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

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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!

(Gould 0738) wrote in message ...

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.

Braking could exacerbate the situation by shifting the balance of the
vehicle further towards the "forward corner" and actually increase the
chances of a rollover.

The test is meant to simulate the situation where collision is
inevitable unless evasive steering is undertaken, i.e. not enough time
to brake. Once a rapid avoidance maneuver is made, the driver often
finds themself in the position of making another turn to get going in
the right direction on the road again. Anyway, the physics is that if
you swerve left then swerve right, if you swerve left again the car
has already "forgotten" the 1st left swerve, so it is moot whether a
slalom is an accurate recreation of real life driving conditions. The
point is that a slalom allows the testers to make increasingly tight
turns and record the velocity and lateral acceleration sustained
before the vehicle becomes partially airborne. If one vehicle scores
significantly worse than all others on that test, and other vehicles
have already been shown to roll in real life driving, then it is
reasonable to conclude that the car in question will be significantly
more unsafe in certain situations encountered in real life.

%mod%

(Gould 0738) wrote in message ...

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.

Braking could exacerbate the situation by shifting the balance of the
vehicle further towards the "forward corner" and actually increase the
chances of a rollover.

The test is meant to simulate the situation where collision is
inevitable unless evasive steering is undertaken, i.e. not enough time
to brake. Once a rapid avoidance maneuver is made, the driver often
finds themself in the position of making another turn to get going in
the right direction on the road again. Anyway, the physics is that if
you swerve left then swerve right, if you swerve left again the car
has already "forgotten" the 1st left swerve, so it is moot whether a
slalom is an accurate recreation of real life driving conditions. The
point is that a slalom allows the testers to make increasingly tight
turns and record the velocity and lateral acceleration sustained
before the vehicle becomes partially airborne. If one vehicle scores
significantly worse than all others on that test, and other vehicles
have already been shown to roll in real life driving, then it is
reasonable to conclude that the car in question will be significantly
more unsafe in certain situations encountered in real life.

%mod%

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