What do you think is underrated

[c flyness]

 

[tr1ll]

NOT having kids.

 

[c flyness]

Loyalty

 

[ninjahood]

Suzuki sidekick/samurai

joints look like mini G-wagons.

exposed hinges, boxy, utilitarian, small AF to park...love these joints.

 

[deleted]

Suzuki sidekick/samurai

joints look like mini G-wagons.

exposed hinges, boxy, utilitarian, small AF to park...love these joints.

Always heard these things were rolling death traps from the factory

Modified versions look safer and tuffer tho

 

[ninjahood]

Always heard these things were rolling death traps from the factory

alot of it was automotive journalist slander, Suzuki sued and won a settlement, but da damage was already done.

too bad, because da newest one is bad ***.

 

[SC kid]

what year is that

 

[ninjahood]

what year is that

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_Motor_Corp._v._Consumers_Union_of_the_U.S.,_Inc

.


Suzuki v. Consumers Union was a 1996 lawsuit initiated by Suzuki of North America against Consumers Union, filed eight years after their magazine Consumer Reports gave a very unfavorable and much disputed review of the Suzuki Samurai, deeming the Samurai "not acceptable" in their ratings.

LawsuitEdit
External image
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]

"A 1988 Suzuki Samurai topples over during a safety test sponsored by Consumers Reports magazine" at Wall Street Journal[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Suzuki hired Failure Analysis Associates (FaAA, now Exponent) to perform the initial investigation on the roll-over issue. FaAA was critical of Consumers Union's testing procedure and indicated to other factors such as the type of tires and driver behavior that may have contributed to roll-overs. Because of FaAA's report, Suzuki filed a libel suit against Consumers Union in 1996, eight years after the publication of the test results in Consumer Reports, on the grounds that the statements made by CU damaged their reputation and the reputation of their vehicles.[3] Suzuki sued for $60 million in damages and unspecified punitive damages for what Suzuki claimed was willfully fraudulent testing.[4] However, after an 8-year legal battle and several dismissals of Suzuki's claims against CU in Federal courts, CU and Suzuki settled out of court through mutual consent in 2004.[5]

SettlementEdit
In the settlement, CR agreed that it "never intended to imply that the Samurai easily rolls over in routine driving conditions."[6] A joint announcement of the settlement stated that "CU and Suzuki disagree with respect to the validity" of CU's tests. "Suzuki disputes the validity" of the tests, and "CU stands by its test protocol and findings."[7]

According to CU, Suzuki internal documents indicate that the company was aware of the Samurai’s rollover problem. A Suzuki memorandum dated July 14, 1985, stated: "It is imperative that we develop a crisis plan that will primarily deal with the ‘roll’ factor. Because of the narrow wheelbase, similar to the Jeep, the car is bound to turn over."[8] Over the years, over 200 Suzuki Samurai rollover lawsuits have been settled, and Suzuki's own expert witnesses testified the automaker was aware of 213 deaths and 8,200 injuries involving Suzuki Samurai rollovers.[8]

 

[youngwolf]

Margot Robbie doesn’t get enough recognition for her acting chops.

 

[aepps20]

Our PRESIDENT ELECT's appearance. He is probably the most handsome president we've ever had but his decisiveness and leadership takes away from his Handsome appeal.

 

[c flyness]

 

[Aiden1024]

Patience

 

[NToweG]

NOT having kids.

This tho....

& establishing a career before establishing a family...

 

[Sonny Corinthos]

A good fish sandwich

 

[NToweG]

This tho....

& establishing a career before establishing a family...

 

[moderndarwin]

El pollo loco.