C0nsumer Reports helps Trial Lawyers again

[JimD]

I saw on the evening news that Consumer Reports is saying that a Lexus SUV is unsafe because they could make it have some oversteer in hard cornering. They expected the stability control to engage sooner. It did not spin out and didn't get up on two wheels or anything but they are claiming a roll over risk. Lexus = Toyota so it seems like this is intended to beat up on Toyota some more and make it easier for trial lawyers to sue Toyota over anything that went wrong in a Toyota vehicle.

I am no Consumer Reports fan so I guess I am probably not a neutral observer but this doesn't seem to be on the up and up to me. How many people who can afford a top line Lexus look to Consumer Reports for advice. Seems more intended to feed lawsuits.

Jim

[Black wallnut]

CR is a biased publication and always has been. Look at what they did to the Suzuki Samauri!

[Alex Franke]

Lexus = Toyota so it seems like this is intended to beat up on Toyota some more and make it easier for trial lawyers to sue Toyota over anything that went wrong in a Toyota vehicle.

Then Toyota should challenge it. In any case, they certainly could have picked a more popular car if they wanted to beat up on Toyota.

After the whole car seat debacle, I'm sure they'll have the data to back up their claim this time around. In fact, I'd be surprised if they didn't come out with documentation of the problem occurring a very high percentage of the time with more than one car and more than one driver. I've always considered them to be fairly objective -- I've seen problems they've mentioned in products, and I've been happy with products they've recommended.

I remember that Suzuki thing, too -- that was a while ago. What ever came of that? Did they get a judgment against them?

[cgallery]

About every year or two, CR generates a rather sensationalistic story.

I imagine it has more to do with marketing (of CR magazines) than anything else.

But the result is a rather large credibility issue, AFAIC.

[Mr__Bill]

CR is a biased publication and always has been. Look at what they did to the Suzuki Samauri!

At the time the article in Consumer Reports on the Samauri came out I owned one. I also liven it the Connecticut town where the Consumer Reports test track is located and met on several occasions the man who at that time ran the place.

The road to the test track was a gravel town road (note this would be a county road anyplace else) and it was winter. There were deep ruts in the road and the Samauri has a narrow wheelbase. The person testing the Samauri drove to the track on that road and was trying to keep the Samauri out of the ruts as the ruts were too wide. The Samauri road up on the inside of a rut and up the outside bank of the road and nearly tipped over. Scarring the heck out of the driver. That's when they decided to really test just how hard or easy it was to flip.

As it happens I had driven that road often and can attest to the fact that my Samauri also had problems and once came close to tipping over. The Samauri was a fun vehicle to drive, but too quick in the steering and scary on the freeway.

Several years after the article was published I was in conversation with the track director and we talked about the testing. He said that the Samauri would tip up on to the safety wheels doing what were standard avoidance maneuvers for a normal car. Something that all the other 4x4's could pass, although with a little effort the other 4x4's could be tipped up too.

One of the real issues with the Samauri is that it was marketed to an consumer who had little experience with an off-the-road capable vehicle. The buyers were young and for the most part buying a fun car that for them could be very dangerous. To make matters worse some buyers installed spacers and over sized tires turning them into a carnival ride.

I liked my Samauri, put a lot of miles on it and never tipped it over but when I compare how it handled to a Bronco I later owned it was more of a go-cart than a real car or truck.

I believe that Consumer Reports did a real service to the car buying public in alerting consumers to the dangers inherent in the design of the Samauri. I can't speak for the Lexus SUV, I have never driven one, but when a manufacturer tells the consumer that they can rely on a safety feature to compensate for poor driving skills or bad luck, then that safety feature should work as advertised and to the extent the consumer is let to believe it will.

The only agenda that I see Consumer Reports having is looking out for the consumer, and that's you and me.

Bill
over here on his soap box.

[parnelli]

Then Toyota should challenge it. In any case, they certainly could have picked a more popular car if they wanted to beat up on Toyota.

I heard sales of 5,500 since December- and that Lexus has temporarily discontinued sales (I would assume to update the software)

[Black wallnut]

Well Bill this is not the place to discuss the facts of the case but I still own a Samauri and do drive it with EVOC maneuvers often and never have even come close to two wheels. The story I read about the testing was quite a bit different from what you just wrote, perhaps a different view. I'm sure the articles can still be found. To my way of thinking there has not been as useful of an off road vehicle on the market since the Samauri was discontinued. I can do a three point turn on a road only wide enough for a F-150 and go over terrain that would high center most pickups.

http://www.exponent.com/Suzuki_Samurai/

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=6104009

[jackellis]

I don't think a determined trial lawyer needs much help other than what they get from juries that consider the circumstances of the victims or their survivors rather than the facts.

I bought a Tacoma a little less than two years ago that I am very pleased with. However I am also very disturbed by the way Toyota handled the accelerator problem. If they knew something was wrong, consumers expected them to pay close attention and get the problem fixed right away, no matter what the cost.

I had a rather instructive experience with Chevron about 15 years ago, right after I bought my little airplane. Someone made an error and mixed some jet fuel with the aviation gas my airplane uses before batches were sent out to airports all over the western US. That kind of contamination causes detonation and it can wreck an air-cooled aviation engine before the pilot knows what happened. I bought some suspect fuel - twice - before my wife received a phone call while I was away on a business trip asking us to ground the airplane. It took nine months but Chevron paid for the engine to be removed, factory overhauled and reinstalled. Didn't cost me a cent, and in fact I may never have to spend the $30k it would cost today to do the same thing. The insurer even offered to pay for loss of use, and I should have taken them up on their offer because I didn't do much flying in those nine months.

As far as I'm concerned, Chevron did the right thing, even though it cost them a reported $60 million when all was said and done. Toyota could learn something from my experience.

[JimD]

Bill is entitled to his views, of course, but the facts of the Samari situation have been reported many times, as noted by Black Walnut, and his note at best leaves out a lot. Like it was the second test driver, not the first, that managed to get the Samari up on two wheels. And it was not standard avoidance manuvers that did it, it was manuvers that only the Suzuki was asked to do. The whole thing was incredibly sleazy if you read the detailed accounts. Not even close to be objective. Bill's account may provide the reason CR did what they did. They were convinced the vehicle was tippy so they set out to "prove" that and in their minds they did. Little details like testing it differently than the other vehicles didn't matter. That incident is when I wrote off CR for objective information on automobiles.

Another place to look for another view of CR on cars is TrueDelta. They have a page detailing the problems they see with CR's rating system on cars (no rants about Suzukis).

Trial lawyers must convince juries. That is the only truth they see. If the conventional wisdom is Toyota is a bit fast and lose with safety items, the jury pool will contain members with that mindset helping the plantiff's counsel.

I agree Toyota could have been more forthcoming about their floor mat and slow to rise gas pedals. But the whole idea of unintended acceleration is a myth. Honest reporters and publications which pretend to offer consumers facts should not perpetuate myths. CR claimed to have been unable to stop a Camry with the gas pedal pushed down. Car and Driver found exactly the opposite to be true. Nobody else has duplicated CR's "experience".

Jim

[cabinetman]

How many people who can afford a top line Lexus look to Consumer Reports for advice. Seems more intended to feed lawsuits.

Jim

You'd be surprised how many people check out CR. Other than the redundant testing car magazines do with vehicles, CR does test extensively. Some may think that they are motivated by certain factions. I don't believe they are. The testing they do is unique to the industry and many people turn to their results because of their forms of testing.

Ordinarily, a vehicles' handling characteristics may be determined by the skidpad and the "lane changing" (slalom) tests, but the magazines that report those results don't elaborate on any acrobatics as a result of getting to the handling limits.
.

[germdoc]

I don't have any axe to grind with CR except that quite a few years ago we bought a Ford Windstar which was one of their Best Buys, only to see that van downgraded to a "Reliability Worse than Average" a year or 2 later. This is the vehicle that burst into flames with about 140K miles on it...

I take everything they write with a grain of salt, but I do trust their reliability data.

[phi1l]

I don't have any axe to grind with CR except that quite a few years ago we bought a Ford Windstar which was one of their Best Buys, only to see that van downgraded to a "Reliability Worse than Average" a year or 2 later. This is the vehicle that burst into flames with about 140K miles on it...

I take everything they write with a grain of salt, but I do trust their reliability data.

You got 140K miles on a Windstar??? that's amazing!!!!

[Mr__Bill]

Well Bill this is not the place to discuss the facts of the case but I still own a Samauri and do drive it with EVOC maneuvers often and never have even come close to two wheels. The story I read about the testing was quite a bit different from what you just wrote, perhaps a different view. I'm sure the articles can still be found. To my way of thinking there has not been as useful of an off road vehicle on the market since the Samauri was discontinued. I can do a three point turn on a road only wide enough for a F-150 and go over terrain that would high center most pickups.

http://www.exponent.com/Suzuki_Samurai/

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fu...ideoid=6104009

I agree the Samauri is fantastic off road and would still have mine today if I had not blown the engine, and that was my fault and not the Samauri's. It was great for in-city driving and parking was a breeze. It also got 35 mph except when in 4WD. Was easy to teach someone to drive a standard in it and how to drive in the snow. That berm of snow at the end of the driveway left by the highway plow, just drive over it! However having it almost totaled by being hit in the side by a deer I am glad that I never had an accident with it on the highway. I do miss the little thing and am sorry that Suzuki made the changes that they did that resulted in the GEO.

Like others I have sometimes wondered about Consumer Reports ratings but often when you consider they are for the average consumer how they rate things makes sense.

Bill
thinking I should have checked CR before getting my used Tahoe

[radhak]

But the whole idea of unintended acceleration is a myth.

Jim

That's a sweeping statement. 8 million recalls and counting, dozens of fatalities because of sudden acceleration, and Toyota has still not been able to categorically demonstrate or verify what exactly was to blame in each. And 'faulty gas pedal' is just a euphemism for unintended acceleration, just like 'wardrobe malfunction'.

As for CR's motives, I'd think consumers should be happy somebody is willing to drive a stake in the ground and yell 'DANGER' at the risk being villified by the industry and everybody who stands to lose money or jobs with such a yell. When I read anything like this article, I only dread somebody in my circle being in such a situation : lives lost to death or imprisonment for (likely) no fault of theirs.

For a magazine, it's easier to gloss over all that and just go with the flow, admiring the latest trim and up-selling anything that rolls. We should have more like Consumer Reports. Trial lawyers are just an occupation hazard, and they existed even before CR.

[phi1l]

I really have 2 complaints about CR.

First, it seems they are all a bunch of industrial engineers. They know how to design test & how to analyze data. But it seems like they really don't know much about what they are testing, As a result it seems that frequently, their reviews are not relevant to what I want to know.

Second, they are in a position to provide some really valuable information about products, but always stop short of what they could do. Take the Suzuki situation. As I recall, the Samurai was many $K cheaper that the comparables they tested. It really belonged in a separate class. But after I read that review I was left wondering if there were after-market modifications that could be made that would make it safe. Lower profile tires? Less stocky tires? A different suspension setup? You could buy a stock Samurai & have a lot left over for modifications & still have spent much less than a competitive model.

They do seem to have a bit of a liberal bias, but I don't think there are necessarily in anyone's pocket. And, they really are not a relevant as they could be.