In article
,
N8N wrote:

On Mar 25, 11:40*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article
,

*N8N wrote:

Sure, but the thing is, it wasn't any more likely to tip than, say, a
Jeep CJ/Wrangler which is the claim that CR made.

The Samurai still has something of a following among the off-road
crowd, which is really who the vehicle was aimed at. *Obviously a
small, narrow vehicle with a high COG is more likely to tip than a
Lotus; that is just common sense. *Exaggerating this to make a story
is not responsible reporting.

nate

I remember hearing 35 years ago that American cars do not roll when
cornered hard at highway speed on a relatively flat surface, period. *
Doing so was considered ill-behaved. Maybe my memory is bad, or things
have changed.

I don't know about the Samurai, but the early Jeep was a tipper with a
bad reputation, IIRC. So saying the Samurai is no worse than the Jeep
isn't overly reassuring, even if it's an off-road gadget. Personally, if
I didn't want to roll on the road, I sure wouldn't want to roll in the
dirt and boulders.

Lots of ground clearance and suspension articulation (required for
rock crawling) make for a tippy vehicle, period. That's why they make
roll cages. If you don't want such a vehicle, don't buy it - and I
don't mean that in a snippy way - but CR had no business knocking a
primarily off-road vehicle for behaving like one. They CERTAINLY
didn't have any business forcing it to tip over so they could get a
story out of it. I'm surprised that Suzuki settled the lawsuit,
actually - I'd have tried my damndest to nail CR to the wall.

Now if CR had simply stated "Jeeps, Suzuki Samurais, etc. are designed
as off road vehicles and as such may be less safe than traditional
passenger cars in high speed on-road maneuvers" that would have been a
true statement, and one that needed to be made back in the early days
of the SUV craze. But CR *deliberately made* the Samurai tip over
when it didn't tip as they expected in the first run of their handling
test. That's inexcusable.

http://www.junkscience.com/consumer/oct99/consumer lat0923.html
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Suzuki...mer+Reports+of
+Consumers+Union-a018179466


Sadly, most of what comes up on a web search *today* is articles
glossing over the issues and stating that the lawsuit was settled.
However, I remember the circumstances of the suit well, and it was as
I said - CR had initially set up a handling course with tight corners
and ran the vehicles through them at a certain speed. When none
tipped, they picked the Suzuki, and ran it through at a *higher* speed
and then when it went up on two wheels published an article deeming it
"unacceptable."


nate

Interesting, thanks for the clarifications. I know there are many
genuine off-road enthusiasts and certainly if the Samurai is well-suited
to that then I can see why fans would be upset with the CR methodology
and report.

Around here, it's of note that the overwhelming majority of 4WD vehicles
rarely if ever leave the pavement. They're used by soccer moms, who slow
down to 2 mph for parking lot speed bumps. When they get offered up for
sale in the local auto trader rag they proudly list among the vehicles
attributes and features: "Never been off road!"