Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Rendezvous Suspension Upgrades

135

Comments

  • another thing...

    what is the credibility of the person yelling fire? this is really relevant. it's like the old story of someone crying wolf, right?

    I personally don't read forbes, so I do not know their history. So to me, the credibility of forbes is basically neutral. I am not inclined to think they are lying, nor am I inclined to think they are automatically trustworthy and believable.

    in your example of someone yelling fire, it would be as if a stranger I did not know yelled fire. and if i heard a strager yelling fire, I probalby would move and somewhat take their word for it instead of "automatically dismissing it " because I did not know them. This is because fire is dangerous and for me to ignore it could potentially impact my safety.

    On the other hand, if someone that was KNOWN to be a prankster yelled fire, then I might not take their word for it and just sit there. That is like the crying wolf story. If you cry wolf too many times, no one would believe you.

    And, if it was a friend or relative who yelled fire, I would probably most likely automatically believe them because I know them and trust them.

    All I'm saying is that your idea to "compeltely dismiss" the article seems a bit extreme, especially since it has not been shown that forbes has a history of making wrong decisions or bad articles... So although they may not be a "trusted" source, neither are they a "prankseter" or completely uncredible source.

    Again, to me it is like a stranger yelling fire. And when it comes to something like safety, I would give someone who yells fire the benefit of the doubt unless I could prove otherwise. I'm not saying I trust them that what they are saying is 100% correct, but I'm saying that for now, I give them the benefit of the doubt unless someone can show me otherwise, or unless through my research I find out otherwise, which is still an ongoing process....
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,110
    So to me, the credibility of forbes is basically neutral.

    It has to do with track record. A business magazine doesn't survive and flourish for 90 years with slipshod and careless reporting so I'd be inclined to place them toward the upper end of the credibility scale. But then anomalies are always possible.

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper
  • "A business magazine doesn't survive and flourish for 90 years with slipshod and careless reporting so I'd be inclined to place them toward the upper end of the credibility scale."

    Yea, that too Steve. Which is again, why I would just not "automatically dismiss" the article as nonsense. What I meant was that "without further investigation" on my part, I personally do not know of the reputation of forbes as far as reporting the safety of vehicles. It is true (along spike99's position) that they are not a safety or regulatory agency like the NHSTA which to me would have a LOT of credibility when it comes to making opinions like these, when compared to a business magazine.

    Still, you bring out a very good point. FORBES does have their reputation on their line. And they are a very well respected business magazine. Therefore they have an incentive to check their work and their conclusions and are not likely to publish irresponsible informations and conclusions. But like you said, anything is possible.
  • spike99spike99 Posts: 239
    "Well, if someone yells "FIRE" do you really want to take a chance and sit there and not move? What if you were in the world trade center on 9/11, but because at the time you didn't have proof, you just dismissed it."

    BTW: If one looks up, one does see the fire is actually from lady lighting her cigarette - as she's pulling out of the gas station. If one yells fire is a movie theater, do you "panic and instantly run out?" I wondering...

    .
  • "BTW: If one looks up, one does see the fire is actually from lady lighting her cigarette - as she's pulling out of the gas station. If one yells fire is a movie theater, do you "panic and instantly run out?" I wondering."

    Spike99, I think steve brings out a good point. If a policeman comes in and yells fire, would you run out without looking? I bet you would.

    I think it is both steve and my position that Forbes is not "just a stranger" or "just anyone" . They are a respected magazine. So it's not like a bum or a homlesss guy yelling fire. It's a well respected person, say the movie theatre owner or the usher that works for the theatre in uniform yelling fire. It may not be like a policeman or fireman yelling fire (which is what it would be like if the NHSTA came out with that article), but it's more than just "anyone" yelling fire.

    I think that's the point we're getting at...
  • spike99spike99 Posts: 239
    .

    Why is this turning into Forbes against the world????

    The statement was "RVDs are the #1 most dangerious vehicle on the road". For details, surf: http://www.forbes.com/2007/07/26/cars-dangerous-twenty-forbeslife-cx_bh_0726cars- _slide_2.html?partner=msnbc

    If this is so, why isn't DMV/MTO pulling them off the road, why isn't my RVD's insurance triple (or more) then our previous vehicle, why isn't the User ratings in this Edmunds forum full of users (real users) complaing about driving on 2 wheels around the corners, too mushy of suspension, etc. etc. ???? Again, look at the 2002-2007 RDV User feedback and see what the majority of "real users" of the product are saying.

    I don't care if Forbes or Edmunds or "Joe Blow" made the statement. The statement that model xxx of vehicle is the worst "of all the vehicles on the road". I couldn't care less. What really surprises me is that others are NOT seeing the indirect data is NOT supporting the statement.

    Common sense does NOT support the statement (regardless who made it).

    .
  • "I too find the entire Forbes article a bunch of BS... "

    Spike99, I never said the entire artlce was a bunch of BS. All I said was that through my own research, it appears that the CXL and Ultra models do have 1) a form of traction control and 2) side airbags. Therefore, based on the underlying criteria of the forbes article, the "most dangerous" rating may not be applicable to the CXL and Ultra models because their 2 underlying critiera mentioned above are met by these models.

    Despite my finding of this information which in my mind leads me to believe the article from FORBES may not apply to the CXL and ultra models, I never said it was BS, and because FORBES is a respected magazine, I probalby still give them the benefit of the doubt that what they are saying holds true for the base CX models which lack side airbags and traction control.

    Still, because they are not clear on things, the above is just an assumption and would need to be clarified with them in order to conclude if that assumption is correct.

    Since I have a CXL, I am a little relieved by my findings that my car does in fact have traction control and side air bags. Still, I don't take anything for granted, which is why I STILL would like to improve the suspension in order to positively affect and/or change the third factor FORBES mentions, which is potential for rollover.

    Being a respected magazine and having consulted with established safety experts, I believe that at a bare minimum, their 3 critera for the safety of vehicles is focused on the right target. The article even says the NHSTA says traction control is the biggest development is safety since the seat belt. And the NHSTA is like that policeman or fierman talking.

    I think you would "without looking or without checking" belive the article if the NHSTA had written it. But just because it is not the NHSTA, doesn't mean that FORBES is otherwise compeltely uncredible and that the article should be dismissed as nonsense.

    So no, I didn't mean to say that my research indicated the entire article was entirely "BS". I just mean to say that the FORBES article did NOT distinguish between CX, CXL and ultra models, and that through my research, at least 2 of the 3 the underlying safety critera appeared to be met with the features that are standard in the CXL and Ultra. Therefore, the article didn't "appear" to apply to those models, only the CX base model. But again, I can't be "sure" this is the case unless FORBES clarifies this particular point (whether their research is based on the CX model only or includes the CXL and Ultra models).
  • "If this is so, why isn't DMV/MTO pulling them off the road"

    Spike99. The statement FORBES made about the rdv being the "most dangerous" vehicle is "relative".

    Auto safety has improved A LOT in the past 20 years. The 'most dangerous' vehicle by today's standard is probably LIGHTYEARS ahead in safety as the 'most safe' vehicle 20 years ago.

    Just because a vehicle has the 'most dangerous' rating RELATIVE to all the other vehicles produced today, does not mean it is equivalent to some death trap of a vehilce made 20 years ago.

    Likewise, perhaps a '3 out of 5' rating is abysmal by todays standards, where 20 years ago, it might have been the best rating possible.

    The vehicles are not being pulled off the road because the NHSTA or governmental standards are lower. All FORBES is saying is that RELATIVE to the standards today (which are admittedly much more improved than the past), the RDV ends up having the lowest rating.

    It's not to say that the RDV is so bad that it is going to be pulled off the road. It just says it is low RELATIVE to the standards of other vehicles that are being made.
  • "If this is so, why isn't DMV/MTO pulling them off the road"

    My theory is that governmental bodies like the NHSTA have "minimal" safety standards. And those standards are always improving. For example, I think the article said stabilitrac will be mandated by the year 2012 and it is the most significant improvement since the seatbelt.

    So the thing is, it takes "TIME" for the NHSTA to raise it's standards. If a car does not have stabilitrac by 2012, you can bet it will be pulled off the road according to the article.

    If you READ BETWEEN THE LINES and PUT 2 AND 2 TOGETHER, what this means is that due to high demand, manufacturer's are EXCEEDING the minimal standards. Even the artlce said that luxury and higher lines of vehicles have already offered stabilitrac for the past couple years already.

    Doesn't this tell you something? Why would manufacturers be offering stabilitrac on more expensive lines and models since 2004 or so when it won't be mandated till 2012, a full EIGHT years later??

    That is because governmental standards lag behind the manufacturer's standards.

    In effect, what the article is saying is that MOST manufacturers are EXCEEDING governmental guidelines. And since their rating is RELATIVE, it means that if all the other models are going BEYOND governmental guidelines and including safety features but some vehicles are not, then those vehicles become the "most dangerous".

    So your conclusion that the "most dangerous" vehicle today "RELATIVE" to other vehicles produced today should be "pulled off the road" is a faulty conclusion. The pure fact of the matter is that the most dangerous vehicle is not going to be pulled off the road, because MOST manufacturers are EXCEEDING governmental guidelines to begin with.

    The article is NOT basing the rating on governmental standards, but standards of MOST manufacturers, which are MUCH HIGHER than the governemntal standards.
  • spike99spike99 Posts: 239
    Ok - let's chat about reviews. 2007 against 2007 (apples against apples).

    Forbes gives the 2007 RDV the worst rating. Actually, #1 worst rating of 20 other vehicles. To me, that's a 5 our of 5. (assuming 5 is the worst). Worst is enough ammunition to "pull her off the road".

    NHTSA Ratings (on Edmonds own board) gives the 2007 RDV a 3 out of 5. For more details, surf: http://www.edmunds.com/new/2007/buick/rendezvous/100721288/safety.html

    NHTSA Ratings
    Passenger: 4 stars
    Driver: 3 stars
    Side Impact Front: 5 stars
    Side Impact Rear: 5 stars
    Rollover Rating: 3 stars
    NHTSA: 5 star, 4 star, 3 star, 2 star, 1 star, Not Tested

    Notice the Roll-Over is 3 out of 5 (which is in the middle of the pack).

    Between Forbes and Edmunds, who is correct? What is the rating for the 2007 RDV? Who is the official test authority when it comes to car safety tests???

    .
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,110
    Yea, that too Steve.

    Let's not put words into Steve's mouth. As far as I know he hasn't weighed in on this issue yet. :)

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper
  • "Between Forbes and Edmunds, who is correct? What is the rating for the 2007 RDV? Who is the official test authority when it comes to car safety tests??? "

    Edmunds did not do their own rating. I looked at your link, and it appears all they are doing is posting the NHSTA data. Again, the NHSTA is a GOVERNMENTAL BODY, and in accordance with my preivous posts, like I said, their standards are LOWER than most maufacturers right now which are EXCEEDING NHSTA standards. It appears car manufacturers are LIGHTYEARS ahead of the NHSTA if for example, they have been offering stabilitrac for several years now, which the NHSTA admits is the biggest safety development since the seat belt, but won't be mandating it until 2012, almost a DECADE after it was introduced.

    I believe the FORBES article plainly stated that they were using the CRITERIA of their own PRIVATE safety experts, not GOVERNMENTAL STADARDS.

    Again, you are comparing apples to oranges. The FORBES article is based on HIGHER standards of the manufacturers and not the lower standards of the NHSTA. Just because the RDV is rated as the 'most dangerous' vehicle by FORBES private experts, does not mean that it is going to be the "pulled off the road" when evaluated against the NHSTA's LOWER AND MINIMAL standads.

    Which brings me to another VERY IMPORTANT the point. If you were going to decide whether to buy a vehicle, would you evaluate that vehicle on the HIGHER standards of the FORBES article or would you use the LOWER AND MINIMAL standards of the NHSTA?

    I don't know about you, but I'd rather go with higher standards than lower ones when it comes to MY SAFETY... Who cares if the RDV meets the minimal standards of the government? With safety, MORE IS ALWAYS BETTER. And the higher you set the bar, the more it benefits you. Which is exactly what the FORBES article has done -- they are not simply relying on the LOW BAR set by the NHSTA and which you cite to.
  • "Let's not put words into Steve's mouth. As far as I know he hasn't weighed in on this issue yet. "

    If it wasn't steve, then it was tidester. My mistake if I am getting you guys confused because you guys both have "host" under your name. In fact, every time I saw a post by a host, I thought it was the same person. My mistake for the confusion.

    Just correct my previous post to say "Yea, that too Tidester". At least I have the concurrence of you that FORBES is generally respected, correct?
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,110
    At least I have the concurrence of you that FORBES is generally respected, correct?

    Yes, that is what I asserted!

    I thought it was the same person.

    Not a problem but imagine how confusing and chaotic it would be if a host had multiple user names - which is why we don't!

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper
  • "Ok - let's chat about reviews. 2007 against 2007 (apples against apples)."

    Spike99, for the reasons stated in the previous posts, the NHSTA data you cited to on edmunds is NOT comparing apples to apples as you claim when compared against the FORBES ratings.

    It is more like comparing apples to oranges which is why you are getting getting confused and the logic of your conclusions are not 100% sound...
  • spike99spike99 Posts: 239
    .

    OK - I'm starting to see how things work.

    Does the "#1 - RDV is the most dangerious vehicle" classification from Forbes only apply to 2007 RDVs?? Does it apply to previous years?

    .
  • "OK - I'm starting to see how things work.

    Does the "#1 - RDV is the most dangerious vehicle" classification from Forbes only apply to 2007 RDVs?? Does it apply to previous years?"

    The FORBES article is vague on this. Just as it is vague whether their conclusion applies to ALL Rdv models or only the base CX Model.

    My personal interpretation, which I believe is a reasonable one, is that ALL model CX RDV without side impact protection and traction control would fit into their "most dangerous" category. Again, they said those 2 critera were their primary focus in addition to rollver potential.

    But again, this would only be an assumption and it is very hard to tell what FORBES meant, or which makes and/or model years their classification covers because they did NOT specify which model years or makes of RDV.

    Note, they do NOT even specify whether their rating is for 2007 only or for previous years, HOWEVER, I personally believe it is logical to assume their rating does cover previous years as long as it is the same body style and the car does not have traction control or side impact protection.
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,454
    That was a pretty interesting conversation I just didn't have. :shades:

    The only issue I see with a brief read of the Forbes article is that many cars haven't been tested, so there may be some other cars out there that have worse ratings and are therefore more dangerous. Top ten lists grab the readers though (Edmunds like 'em too). Forbes goes for 20.

    Bengt Halvorson seems to be a pretty prolific and knowledgeable auto writer.

    After skimming through that Forbes article, I'm beginning to think that some aftermarket suspension upgrades may be worth looking into. :blush:

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • forgot to mention, my research only showed that CXL and Ultra from 2004 up had traction control and side airbags.

    I am not sure if previous year CXL and Ultra models also came standard with side airbags and traction control. If they did not, then perhaps those previous year CXL and Ultra too would fit into the most dangerous vehicle category..

    I'm basically saying I don't know what was standard in the RDV models before 2004...
  • spike99spike99 Posts: 239
    .

    I'm for a "better vechile" on the road. This is where that famous saying of "next version" comes in mind. You know, next version the auto engineers will add this, or next version we will add that.

    Personally, I still don't understand why NHTSA (government agency paid by our taxes) and Forbes - being a private business (paid by advertising income) can't align with the same Safety rating number on any vehicle. If one rates one brand/model low and the other high, what number does insurance compaines use? What number does the government use? If one rates a high risk and supporting data (like User Review feedback on this Edmunds forum) can't support the higher number, then who is correct? I know, the companies reputation is on the line. Thus, one can't question their 90 year reputation. But if real world data still can't support "the number" (regardless of who called the rating number), then who is correct?

    Why even have a private company doing "smash / crash" auto reviews when its already being done by a government agency?? Perhaps its the Amercian way. Perhaps it'ss "make work" project. Or, perhaps smashing and rating cars is paid by advertistors? (One one who has the gold makes the rule thing).

    I do know when I read an article that contains a "#1 - item xxx is the most dangerious on the road" rating and it has NO supporing indirect data, I dismiss it. YES. I dismiss it. Common sense doesn't align to the number. Regardless of "the number", I want a "safer" future vehicle as well. I'm sure we all do. However, posting into an RDV forum with "RVD is #1 worste vehicle" is the same as yelling "fire" at a gas station. But when the smoke clears and emotions are cooled down, I still don't see the fire. And the fire can't be pinned down to a certain area (like under built suspension or this or that) either. Heck. One isn't too sure on the exact model (of RDV) and the exact year the article is pointing at. What it really a fire or not???

    Interesting read - especially when it comes down to exact details of where and why the RDV is the most dangerious vehicle. Again, "where's the meat???" in this statement???

    .
  • Obviously if your insurance rates are low, I would assume that the insurance companies are relying on NHSTA or governmental standards.

    Think of it as the difference between public and private education. Now, I don't want to start whole nother bruhaha here, but there are some that would say the "minimal standards" of public education are not up to par with private education.

    Which is why even though "public education" is "free" (taxpayer paid for), some people are willing to pay $15,000 a year just for a private education in K through 12.

    I think to answer your question, yes in most instances the government and insurance companies are using the LOWER or governmental standard.

    But if you're someone that wants the BEST, no matter what, then you might be willing to pay $15k a year for a private education rather than accept "minimal" standards of a public education.

    If you're of the school of thought that governement minimal standards and/or public education is "good enough", then I can understand why you would not see the logic of why setting the bar higher, such as in a private school or private analysis of the same situation would be "better".
  • "Interesting read - especially when it comes down to exact details of where and why the RDV is the most dangerious vehicle. Again, "where's the meat???" in this statement???"

    I assume forbes wanted to get the priciples, logic and criteria out in their article. And they did a good job of that.

    They are NOT a magazine like consumer reports that breaks down their findings into detailed form as you would like.

    I think either you are like Tidester and myself who generally give FORBES the benefit of the doubt because of their status as a reputable business magazine. Also, when you read the article, they do provide good information and cite from credible safety experts. It's not like their article is badly reasoned or doesn't make sense. To the contrary, it provides good and insightful information.

    Thus, as steve said, since the writer seems prolific and knowledgable, you would assume their testing was sound.

    There may not be any "meat" that you can see, but that doesn't mean that the testing and conclusions weren't done.

    This reminds me of that old chinese riddle I heard somewhere, was it like from Kung-Fu teaching "grasshopper": "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to see or hear it, did it really fall?"

    In this case I would say the answer is yes, someone did do the research behind the conclusions, even if they didn't necessarily put it in the article. And I just base that on my perception on how well the article was wrote, the good information it provided, the experts it cited to and that it generally made a lot of sense even though if there were no detailed results posted.
  • "Obviously if your insurance rates are low, I would assume that the insurance companies are relying on NHSTA or governmental standards. "

    I take this back. I think insurance companies probably rely on their own data. perhaps. I mean if they see one type of vehicle as being a theft risk compared to all others, they will adjust their rates accordingly.

    I think insurance analysis is a little more complicated. Because there are a lot of sub issues.

    For example, just because a vehicle is "rated as the most dangerous" doesn't mean that vehicle ALSO has a higher probability of getting into an accident.

    It could just mean that IF you are involved in an accident, you are better off in other vehicles than that vehicles.

    These are two seprate issues again. I think insurance looks more at the probability of an accident occuring. The FORBES article is not necesarily saying that a RDV is more probable to get into an accident, just that IF you get into an accident there are better choices out there.

    I think it is cleaner to keep the issue between FORBES private standard and government standards. Insurance is a whole different ballgame and not only is it not an apple or an orange, it is probably a banana.
  • "one rates one brand/model low and the other high, what number does insurance compaines use?"

    a case in point that insurance companies do not always go based "ONLY" on the safety rating of a vehicle, is my 23 year old porsche.

    I "only" pay about $500 a year for this vehicle, maybe about 1/2 the cost I pay for the RDV. And that is even though by today's standards, the Pcar is "abysmal" in terms of safety features.

    It does not have ANY airbags (not even one in the steering wheel), no form of stabilitrac.

    So this just supports the point that you can't "evaluate" whether a certain model is a more dangerous safety risk based on insurance rates alone. Again, it is not comparing apples to apples to do make this kind of comparsion.

    To me (based on my limited experience) insurance values seem to be more based on what it would cost to repair or replace the vehicle. Since older cars are worth less, the insurance is often much less than a new car even though safety wise, they are abysmal in comparsion.
  • spike99spike99 Posts: 239
    .

    If wondering...

    I used to "number crunch" stats for a living. Did that for over 8 years. As they say, one can make the output of any stat look the way they want. It all depends of political pressure and who's paying for the review. If wondering, I left that company - after my boss told me to "influence the numbers because an advertisor is paying its output a certain way" situations. Soon after, I left that company. Couldn't stomach unethical number crunching anymore.

    From one extreme to another... Take an average rated item and compare it against 19 other items that are above it. In the end, that item "is the worst" rated. And, if you take that exact same item and compare against 19 garbage items, that items comes out the best. Not saying one is skuing a stat at Forbes. That would be illegal and unethical. But under the incorrect political or financal pressure, anyone can make a stats output look good or bad. I know, because I did "stats collecting and comparing for 8 years". So, I know how things "can be influenced". Especially in the private sector. Been there, done that and I still know it happens today.

    Getting past the ups / downs of why a stat output "can be different" from a different agency doing the same tests, I really wish authors would post their detailed comparison charts (vertical and horizontal criteria) on the things they compare. That way, the reader can "See the Meat" behind the "single output number". They can see the total number of vehciles that were compared. Of the 20 vehciles (in a report), how many were SUVs, how many were the same wheel base, how many were the same height, how many were from 2002 and how many were from 2007? I don't see "the background meat" in their high level article. All I hear between the lines is "trust me - we've been in business for 90 years". Maybe they are correct (explaining why the RDV was replaced in 2007) and maybe they are stacking the deck (sort of speaking). One cannot tell - unless one sees the details. Or, in layman's terms, one sees the complete horitontal and vetical table (and background rating criteria) behind it.

    I do know one thing... If someone collects stats, compares and sees a pattern (like weak engineering), they have the ethical responsibility to state where and why. Why is the RDV the "#1 - most dangerious vehcile"? Is it mechanical (like weak ball joints, too top end heavy), is it because of over steer / or under steer or is it because of too soft of suspension??? The aritical states "the output rating (from their tests)" but doesn't cleary state why? It doesn't state how the owner of the RDV can "reduce that risk" or other avoidance recommendation. You'd think the author would also recommend how to low the risk - other then apply that one should NOT buy the RDV? If one is going to yell fire at a gas station - one must also point to where it is. Pointing to "over there" isn't good enough (to me).

    .
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 40,454
    The insurance companies do their own testing (and likely rely on the NHTSA and other testing outfits):

    Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

    I don't think they do any rollover testing yet. See Q&As: Rollover and roof crush for more.

    Moderator
    Need help navigating? stever@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • "I do know one thing... If someone collects stats, compares and sees a pattern (like weak engineering), they have the ethical responsibility to state where and why. Why is the RDV the "#1 - most dangerious vehcile"? Is it mechanical (like weak ball joints, too top end heavy), is it because of over steer / or under steer or is it because of too soft of suspension??? The aritical states "the output rating (from their tests)" but doesn't cleary state why? It doesn't state how the owner of the RDV can "reduce that risk" or other avoidance recommendation. You'd think the author would also recommend how to low the risk - other then apply that one should NOT buy the RDV? If one is going to yell fire at a gas station - one must also point to where it is. Pointing to "over there" isn't good enough (to me). "

    Your objective to find the rational behind the reasoning is noble. Unfortunately, short of contacting forbes and/or the author diretly, this is just not going to happen (even if you did contact them there's no guarantee they would explain anything to you).

    Anyway, sometimes you can't always have everything you want. You have to make do with the information that is given and go with your best guess. That's what I am doing and also based on what Steve and Tidester said, it appears what they're doing too.

    You have every right to disbelieve the article based on the lack of concrete supporting data if you want. No one is disputing your right to do that, even though they may not necessarily agree with the position you have taken.
  • by the same token, there is no "law of the universe" that says if someone doesn't provide concrete supporting data they are automatically wrong. again, just because they didn't publish the supprting data doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    your position should be more that "well, i'm undecided until data is provided." on the other hand, you've taken the position "no data published" = "no data exists". I personally think it is a bit skeptical position to have taken.

    If you were open minded to the possibility that they "might" be right, again, you would be more open minded to looking for data to see if their conclusions were supported or not.

    You can assume some of the burden of proof of verifying their conclusiosn even if no data was provided if it is important enough to you. Rather than just saying, "they have an incomplete article with no data so their article is BS!"
  • "After skimming through that Forbes article, I'm beginning to think that some aftermarket suspension upgrades may be worth looking into. "

    Never would have imagined to hear those words coming out of your mouth with all your previos "OEM engineering" talk (or letters out of your keyboard, would be more appropriate)..

    Anyway, glad you sorta see the light I saw. Not saying what I saw was absolutely right, because I think your positon about OEM engineering is just as valid too...

    Pretty much it's just the high "cost" of an OEM mfg'd better handling car when I've already commited and bought a rdv is what makes me consider these aftermarket options...If money was no object, I'd probably be more along your previous lines of thought and just buy a BMW or Porsche SUV, which I would bet, has way way lower rollover ratings than a RDV.
  • You can assume some of the burden of proof of verifying their conclusiosn even if no data was provided if it is important enough to you. Rather than just saying, "they have an incomplete article with no data so their article is BS!"

    Spike99, this is not persnoal, but you know, it seems to me that you may own one of the vehicles that falls in the category so you are in denial about their position.

    Even though I originally thought my vehicle fell in their category too, I was not in denial but trying to objectively see whether their position and reasoning made sense.

    So which comes first, the chicken or the egg? Are you so opposed to the fact that YOUR vehicle was found as "the most dangerous" that you are completely agaist that idea altogether, no matter how right it may be? What if data WAS provided? Would your argumemnts then shift to shooting down the logic and credibility of that data also?

    I mean there really is no end. If it is that you have your mind made up that they shouldn't be picking YOUR vehicle as the most dangerous, then no matter how sound their logic and reasoning, you will always argue against it. That is what is called bias..

    I mean if you could show you aren't being biased and/or offended by the fact that they picked YOUR car, then I would tend to give your reasoning and position a little more consideration here...
This discussion has been closed.