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. :-(

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

(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%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Rodney Myrvaagnes NYC J36 Gjo/a


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