Howdy, Stranger!

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

Rendezvous Suspension Upgrades



  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    Most people don't want to spent time and money trying to upgrade a new car they just paid a lot of money for. Or they'd rather buy a NAV or RES instead of shocks or struts.

    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.
  • "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."

    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.
  • "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."

    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).
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    I should have said "make their SUVs safer."

    "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."


    When it rains, it pours:

    markphil, "2002 Buick Rendezvous Class Action?" #68, 30 Sep 2007 7:47 pm
  • As I've already said, I think the CXL and Ultra models at leaset from 2004 up have "side airbags" and a traction control system.

    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...
  • steve, it appears your linked article is different than the one I linked. Yours shows the methodology used and may answer some of spike 99's questions. Basically in the article you linked, it says they are using SCORE's methodolgy and evaluation, not only IIHS and NHSTA.

    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."
  • Anyone interested in knowing why FORBES rated the RDV as #1 most dangerous, or why it has 3x more of a fatality rate than a smiliar sized Hyundai or Kia minivans, can go to the following website. It appears Forbes had based their ratings completely on the SCORE ratings....
  • If you click on "ranking lists" you will see that the Kia van they refer to has side airags and ESC. And it is rated at 51.

    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.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    I haven't been to that site for a while - he's done a big make-over. In spite of Forbe's use of his methodology, the SCORE ratings haven't made much of a splash out in the real world. The plus is he tells you how he comes up with the ratings.

    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:
  • "The plus is he tells you how he comes up with the ratings."

    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...)...
  • steve, you said: "I should have said "make their SUVs safer." "

    If you click on informed for 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...
  • spike99spike99 Posts: 239

    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...

  • Spike99,

    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...
  • " In spite of Forbe's use of his methodology, the SCORE ratings haven't made much of a splash out in the real world."

    Steve, if you look under (III) Predicting Fatality Rates, on the home page of informed for, 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.
  • Taken directly from informed for life's website:

    "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."
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    People around the forums mention the IIHS and NHTSA star ratings, crash test results and rollover numbers pretty frequently.

    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."
  • okay, i did a serach for my other vehicle, a toyota tundra. I feel like I'm in a "TANK" when in that vehicle, yet SCORE comes back with worst 10% for that one too. Very interesting. I know for a fact I've been rear ended, the other car looked totally damaged but my bumper didn't look like there was a scratch. Plus my ride height is so high I don't think side impact is really an issue.

    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...
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    Note to self. Don't go car shopping with Hawaiianguy. :D

    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.
  • score says that SAB and ESC reduce fatality by 45% and 43% respectively.

    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)...
  • "Note to self. Don't go car shopping with Hawaiianguy."

    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...
  • "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."

    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.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    Nissan revamped a lot of the minivan in the months after the initial crash test and the scores did improve. Even though quality of a brand new first year model isn't much of an issue anymore, you can get ahead of the curve on crash testing if you buy a new model.

    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.
  • "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?). "

    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..?
  • spike99spike99 Posts: 239

    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...

  • "They are stating "the what" but fail to state "the why", "the when" and how to prevent this pattern under the same test conditions."

    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.
  • "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... "

    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....
  • "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??? "

    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??
  • spike99,

    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.
  • "The last time it got mentioned outside the forums was in May of 2006 (and guess who mentioned it ) link."

    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...
This discussion has been closed.