Howdy, Stranger!

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





Rendezvous Suspension Upgrades

12467

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.
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 39,059
    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:
  • 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???

    .
This discussion has been closed.