"Stability Shouldn't Be Optional"

[Ming]

Stability Shouldn't Be Optional
AUGUST 30, 2004
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY
By David Welch



Detroit lagged in SUV rollover ratings -- and that's a problem it knows how to fix

Rugged, tough, and as safe as a steel cage. That's the image millions of consumers have bought into for a decade as they made sport-utility vehicles the most popular ride on the road. Drivers feel secure riding up high above everyone else, and they feel safer knowing that their SUV will come through a crash better than, say, a Mini Cooper. Even though it costs $60 or more to fill up a big SUV these days, sales are still humming. Good thing, since Detroit earns the bulk of its vehicle profits from trucks and SUVs.

Now those profits, already under pressure from foreign competition, could be threatened by new concerns about safety. On Aug. 9, the National Highway Traffic & Safety Administration issued its rollover safety test results. Chevrolet's Tahoe, scored near the bottom, with three-star ratings -- out of a possible total of five -- and a 28% chance of rolling over in a one-vehicle accident. General Motors Corp. GM's Saturn Vue SUV failed the test, prompting the auto maker to recall 250,000 of them. Meanwhile, with a few notable exceptions, SUVs built by foreign auto makers generally fared better, since most of them are built not on a high-riding truck frame but on a carlike chassis.

So, once again Detroit is behind the technology curve, right? Actually, no. The Big Three have the gear to make their money-makers less likely to flip, including electronic stability systems that can stop a vehicle from sliding or tipping. Right now, such technology is a pricey option on Big Three trucks. But with NHTSA's ratings about to become a potent marketing tool and the agency planning to start testing more car-based SUVs, GM, Ford, and Chrysler need to make anti-rollover technology standard if they are to fend off the likes of Honda, Nissan, Subaru, and Volvo, which topped NHTSA's list.

Ford Motor Co.'s problem is particularly acute. It recovered from the rollover fiasco involving its Explorer SUV and Firestone tires. Now the safety of the same SUV is being called into question all over again. The Explorer ranked second-to-last.

Article Here

Also See: GM Adds Stability Control to 15 passenger vans

[SUPERBADD75]

once again, the safety nazis are here! everyone knows high center of gravity equals higher rollover risk. don't drive your SUV like a moron, and you'll be better off. as far as crashes go, there is a move toward curtain airbags in most SUVs, and that will help protect occupants in a rollover. SUVs and trucks protect against hip and torso injuries in an accident because they ride higher, and in a side impact the occupants are generally above the impact, however there is a higher risk of rolling the vehicle. there is a trade off in EVERY situation. why do people just not get it? they're trying to urge people out of SUVs because they hate them, and it's just ignorant. allow people to choose what they want, and quit bashing them over the head with fuel mileage numbers and crash tests. we all know about this stuff, and we're going to drive what we choose to. get over it!

[ByTheLake]

Originally posted by SUPERBADD75@Aug 13 2004, 09:23 AM
once again, the safety nazis are here! everyone knows high center of gravity equals higher rollover risk. don't drive your SUV like a moron, and you'll be better off. as far as crashes go, there is a move toward curtain airbags in most SUVs, and that will help protect occupants in a rollover. SUVs and trucks protect against hip and torso injuries in an accident because they ride higher, and in a side impact the occupants are generally above the impact, however there is a higher risk of rolling the vehicle. there is a trade off in EVERY situation. why do people just not get it? they're trying to urge people out of SUVs because they hate them, and it's just ignorant. allow people to choose what they want, and quit bashing them over the head with fuel mileage numbers and crash tests. we all know about this stuff, and we're going to drive what we choose to. get over it!

Agreed.

The article title complains that stability controls shouldn't be optional, yet the article also adds that these systems have a high cost.

Another non-article.

[Butta]

One thing I know is that it's not an option on the vette, it's standard, so there you go. :P

[usa1]

I'm hardly a safety nazi, but I think stability control and ABS should be standard equipment on cars and trucks. These are two significant pieces of accident avoidance safety equipment that are proven to work. The costs of these system would be worth the extra dollars in my mind. You make these things standard equipement and the prices will drop substantially in the volume.

If this is left to the automakers, we will NEVER see complete deployment of this technology. They will use them as ways to justify luxury cars inflated prices.

This article in Business week makes a good case for Stability control. Business Week article.

However, these technologies are useless unless the driver knows what they do and how they feel when they are being used. In the past ABS equipped cars did not do better than none-ABS cars in accident avoidance because people did not know that a pulsing brake pedal was normal. A 5 minute video on this technology and stability control would make the owners comfortable with them. I've forced my wife to lock up the tires just so she could understand how the car behaves when the ABS is activated.

Mark

[ponchoman49]

But Onstar is standard on most 05 GM vehicles. If anything should be moved to the options list it should be Onstar. Onstar won't help me to avoid an accident! ABS and stability would. If the vehicle breaks down I call roadside assistance on my cell. Most people that I have seen with Onstar don't renew after the first year but maybe it's different in the bigger cities.

[SUPERBADD75]

I'm hardly a safety nazi, but I think stability control and ABS should be standard equipment on cars and trucks. These are two significant pieces of accident avoidance safety equipment that are proven to work.

yeah, they are proven to work, but the biggest piece of safety equipment in any car is the driver. the one thing that would greatly reduce accidents in any vehicle in any part of the world is driver prudence. if people would learn to drive their respective vehicles in a safe manner, then there would be little reason for all of these stability control devices. the problem with SUVs isn't the lack of stability control, it's the drivers who fail to drive responsibly. even with stability control, these things are top heavy, and prone to tip a lot easier than a road hugging coupe, or even a sedate family sedan. it's simply the physical characteristics of these vehiles that make them roll. even with some kind of stability control, if you try to drive an Escalade like you would a CTS, it's going over. plain and simple. driver's education doesn't go far enough, and the first thing to do to keep people on the road safe is teach them to drive safely. no number of electronic stability control systems will make any car completely safe, but the total attention of a safe driver can come close.

[Swahili]

One bad feeling I have about systems such as stability control, is that the morons who drive their high centre of gravity trucks and SUV like they're race cars, might or will be more inclined to do so knowing they have a technological stability control system. For some people, it offers a false sense of security which will aide in the continuous misuse of large vehicles such as SUV's as sports cars. Sure, they can be great for the person who ends up in an unfortunate situation where the system can help, maybe prevent an accident and in extreme cases save lives.

[BigAls87Z28]

You know, when you take a "fish hook" turn at 50mph+, your best bet is NOT to be in an SUV. This test is rather stupid. Its an SUV, its gunna be top heavy, its not going be all to well in the turns.
cant wait to see this...

Detroit Fails Free-Fall Drop
random anti-detroit press
The NHTS's review of the Big 3's free-fall drops are surprising.  The Chevy Tahoe, when dropped from a hight of 500ft, failed to survive and was destroyed on impact.  Toyota's truck was not tested, as the NHTS explained that they have seen the Toyota commercial where the people drop the car off the cliff, and it remains intact.  "We were so amazed, that we did not want to test the Toyota line of trucks" says one NHTS offical.  GM has no quote, stating that this test was by far, the dumbest idea ever in the history of saftey.

[jro4566]

Originally posted by ponchoman49@Aug 13 2004, 11:09 AM
But Onstar is standard on most 05 GM vehicles. If anything should be moved to the options list it should be Onstar. Onstar won't help me to avoid an accident! ABS and stability would. If the vehicle breaks down I call roadside assistance on my cell. Most people that I have seen with Onstar don't renew after the first year but maybe it's different in the bigger cities.

I agree. While it is nice to have OnStar in an accident, especially in the middle of nowhere, I could still use my cell. Also, GSM technology is evolving to where you can be traced no matter where you are!

[88montess]

why is it I can't find Toyota Land cruiser any where ever being tested if any thing is prove to rolling that tall thing sure is.

And why no test on 04 Toyota Sequia, well I did find 2003 results on Sequia SAME 3 STARS AS TAHOE. so why do domestics again always get singled out. I'd klike to know how much Toyota puts into not getting there trucks tested.

I'm so tired of the imports enjoying the succes of trucks with none of the negative press concerning safty or fuel econmy. GM full size SUV's have almost 50 more horse power and according to (2005) ratings 2mpg more then Toyota SUV's including 4runner.

Please someone explain why Toyota was not tested! Heck I don't see Nissan Armada or Titan on any tests either!

[GreyfoxGM04]

I'm curious, how do they actually do these tests? Do they purposefully try to flip the vehicle and the number of times it does thats the precentage level? And if its anything like that, how many idiots are going to try to do something similar in an SUV? Do the people who hate these SUVs because they kill so many in a roll over also know that the biggest difference between a non-fatal and a fatal roll over (besides the obvious) is the usage of a seatbelt? I'm gonna go on a limb here, but I don't think we should make these cars safer but more dangerous so we can take out the idiots and give natural selection a chance. I drive my truck (GMC '88 k3500 sierra, reg. cab, long bed, 454, turbo 400, 4.10 posi) because I know I can handle it, if you can't handle a large vehicle like that, do us all a favor and stay the hell off the road.

[cincygoblue]

Originally posted by Ming@Aug 13 2004, 08:13 AM
So, once again Detroit is behind the technology curve, right? Actually, no.

The Big Three have the gear to make their money-makers less likely to flip, including electronic stability systems that can stop a vehicle from sliding or tipping. Right now, such technology is a pricey option on Big Three trucks.

and later in the article . . .

If auto makers can't get buyers to pony up the extra $800 for such gear, it hits the bottom line. But eating a few hundred bucks per vehicle is a far cry better than failing to boost safety -- and giving their rivals the edge.

How biased is this guy's wording? He didn't say, "so the Detroit Automakers surely have a technological response for this issue, right?" Nope he says, "once again Detroit is behind the technology curve, right?" Uggghhhh. Besides 1 or 2 areas like hybrids, where are the Japanese Automakers ahead of the technology curve? Biased, biased, biased.

Then he goes on to say that the item is pricey! But he wants to have automakers pay for something consumers won't "pony up" to. This guy must have been short of ideas for a story when he received his deadline. :type: :plasma:

[Swahili]

I drive my truck (GMC '88 k3500 sierra, reg. cab, long bed, 454, turbo 400, 4.10 posi) because I know I can handle it, if you can't handle a large vehicle like that, do us all a favor and stay the hell off the road.

Amen to that.

[monkeylizard]

How many times do you see women driving down the road putting on makeup? or someone with a burger stuffed in their face? or talking on a cell phone. People try to blame much of their accidents on the manufacturers but refuse to look in the mirror and see that the number one cause of accidents is driver error and irresponsibility.

Wake up people! Drive safely!