Talk:Suzuki SJ

The second and third paragraphs, which discuss the 1988 Consumer Reports review of the Samurai and Suzuki's subsequent lawsuit, seem blatantly biased for Suzuki and against Consumer Reports. All of the allegations of misconduct by the editors of Consumer Reports, which appear to be presented as fact here, were thrown out as part of the out-of-court settlement between Suzuki and Consumers Union in 2004. See "Suzuki, magazine settle case". --Aeki 22:23, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I went through and edited the page to remove some of the possibly biased statements. Having driven the SJ413 and read up on the case, should it have gone to court Consumer Reports would have lost. Another examples of such activity would be when Isuzu sued over a supposedly bad report of the.Trooper II

Agreed. Having driven a Samurai for many years, occasionally having to brake hard and perform other 'emergency' maneuvers, I can't imagine how hard you would have to have driven this vehicle in order to flip it. CU is so blatantly biased for certain car manufacturers/against others it's disgusting. Makes you wonder how much money has to change hands in order to earn a 'favorable' rating from them... 68.189.255.6

The new information on the Consumer Reports article needs to be cleaned up as the entry is unbiased. Additionally the entire Consumer Reports VS Suzuki Samurai might want to be moved to a separate article and linked.

Jeffreyhermann, your edits make this article heavily slanted towards Suzuki's POV, and don't even mention the fact the lawsuit is over and done with, has been for a couple of years now, the 2 companies settled. And you didn't leave any comments or cite your sources. Sorry, but it's better with the older version. 68.52.88.131 01:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Altered the paragraph "Samurai" which mentioned the X90 as follow-up; it is only a sidekick with a different bodywork (no live axles / no leaf springs) --80.127.30.154 18:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lawsuit chunk of the article has been restored (spam?), but it is still too biased. It needs rewriting to NPOV. Lavenderbunny 17:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez it got so much worse since the last time I read this article. The Suzuki lawsuit against Consumer Reports was dismissed! If you're feeling insecure about owning a Samurai, install a bigger anti-sway bar, don't ruin a decent car entry with this uncited POV garbage. Dispute flag going up. --Aeki 15:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suzuki vs Consumers Union, redux

I'm out finding sources and I'm going to try and de-POV this section. Does anyone else think this should be split out into another article? Lewis Collard! (natter) 17:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get some perspective, please

This article quite simply has way too much on the lawsuit. Remember the article is ostensibly about the vehicle! If anybody other than the tiny minority with axes to grind even cares to read this tedious, biased narrative, they can do so in a SEPARATE ARTICLE. Can someone please summarise in a paragraph or two and MOVE ON?

There's now nothing about the lawsuit. SOmeone's a Samarui fan. Czolgolz 15:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]