Back in the 80s and early 90s, Suzuki did sell the Jimny in the U.S....branded as the Samurai. Because of its extremely short wheelbase/length/width, and high center of gravity, it quickly developed a well-deserved reputation for rollovers and injuries/deaths, particularly in the hands of young, immature, and inexperienced drivers. Because of constant litigation and a lot of negative publicity, Suzuki pulled it from the American market. There are no plans that I know of to re-introduce it (or the Suzuki vehicle-nameplate) in the U.S., although the company still sells motorcycles here.

When Daihatsu introduced the very-similar Rocky in 1991, they played it smart by making a wider track between the wheels on the American-market version and giving it better stability, although Daihatsu itself did not last very long in the American market, either.

 

First off, the Suzuki was already modified from the Jimny to increase the track width by 10cm. That's literally the only unique thing about the Samurai vs. its Jimny contemporary.

Second, it did not have a "well-deserved reputation" It remained incredibly popular without a statistically-significant number of rollovers compared to any of its SUV contemporaries, until a highly-publicized test that Consumer Reports deliberately rigged to get the results it wanted. When they tested the Samurai in their standard maneuverability/rollover test that they had for all vehicles for 15 years (which some other vehicles had previously failed, earning a "Not Acceptable" rating), it stayed fully planted, even when slaloming at 55mph. So they changed the test course to make the turns sharper, and managed to get it up on two wheels. They then declared victory, and announced that it "easily rolled over in turns". Then they went back to using the original test protocol for all future vehicles. That is BEYOND shady.

Suzuki sued, and the judge found that the language used by CR was misleading. CU’s official statement read that it “never intended to state or imply that the Samurai easily rolls over in routine driving conditions.” and also that the Samurai’s real-world rollover behavior was “within a range with other utility vehicles.” CR also stopped doing rollover testing, leaving that to the professionals at the NHTSA and IIHS who actually know what the F they're doing. But the damage had already been done, and sales evaporated, so the Samurai was removed from the US market, and Suzuki themselves exited a few years later.

 

Much of it actually WAS on Suzuki. This article explains it better than I can.

https://carbuzz.com/news/famously-unsafe-suzuki-samurai

 

It doesn't explain it at all. Not one mention of an actual rollover, or any statistics thereby related. Just the "smoking gun" quote that they should be prepared in the event that some roll over just like the Jeep Wrangler, which they called out by name. Or any SUV of the time, really, considering NHTSA had already found that they were---as a class--nearly three times as likely to roll over as cars, and 50% more likely than trucks.

Here's the real story: https://www.motorbiscuit.com/the-90s...-forgot-about/

If it was so unstable, why did CR have to cheat on their own test to get it to tip? Why hadn't they used such inflammatory language when previous vehicles had failed the "regular" version of the test--which the Samurai passed with flying colors? Why was the test changed to be much more stringent for a SINGLE vehicle, then changed back going forward? Why did they stop testing entirely? Why did no other publication find a problem?

And most importantly, where are the driver death statistics for the Samurai that show that you're 4,000x more likely to die in it than any other SUV or truck that was on the market at the time? They don't exist. Why? Because at the time the lawsuit about CR's hit piece was settled in 1990, there had been a total of 32 rollovers, resulting in eight deaths-one for every 18,750 Samurais that had been sold. But curiously, there was no public uproar or harsh CR criticism about the Jeep CJ-5, which had been involved in 451 rollovers, resulting in 449 deaths. Or the Ford Bronco II, which has been implicated in 826 rollover deaths--one in every 500 Bronco IIs ever made has been involved in a fatal rollover.

SUVs of the time were prone to rollover, period. They still are when compared to cars, though both have improved. The Samurai wasn't "special" in that regard, compared to other options in the market at the time.

 

Wow good stats geko, hard to refute those stats unless there is more to it. What was the reason they seemingly had it out for the Suzuki?

 

Well, ya'll got it.

Suzuki Jimmy it is!

No idea if it's a good truck or not but it''s doing good in the looks department so far, IMO.

 

OK, Folks....what's this one?

Hint......It had a reputation for relatively decent handling during a period when most cars handled like boats.

 

That’s a Hudson but I’m not sure if they were all called Hornets. Famous for racing in those days, 1950-53. Nice hubcaps eh?

 

Yep...early 1950s Hudson Hornet.

The Hornet did well on the NASCAR tracks for several reasons, but primarily because of the lower center of gravity compared to many other cars, which, of course, gave good handling and less body roll.

 

 

That's a Volvo P1800S, circa 1968 I believe. I had a classmate in high school ('68-'69) whose father (very rich) bought him one as a birthday gift in '68 (my other "rich kids" friends all got musclecars for their b'days, but I had to save money for 3 years, to get a used '67 Dodge Monaco 500 2-dr hardtop, for my senior year in '69, as a middle-class sorta guy...my Dad helped a little, though).

I had another classmate with an old Volvo PV544, and later on, a friend with a '73 Volvo 142E (which I copied, by buying an identical '73 Volvo 142E in the dark green, in 1977). I wish I still had it; old Volvos were fun and mostly reliable (though I had a problem with the Bosch D-Jetronic system).

 

Yup!

Great looking little car.

 

The large (308 inch) six didn't hurt the racing either. A lot of kids would have recognized it from the movie 'Cars'.

 

My brother-in-law had a BMW 735, the battery was under the rear seat.

 

Good one @Photon440 !

I should've caught that one since I love the Cars movies.