Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
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
You're still qualified! Most engineers cannot balance their own checkbooks. Consider also that most firms employing engineers often have armies of accountants. Coincidence?
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
That's not so far out of the question, considering they make "cheesecake" ice cream, which to me is a bit more sour, than it would be sweet like cotton candy flavor or something.
Anyway, being that it seems are an "OEM Purist" how far are you willing to take this ideology? Are you assuming EVERYTHING the factory did was for a reason, therefore, you are not willing to deviate at all from factory choices?
How about these ideas:
1) You would stick with conventional oil because that's what the car came with and you would not switch to synthetic even though it is shown to be better?
2) You would replace your tires only with factory tires because the factory chose that brand/model for a reason. You would not choose a tire that had a better rating or better reviews if it was not a factory choice.
3) You would not add an aftermarket accessory like an IPOD adapter even though they are now starting to put them in 2008 cars and the only way you can add one directly into the factory stereo is to buy an aftermaket one.
You know I just recently added a Bazooka (aftermarket) subwoofer to my other vehicle (a toyota truck), and it works great. It fills in the bottom end nicely. And you know what? They designed the subwoofer to fit in a smuggler's boot (about 3' long by 1' wide and 1/2' deep. And this boot was originally designed (OEM) as a storage compartment. The aftermarket company designed a custom enclosure so that it fits snug an flush in the open space and a wiring harness that taps into the OEM wiring (very easy install).
And you know what? Does it bother me that some "sound engineer" from toyota didn't orginally design this unit? Not one bit. What matters to me is it works and it makes good use of a space I would not otherwise be using. OEM intent was to use it as a storage space, an aftermarket designer came up with a more creative idea.
Being aftermarket, it isn't a "factory engineered" solution, but to me it works pretty good.
As with all aftermarket items, the aftermarket companies do do their own "engineering" taking into account the existing OEM system. Like you said, it may not be as comprehensive as OEM, but, I don't think it's like putting something in your car that totatlly does not match or that was not in any way designed for it. The people who design aftermarket stuff do put some thought into it, if that is your concern.
I also added an aftermarket IPOD adapter to the rdv which works great! It connects into the factory radio, charges the ipod, and even displays the artist and/or song text on the radio display! I'm very happy I was able to find it and it was my ONLY option since the factory does not make anything like this.
Like my question to get a firmer suspension, aftermarket is my ONLY option. If I was an OEM purist like you, then I guess I would be forced to sell the car and buy a new BMW, Infinity or Porsche (or saturrn vue) SUV instead huh. But I'm not, so I think that leaves me more options than just replacing my car...
Anyway, I know I am NOT going to convince you otherwise.. So I'll stop trying now! haha.. But like you pointed out, this is a fun discussion.
I appreciaite the good points you made on your side, but like you, I'm probably not changing my mind either.
Enjoy your ride too!
lol, not hardly. I can barely balance my checkbook. "
Yea, I take that back. actually, come to think of it, I think an engineer would be more apt to tinker with their car. I actually knew an engineer who I was discussing things about with the porsche. He had one too and he was all into modifying the car. Engineers love to tinker because they understand cause and effect of what they are doing and can appreciate the principles that make things work and tweaking them.
Even more extreme, the racers who are into racing understand these concepts so well, that they have absolutely no problem tweakng their race cars to suit their individual driving style and tastes.
As far as your concern that you could tweak something and it would result in a bad result, all you have to do is test drive the car (at or near it's limits) to see what results the changes made. If you don't like the changes you can always put it back the way you found it. Although racers change things in principle, I think a lot of what they do is from trial and error too.
I guess most rdv owners would not go to that extreme...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oversteer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Understeer
I rant around here all too frequently about how much better conventional oil is than it was a decade or two ago. The 3,000 mile oil myth drives me nuts. I think synthetic oil is a waste of money in a family car. I run dead dino out to 7,500 miles generally, depending on what my owner's manual says.
OEM tires I'm not fond of - those things seem to go out to the lowest bidder for sure. I've never swapped OEM tires out before they wore out though.
I also enjoy visiting friends who are audiophiles and saying "does that sound a little clipped in the high end to you?" Hours later they are still adjusting the dials.
I don't do iPods or cell phones or Bluetooth, so I can't help you on the AUX stuff.
Some of the racing technology does trickle down to family cars. But those racers are not only tweaking the suspension, they are playing with all sorts of arcane stuff - tire setup, body panel height above the track (within the rules), tuned coil tensions, etc. That aftermarket strut that works so well on the track may do fine on the street until I try to do something unusual, like take a right turn.
You should go track down Paisan who hosts the Speed Shop Tuning and Modification board. He's got a race car or three and lots of good ideas for tweaks.
and yes, i do have an "audiophile" friend who tells me mp3's are backwards as far as sound quality. but hey, to my regular ears they sound fine to me.
i'm really not that all into racing but i don't like that the rdv is pretty unstable at high speed emergency manuvers. i just wanted to try and improve that if i could. whether or not it would be as properly done if engineered, i dunno. maybe i get lucky, maybe not but my thinking is that any improvement is better than now.
anyway, to each his own right? it is kinda hard to ignore the responses on here especially when I get an email notification that someone posted a response and a link in that email taking me to where I can post an immediate reply.
anyway, thanks for the courtesy of your response. i think that even if people don't think alike that doesn't mean that one is wrong and the other is right. sometimes that is the case. and many other times both sides have a little bit of truth to them.
talk to you later..
as far as your position that the "cost" is expensive, consider this: I am told that synthetic oil can last anywhere from up to 12k or 15k or so. What I have been doing on my work truck is changing the oil "every other" and filter at every interval. Thus, if factory says change oil at 5k, I change only the filter at 5k and top off with synthetic. at 10k, i change oil and filter. Being that synthetic is a little more than double the cost, this pretty much offsets the cost and makes the cost around the same as if I was running dyno.
i think in order to really tell if 3k was a "myth", you'd really have to get an oil analysis done at 3k and at 7500 miles. then you'd really know for sure if you are overextending the life of your oil.
i read something on the internet about a guy that was doing tests on his sythetic and he said at 12k it came back as still good. I'm not so sure dyno oil would too, but I think you're making a lot of assumptions if you haven't done testing at 7500 miles or at least read of someone who has done it to verify that synthetic oil is still good at that interval.
of course, even if you heard of someone's oil being good after tested at that interval, isn't a sure thing. if their driving habits and conditions are different, it won't mean squat if you are trying to gauge if yours will still be good at that interval.
although i myself haven't done oil analysis either, I'm pretty confident that at 10k the synthetic is still good. I personally would not be so sure at 7500 conventional would be, especially since the "old school" way of thinking was every 3 months or 3k to change oil...
assuming synthetics have an approximately equal life, maybe one can run say a 5w-30 or 10w30 for 15k???
this is just an idea -- i just thought that if you switched to synthetic, you may be able to run it for 15k miles and change oil filter every 7500. cost wise it would not be that much more than running dino because with dyno you are changing it ever 7500.
So, it would appear to me that the forbes article may apply only to the CX and might not apply to the CXL and ultra models. Since the article said it was basing it's ratings on 1) side impact, 2) stabilitrac and 3) roll over, it would appear the CXL and ultra models eliminate at least 2 of the problems.
So my thinking is if anything the article is really talking only about the base CX models as being "most dangerous". Unfortunately, the article really doesn't seem to make this clear. I have a CXL myself so finding this new info does put my mind a little at ease.
Hope this clarifies any misinformation.
I too find the entire Forbes article a bunch of BS...
Here's why.... If someone writes that a certain model of vehicle or model of motorcyle is "most dangerious", one needs proof. They need direct (something they can "consistantly" prove themselves) and they need indirect proof. Indirect proof is 3rd party info, "realy people" who use the item themselves feedback and general industry feedback.
One can say that any brand of vehicle (or motorcyle or snowmobile or ????) is most dangerious. But I've yet to see any indirect proof that "RDVs are most dangerious" of all other vehicles on the road. MTO/DMVs are NOT pulling them off the road, my insurace rate isn't triple and if you read the "RDV User reviews" on this forum (from say 2002 to 2007), you won't find people complaining about RDV roll overs. You won't find them complaining of driving on 2 wheels around the sharp corner and you won't see "real users" mass complaining about too much "suspension mush" around sharp corners either.
Think of it this way.... If we were all in a gas station putting gas in our own cars and someone yells "FIRE", what would you do? Would one take it as truth and react? Not me. I sit back and go "what minute". How big is it, where is it, what caused it, etc. etc.??? To me, that RDV Most Dangerious aritcle is just like someone yelling fire. Common sence clearly states it is NOT. Where's all the indirect proof to backup their "I stated it therefore it must be the truth" article???? As stated way above, I dismiss that ariticle due to lack of proof and indirect proof. Especially the "lack of" indirect proof that can't support their statements.
.
I agree with your point that if someone yells "FIRE" that it could go either way. It could be a real fire or it might not be a fire. But do you want to take a chance?
I think your idea of looking for indirect proof is a good start. But for you to just read the article and "dismiss it" in what seems to be an "instant" and not doing any thorough or comprehensive research of your own to back up your position, is no better than someone who just accepts that there is a fire without checking either.
In other words, although it may be hasty to jump to the conclusion that the RDV is a most dangerous vehicle based on the forbes article alone, it is ALSO JUST AS HASTY to jump to the conclusion that it is not. I would think it would take a much longer period of time to disprove the article, especially since even though they did not publish their "proof" or the reasons for their conclusions, if you read the articles, it appears they did do their reserach and they are consulting with established safety experts. So in other words, even though they did NOT publish their reasons or their proof, they say it was done.
In conclusion, yes, the forbes article is like someone yelling "FIRE", but according to them, they did see a fire. You on the other hand are so quick to dismiss it, it's like a person who hears "FIRE" but doesn't really check if there is or not. There may very well be a FIRE...
I would be more partial to agree with your positions and conclusions if it did not seem you were so biased against the article and so ready to dismiss it without even knowing why they made the conclusions they did. In effect it seems you are making the decision only based on the lack of direct and indirect proof, as you put it. However, recalls and accident data take time to occur. Who's to say that in the future the accident data won't in fact show the rdv has a higher fatality rate than normal? The whole purpose of yelling fire is so that someone can get out and avoid the fire before it happens, not wait until it is too late.
Therefore, I would say that the article is just a place to start. And because it alleges something that may be a danger to safety and lives, it is worth looking into and checking out, not just dismissing as nonsense, because if they are right, then it could be a big problem. True, they aren't very explicit or clear with their reasons, but just because they aren't clear, doesn't mean they are "automatically wrong".
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....
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
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.
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...
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).
.
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).
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.
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.
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???
.
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
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.
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?
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
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...
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?
.
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.
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.
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...
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???
.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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).
.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
I don't think they do any rollover testing yet. See Q&As: Rollover and roof crush for more.
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.
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!"
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.
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...
Safety sells. Not everyone pays attention to rollover scores or mpg for that matter, but when you are selling a family people mover and grocery getter like the Rendezvous, bad ratings will hurt your sales with a lot of people. In GM's response to the Forbes article, it sounded like GM was going to focus on things like more airbags and stability control to make the RDV safer.
Steve, one of the reasons, no, in fact THE PRIMARY reason I got the RDV at the time is because my wife was pregnant with her first. Before she had a little nissan sentra.
I thought that the RDV, being a bigger SUV, higher impact zone, weight and all that would be safer for her and the child. You can imagine my surprise when that logic is turned on it's head and now SUV's and trucks with higher center of gravity can be WORSE in a single car accident due to potential for rollover. The article says side airbags helps aleviate some of this risk by eliminating imapct with the ground as does stabilitrac, I would presume.
So yes, I think my CXL model does have side airbags and traction control and the article may not be 100% applicable to my vehicle. But there is still the rollover factor.
Ideally, I'd like the "best of both worlds" if possible, that is an SUV like vehicle which withstands the impact of a multi-vehicle crash, yet one that is still worthy of being in and NOT rolling over in a single-vehicle emergncy mauver/crash...
That's all I'm trying to do in making the suspension a little firmer. Because as I said, the RDV was bought priimarly with safety in mind, and if there is any 'chink' in the RDV's armor, my view is that rollover hazard would be it. All I 'm trying to do is fix that chink as cost effectively as possible...
This may not be the case for everyone else, but my whole decision to buy a larger SUV like vehicle like the RDV was for safety. This is why I'm interested in limiting the rollover potential through aftermarket upgrades, if possible.
My understanding is that the RDV is discontinued as of 2008 due to the Enclave which has already been released. Also the article was dated 7/26/2007, so it is not like it is an old article either. If it was dated 7/26/2007 and GM's response was after that, what changes can they make to RDV's which have already been discontinued? Where is this response that you are referring to? (I'd like to see it).
"Alan Adler, GM's safety spokesman, confirms that it's important to look at a wide range of information. "You've identified two technologies [side airbags and stability control] that are important, and we have rollout plans for both," says Adler."
link
When it rains, it pours:
markphil, "2002 Buick Rendezvous Class Action?" #68, 30 Sep 2007 7:47 pm
From a website describing the 04 RDV: "CXL FWD ($30,935) and CXL AWD ($33,140) add leather upholstery, six-way power seats, automatic dual-zone air conditioning, heated mirrors, premium eight-speaker stereo with steering-wheel-mounted controls, separate rear-seat audio controls and headphone jacks, tire inflation monitor, and unique exterior trim. Both FWD and AWD CXL models have side-impact airbags and ABS. Additionally, front-drive CXL's come with traction control."
From another website describing the 2006 CXL (I have a 2005 that has traction control, not sure if it is the same thing as '06): " Air bags for the Driver and front-passenger are standard feature on all Rendezvous variants. In the CXL variant is provided an additional feature in the form of additional air bags for enhanced safety. These air bags are mounted for side impact safety for the driver and front-passenger on the sides of seat. These side-impact air bags have a bearing in reducing the risk of injury in the event of side-impacts on the vehicle. The 2006 Buick Rendezvous is fully equipped with traction control system so as to control efficiently untoward accidents that occur on slippery conditions of road. The traction control on 2006 Buick Rendezvous operates through a powertrain control module (PCM) computer to detect any excessive front-wheel spin and in the event there is undue spin then it makes compatible adjustments in order to enable the spinning tire to regain traction. The traction control is the Buick Rendezvous 2006 ace to arrest slippage in every aspect. The process starts with applying brakes followed by reducing power, which is achieved, by reducing spark ignition to the engine cylinders. At the end of this process the PCM switches the gears thus slowiing down mechanically the rotation. The PCM having accomplished its mission thus returns control back to driver and relinquishes the auto control mode it had taken up to restore normalcy. This would any ways convince any one of the safety and soundness of installed systems in a 2006 Buick Rendezvous."
Okay, based on the above, I think it can be said that certain CXL and ultras DO have traction control (and again supporting my thinking that it may not apply, so I don't know why GM's response didn't indicate this and just say that some of their RDV models DO ALREADY HAVE traction control).
Now the question remains, I think is whether the "side airbags" referenced are the same as "side curtian" airbags. My initial impression is maybe no. I think the curtain airbags protect the head area and the side airbags on my RDV are in the sides of the seats. If I am wrong on this please let me know. So again, maybe that is still one downfall of my RDV...
Hope that helps you spike99.
"Informed for Life releases SCORE (Statistical Combination of Risk Elements) data each year, which combine all the available safety data from the federal government and the IIHS, along with the role of weight and the presence of stability control, into a single number for each particular model, making it easier to compare vehicles of varying sizes or body types.
Related Stories
Ten Ways To Outwit A Car Dealer
Most Expensive Cars In The U.S.
The SCORE is calculated according to the role that each element plays in general fatal accidents. For instance, as about 26% of national accident fatalities occur in a side impact, 26% of the SCORE depends on the vehicle's rated side-impact protection.
The system, which has been implemented for about five years, more closely matches the fatality rate on a model-by-model basis than either IIHS or NHTSA ratings alone. And it's easy to decipher; it's on a scale that's proportional to risk, with the average passenger car ranked 100.
So, for instance, a SCORE of 150 means that the relative risk of driver fatality is 50% higher than for the average passenger car. In the group's 2007 list, the most dangerous vehicle, the Buick Rendezvous, at 161, has more than three times the relative risk of fatality than the Hyundai Entourage and Kia Sedona minivans, at 51."
http://www.informedforlife.org/
The RDV they tested does not have side airbags and does not have traction control. And it was rated at 161.
Therefore, it appears that the SCORE test results of the RDV that FORBES used to say the RDV was the "most dangerous" is a RDV which has no side airbags and no traction control. This would most likely be the CX model.
Unforunately since it appears they did not test a CXL or ULTRA model that DOES have side airbags and traction control, we don't know what the results would be in these cases.
So yes, the FORBES article is "slightly' misprepresenting the fact that "NOT ALL" RDV's don't have side airbags or traction control like the one tested with SCORE on informed for life's website... That is slightly misleading... They should have at least made the distinction that only base CX models were tested for SCORE and that the front-wheel drive CXL and ULTRA models may have a much higher rating (or lower SCORE rating) because they DO have side airbags and traction control as standard equipment.
As I recall, one criticism of that site is that is doesn't give much (if any) weight to the score of a vehicle having ABS brakes, and perhaps some other "safety" features.
[edit] And saying "one model of the Rendezvous" isn't as safe as one model of a Sedona doesn't sell as many magazines. :shades:
spike99, well, if it hadn't been for steve posting that link, i would not have known how they come up with the ratings either.
in any case you got your wish and the website lists very detailed methodology as to how the ratings were obtained...
(it is a bit complicated looking to me so I haven't personally taken the time to try to understand what he's doing.. I basically assume if it was good enough for forbes, then it must make "some" sense...)...