Last post on Jan 06, 2008 at 7:26 PM
You are in the Buick Rendezvous
What is this discussion about?
Buick Rendezvous, Suspension, SUV
#72 of 132 Edmunds safety review...
Sep 30, 2007 (2:20 pm)
Ok - let's chat about reviews. 2007 against 2007 (apples against apples).
Forbes gives the 2007 RDV the worst rating. Actually, #1 worst rating of 20 other vehicles. To me, that's a 5 our of 5. (assuming 5 is the worst). Worst is enough ammunition to "pull her off the road".
NHTSA Ratings (on Edmonds own board) gives the 2007 RDV a 3 out of 5. For more details, surf: http://www.edmunds.com/new/2007/buick/rendezvous/100721288/safety.html
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???
#73 of 132 Re: Credibility [hawaiianguy]
Sep 30, 2007 (2:33 pm)
Yea, that too Steve.
Let's not put words into Steve's mouth. As far as I know he hasn't weighed in on this issue yet.
SUVs and Smart Shopper
#74 of 132 edmunds does not appear to do their own rating - NHSTA is a LOW BAR
Sep 30, 2007 (2:33 pm)
"Between Forbes and Edmunds, who is correct? What is the rating for the 2007 RDV? Who is the official test authority when it comes to car safety tests??? "
Edmunds did not do their own rating. I looked at your link, and it appears all they are doing is posting the NHSTA data. Again, the NHSTA is a GOVERNMENTAL BODY, and in accordance with my preivous posts, like I said, their standards are LOWER than most maufacturers right now which are EXCEEDING NHSTA standards. It appears car manufacturers are LIGHTYEARS ahead of the NHSTA if for example, they have been offering stabilitrac for several years now, which the NHSTA admits is the biggest safety development since the seat belt, but won't be mandating it until 2012, almost a DECADE after it was introduced.
I believe the FORBES article plainly stated that they were using the CRITERIA of their own PRIVATE safety experts, not GOVERNMENTAL STADARDS.
Again, you are comparing apples to oranges. The FORBES article is based on HIGHER standards of the manufacturers and not the lower standards of the NHSTA. Just because the RDV is rated as the 'most dangerous' vehicle by FORBES private experts, does not mean that it is going to be the "pulled off the road" when evaluated against the NHSTA's LOWER AND MINIMAL standads.
Which brings me to another VERY IMPORTANT the point. If you were going to decide whether to buy a vehicle, would you evaluate that vehicle on the HIGHER standards of the FORBES article or would you use the LOWER AND MINIMAL standards of the NHSTA?
I don't know about you, but I'd rather go with higher standards than lower ones when it comes to MY SAFETY... Who cares if the RDV meets the minimal standards of the government? With safety, MORE IS ALWAYS BETTER. And the higher you set the bar, the more it benefits you. Which is exactly what the FORBES article has done -- they are not simply relying on the LOW BAR set by the NHSTA and which you cite to.
Sep 30, 2007 (2:36 pm)
"Let's not put words into Steve's mouth. As far as I know he hasn't weighed in on this issue yet. "
If it wasn't steve, then it was tidester. My mistake if I am getting you guys confused because you guys both have "host" under your name. In fact, every time I saw a post by a host, I thought it was the same person. My mistake for the confusion.
Just correct my previous post to say "Yea, that too Tidester". At least I have the concurrence of you that FORBES is generally respected, correct?
#76 of 132 Re: misprint [hawaiianguy]
Sep 30, 2007 (2:45 pm)
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!
SUVs and Smart Shopper
#77 of 132 not apples against apples
Sep 30, 2007 (3:00 pm)
"Ok - let's chat about reviews. 2007 against 2007 (apples against apples)."
Spike99, for the reasons stated in the previous posts, the NHSTA data you cited to on edmunds is NOT comparing apples to apples as you claim when compared against the FORBES ratings.
It is more like comparing apples to oranges which is why you are getting getting confused and the logic of your conclusions are not 100% sound...
#78 of 132 What rear range???
Sep 30, 2007 (3:29 pm)
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?
Sep 30, 2007 (3:41 pm)
"OK - I'm starting to see how things work.
Does the "#1 - RDV is the most dangerious vehicle" classification from Forbes only apply to 2007 RDVs?? Does it apply to previous years?"
The FORBES article is vague on this. Just as it is vague whether their conclusion applies to ALL Rdv models or only the base CX Model.
My personal interpretation, which I believe is a reasonable one, is that ALL model CX RDV without side impact protection and traction control would fit into their "most dangerous" category. Again, they said those 2 critera were their primary focus in addition to rollver potential.
But again, this would only be an assumption and it is very hard to tell what FORBES meant, or which makes and/or model years their classification covers because they did NOT specify which model years or makes of RDV.
Note, they do NOT even specify whether their rating is for 2007 only or for previous years, HOWEVER, I personally believe it is logical to assume their rating does cover previous years as long as it is the same body style and the car does not have traction control or side impact protection.
Sep 30, 2007 (3:46 pm)
That was a pretty interesting conversation I just didn't have.
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.
#81 of 132 possibly CXL and ultra previous to 2004?
Sep 30, 2007 (3:48 pm)
forgot to mention, my research only showed that CXL and Ultra from 2004 up had traction control and side airbags.
I am not sure if previous year CXL and Ultra models also came standard with side airbags and traction control. If they did not, then perhaps those previous year CXL and Ultra too would fit into the most dangerous vehicle category..
I'm basically saying I don't know what was standard in the RDV models before 2004...