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

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. :-(

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. :-(

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

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

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

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

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?

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?

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. :-(