Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Rendezvous Suspension Upgrades
This discussion has been closed.
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
If you click on informed for life.org and go to their 2008 vehicle ratings, you will notice that the new 2008 Buick Enclave SUV (rendezvous replacement) is in the top 3% for 2008. It seems that the above statement you made is a huge understatement if the ratings are correct. Notice the Enclave does have both stabilitrac and side airbags.
Again, I am really curious how a traction control and side airbag equiped RDV CXL or ULTRA would've fared in their rating system...
When all is said and done..... I still don't know under what "detailed conditions" the RDV is at most risk for roll overs. Or, as some would write at a high level, why the RDV is "#1 - Dangerious vehicle on the road". Is it because of under steer, is it because of over steer, is it because lack of tire (rubber) traction on the sharp corners, does it lack pavement grip in the rain, etc, etc.???? Why???
Anyone can state a vehicle is "the best" or "is the worst". If you or I compare our own two different vehciles (like my wife's vehicle against my vehicle) against each other (even a pickup against a car), we would each assign them a different number. A different number based on our exact tests (like towing power, sharp cornering, front crashes, etc. etc.). But behind that "rolled up" single output number, every author has to clearly explain "why???". Why is that specific model of vehicle "at higher risk" and under what detailed conditions create situation???
Based on the details of "the detailed why??" (and the pattern they can prove after repeating the same tests over and over again), I might go out and try to reduce that risk as well. Let's say for example.... A pattern was showing a front dive in a sharp corner at high speeds, the vehicle slides and its front tires start to loose traction. Thus, slide, off the road and roll over (in the ditch). (again, this is an example situation). If this was true, I would try to find a way to lower that Roll Over risk myself. Yes, I would buy HD shocks or even install HD coil springs in the front. Thus, stopping its front from diving down (if that's what the tests showed) in the first place. And I would also compare their brand of tire to the brand and size of tire on my current RDV. Does their exact tire also apply to my exact vehicle's tires??? I do know that when someone "spits out stats" of comparing same product groupings (or even if comparing apples to oranges), one has to explain why. And, the author does have the ethical obligation (to their readers) to explain "the pattern" that appears in their test.... Is it tires, is it under design suspension (that create's "too much" front end dive) or is it some other reason???
To me, here's an example of what the author should have wrote - to share with the public...
------------
After xxx tests of repeatable / consistant results, our test lab gives vehicle brand of ..... "#1 highest roll over risks because of .... under these road conditions. And during these road conditions, these tests also showed .... behavior before that crash - which is a possible engineering weak area. The output of these tests only apply to of its .... to .... years of the vehicle model ..... Its other model (or all models in these years) are included (or explained) from the sampling size. Based on multiple tests (show the detailed table and output numbers), it is also recommended that vehicle be improved in the following areas.... (pattern of concern area). Where possible, avoid these driving conditions or change one's driving style - during these .... conditions.
------------
With this info, I can read it, it has details, I analyze the details, determine if the details applies to my vehicle, determine if these tests apply to my driving style or driving conditions, and after some more thought, I would decide if spending "safety increase" dollars "out of my own pocket" is worth it. Worth it more me... In this case, suspension upgrade in .... areas...
And if tests or stats gathering / output was used to announce the "best safety" or best family mini-SUV brand of vehicle (for 2007), I would expect the same type of detailed reporting. Why is it the best, under what conditions, compared against what other exact vehicles, compared if driver was a woman, man or inexperienced teenager, etc. etc. Again, why is the "the best" in detailed and supporing info...
.
I hear what you are saying. And I totally AGREE that that type of review would be much more helpful to anyone looking to upgrade their vehicle.
Unfortunately ALL informed for life is doing is using their "SCORE" methodology which is a mathematical weighted formula that calculates a result based on IIHS and NHSTA as well as other information like vehicle weight, traction control and side airbags.
It seems that the underlying premise is that when the SCORE numbers are plotted against the death rate, there appears to be a correlation.
So what they are doing is just telling you that they think that the SCORE number is a good "predictor" of an automotive fatality.
Again, my conclusion would be that just because it may be a dangerous vehicle to have a high "SCORE" number, it doesn't mean you are "more likely" to get into an accident. It just means that the people who determine SCORE think that IF you get into an accident in a vehicle with a high SCORE number, your fatality risk is higher.
One question I would like answered is whether the "fatality" risk is talking about driver only or drivers and passengers. I think that could be one flaw in the analysis, since usually NHSTA and/or IIHS usually rate the vehicle between safety of driver and/or other passengers, I think.. Again, if the SCORE analysis was just based on general fatality data without being specific to which occupants were most at risk, then it is not as helpful as more specific data or analysis could be...
But then again, that's what statistics are. They try to just take data and find a pattern. But I'm saying you can also be a bit more detailed in your statistical analysis too...
Steve, if you look under (III) Predicting Fatality Rates, on the home page of informed for life.org, you see where they show a graph that supports their premise that when SCORE is plotted against the death rate, there "appears" to be a correlation.
Can you confirm that SCORE hasn't made a "splash in the real world"? Are you saying that you believe the critics and/or that his methodolgy is inaccurate???
If you have any links that discuss these points let me know (you said you recall some negatives were the lack of factoring ABS, wondering if you had an article or something like that).
I would be interested to hearing the other side of the argument. All I have to go on right now is their own home page as to the validity of SCORE when used as a predictor of the fatality rate.
"In IIHS's 2005 status report "The Risk of Dying" driver fatality rate data are provided for 199, 1999-2002 model year vehicles, for which statistically significant crash test rating data are available to enable meaningful SCORE calculations. As can be observed from the data plot below, a significant correlation does exist.
**This is not the case when attempting to correlate individual risk factors, such as IIHS's frontal impact rating, or NHTSA's frontal impact rating or vehicle weight (see the Elements of Risk page). Only through combining these risk elements in a weighted manner does a significant correlation appear."
The SCORE scores don't get much mention. I like that he tells you how he computes his numbers, but the word isn't getting out there.
The last time I remember SCORE being mentioned was when the website first went live at least a year or more ago (but my memory is foggy). I think that's when I heard someone mention that weight wasn't given to some factors, like ABS.
One of the bloggers might could use his link for an entry so I'll pass it along and maybe we'll get him some more PR. The last time it got mentioned outside the forums was in May of 2006 (and guess who mentioned it :shades:) link.
I did this for my vehicle. And I can see spike99's point. Although NHSTA data comes back as "acceptable" for the RDV, when the SCORE calculation is used, it comes back in the "worst 10%".
So, if you believe the SCORE methodolgy and the premise that there is a "significant" correlation to SCORE and the death rate, then you might go by SCORE.
On the other hand, if you go purely by NHSTA ratings, the RDV is "acceptable."
sure it may not have traction control or side airbags but just from my "impression" i'd rather be in that car than any other car I've owned so far if I was in an accident. There is a lot of cabin space also to absorb any impact.
so, well, i suppose there "Could" be some blatant abberations when using SCORE. In other words, although ther may be a "significant" statistical correlation with a majority of the vehicles, possibly the methodology could also result in totally untrue or incorrect conclusion for a small pecentage of vehicles also...
My minivan was a new model when we got it - a few months later the front crash test results came out and it did lousy. Lot of foot well incursion. Them's the breaks.
I think that it is an awfully high number. For example if you were involved in a frontal crash, SAB would have no effect because you are not rolling over or getting hit from the side.
The data and conclusions are very generic and do not apply to specific risks. I think the most common type of accident, is getting rear ended in traffic where side airbags or esc may not have an effect but a steering wheel air bag would.
Also, there are some accidents (a head on collision at 50mph with a vehicle traveling the same speed from the opposite direction, for example), which no amount of
SAB of ESC could save you from....
So, in conclusion I would say SCORE is a really vague and really general indication of safety, but it would be highly misleading to place all of your faith in a score rating.
In other words, just because you have a low score rating does not mean you are invulnerable to being a fatality in a traffic accident. The only way that could happen probably is if you were driving in real "tank". By the same token if you have a really high score rating it does not mean that you will be an automatic fatality.
One must remember that SCORE is a method based on statistical data only. No one wants to end up as another traffic statistic, but Score shouldnt be the only criteria in selecting a vehicle. I think it should be given some weight, but not heavy weight. It is best if you can find the vehicle you like but which also has a low score rating in addition (but not the primary reason)...
well, thanks to forbes I probably will at least "consider" Score when shopping for my next vehicle. Unforunately I only whent by NHSTA and IIHS on my last vehicle purchase....
I think most would agree that if "safety is of utomost importance", it would be nice to be able to find a vehicle where BOTH ratings agree...
You know, I would think MFG's would do their homework on these types of vehicles. If they KNOW their vehicle is going to be used primarily as people transport and for family, then these are the cars which SHOULD BE getting high ratings.
The consumer shouldn't have to rely on "caveat emptor" or buyer beware when purchasing a family oriented vehicle. I mean I think there are a LOT of people who probalby just assume if they are buying a people mover or family car, it will be safe.
Unfortunately that's not the case right now, which means as a consumer, IF you are buying a family vehicle it's EVEN MORE reason to think along the lines of CAVEAT EMPTOR. You can't just "trust the manufacturers" on this one..
That's where SCORE might be able to help over and above just using the standard IIHS and NHSTA ratings.
Manufacturers do pay attention to the test results - some say they pay too much attention to getting good scores on the known tests to the detriment of other safety factors (like perhaps those suspension upgrades?).
People, to their credit, are including safety higher in their checklist, although many probably care more about HP or the iPod connection or the styling than how well the SUV will do in a rollover.
Steve, well, even you asserted that "SCORE" has not made that much of a splash in the "real world".
So even though mfg's are probably paying attention to IIHS and NHSTA test results, they may not necessarily be paying attention to SCORE.
If score is a pretty good indicator of fatality, it again goes to my original assertion that a safe vehicle should be able to pass ALL the different rating methodology, including IIHS, NHSTA and SCORE.
If mfg's are preemptively looking only at the 1st 2, my thinking is they still are not covering all the potential bases...
But then again, FORBES did present the mfg's with the results and they did have a response. So I'm not sure if they will start paying "more" attention to SCORE from now on as well..?
So what they are doing is just telling you that they think that the SCORE number is a good "predictor" of an automotive fatality.
----------------
NO. One has to look "past the score" and determine the true "Root Cause" analysis. This is something that many "stat collectors" fail to do. They pump out the number "as is" (which is proven by output patterns) until the cows come home but in the end, they do NOT state why. They are stating "the what" but fail to state "the why", "the when" and how to prevent this pattern under the same test conditions.
OK - let's assume "the pattern" shows a high number of rear end crashes involving a specific brand of vehicle. For conversation reasons, let's call it "a Mustang". An author states "The Mustang is the worst vehcile for driving into something". The mustang is constantly driving into a tree, a car infront of them and even a School bus (which always gets immediate media attention). From a stats or "pattern" perspective, one can state that a Mustang (as an example vehicle) has a high rate of head on collisions. What fails in many "stat / review" studies is the reason why. Why is a Mustang (again, as an example) have such high scores? Is it because their front disc brakes are failing and Ford should do a re-call? Is it because their factory front tires aren't gripping the road properly (which creates the skid into another object condition. Or, is it because the mustang is a Sports car and "stats is showing" majority of these collisions is from age 18-25 year old boys. Thus, showing these "young men" are driving the vehicle too fast in the first place. And, there is nothing wrong with the vehicle's design or road condition. A safety state may show the musttang scored 3 out of 5 in an accident. But from a root cause analysis perspective (taking a stats job one step further) might show its really "the people's style" who are driving it too fast. This is the true problem with the Mustang (as a vehicle example) design.
What is the Root Cause of that stat??? Always remember that "a number is a number". Without details of When, Where and Why (with how to prevent it), I dimss the artical. As some would say, "without the meat, eating the lettice isn't worth chewing on"....
If someone yelled that a Mustang has high roll over numbers, what would I do??? Before uprading its front shocks, installing HD springs or even installing an internal roll bar, I'd ask "what is the root cause????". If someone yells fire at a gas station, show me where and why. And if possible, show me the "how to prevent" in the future. Sounds like common sense questions to me...
.
Obviously if they are just crunching numbers, they are NOT looking at the WHY of things. Probably the base data that they are using does not give the WHY.
So in order to find the WHY, they'd have to do their own detailed investigation and analysis of every single number used in their analysis. This is something that would be highly TIME CONSUMING AND COSTLY.
All they are trying to do is take the NHSTA and IIHS data (which doesn't always have the WHY to begin with), and using that as a baseline.
Let me ask you thins, do you think when NHSTA gives a rollover rating of 3 out of 5 stars, they tell you the WHY? I may be wrong, but I don't think so. If this was the case you could read the NHSTA reports and figure out a way to correct it if they told you the WHY.
If NHSTA and IIHS is not even including the WHY, how can you expect SCORE to do so when their results are dependent on the NHSTA and IIHS data??
The only other concievable way for SCORE to come out with the WHY would be to do their own independent crash testing exclusive of the NHSTA and IIHS. BUT, that is not the case here.
SCORE merely relies on NHSTA and IIHS which does not always include the WHY. Hence, this is also why SCORE does not have the WHY either.
Basically, you are also saying the NHSTA data is "incomplete" because it does not give the WHY, correct?
Show me where in the NHSTA rollover rating of 3 out of 5 for the rdv, it tells you which corner dived at what point and what was the "root cause" of the rollover or "how to correct" it? I don't think you are going to find such a specific report even in the NHSTA that you cite to so often.
So if the NHSTA doesn't even have the "WHY" or list the "root cause", why are you so against SCORE?
You apparently don't have a problem with NHSTA, and you have even posted a link and cited to it in past posts. Yet, you seem to fail to realize that SCORE IS BASED on NHSTA which ALSO does not state the WHY?
It indeed does seem that you are opposed to SCORE and not NHSTA not because the WHY is not listed, but because YOUR car, the RDV, has a bad result with SCORE but not with NHSTA.
NHSTA gives the RDV an acceptable rating, yet you don't question why it doesn't list the WHY.
So why (no pun intended) then are you singling out SCORE as not listing the "WHY" when BOTH NHSTA and SCORE do not have it???
Your answer to the above question would be very helpful in me trying to determine where you are coming from....
Spike99, it seems you have a weird bias here.
You will NOT question a result as long as it is a "good result". Meaning, even if the NHSTA doesn't list a why, if the rating it gives your vehicle is a generally "good" one, then you dont' even question it at all.
On the other hand, when SCORE gives your vehicle a bad rating, then all of a sudden you are interested in the WHY and complain that no WHY was given....
But if you look at your reasoning, you are not applying your principles uniformly. You will question the WHY only when the rating is bad. But when the rating is "good" (like with the NHSTA data), you don't question the absence of the "WHY's".
Is this lack of consistency logical??
to make things even simpler to undersand, look at it this way...
NHSTA and IIHS are the finders of fact. They are the ones doing the crash testing. They are the only ones that can come up with the WHERE or the WHYs because they are doing the investigation and performing the actual tests....
SCORE is merely interpreting the data/results give by the IIHS and NHTA using formulas and their methodolgy. They do NOT appear to be doing any fact finding. Their interpretation RELIES ON the fact finding done by NHSTA and IIHS and SCORE is not doing any of its own fact finding.
Therefore, since your question regarding the "whys" and the "wheres" are an issue of fact, you have a beef with the NHSTA and the IIHS, not SCORE....
I do not see how you can argue that SCORE should be including the WHYS and WHERES when they are not doing any fact finding and those issues are 100% questions of fact.
I do not think it is entirely logical to attack the validity of the SCORE ratings based on the argument that they did not list enough detailed factual results, detailed findings that could only have been done by the NHSTA and IIHS.
Besides, if the NHSTA and IIHS did do those detailed findings and showed the WHY and the WHERE in their data, all you would have to do to find that data and answer your questions would be to look at those findings to answer your questions. It is going about it the wrong way to say that SCORE should be answering those questions, IMHO.
steve, i'm glad you own a vehicle that seems to be rated well both according to IIHS, NHSTA and SCORE...
Wish I could say the same for myself, but since it appears there is no SCORE evaluation of a RDV w/ SAB and ESC, I'm out of luck for now...
It's not. But the newer ones are.
Nissan may not have paid any attention to SCORE but they did pay attention to the NHTSA and/or the IIHS.
Hmm - no crumple zone - I'd be worried about that!
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
A person states the RDV (unspecific model and unspecific year) has the worst Roll Over of all other vehicles and it starts huge amounts of replies. 126 so far.... I love it!!!! This is starting to be more fun then previous replies....
As stated many times above, I simply keep asking "where's the meat???" behind this statement. Where is the details to support this info????
For some "example meat" that I keep asking for (to believe the RDV is the worst vehicle for roll overs), surf:
http://safety.eas.ualberta.ca/node/89
Within this article, notice its many columns, its many different catagories (vehicle design, people driving style, driving conditions, etc. etc.) and its many different 3rd party "drill down" links. Drill down info that I can link to and further read more details. Details written by different people. When I read this online article, I can determine "for myself" if I believe their study. Not only do they explain why, where, when and how, they also show 3rd party aticles - supporting their own data.
Perhaps I'm from old school of "show me, then I will believe" attitude. Perhaps I've gotten BSed too many times before from high level lettice statements - and no meat to back it up. If somebody states "my product is best" or "my product is most dangerious", the author needs to explain in. Period. I've yet to see "any meat" the RDV is the worst vehicle for roll overs. What a minute??? Perhaps the 15 Passenger van is the worst for roll overs. Was the 15 passenger van tested against the RDV model??? (if they test cars against pickups against mini-SUVs, I hole they included Vans as well). I wonder. Can't tell unless I "see the meat" behind one's statement...
.
Examples of "more meat" are:
http://www.dot.gov/affairs/nhtsa1605.htm
Notice how other vehicles score different then the RDV.
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2002/04/18/039007.html
Notice how other vehicles score higher then the RDV.
OK - who's test is correct??? I don't have a clue. And I don't really care. I don't have a favorite of one publisher over another.
With all these stats and many more, I would then "overlay them" together. And, do some stats ontop of stat scores myself. If the Mustang, Ford 150 Pickup, 15 Passenger van or even the RDV had the "most dangerious consistant" pattern in a safety category (like roll over risk) then, I would take notice.
I would then ask myself... Is there anything "I can do" do reduce this risk myself??? Stuff like better tires, better shocks or other low cost improvements. Is upgrading the item worth it - to me? And like many, I would buy the "upgrade parts" (out of my own pocket) that I feel would eliminate that specific safety / performance increase risk.
If one person stated "xxx brand is the worst", I expect that author to show their details. And if I cannot see a "proven pattern" from their supporting info or "a pattern" from drill down info from 3rd party "same tests", then sorry to say... I dismiss that single article.
.
This thread is beginning to sound like those old Wendy's commericals where the old ladies keep saying "where's the beef?"...
You are a very smart person and very down to earth. My humble appologies for my first poke (at you) - which starting the many back and forths in this thread. Thanks for teaching me many things. Things I didn't realize before. Hopefully, you will continue to reply to posts on this Edmunds forum. Your contribution does help many. Again, humble appologies for "sparking the bust of email frencies". As some would say, the one's we learn to respect the most is the one's we often battle the hardest with. Thanks for forcing me to expand my knowledge. Especially in the Auto safety area.
.
spike99. Well, looks like I finally met my match. I mean, if you ask my wife, anyone around me, I'm always the one who has to have the "last word" in an argument. I never would have thought I would have given up, but with you, I did! haha. So I finally found someone on this earth who is more stubborn and hard-headed than myself. I don't know if that is a good thing or a bad thing because I'm still stubborn, but I think I try to think my way out of a corner, and argue my points in a logical fashion... You on the other hand are just plain persistent, and I finally met my match when it comes to being persistent! But anyway, it's been fun discussing this issue and I had fun with the subject, and you helped me in a way hone my arguing skills and my written communcation skills also. As you know, however, I tossed in the towel and let you have the last word -- You won! haha. Anyway, yea, no offense meant in any of this... It was fun. Thanks for the compliments. I also admire your persistence... Good luck in life!