Jeep Grand Cherokee fails "Moose Test," Chrysler insults testers

[Galaxy]

The JGC is a very capable off-roader, so there shouldn't be an expectation for it to perform the same as a 911.

Obviously. However rOtors line of argumentation seems to be that it is unfair that the 911 gets higher marks for handling then the GC, since the 911 can carry much less cargo. Therefore the GC should win by default.

[Galaxy]

Oh come on, any vehicle that has the real world advatage of being able to haul a load of crap is automatically put in a gigantic disadvantage in the test... its crap

The Touareg V6 diesel, can haul  more then the GC V6 diesel (762kg vs. 602kg) and it has no problems in the test. 

[ifcar]

On the other hand, it did fail that test pretty spectacularly, repeatedly. I think that's worth noting that fact, and if you're a soccer mom, maybe it's worth paying attention to it.

I think this is a fairly important point. It's not just about what the car was designed for (off-road capability) but what most buyers will actually use it for (driving it like a car.) Especially because it's now more of a smooth luxury vehicle than ever -- it can pass for a crossover, at least until you need to swerve.

[Raza]

A lot of you guys are looking at this thing like it's a typical car. That's why the Volvo did so much better-- it's a car, not a truck. The JGC is a very capable off-roader, so there shouldn't be an expectation for it to perform the same as a 911. I've driven the previous generation GC (WK, I guess) 4000+ miles this summer already, and probably 10,000 miles before that. Compared to a car, it handles like ass, of course, but it's a lot better than the full-size trucks we often drive. The JGC is also at least as capable in most real-world (i.e. not a mud pit or literal boulder field) off-road type situations as, for example, the old Dodge 2500s with huge tires.

On the other hand, it did fail that test pretty spectacularly, repeatedly. I think that's worth noting that fact, and if you're a soccer mom, maybe it's worth paying attention to it.

If any OMG ITZ A TERRIBLE CAR conclusions are to be drawn, we should do it after comparing these results to those from, say, an XTerra, or some other off-road ready SUV.

In a recent long term study by the Sweisskagg Institute of Automotive Excellence, the Volvo XC90 was shown to be the third most capable four door SUV when it came to offroad endeavors, falling behind only the Mercedes G class and the Land Rover Range Rover.  The Jeep Grand Cherokee finished a strong fifth.  However, it should be noted that during their accident avoidance tests, the Jeep Grand Cherokee performed marginally better than it did here, but still failed the three-tier-cake test (the test scenario is built around transporting a wedding cake quickly to a "bridezilla" type). 

[r0tor]

Damn those bridezillas...

[LonghornTX]

In a recent long term study by the Sweisskagg Institute of Automotive Excellence, the Volvo XC90 was shown to be the third most capable four door SUV when it came to offroad endeavors, falling behind only the Mercedes G class and the Land Rover Range Rover.  The Jeep Grand Cherokee finished a strong fifth.  However, it should be noted that during their accident avoidance tests, the Jeep Grand Cherokee performed marginally better than it did here, but still failed the three-tier-cake test (the test scenario is built around transporting a wedding cake quickly to a "bridezilla" type). 

What kind of offroad endeavors? I can't imagine an XC90 being more capable than a GC with the correct suspension...

[ifcar]

Um, guys, I think he made that up.

[LonghornTX]

Um, guys, I think he made that up.

Haha ok, I thought that might have been the case

[Rupert]

In a recent long term study by the Sweisskagg Institute of Automotive Excellence, the Volvo XC90 was shown to be the third most capable four door SUV when it came to offroad endeavors, falling behind only the Mercedes G class and the Land Rover Range Rover.  The Jeep Grand Cherokee finished a strong fifth.  However, it should be noted that during their accident avoidance tests, the Jeep Grand Cherokee performed marginally better than it did here, but still failed the three-tier-cake test (the test scenario is built around transporting a wedding cake quickly to a "bridezilla" type). 

Ha, good one.

[Rupert]

I think this is a fairly important point. It's not just about what the car was designed for (off-road capability) but what most buyers will actually use it for (driving it like a car.) Especially because it's now more of a smooth luxury vehicle than ever -- it can pass for a crossover, at least until you need to swerve.

Aye. It's pretty easy to see the whole thing as an affront to off-road SUVs, but it's nothing new there, and most people who buy most off-road SUVs don't use them for off-roading.

IMO, the solution is for people that just need to drive Jimmy to the orthodontist should buy something else (like a goddamn station wagon), not re-engineering the JGC to ruin its off-road ability.

[2o6]

Then they'd only sell like two.

[Rupert]

Meh.

There were plenty of good options for people that needed an off-road SUV before SUVs became the soccer mom vehicle of choice. I'm fine going back to that.

[2o6]

There still are options.

[Rupert]

Didn't say there aren't. Rather, my comments regarding the JGC might lead one to think that I think the opposite.

[Tave]

Yeah, I don't buy it either, unless you're riding a ridiculously low sportbike.

Like I said, it would have to be low but 4 feet isn't beyond the realm of imagination. I still think it's BS, but might be theoretically possible.

[r0tor]

Aye. It's pretty easy to see the whole thing as an affront to off-road SUVs, but it's nothing new there, and most people who buy most off-road SUVs don't use them for off-roading.

IMO, the solution is for people that just need to drive Jimmy to the orthodontist should buy something else (like a goddamn station wagon), not re-engineering the JGC to ruin its off-road ability.

True... and i enjoy my off road ability

[MX793]

Like I said, it would have to be low but 4 feet isn't beyond the realm of imagination. I still think it's BS, but might be theoretically possible.

Typical repli-racer sportbike (GSX-R/ZX-R/CBRR) is 44-45" tall, with the top of the windscreen being the tallest point.  Even laying flat on the tank, the rider's head is probably going to be 5-6" above the windscreen.

[Rupert]

I think you can expect 3.5 - 3.8 ft under the belly of a very large moose in AK.

[Raza]

Um, guys, I think he made that up.

It's been a while since I've brought up the Sweisskagg Institute. 

[Morris Minor]

My kids were taught on defensive driving courses (& rehearsed) to swerve around "surprise" objects in the road; the given scenario was a refrigerator falling off the back of a truck in front of you. Brake as hard as you can ("try to break off the brake pedal") & let the ABS do its magic as you steer around it.

[Atomic]

Allpar has a really good synopsis and although generally (but not always) pro-Chrysler Corporation, I like the reference from the German publication and the highly regarded safety rating cited in the U.S. There is also something called "driver error" and also "Murphy's Law" -- more importantly is what appears to be an isolated innocent... Regardless of the source of the problem.

[nickdrinkwater]

Some of the vehicles I'd feel comfortable hitting a moose with:







Otherwise, I'm swerving. 

Even better, one of these

[giant_mtb]

Even better, one of these

It's crazy to think that was constructed in 1978.  And that a similar machine was completed in the late '50s.

[AutobahnSHO]

WHAT do you even use something that big on???
Seems like the bother building it you could just do whatever with regular machines/trucks...