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

[r0tor]

Yeah, no.

Yeah. No

[Cookie Monster]

Yeah. No

It's OK, we know you're just trying (and failing) to justify purchasing a vehicle that will roll over or blow out its tires in a simple maneuver.

[r0tor]

Somehow I don't think most buyers are going to give a damn about this test

[2o6]

It's OK, we know you're just trying (and failing) to justify purchasing a vehicle that will roll over or blow out its tires in a simple maneuver.

Renault Kangoo, Citroen Berlingo.

[mzziaz]

Somehow I don't think most buyers are going to give a damn about this test

They will if a moose winds up in front of them 

[r0tor]

Explain this . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0tYD_nIoJk&feature=youtube_gdata_player. 

[r0tor]

And I don't have the air suspension like the moose tester, so i guess I will survive

[Cookie Monster]

Explain this . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0tYD_nIoJk&feature=youtube_gdata_player. 

That JC wasn't fully loaded up when it was tested?

[Tave]

A moose aint that big. I suppose you could slide under it with lots of luck.

Yeah, it sounds like BS, but I suppose it might be possible if everything lined up right. I think our moose are bigger too.

I dunno; this is apparently the first vehicle in years they've had fail so catastrophically and consistently...

It sounds like there's conflicting reports, so we probably won't know the whole extent of the story until they iron out all the details.

Yeah, no.

I'm just speculating here, because I've driven a ZJ, WJ, and WK but not the WK2, but even the WK felt like the older models. They trend towards on-road comfort but Jeep makes a conscious effort to retain the off-road prowess that made them so popular. To that end, they're extremely stiff, have high centers of gravity, lots of body roll, sharp turn in, short wheel-bases, and a lot of suspension travel. All those things make for a competent off-road vehicle but they compromise the Cherokee's ability to perform emergency highway maneuvers at speed.

I've had a lot of recent seat time in the 2010 WK and although it rode nice it also felt really twitchy and had a ton of body roll compared to other SUVs in its class. That's not by accident, Jeep designed it that way on purpose. It's not a "shitty" suspension, but it does demand respect and an awareness of its limitations.

Like I said, I can't comment on the WK2 directly, but given my past experience with the model it wouldn't surprise me at all if they were prone to rollover. I don't think that's necessarily bad design so much as a natural result of what they're trying to accomplish.

[r0tor]

That JC wasn't fully loaded up when it was tested?

Maybe just to an everyday realistic weight...

[2o6]

Small cargo vans pouplar in Europe also fail the test.....and they're low to the ground (reletively)


Renault Kangoo

http://youtu.be/aAuwd4vrT9E

Citroen Nemo - it actually flips over

http://youtu.be/LcM9hkWrImU

Toyota Hilux

http://youtu.be/aZF8N9NItHI

[mzziaz]

Small cargo vans pouplar in Europe also fail the test.....and they're low to the ground (reletively)


Renault Kangoo

http://youtu.be/aAuwd4vrT9E

Citroen Nemo - it actually flips over

http://youtu.be/LcM9hkWrImU

Toyota Hilux

http://youtu.be/aZF8N9NItHI

Those cars lack ESP.

[CJ]

But they still shouldn't flip over.

[mzziaz]

But they still shouldn't flip over.

A car flipping over with ESP is even worse 

[Secret Chimp]

Explain this . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0tYD_nIoJk&feature=youtube_gdata_player. 

It's still all fucking bobbly even with one person in it.

[280Z Turbo]

How does electronic stability control prevent chassis roll?

And why is not having it suddenly a safety hazard? I've never had it and I've never caused an accident on the road.

[r0tor]

How does electronic stability control prevent chassis roll?

And why is not having it suddenly a safety hazard? I've never had it and I've never caused an accident on the road.

Because in this "test", the driver slings it to the left, has the backend slide out and then with no regard to chassis dynamics - slings the car hard to the right.  So the vast majority of the chassis disturbance is the ass end sliding on the first turn... which can be lessened with a more nanny stability control.

[280Z Turbo]

Because in this "test", the driver slings it to the left, has the backend slide out and then with no regard to chassis dynamics - slings the car hard to the right.  So the vast majority of the chassis disturbance is the ass end sliding on the first turn... which can be lessened with a more nanny stability control.

The only thing it can do is make the car turn less. Which may or may not be a good thing.

[Galaxy]

Because in this "test", the driver slings it to the left, has the backend slide out and then with no regard to chassis dynamics - slings the car hard to the right. 

They sling back to the right "with no regard to chassis dynamics" because in this test you are not only avoiding the moose you are hurrying back into your lane to avoid colliding with oncoming traffic.

[mzziaz]

They sling back to the right "with no regard to chassis dynamics" because in this test you are not only avoiding the moose you are hurrying back into your lane to avoid colliding with oncoming traffic.

Or to avoid driving off the road 

[Raza]

Or to avoid a second moose. 

[Secret Chimp]

Most drivers have no clue about "chassis dynamics."

Non-car-people talk like they're driving experts because they've heard the phrase "turn into the skid." That's about as high-level as you're going to get.

[r0tor]

Most drivers have no clue about "chassis dynamics."

Non-car-people talk like they're driving experts because they've heard the phrase "turn into the skid." That's about as high-level as you're going to get.

If people feel the ass end of the truck come around, the average Joe is not going to crank the wheel as far and fast as possible like is done in this test

[mzziaz]

No more straws to grasp!

[Secret Chimp]

If people feel the ass end of the truck come around, the average Joe is not going to crank the wheel as far and fast as possible like is done in this test

This is to simulate one of the worst possible accident avoidance situations, i.e. a situation where you MUST crank the wheel fast to avoid a collision. Moose! Left! Car! Right! Guardrail/ditch/cliff/Sarlacc pit! Left!

You're also ignoring the two other cars that barely showed a hint of any kind of upset compared to the JGC in the same test. The JGC still bobbles around (and fucking BLOWS TIRES) even when loaded down 200-300lbs lighter down to Chrysler's supposedly "correct" specs. It's a poorly-damped suspension. Is it particular only perhaps to a Euro-spec diesel? Maybe. But it's not defensible.

[Tave]

This is to simulate one of the worst possible accident avoidance situations, i.e. a situation where you MUST crank the wheel fast to avoid a collision. Moose! Left! Car! Right! Guardrail/ditch/cliff/Sarlacc pit! Left!

I think that's true, but maybe for different reasons. It's just a test designed to figure out the speed it takes to crash the car doing a specific maneuver. For some, that speed is higher than the GC's, and they rarely tip over, but they're still spinning through the cone guardrail and flying off the edge of the imaginary cliff.

They drive to speed and sharply overcorrect twice in rapid succession and opposite direction. If you do that too fast you wreck your car. They start out slow, then go faster and faster until the car "wrecks." They call it the "Moose" test; they could rename it the, "Oh shit I didn't see that 1500 lb object in the middle of road until too late" test.

[Galaxy]

I think that's true, but maybe for different reasons. It's just a test designed to figure out the speed it takes to crash the car doing a specific maneuver. For some, that speed is higher than the GC's, and they rarely tip over, but they're still spinning through the cone guardrail and flying off the edge of the imaginary cliff.

They drive to speed and sharply overcorrect twice in rapid succession and opposite direction. If you do that too fast you wreck your car. They start out slow, then go faster and faster until the car "wrecks." They call it the "Moose" test; they could rename it the, "Oh shit I didn't see that 1500 lb object in the middle of road until too late" test.

No, they do not try to find the limits of the car. The test is driven with set parameters. The "moose test" is simply a more poetic description for the standard ISO 3888-2 severe lane change manoeuvre test.

[r0tor]

All this conclusive test data, and not a single complaint from any other test, magazine, or owner... I'll risk to keep on driving it

It's a ridiculous test representing the .001% of times an owner would ever have the vehicle loaded to max combined with the .000001% chance time they have to swerve at that speed in those confines.  Load up a xc90 to 7000 pounds and let's see what happens....

[Tave]

No, they do not try to find the limits of the car.

That's exactly what they do, they test how fast they can drive through a cone obstacle. Eventually every car fails. Here are the highest posted speeds in the test from the testers themselves.

http://www.teknikensvarld.se/2011/06/12/14314/algtestet--resultat-bil-for-bil/

[r0tor]

Seems to me the JGC's speed is faster then most of the other trucks and suv's on that list...