| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Suzuki Outboards
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 |
Suzuki Outboards
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? 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. :-( |
Suzuki Outboards
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? 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. :-( |
Suzuki Outboards
Could you elaborate on the "scortched earth" policy you mentioned? -- Capt. Frank __c \ _ | \_ __\_| oooo \_____ ~~~~|______________/ ~~~~~ www.home.earthlink.net/~aartworks "Messing In Boats" wrote in message ... 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 |
Suzuki Outboards
Could you elaborate on the "scortched earth" policy you mentioned? -- Capt. Frank __c \ _ | \_ __\_| oooo \_____ ~~~~|______________/ ~~~~~ www.home.earthlink.net/~aartworks "Messing In Boats" wrote in message ... 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 |
Suzuki Outboards
Capt.,
Here's the link: http://www.consumerreports.org/main/...=1076887011603 Or go to Consumers Report home page and follow the link in regards to Suzuki. http://www.consumerreports.org/main/...?bhfv=6&bhqs=1 Paul "Capt Frank Hopkins" wrote in message ink.net... Could you elaborate on the "scortched earth" policy you mentioned? -- Capt. Frank __c \ _ | \_ __\_| oooo \_____ ~~~~|______________/ ~~~~~ www.home.earthlink.net/~aartworks "Messing In Boats" wrote in message ... 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 |
Suzuki Outboards
Capt.,
Here's the link: http://www.consumerreports.org/main/...=1076887011603 Or go to Consumers Report home page and follow the link in regards to Suzuki. http://www.consumerreports.org/main/...?bhfv=6&bhqs=1 Paul "Capt Frank Hopkins" wrote in message ink.net... Could you elaborate on the "scortched earth" policy you mentioned? -- Capt. Frank __c \ _ | \_ __\_| oooo \_____ ~~~~|______________/ ~~~~~ www.home.earthlink.net/~aartworks "Messing In Boats" wrote in message ... 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 |
Suzuki Outboards
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. 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? |
Suzuki Outboards
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. 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? |
Suzuki Outboards (long reply)
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. :-( |
Suzuki Outboards (long reply)
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. :-( |
Suzuki Outboards
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. |
Suzuki Outboards
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. |
Suzuki Outboards (long reply)
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... ; ) |
Suzuki Outboards (long reply)
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... ; ) |
Suzuki Outboards
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. |
Suzuki Outboards
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. |
Suzuki Outboards
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 |
Suzuki Outboards
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 |
Suzuki Outboards
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 |
Suzuki Outboards
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 |
Suzuki Outboards (long reply)
Hi Brian and all,
Sorry, I wasn't very clear in my earlier post. I had no doubt that GM rebadged the Toyota product as a GM product as they have been doing similar things for years, as has Ford and probably all the rest. In Canada we don't have GEO dealerships at all, the GEO products are sold as Chevrolets. A few years ago Car & Driver did an amusing article on who makes what for who and where. Mazda for Ford, Mercury Marine for Corvette, etc. What I was questioning was what Mr Gould said about Consumer Reports differing opinions on the two vehicles. His description of Consumer Reports test procedure in the Suzuki case was so amazingly far from the actual test described in the article that I was suggesting his account of CR's review of the two vehicles may be just as inaccurate. "Brian Whatcott" wrote in message ... 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. snipped the rest |
Suzuki Outboards (long reply)
Hi Brian and all,
Sorry, I wasn't very clear in my earlier post. I had no doubt that GM rebadged the Toyota product as a GM product as they have been doing similar things for years, as has Ford and probably all the rest. In Canada we don't have GEO dealerships at all, the GEO products are sold as Chevrolets. A few years ago Car & Driver did an amusing article on who makes what for who and where. Mazda for Ford, Mercury Marine for Corvette, etc. What I was questioning was what Mr Gould said about Consumer Reports differing opinions on the two vehicles. His description of Consumer Reports test procedure in the Suzuki case was so amazingly far from the actual test described in the article that I was suggesting his account of CR's review of the two vehicles may be just as inaccurate. "Brian Whatcott" wrote in message ... 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. snipped the rest |
Suzuki Outboards (long reply)
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: The CBS news show, "60 Minutes" did a segment on the CU test. They filmed a recreation of the test, and I described what I saw on the film. Vehicles were being swerved around rubber pylons in a slalom fashion at speeds that would be too fast to simulate normal driving. It's conceivable that a driver will have to swerve once or twice to avoid an obstacle, but not enough times to get a sufficient "swing" going to tip over most vehicles. The history of motor vehicle safety tests is spotty at best. Remember the "exploding saddle tanks" issue on some pickups? If you will recall, it was ultimately revealed the the original tests had been conducted with incendiary devices attached to the tanks and set to ignite upon contact. Test proved: If you pack enough explosives around the gas tank of your pickup it's more likely to explode during a collission. Duh. 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 was in the automobile business at the time. Run a Google on Nummi Motors, Chevrolet, Toyota, and you'll probably find some confirmation. |
Suzuki Outboards (long reply)
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: The CBS news show, "60 Minutes" did a segment on the CU test. They filmed a recreation of the test, and I described what I saw on the film. Vehicles were being swerved around rubber pylons in a slalom fashion at speeds that would be too fast to simulate normal driving. It's conceivable that a driver will have to swerve once or twice to avoid an obstacle, but not enough times to get a sufficient "swing" going to tip over most vehicles. The history of motor vehicle safety tests is spotty at best. Remember the "exploding saddle tanks" issue on some pickups? If you will recall, it was ultimately revealed the the original tests had been conducted with incendiary devices attached to the tanks and set to ignite upon contact. Test proved: If you pack enough explosives around the gas tank of your pickup it's more likely to explode during a collission. Duh. 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 was in the automobile business at the time. Run a Google on Nummi Motors, Chevrolet, Toyota, and you'll probably find some confirmation. |
Suzuki Outboards
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! |
Suzuki Outboards
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! |
Suzuki Outboards
|
Suzuki Outboards
|
Suzuki Outboards
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 |
Suzuki Outboards
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 |
Suzuki Outboards
"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 |
Suzuki Outboards
"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 |
Suzuki Outboards
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 |
Suzuki Outboards
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 |
Suzuki Outboards
|
Suzuki Outboards
|
Suzuki Outboards
And the conclusion is...
Suzuki outboards have nothing to do with Suzuki Samurai's. The motors are certainly worth considering. |
Suzuki Outboards
And the conclusion is...
Suzuki outboards have nothing to do with Suzuki Samurai's. The motors are certainly worth considering. |
Suzuki Outboards
In the motorcycle world we had a saying.
"Friends don't let friends drive Suzuki's" :p -W "Sailing Fan" wrote in message ... And the conclusion is... Suzuki outboards have nothing to do with Suzuki Samurai's. The motors are certainly worth considering. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:49 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com