Isuzu commercial trucks are very highly regarded by owners for their long life, economy and driveability. This translates into a very desirable 4WD reputation. Toyota obviously became terrified of them when Isuzu's 4WD sales started rising. The big boys play dirty
1995 Trooper Limited owner here. It's a tank. It's pushing 208,000 miles and going strong. Handles like a tank and as safe as the driver. Unbelievable vehicle. Awesome.
This same test by consumer reports they claimed the 2002 Ford Explorer was not rollover prone and instead just slid predictably with all 4 wheels. The same Ford Explorer model with a catastrophic record for rolling over and killing many people.
If they made the first gen troopers again EXACTLY the same as they were in the 80's they would sell like hotcakes. Right now there virtually aren't any off road vehicles made outside of trucks and large SUV's. All the rest are station wagons they call crossovers.
Yeah, mine has the button too, and I like being able to see more by not sitting on the floor like on our Maxima forces you to be. But I like a truck like vehicle anyway. Mine's a 2000 model.
Thank you very kindly for posting this. As a longtime 1994 Trooper owner, I can safely testify to the Trooper's amazing stability in real world driving. Even in my (too fast) high speed off road driving and extremely steep hillclimbing, I have never once felt like I was going to tip over ir become unstable at any point. THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE. Consumer Reports only tells what they get PAID to tell. I wont go so far as to say Toyota PAID them off, but would not doubt it if they did!
in my opinion, i have never had problems with mine, iv'e spun out on and have never flipped, I love my trooper it's 21 years old and i plan to maybe get another one once shes done.
Since 1986 I've only driven Troopers. Am on my 3rd one, & will find a used one if I ever have to replace my '02. They are underrated vehicles - rugged, safe & reliable. Consumer Reports can kiss my ass.
Isuzu should have sued Consumer Reports. I've owned two Isuzu's they were great vehicles. Audi should have also sued 60 Minutes for their unintended acceleration episode.
Consumer Reports in the 1990's was neither neutral or impartial, they had a prejudice against many Japanese imports while continuing to recommend big American SUVs and trucks. They conveniently failed to report those cars that were seriously dangerous when it came to rollovers, the Ford Bronco II, the Jeep CJ 3-5 in particular. When Suzuki sued CR over its unrealistic tests of the Samurai other groups began examining other off road vehicles and determined that while the Samurai had no higher rate of rollover than any other regular car, the cars listed above (Bronco, CJ) had significantly higher rates of roll over during normal on road driving conditions, the Bronco being a particularly bloody killer due to its narrow wheelbase giving it a very high center of gravity and no standard roll bar, the investigations were so damming that Chrysler/AMC withdrew the entire CJ line and introduced the lower-wider Wrangler and Ford redrew the Bronco II. However CR later turned a blind eye to the Broncos replacement, the Ford Explorer (which surprisingly reused the much of the Bronco IIs underpinnings, including the narrow wheelbase) when reports of blowouts and rollovers began being reported, all through that controversy CR continued to list the Explorer as 'recommended'. Ford did eventually introduce an upgraded Explorer with a wider stance. I have no faith in CR based on these and other issues over the years. BTW I owned a Suzuki Samurai for 10 years, it was utterly stable the entire time in all weather, they are today still very very desirable by serious off roaders for its small size and abilities to into places no oversize SUV could ever hope to enter. Drove it all over the place, never should have sold it.
This test by consumer reports included the 2002 Ford Explorer which they claimed was not rollover prone and instead just slid predictably with all 4 wheels. You know, the same Ford Explorer with a catastrophic record for rolling over and killing many people.
Bought new Trooper in 1993. It is still my daily driver today. One rainy evening I nodded briefly upon approaching a curve and suddenly realized I was heading into a ditch....turned hard left....Trooper spun out 180 degrees, never even leaned much and all four tires remained on the pavement at all times. Of course, mine is a 1993, and the CR issue highlighted the 1995-1997 models. The video is convincing in that the test by CR was biased. This was established in the law suit that found that the CR test was not convincing, but also found that CR was reporting bad information but had no vendetta against Isuzu (freedom of the press issue). So both sides won, in a sense. Isuzu did not get $244 million in proposed losses and had to pay court costs. The NHTSA saw no reason for a Trooper recall. However, the damage was done and sails plummeted from 25,000 to 700. Trooper was eliminated from U.S. markets by 2002 and all Isuzu passenger vehicles gone by 2008. Maybe CR should have gone for broke and done the same bogus tests on Isuzu trucks, then Isuzu would no longer have a presence in the U.S. My Trooper has over 120,000 miles and no major problems.
This is the reason Troopers didn't sell well in America. This report proves nothing wrong. In fact, it shows the Trooper performing these tests well. Consumer Reports trashed the reputation of Japanese imports in favor of vehicles from the big three. Sad, because I own a Trooper that is 22 years old and it's hands down the best SUV I've driven.
Did you watch the video? There is nothing to fix, there never was a handling problem, the problem was with the test and how it was conducted. If your vehicle has an Auto Trans, I'd be more concerned about that, it's perhaps the weakest link on 2000 and up Troopers and Rodeo's, change the fluid often, might want to install an A/T cooler. Also watch for a "sudden increase" in oil consumption, in other words check the oil level every 1,000 miles, even if it "normally" isn't low.
Consumer Reports called a vehicle the worst car ever built in May and six months later named it car of the year. That's when I threw it in the trash and never bought another one.
I just picked up a 96 trooper with 176000 miles last week and couldn't be happier. I was looking at older Land Rover's, Jeeps and Land Cruisers, can't touch one for under 10 grand. Found the Trooper for $1900 and $660 for a set of mud tires, perfect offroading,canoe carrying, muddy dog transporting 4x4.
Got my Trooper S stick shift in Feb 1996. When it turned 20 years old in 2016 I had the timing belt changed which is the only mechanical work it's ever had done. Still going strong. Thank you Isuzu.
I have owned 5 of these amazing vehicles. I have a 2001 now that drives and handles just about like new. I would put there durability against any other even a Toyota. I wish they were still available here in USA. I like the look and handling, great for off road.
Request your permission to use a portion of this video in one of my YT videos. Attempting to show how reliable my 26 year old Trooper has been. Thanks in advance.
The trooper was seen as a threat by the major car manufacturers, so the false claims were made. That's pretty typical of the industrial sector in the usa
Capricornascendant mainly a threat to the 4runner, because the trooper was larger, more powerful, more capable, better equipped, more practical, just a better suv in general. Toyota didnt like that so like they been doing for years, they slipped CR some money and told them to make the trooper look bad. The second they said a 4runner could handle better than a tahoe, i knew CR was busting everyones balls
Wanna add in on to this comment section about my own Isuzu Trooper. Thing is a goddamn tank. My sister ran it in to the ground and gave it to me not running; little bit of work and got her back on the road. That was 8 1/2 years ago and still running strong with 500k miles on the engine. 93 SOHC 3.2L godbless this car. Trooper title earned appropriately.
I never thought that Consumers Union/Report is this vile. I'll never again subscribe to this company's publication or believe in their reports. THEIR DISPARAGING OF THE SUZUKI SAMURAI IS SO SICKENING IT MAKES ME VOMIT!
By the late 1990s, Consumer Reports had already disgusted me. A few years later, CU tried to do similar scenarios to Toyota Landcruiser, Land Rover Discovery, Dodge Ram pickup, and Ford Excursion.
I m running Isuzu trooper 1994 here in India. And it's head turner on road and eye opener on off road. All suv kisses the ass of my favorite. They always see her tail light
That pisses me off! Poor Trooper. They aren't as sophisticated in some ways, and you can tell on some Troopers, especially the earlier ones that their goal was a simpler and less expensive answer to some SUV's, but they indeed get the job done. I'll admit mine feels tippy and leans softly as you turn quickly, but their design makes them suddenly hang in there further than you think, and handle well. It's an odd duck but it's fun to learn their ways and go on trails with them.
Goverment bribetakers at work. And how is an unskilled driver going to avoid making these steering inputs during a panic situation? . 20 years later we have the 737 max.
Very informative AKA they were hating on Isuzu for some reason maybe to boost the sales of other cars and Holt outside vehicles. Either way it was not cool when doing a report it should just be done and let the facts be the facts I'm glad Isuzu spend the money
Anyone notice they didn't actually show the lane change on the Toyota? Just a clip from one spot to the other? Also notice the huge over steering? My trooper didn't handle like that.
?? The original is a box, this one much less so. These had curves on boxy sheet metal. All the rage for the 90s and no different from today's body on frame SUVs.
I love my Holden Jackaroo/Isuzu Trooper/Isuzu Bighorn/Caribe 442/Acura SLX/Chevrolet Trooper/Subaru Bighorn/SsangYong Korando Family/Honda Horizon/Opel Monterey/Vauxhall Monterey/Holden Monterey. Yep, that's how many different badges this 1 vehicle was given. Whatever you want to call it, my big 3.1 turbo diesel beast is awesome for off-road adventure, towing or just cruising, BUT it is a big, heavy, tall vehicle. i.e. an SUV and as such, not a great highway vehicle. They're built for off-roading not racing. Check this out -> vimeo.com/59514384 Basically SUVs have a high centre of gravity over a comparatively narrow base of support. They tend to roll over when turning at speed. It's just basic physics. The car manufacturers don't want people to know this as they make huge bank on SUVs, so they wage war on anyone who gives the consumer the knowledge to make a more informed decision about their vehicle choice. Big business always puts money first and if you believe any different then you've been brainwashed.
hallwagner Exactly, or Land Cruisers, or LR Discoverys. They too have high centers of gravity & they can all roll over if steered too sharp - which is the problem with the CR test. They turned the wheels way too sharp & Isuzu proved it in their lawsuit against CR. Reliable but unverifiable word has it Toyota paid CR a huge sum to run that article with false data b/c they knew Isuzu was eating market share.
I own a isuzu trooper 1999 and it has tons of problems , mine has 135,000 on it and the transmission went out the starter went out i had to replace intake manifold gaskets i had to replace a ignition coil and fuel injectors and the eltrical just went out , so fuck you isuzu company ! And on kelly blue book with less than 100,000 miles in perfect condition they are worth about 3,000 dollers
2:04 You're telling me some soccer mom Jenny could pull that off? That's obviously a stunt driver up to this point, and even with the driver those wheels are about the rip to pieces. I don't think so.
i rolled my trooper in ice a few years back complete with wife and kids and must say very safe no glass broke all passengers where kept very safe all four wheel drives have body roll i would defo own another trooper
If it were up to consumer reports, we would all be driving the same boring cars. CR wants all automakers to transform their specialized vehicles into boring vehicles.
Bueno ellos podrán decir lo que quieran, pero en comparación a que, basan sus pruebas técnicas, yo no vi otro auto en situaciones similares como para poder comparar y decir ¡cierto este auto es inestable y peligroso!, porque entonces como avalan pruebas con autos en verdad sumamente peligrosos como el shelby, el viper y el hemicuda, uno se pregunta como es que les permitieron seguir produciendo y vendiendo estos ataúdes rodantes, acaso porque eran de manofactura estadounidense o porque?
It's not quite that simple. The jury found Isuzu to be correct in their claims (the ones made here) and that Consumers Union knowingly published false information. The jury did not award monetary damages because they did not believe it was done maliciously. In the end, Isuzu won the argument, but walked away no richer for it.
Everything I said was true. Isuzu sued for monetary damages. Isuzu was not awarded monetary damages. Hence, Isuzu lost regardless of how they tried to spin it. Also, your use of the word "knowingly" makes your statement false. Had that been the case, Isuzu would have won monetary damages.
Again, you're oversimplifying a situation in which Consumers Union was found to be the transgressor, but was not punished monetarily simply because the entire jury didn't feel that had evidence to prove mens rea (though most apparently did-see link below). It's fair to say probably should not have used "knowingly" as broadly as I did, as there was only one of the eight counts in which the jury found CU to have knowingly made a false-and reckless-statement (in stating that Isuzu should never marketed the Trooper). But they did indeed find that. The stated reasons that they did not award Isuzu money because they found CU's statements were not made (or could not be proved to have made) maliciously, or had not caused (or could not be proved to have caused) damage to Isuzu (though Trooper sales had dropped in the wake of the article), and denied Isuzu money for those reasons alone. All of which seems odd, I'll give you that. But that's what they did. They also, though, did acknowledge that CU's statements about the Trooper were false. They were clear about that. CU was adjudicated to be wrong about the Trooper. You're right, in that Isuzu sought monetary damages, and failed (though, apparently, narrowly-again, see link below). That money would have been nice. It would have paid the legal fees and added some much needed funds to Isuzu's paltry advertising budget. However, that was not Isuzu's primary goal, as it never is in such corporate defamation cases. The main thing was to restore consumer confidence in Isuzu and their products, so they could continue to sell them unabated. They stood to make a lot more from selling Troopers and Rodeos than they did from collecting payments from CU. In the end, neither party was substantially hurt by this sad mess. Isuzu's buyers were not long swayed by the "toaster testers", and Trooper sales recovered quickly. Consumers Reports' loyal readers apparently overlooked the vindication of a niche vehicle made by a niche company entirely. The only parties greatly affected were the lawyers, who profited handsomely. Here's a fairly level rundown of the verdict: www.nytimes.com/2000/04/08/business/no-clear-winner-in-decision-in-isuzu-vs-consumer-reports.html And here's the less charitable (but fun to read) take referenced above: www.overlawyered.com/april-2000-archives-part-1/
It was a defamation lawsuit. Making a false statement in and of itself is not defamation. For it to be defamation they would have had to KNOWINGLY made false statements with INTENT to cause harm. The fact that there was no proof of this is why no damages were awarded. You may also want to refer to the last few paragraphs of your article. Here is a direct quote: "Indeed, the jury rated as ''true'' the cover of the October 1996 magazine, which carried the big headline ''UNSAFE'' over a photo of the Trooper tipping on its side, as well as a statement saying the Trooper had ''a dangerous propensity to roll over in our emergency avoidance maneuver."
