 Feb 2004 00:03:54 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

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


There often appears to some editorial bias
in the CU findings. I commented on the
silly disparity between late 1980's ratings on identical Chevy and Toyota
vehicles made in the same plant to identical specs, but I have some across an
anecdotal item that seems to suggest that CU continues to give some imports
"extra credit" based on nameplate alone:



I'm glad I'm not in CU's position. `Reliability' is a difficult
quality to observe or visualize, or even measure - until after the
fact......

Some Japanese designs put plugs or ignition in double jointed
acrobats' reach - and deny them to regular people or so it seems.
That's just like some US designs - but you'll never know - because you
never need to open the Japanese lid.
But parts prices are way high if you do need 'em.

I have this image of production line workers submitting suggestions to
make things better - and having Japanese engineers act on them.
This idea of not looking for the credit may go along with this image,
I suspect....

Brian W

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


There often appears to some editorial bias
in the CU findings. I commented on the
silly disparity between late 1980's ratings on identical Chevy and Toyota
vehicles made in the same plant to identical specs, but I have some across an
anecdotal item that seems to suggest that CU continues to give some imports
"extra credit" based on nameplate alone:








In the past I did not have the luxury of test driving or investigating vehicles
properly prior to purchase. My first vehicle was part of former relationship
(1987 Mercury Topaz, purchased new) the next vehicle replaced the Topaz when it
ceased to function. That replacement was my 1986 Honda Prelude, (purchased Fall
1992) . When I drove the Prelude until it could take no more, I then acquired
my 1996 Acura Integra (purchased new Fall 1996).

Thankfully this time my vehicle is in great health, so I have had the
opportunity to enjoy the search. I would like to share with you some of my
discoveries. See also my past experiences with test drives and vehicles I have
owned and grew up with! ENJOY!









(some snipped)







Saturn (1992)
Not long after Saturn came out, I was looking for a car. I went to go check
them out. First let me talk about the salesperson, was it she was rude or was
she that stupid? I test drove the Coupe, and there was a horrible glare on the
windshield the entire time I was driving no matter the direction of the sun,
she made the comment that I would get used to that! I returned the comment
about their safety standards would have to be as they were, if the driver can
not see out of the windshield accidents are inevitable! This sealed my
feelings, and was closed with the mediocre history added with their
unimaginative styling, then the cult following cinched it!



Chad's Cars... he apparently has had more, but these are the ones I have
witnessed!


Currently Up for Adoption (1-25-03)
Toyota Tacoma 2001 with off road package & extended cab.
In white with beige interior. Pain in the but to get into, I need a ladder! I
am not crazy about the truck like ride, although it is not as much so as other
trucks, which is a plus. Good looking vehicle, (except I don't like the
interior, Toyota never had nice interior, though I hope they are working on
that)

The other thing I don't care for is how Toyota has been working so closely with
GM over the years, yeah it has been slow but still it has been happening.
(Chevy Nova/ Geo Prism & the Toyota Corolla.) now there is the (Pontiac Vibe &
the Toyota Matrix) Of course I found it funny that Consumer Reports like the
Matrix over the Vibe, even though they are identical, apparently there is just
a little something else there that made the difference! I am thankfully Honda
has avoided this so far, I just hope they continue to do so!

From my experience - Suzuki outboards SUCK in salt water. Worse than
anything else I've ever owned.


On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:14:29 GMT, Sailing Fan wrote:

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

"bc" wrote in message ...
: From my experience - Suzuki outboards SUCK in salt water. Worse than
: anything else I've ever owned.
:
:
By how much does the performance degrade as salinity increases? My
understanding was that the type of water only changed the maintenance
requirements.

Dave

"bc" wrote in message ...
: From my experience - Suzuki outboards SUCK in salt water. Worse than
: anything else I've ever owned.
:
:
By how much does the performance degrade as salinity increases? My
understanding was that the type of water only changed the maintenance
requirements.

Dave

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:44:21 -0800, bc wrote:

From my experience - Suzuki outboards SUCK in salt water. Worse than
anything else I've ever owned.

And what is your experience with Suzuki outboards in sal****er?

bb

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:44:21 -0800, bc wrote:

From my experience - Suzuki outboards SUCK in salt water. Worse than
anything else I've ever owned.

And what is your experience with Suzuki outboards in sal****er?

bb

From my experience - Suzuki outboards SUCK in salt water. Worse than
anything else I've ever owned.


On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:14:29 GMT, Sailing Fan wrote:

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