Over the years I have been asked "aren't suzuki's tippy?" as well as mocked and poked fun at , told my truck was crap , and told I was stupid to drive a suzuki because "they roll easily" . I know many other Suzuki owners that experience the same thing and personally I'm tired of it so I thought I'd build this page to set the record straight!
For those of you that already know what I'm talking about , now you have something to show the people that make you roll your eyes, and for those of you that don't know here's the story. I hope you all find it informative and help full in some way.
Did you know? - North American is the only continent in the world where you can no longer buy a Suzuki Samurai!
The Suzuki Samurai gained the reputation of rolling easily after Consumer Reports (Consumer Union) gave the Samurai a "not acceptable" rating in 1988. The information I've collected outlines how it has been suggested that consumer reports needed a sensational story to boost it's magazine sales, had targeted the samurai and decided it was unstable before ever testing the vehicle , deviated from their standard testing methods to force the samurai up on two wheels, and destroyed the reputation of a great little truck along with it's maker. I have collected clips of articles and linked to the original document so you can read the whole article if you like. Take a look through the information I've collected and decide for yourself if the Samurai is deserving of this "tippy" reputation. I hope this page helps answer your questions.
“If you can’t find someone to roll this car, I will!”
— Irwin Landau, Editorial Director, Consumer Reports, to Kevin Sheehan, Suzuki Samurai test driver, 1988
This video nicely sums up what happened to the Samurai , where the "tippy" myth came from , and ironically shows just how stable the Samurai actually is!
if you have trouble viewing the clip please click here for an alternative source
This story dates back
to 1988, when Consumer Reports reported that its tests had proven that
the Suzuki Samurai, a sports utility vehicle (SUV), "rolls over easily"
and had to be given a rare "Not Acceptable" rating. This was
disputed by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration
(NHTSA), which said that its tests showed that the Consumer Reports charges
were invalid. But the damage was done, and the popular magazine's report
resulted in U.S. sales of the Samurai dropping from 81,349 in 1987 to
just 5,041 in two years. It had sold 150,000 in its first three years
on the market.
What is shocking is the extent of the evidence that shows the lengths
to which Consumer Reports went to fabricate their charges against Suzuki.
For example, when the Suzuki Samurai was first tested in 1988 by CU, it
was tested 37 times on the same course that they had been testing cars
on since 1973, and it performed better in accident avoidance than any
other SUV tested at that time. Of the two test drivers who drove it that
day, one reported that it "never felt like it would tip over,"
and the other gave it the highest possible rating and wrote in his notes,
"responds well...corrects quickly...leans normally...no real problem."
Excerpt from:
Baby
Seats and Rollovers
If it’s going to bend its tests to fit predetermined
conclusions, CR should disclose that alongside its “no-advertiser-influence”
policy.
By Ed Wallace
Special to the Star-Telegram
“It has always astonished me that these two important court cases were never really covered by the media. Certainly no nightly newsmagazine that I know of ran the video of the heads of Consumer Reports demanding that their drivers roll over a vehicle that simply wasn’t unstable.”
Do you remember the hatchet
job Consumer Reports magazine did on the 1988 Suzuki Samurai, in which CR
claimed that the small, extremely popular SUV was dangerously prone to rollover
during emergency maneuvers? In the late nineties, American Suzuki offered
to journalists a copy of the video that CR shot during that fateful report.
But the video didn’t show a neutral or scientific driving test of
the Samurai. Instead, its footage indicated that the senior staff of Consumer
Reports magazine had already made up their minds that this Samurai was dangerous
— and no matter what it took to “prove” it, that point
was going to be the outcome published.
We now know that the CR events of April 20, 1988 were shocking to say the
least. Not one but two of the magazine’s test drivers failed to do
anything but enjoy the scenery in their 37 laps around the driving course
for Consumers Union (which publishes CR). Kevin Sheehan took the Samurai’s
wheel for 16 laps at speeds reaching 50 miles an hour, then noted in his
driving log that “It never felt like it would tip over.” Richard
Small drove it another 21 laps, and he gave the Samurai the highest possible
score of 5+. It was at that point, with nothing negative to report, that
Irwin Landau made his outrageous demand: If these two drivers couldn’t
roll the Samurai, he would find someone who could. The someone he found
was R. David Pittle, CU’s head of automotive studies.
In his first nine laps around the CU track, Pittle too failed to make the
SUV tip. Finally, deviating from the standard course, Pittle did manage
to raise two of the Samurai’s wheels off the ground — and the
rest is automotive and media history.
The media sensation that followed Consumer Reports’ “exposé”
of the Samurai’s vicious tipping tendencies shut down what had been
one of the fastest-growing car companies in America in the eighties. Nowhere
in that article did CR mention that both of its own primary test drivers
said the Samurai was one of the most stable cars they had ever tested.
Excerpt from: Guardian
of the Lawyers' Honey Pot
By Max Boot
September 19, 1996
Consumer Reports, after
all, is a virtual bulletin board of big-money lawsuit ideas. The October
issue, for example, will carry a report denouncing two sport utility vehicles
-- the Isuzu Trooper and Acura SLX -- for allegedly being unstable in sharp
turns. Two class action suits citing those findings, which were unveiled
last month, already have been filed in Florida. Isuzu, which makes both
vehicles, responded by taking out full-page newspaper ads and holding a
press conference to denounce CU's tests as "unreliable and misleading."
CU says its procedures are based on government standards, but Isuzu's Norihiko
Oda argues that it is easy "for the driver to knowingly or unknowingly
influence the outcome."
The Isuzu controversy is a virtual replay of a battle between Consumers
Union and Suzuki that has been raging since July 1988. That month, Consumer
Reports announced that it would publish an article rating the Suzuki Samurai,
another sport utility vehicle, as "Not Acceptable" because the
vehicle supposedly exhibited a dangerous tendency to roll over in tests.
Suzuki general counsel George Ball says, "This caused a precipitous
drop in sales and a precipitous increase in lawsuits."
Suzuki has settled many of the 194 suits filed so far, but it's won three
out of the four cases that have been decided by juries. Like the preponderance
of juries, federal regulators have doubts about Consumers Union's claims.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration refused to recall the
Samurai. In its ruling, NHTSA held that CU's "test procedures do not
have a scientific basis and cannot be linked to real-world crash avoidance
needs, or actual crash data." The data, NHTSA found, do "not show
that the Samurai has been involved in a greater rate of rollovers than comparable
vehicles." Similar conclusions were reached by government agencies
from Britain to New Zealand. Suzuki now has filed a defamation suit in federal
court in Orange County, Calif., against Consumers Union, claiming its tests
are rigged.
Mr. Pittle, CU's technical director, defends his tests of the Samurai and
says his organization has no ax to grind with Suzuki or any other company.
But months before the CU report came out, the Center for Auto Safety had
already asked for a recall of the Samurai. The center, co-founded by CU
and Ralph Nader, is run by Clarence Ditlow, a long-time CU board member.
While insisting that board members like Mr. Ditlow have no impact on CU's
testing, Ms. Karpatkin says that "there was clearly contact at the
time" between the two groups. Mr. Ditlow confirms that Consumer Reports
often calls his center for "background information."
Those contacts are troubling because Mr. Ditlow has a rich history of providing
fodder for lawsuits.
Other links about Suzuki and CU/CR
Link about other products and CU/CR
click a pic to get a better look!
(pictures kindly provided by my good friend Brian aka Fullload)
