Consumer Reports

[CompUser]

@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, (e-mail address removed)
says...

Consumers Union seems to be a lot about promoting itself and
selling magazines. I might agree that the big auto magazines
seem to be about advertising revenue. However - there are some
better publications - my personal fav is AutoWeek. If they have
anything bad to say about a car, they say it.

Right..particularly if that car manufacturor
declined to purchase any advertising in the
upcoming issue.

 

[CompUser]

@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, (e-mail address removed)
says...>

You're right - I had forgotten about that. The metal arms they attached to the
vehicle changed its handling dramatically, resulting in a worthless test.

Perhaps if the arms were not balanced...if Suzuki
(and GM) had any case to make, why didn't they do
it the Federal circuit court & appeals court
trials? Why didn't any of the decisions go
AGAINST CR?

 

[Jim Stewart]

@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, (e-mail address removed)
says...



Suzuki didn't seem to think CR was a joke...they
spent about eight years in the Federal court
system, trying to get CR to rescind their
comments on the Samurai (or was it the Sidekick?)
as being unsafe...CR's judgement AND test methods
were upheld repeatedly, all the way thru the
process.

Well now, are you sure what was upheld is what
you think was upheld?

In the US, the right to publish an opinion with the
absence of malice is pretty much sacred thanks to
the first amendment. As long as CR published their
results and conclusion as an opinion and without
malice, the chances of legal redress are vanishingly
small.

My point being that just because Suzuki tried for
eight years to get a retraction printed doesn't
automatically mean that CR's test methods were
scientifically valid. More likely is that they
fell into the realm of protected speech.

There are a number of reasons why Suzuki might
persue a lost cause of fighting the CR remarks.
Loss of face and a big wallet come immediately
to mind. Believing that they could prove malice
might be another.

Disclaimer:
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

 

[y_p_w]

@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, (e-mail address removed)
says...


Right..particularly if that car manufacturor
declined to purchase any advertising in the
upcoming issue.

I've seen plenty of advertising by GM in AutoWeek. But AW
is still willing to say what they feel. Here's one on the Hummer
H3 (5 sp manual tested):

<http://autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060227/FREE/60216011/1005/FREE>

"One oddity: The foot-activated emergency brake is pure lunacy,
especially in an off-roader like this where one could conceivably
have the truck hanging on a mountainside. Last time I checked,
I only have two feet."

 

[Edward Hayes]

Prior to the CU rollover test there were many rollover accidents
attributed to the stability of that vehicle. The national highway
safety reporting dept had received numerous reports on this vehicle
but, at that time there was no standard stability/rollover test. While
the CU test may not have been the most scientific approach it was
nevertheless an attempt to evaluate what many perceived as an unsafe
situation, and one that could have easily been corrected with a
suspension change. MB also had the same problem and voluntarily
recalled their vehicles and added a stabilizer bar. Suzuki refused to
acknowledge and fix the problem and chose to go to court. I'd give CU
a C+B- for their effort.

 

[Michael Pardee]

I've seen plenty of advertising by GM in AutoWeek. But AW
is still willing to say what they feel. Here's one on the Hummer
H3 (5 sp manual tested):

<http://autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060227/FREE/60216011/1005/FREE>

"One oddity: The foot-activated emergency brake is pure lunacy,
especially in an off-roader like this where one could conceivably
have the truck hanging on a mountainside. Last time I checked,
I only have two feet."

An interesting thought, although all the Ford and GM trucks I have driven at
work have foot-activated parking brakes (and all but my most recent F350 SD
had bench seats... no place for a hand brake).

We have some very challenging roads to our mountaintop communication sites.
I haven't hung one off a mountainside, but a co-worker did a couple years
ago. Funny thing is that under those conditions the truck is
high-centered... either the front or rear wheels are off the ground and the
undercarriage is jammed on the ground so parking brakes really don't matter.
If you want all the wheels not to turn, just turn off the engine - it's
already in 4-low, right?

Mike

 

[y_p_w]

An interesting thought, although all the Ford and GM trucks I have driven at
work have foot-activated parking brakes (and all but my most recent F350 SD
had bench seats... no place for a hand brake).

We have some very challenging roads to our mountaintop communication sites.
I haven't hung one off a mountainside, but a co-worker did a couple years
ago. Funny thing is that under those conditions the truck is
high-centered... either the front or rear wheels are off the ground and the
undercarriage is jammed on the ground so parking brakes really don't matter.
If you want all the wheels not to turn, just turn off the engine - it's
already in 4-low, right?

I think the reference is to working the clutch from a steep
uphill at a standstill. On some steep inclines, I've ended
up using the handbrake while I modulate the gas and clutch.
Especially if someone is riding me too closely and even
sliding back 8 inches is cutting it too close. Just gas it
up, while releasing the clutch and handbrake. Subaru's Hill
Holder feature was supposed to make this procedure
unnecessary. Is it still available? it's definitely not on
my WRX.

I'm trying to imagine what this Hummer's layout looks like.
I've never seen a manual transmission car with a foot-
operated parking brake. That would be, what, four pedals?

 

[Theodrake]

I think the reference is to working the clutch from a steep
uphill at a standstill. On some steep inclines, I've ended
up using the handbrake while I modulate the gas and clutch.
Especially if someone is riding me too closely and even
sliding back 8 inches is cutting it too close. Just gas it
up, while releasing the clutch and handbrake. Subaru's Hill
Holder feature was supposed to make this procedure
unnecessary. Is it still available? it's definitely not on
my WRX.

I've always preferred to use the handbrake, but I also learned how to
use my toe/heel of right foot on the brake and accelerator pedals. Not
as easy, but works.

 

[Michael Pardee]

I think the reference is to working the clutch from a steep
uphill at a standstill. On some steep inclines, I've ended
up using the handbrake while I modulate the gas and clutch.
Especially if someone is riding me too closely and even
sliding back 8 inches is cutting it too close. Just gas it
up, while releasing the clutch and handbrake. Subaru's Hill
Holder feature was supposed to make this procedure
unnecessary. Is it still available? it's definitely not on
my WRX.

Ah - that makes more sense. Yep, steep slopes and a clutch are an
exhilarating combination!

I'm trying to imagine what this Hummer's layout looks like.
I've never seen a manual transmission car with a foot-
operated parking brake. That would be, what, four pedals?

Yes - pretty standard in light trucks. (I'd never really thought about that
before... it's sort of like becoming aware of your tongue!) The parking
brake pedal is way against the kick panel and up high enough that it isn't
mistaken for the clutch.

Mike

 

[CompUser]

@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, (e-mail address removed)
says...> > Right..particularly if that car
manufacturor

I've seen plenty of advertising by GM in AutoWeek. But AW
is still willing to say what they feel. Here's one on the Hummer
H3 (5 sp manual tested):

<http://autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060227/FREE/60216011/1005/FREE>

"One oddity: The foot-activated emergency brake is pure lunacy,
especially in an off-roader like this where one could conceivably
have the truck hanging on a mountainside. Last time I checked,
I only have two feet."

Charging them with having a foot-pedal
*parking* brake is hardly a scathing rebuke.

Any objections to the color of the gauge
illumination?

 

[CompUser]

news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
(e-mail address removed) says...

Prior to the CU rollover test there were many rollover accidents
attributed to the stability of that vehicle. The national highway
safety reporting dept had received numerous reports on this vehicle
but, at that time there was no standard stability/rollover test. While
the CU test may not have been the most scientific approach it was
nevertheless an attempt to evaluate what many perceived as an unsafe
situation, and one that could have easily been corrected with a
suspension change. MB also had the same problem and voluntarily
recalled their vehicles and added a stabilizer bar. Suzuki refused to
acknowledge and fix the problem and chose to go to court. I'd give CU
a C+B- for their effort.

That, plus the investigation revealed internal
memos between Suzuki and GM (and within GM) that
*discussed* the instability of the design
(including employee recommendations to NOT
introduce the vehicle for sale in US due to it's
instability), _prior_ to CU's independent
discovery & reporting of same...
honestly, it's difficult how anyone can come down
against CU after looking at the facts.

So yeah...I'm sure of what was upheld, the
accuracy of CU's charges that the vehicle was
unsafe by design.

 

[Jim Stewart]

news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
(e-mail address removed) says...



That, plus the investigation revealed internal
memos between Suzuki and GM (and within GM) that
*discussed* the instability of the design
(including employee recommendations to NOT
introduce the vehicle for sale in US due to it's
instability), _prior_ to CU's independent
discovery & reporting of same...
honestly, it's difficult how anyone can come down
against CU after looking at the facts.

So yeah...I'm sure of what was upheld, the
accuracy of CU's charges that the vehicle was
unsafe by design.

But you're missing my point. I'll try to
make it clear. An opinion, provided it is not
malicious, is *protected speech*. If you say
"I think a Suzuki is unsafe", and you do not
say it out of malice, your statement is protected
by the 1st amendment. You might be sued, but
you would prevail according to my understanding
of constitutional law. YMMV in other countries
than the US. Note that the burden of proof
is to whether or not the statement was *malicious*,
not whether or not it was *true*. If CU did
the tests in good faith, regardless of whether
the tests were accurate or not, they would
prevail.

Maybe the Suzuki was unsafe. I'm not taking
a position on that. Maybe CU's tests were valid.
I'm not taking a position on that either.
None of it matters if CU defended it's action
under the 1st amendment freedom of speech and
press.

If I had the time, I'd look up the case and
read the specifics, but I don't. Maybe someday.

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

 

[Grolch]

This kind of a response could only come from an american.


===Snip===

 

[CompUser]

But you're missing my point. I'll try to
make it clear. An opinion, provided it is not
malicious, is *protected speech*. If you say
"I think a Suzuki is unsafe", and you do not
say it out of malice, your statement is protected
by the 1st amendment. You might be sued, but
you would prevail according to my understanding
of constitutional law.

I see your point, but it's irrelevant to the
case. Suzuki/GM sued on the validity of CU's
test methods--saying they were arbitrary,
unscientific, and capricious--not to try to
establish a landmark challenge to 1st Amendment
rights. They lost, and they lost on appeal.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees,
hours of expert witness testimony, years and
years of effort, and they lost...to a non-profit
organization, that buys it's test samples they
same way you and I do...at retail, anonymously.

"Freedom of speech" (or more accurately,
expression) doesn't mean it won't come with
penalties--most folks have heard that it doesn't
extend to shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater.
Go to your local airport and say "I have a bomb"
and see what results...tell the friendly security
officers that you're utterance was protected
under your understanding of constitutional law,
and uttered without malice--if you can talk with
his knee on your back.

Not to mention slander and libel laws...


But hey, them thar outriggers, they ain't
scientifical now, are they?

 

[Jim Stewart]

This kind of a response could only come from an american.

I think I made it clear that it was a US
issue. What's your point?

 

[Blair Baucom]

Our 1971 Ford Maverick had a hand brake with bench seats. It was a "T"
handle under the dash that pulled out to set and turned 90 degrees to
release.

Blair

 

[Blair Baucom]

Hill Holder on the 2005 Forester XS.

Yep, four pedals for the quadrupeds.

Blair

 

[Jim Stewart]

I see your point, but it's irrelevant to the
case. Suzuki/GM sued on the validity of CU's
test methods--saying they were arbitrary,
unscientific, and capricious--not to try to
establish a landmark challenge to 1st Amendment
rights.

"A U.S. District Judge ruled that Suzuki failed to prove by "clear and
convincing evidence" that Consumer's Union acted with malice when
they called the Samurai dangerously unsafe in a July, 1988 article,
Reuters reports."

http://www.indiacar.com/index2.asp?pagename=http://www.indiacar.com/xnewdet.asp?id=n592

Sounds like a 1st amendment issue to me.