You are here: Forums SUVs Buick Rendezvous Rendezvous Suspension Upgrades

Rendezvous Suspension Upgrades

132 messages,  Last post on Jan 06, 2008 at 7:26 PM

You are in the Buick Rendezvous Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester

What is this discussion about? Buick Rendezvous, Suspension, SUV

Messages Page 9 of 14 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 14 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#73 of 132 Re: Credibility [hawaiianguy] by tidester HOST Sep 30, 2007 (2:33 pm)
Replying to: hawaiianguy (Sep 30, 2007 1:14 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.   tidester, host SUVs and Smart Shopper
#74 of 132 edmunds does not appear to do their own rating - NHSTA is a LOW BAR by hawaiianguy 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.
#75 of 132 misprint by hawaiianguy 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? Replies to this message: tidester (Sep 30, 2007 2:45 pm)
#76 of 132 Re: misprint [hawaiianguy] by tidester HOST Sep 30, 2007 (2:45 pm)
Replying to: hawaiianguy (Sep 30, 2007 2:36 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!   tidester, host SUVs and Smart Shopper
#77 of 132 not apples against apples by hawaiianguy 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??? by spike99 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?   .
#79 of 132 which rdv?? by hawaiianguy 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. Replies to this message: spike99 (Sep 30, 2007 4:03 pm)
#80 of 132 weighing in by steve_ HOST 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? by hawaiianguy 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...
#82 of 132 Re: which rdv?? [hawaiianguy] by spike99 Sep 30, 2007 (4:03 pm)
Replying to: hawaiianguy (Sep 30, 2007 3:41 pm) .   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???   .

Messages Page 9 of 14 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... 14 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums SUVs Buick Rendezvous Rendezvous Suspension Upgrades