Chrysler claims the vehicle's maximum weight was ignored, testers maintain the door sticker was followed. Supposedly the below near-roll started at only 39 mph! Cars are loaded down to their maximum payload weight for this test.
(http://images.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/07/Jeep-Grand-Cherokee-fails-moose-test-2012-550x366.jpg)
Quote
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/07/chrysler-fails-moose-test-and-breaks-first-commandment/#more-452284
European automakers know that there is only one thing that is worse than Teknikens V?rld fabled moose test, and that is failing the moose test and then arguing with the Swedish magazine. Italy-owned Chrysler is getting that education. Not enough that Teknikens V?rld found the Jeep Grand Cherokee ?lethal in evasive maneuver.?
It now caught Chrysler?s propaganda arm committing a deadly sin in the hoopla business, violating the first commandment of flackery: When you stepped in the shit, don?t walk around the house.
After ?the Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland 3.0 CRD V6 tipped up on two wheels and was close to rolling over in the Teknikens V?rld moose test, despite having packed the car in accordance to Jeep?s specifications,? Chrysler lashed out against the magazine, calling the report ?definitely ?set up,? which is nothing short of criminal.? Chrysler says the vehicle was overloaded by 110 lbs, a claim many overworked and underpaid web editor swallowed and printed.
Not true, says Teknikens V?rld. In a spirited retort that may get more traffic than the original story, and Chrysler in trouble with the authorities, Teknikens V?rld editor Mattias Rabe writes:
?Prior to the moose test we packed the car with four passengers and sandbags with a combined weight of 602 kilos (1 327 lbs) which is the maximum amount according to the cars certificate of registration that has been provided by Jeep/Chrysler to the Swedish Transport Agency, Transportstyrelsen. We proceeded to our test track to conduct the moose test. We immediately noticed that there was something strange about the car?s behavior ? it tended to tip over on two wheels even at low speeds. We accordingly unloaded 100 kilos (220 lbs) out of the car so that the total cargo weight now registered at 502 kilos (1 106 lbs), 100 kilos under Jeep/Chryslers own registered maximum cargo weight. When we hit the track once again ? now at the, for the type of vehicle, low speed of 63.5 km/h (39.5 mph) ? the car went up on to two wheels and nearly rolled over.?
How the test is conducted: Standard evasive maneuver, no moose needed
Not enough that the Grand Cherokee failed the moose test, something that can seriously impede a car?s career in Europe (ask Daimler about the A-class.) Not enough that Chrysler?s public remarks will have attracted the attention of even the laziest lawyer. Spurned Teknikens V?rld now alleges that Chrysler supplied wrong information to the Swedish government, saying that the car weighs ?a full 158 kilos (348 lbs) more than what Jeep/Chrysler claims the car to weigh in the official documentation provided to Swedish authorities.?
Sweden is a member of the EU, the EU has Whole Vehicle Type Approval (a car legal in one EU state is legal in all,) and providing wrong information to one government quickly can turn into a pan-European mess.
Chrysler?s reaction, including the recommendation that Teknikens V?rld editors take ?phosphorous tablets, ?a well-known supplement to support brain and memory? is mean spirited , and it is guaranteed to produce lots of bad PR.
Some may notice that the tires are in a perilous state on that picture. Teknikens V?rld says the moose test was ?conducted with the correct tire pressure for maximum load according to the recommendations provided by Jeep/Chrysler via a sticker on the car?s B-pillar.?
It's pretty alarming that the thing will readily get up on two wheels at just under 40 mph with a heavy load, but regardless of the question of the stated maximum weight being followed or not, Chrysler's reaction is stupefying.
Ha, ha!
Don't fuck with Teknikens V?rld. Chrysler needs to fire some PR persons - and build better cars it seems.
(http://images.thetruthaboutcars.com/2012/07/Jeep-Grand-Cherokee-fails-moose-test-2012-550x366.jpg)
You should tell users to take phosphorous tablets for the next help article you write. That's an awesome response. Was the Chrysler rep drunk?
I don't know guys, there's another article where Chrysler and this company was unable to replicate these results.
Ah yes, the famous moose test.
(http://www.welt.de/img/dc5-images/crop101161062/1890719879-ci3x2l-w580-aoriginal-h386-l0/Elchtest-Mercedes-A-Klasse-DW-Sonstiges-Stockholm.jpg)
That event was responsible for the success of ESP. At the time only the S class had ESP. The failed moose test spurred Mercedes to add it to the A class as standard equipment. Other manufacturers then were forced to follow suit.
I thought it was called the "elk test", not moose test.
In Europe 'elk' = moose. (In Swedish they're called älg if I remember right.)
They don't have the animals we call 'elk' over there.
They should have tested a Grand Cherokee SRT-8. Now there's a track performance machine! :lol:
When you drive a 5,000+ lb SUV, you dont swerve around a moose, you drive through it ... -shrug-
Quote from: 93JC on July 13, 2012, 10:07:42 AM
In Europe 'elk' = moose. (In Swedish they're called ?lg if I remember right.)
They don't have the animals we call 'elk' over there.
Yes.
Impressive!
Quote from: r0tor on July 14, 2012, 08:26:29 AM
When you drive a 5,000+ lb SUV, you dont swerve around a moose, you drive through it ... -shrug-
I don't know. Moose are a lot bigger than deer. And they're tall enough that even in an SUV, their body is likely high enough up to go over the hood and through the windshield (which is pretty much instant death for the driver and front passenger).
Quote from: 93JC on July 13, 2012, 10:07:42 AM
In Europe 'elk' = moose. (In Swedish they're called ?lg if I remember right.)
They don't have the animals we call 'elk' over there.
We don't have your Elk over here. But your elk is refereed to as Wapiti here. Ironically the world wapiti comes from N. America. Some Indian tribe language.
Quote from: r0tor on July 14, 2012, 08:26:29 AM
When you drive a 5,000+ lb SUV, you dont swerve around a moose, you drive through it ... -shrug-
Oops this is a diesel plus 1,300 pounds... thats more like close to 7000 lbs
Still. I would swerve for a moose in 4x4 1 ton mega cab pickup with a grill guard, full load and an 8000 lb trailer. Moose are fucking huge. Without a really sturdy grill guard, I would probably swerve for a deer in the same truck (does depend some on the road). Deer also do serious damage, though they aren't likely to go through the windshield of a huge truck.
Quote from: Galaxy on July 14, 2012, 10:24:39 AM
We don't have your Elk over here. But your elk is refereed to as Wapiti here. Ironically the world wapiti comes from N. America. Some Indian tribe language.
So is the word
moose. They're both from Cree, if I remember right.
Quote from: 93JC on July 15, 2012, 12:37:35 AM
So is the word moose. They're both from Cree, if I remember right.
The origin of the word moose is debated somewhat. soem say its from a shortened Cree phrase for "he strips" (referring to bark, and probably the result of some miscommunication), and some say its shortened from the latin word "animus" meaning the strong one.
Quote from: r0tor on July 14, 2012, 08:26:29 AM
When you drive a 5,000+ lb SUV, you dont swerve around a moose, you drive through it ... -shrug-
No, you most certainly do not. Owing to the moose's leg height, you clear out the legs and ~1,200 lb+ slams into your windshield at the indicated velocity and you die if not get seriously/critically injured if you're doing any sort of meaningful velocity. The windshield and A-pillars aren't designed for that sort of impact.
Quote from: r0tor on July 14, 2012, 08:26:29 AM
When you drive a 5,000+ lb SUV, you dont swerve around a moose, you drive through it ... -shrug-
Sure if you have a death wish
From a paper from the SWEDISH NATIONAL ROAD AND TRANSPORT RESEARCH INSTITUTE
"Four out of five who die after colliding with game in Sweden have hit a moose. The moose appears suddenly and unexpectedly, the driver has little chance to swerve or even break.
The long legs of the moose catch the bumper and knock the heavy animal over the bonnet and into the windscreen. What happens next depends mainly on the make of the car and the impact speed.
The typical moose accident where someone dies or is seriously injured occurs at a public road with the speed limit 90 km/h. The driver is more often than in other accidents sober but has little or no time to react. Primarily the head, neck, chest and arms get injured, both by the moose and intruding parts from the roof and windscreen. A cloud of shattered glass both from the windscreen and side-windows hits the car occupants. Since the moose often penetrates well into the coupe and in addition crushes the roof and windshield towards the occupants, seat belt and airbag make only a marginal improvement, if any. The important factors for the outcome of the accident are the strength and design of the front of the vehicle above the bonnet."
Quote from: r0tor on July 14, 2012, 08:26:29 AM
When you drive a 5,000+ lb SUV, you dont swerve around a moose, you drive through it ... -shrug-
Some of the vehicles I'd feel comfortable hitting a moose with:
(http://www.unimog.dk/billeder/U500artikel/img01.jpg)
(http://www.komatsu.com/CompanyInfo/press/images/2010101511464522814.jpg)
(http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m1a1_abrams.jpg)
Otherwise, I'm swerving.
Quote from: Submariner on July 15, 2012, 03:36:13 PM
Some of the vehicles I'd feel comfortable hitting a moose with:
(http://www.komatsu.com/CompanyInfo/press/images/2010101511464522814.jpg)
(http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m1a1_abrams.jpg)
Otherwise, I'm swerving.
:lol:
Nothing weighing 7000lbs is going to be able to swerve or stop all that well...
Quote from: r0tor on July 16, 2012, 05:29:59 AM
Nothing weighing 7000lbs is going to be able to swerve or stop all that well...
Honestly if I had to choose, I'd swerve and roll rather than hit a moose at speed. I don't have numbers, but I'm pretty sure your chances of survival are higher with a rollover.
Quote from: r0tor on July 14, 2012, 08:26:29 AM
When you drive a 5,000+ lb SUV, you dont swerve around a moose, you drive through it ... -shrug-
:nutty:
Do you not know what a moose is?
Yea I do... I've seen them... And eaten them...
Video:
http://www.teknikensvarld.se/jeepmoosetest-part4/
When the JGC is loaded to Chrysler's specs, it keeps blowing its front left tire.
To spec or not, its suspension behavior is pretty strange compared to the VW and Volvo they show running the same test. You can see how the chassis loads up in the initial turn, then the whole thing practically rebounds itself onto two wheels. Why is it so bouncy? It looks like something my old Dodge would do if I threw on giant torsion bars without changing the shocks.
The XC90 did pretty well for being a 10 year old car.
Holy shit, that is some terrible suspension tuning.
Quote from: r0tor on July 16, 2012, 10:01:46 AM
Yea I do... I've seen them... And eaten them...
You must not have eaten the bones, though. Those are the parts you don't want to hit.
Quote from: Secret Chimp on July 16, 2012, 11:05:15 AM
Video:
http://www.teknikensvarld.se/jeepmoosetest-part4/
When the JGC is loaded to Chrysler's specs, it keeps blowing its front left tire.
To spec or not, its suspension behavior is pretty strange compared to the VW and Volvo they show running the same test. You can see how the chassis loads up in the initial turn, then the whole thing practically rebounds itself onto two wheels. Why is it so bouncy? It looks like something my old Dodge would do if I threw on giant torsion bars without changing the shocks.
Bouncy as fuck. The other cars are planted and look relatively un-stressed. The "yeep" is just out of control.
Damn, the Swedes are fucking Chrysler over pretty good.
Payback for that press release, methinks :lol:
This will hurt sales significantly, at least in Scandinavia.
I drove one of these Jeeps today. It was a 3.6 gas base model. It was a pretty comfortable ride. Nothin' fancy, but it looked great once I was done cleaning it up (only had 9,400 miles on it) and it rode nice. Slow.
Quote from: CJ on July 16, 2012, 11:34:56 AM
The XC90 did pretty well for being a 10 year old car.
...and how much did they weigh it down...
Quote from: r0tor on July 16, 2012, 04:32:35 PM
...and how much did they weigh it down...
Probably the same standard as the Jeep.
Even if the VW and Volvo were laden to their sticker weights, they still look like they're being driven completely empty compared to the Jeep, even after the Jeep's payload was reduced a few hundred pounds below the supposed door sticker (when it went from tippy to tire-popping)
They load it to the max the vehicle can carry... I'd bet the jeep can weigh more
The Jeep is still probably the one I'd buy.
Without a doubt... and mine doesn't bounce -shrug-
Does it clap?
Early on consumer reports complained that the stability control was too "loose" for their liking as it was possible to get the JGC a wee bit sideways. There was a recall to tighten up the thresholds of the system. I wonder if the euro spec models received the retune.
It actually looks like on the initial turn the backend steps out, the driver ignores it and slams the wheel towards the opposite direction for the next turn, and I'm wondering what the stability control is doing at that instant.
The suspension is far from being a complete softy. From my observations, spring rates acheive a bit higher then a 1hz tune which is about where you want a comfortable cruiser that can go offroad. Low speed rebound could be a bit stronger though as its a bit too underdamped for me. However, it was loads better then a lot of other suvs I test drove.
Quote from: r0tor on July 16, 2012, 05:29:59 AM
Nothing weighing 7000lbs is going to be able to swerve or stop all that well...
Last winter I was a passenger in a 2011 Dodge 2500 4x4 crew cab truck with a decent load in the bed and towing > 10,000 lbs, and we swerved around a deer at 65 mph without even breaking traction. It was a similar situation to that for this test-- straight road, but the deer popped out of seemingly nowhere.
Moose are soooo scary. I saw them constantly driving back from Winter Park, CO, usually in the dark. I'm lucky it didn't give me a heart attack, can you imagine what one would do to the poor little Aveo?
Quote from: r0tor on July 14, 2012, 08:26:29 AM
When you drive a 5,000+ lb SUV, you dont swerve around a moose, you drive through it ... -shrug-
No, that's a great way to kill yourself.
Quote from: Rupert on July 16, 2012, 07:13:44 PM
Last winter I was a passenger in a 2011 Dodge 2500 4x4 crew cab truck with a decent load in the bed and towing > 10,000 lbs, and we swerved around a deer at 65 mph without even breaking traction. It was a similar situation to that for this test-- straight road, but the deer popped out of seemingly nowhere.
I would have tee'd him off.
Maybe, I've been known to swerve around deer against my better judgment.
No grill guard?
I haven't hit a deer in 9 years (knocks on wood). One did run into the side of my car a few years ago but that was her fault and she didn't cause any damage so I don't count it.
Quote from: mzziaz on July 16, 2012, 04:07:53 PM
Damn, the Swedes are fucking Chrysler over pretty good.
Payback for that press release, methinks :lol:
This will hurt sales significantly, at least in Scandinavia.
Was Chrysler expecting to sell many cars in Sweden this year anyways?
Quote from: Rupert on July 16, 2012, 07:13:44 PM
Last winter I was a passenger in a 2011 Dodge 2500 4x4 crew cab truck with a decent load in the bed and towing > 10,000 lbs, and we swerved around a deer at 65 mph without even breaking traction. It was a similar situation to that for this test-- straight road, but the deer popped out of seemingly nowhere.
Deer "pop" more often than moose.
Quote from: Soup DeVille on July 16, 2012, 10:44:07 PM
Deer "pop" more often than moose.
Yeah, I don't know that I would have swerved if I had been driving. The top of the hood on this thing was high enough that the deer would have just been creamed corn at the end. Probably would have still damaged the front end quite a bit, but no risk of death, etc.
Quote from: Tave on July 16, 2012, 08:43:33 PM
Moose are soooo scary. I saw them constantly driving back from Winter Park, CO, usually in the dark. I'm lucky it didn't give me a heart attack, can you imagine what one would do to the poor little Aveo?
No, that's a great way to kill yourself.
I would have tee'd him off.
Maybe, I've been known to swerve around deer against my better judgment.
No grill guard?
I haven't hit a deer in 9 years (knocks on wood). One did run into the side of my car a few years ago but that was her fault and she didn't cause any damage so I don't count it.
No grill guard. Too much money, or at least it's perceived that way way by the money bags.
I've never hit a deer, fortunately. Few small rodents and birds, maybe. Only one confirmed strike. My boss completely dismembered a squirrel a month ago when it made it through the truck's tires, but didn't see the huge trailer behind. I was following, and I admit that I laughed a little.
Fun fact: when you hit a deer, you're sent airborne long enough to sing an entire rock song.
Proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaMiVDZu_T4
Quote from: Rupert on July 16, 2012, 11:34:58 PM
No grill guard. Too much money, or at least it's perceived that way way by the money bags.
I've never hit a deer, fortunately. Few small rodents and birds, maybe. Only one confirmed strike. My boss completely dismembered a squirrel a month ago when it made it through the truck's tires, but didn't see the huge trailer behind. I was following, and I admit that I laughed a little.
What a bunch of fascists, they pay for themselves many times over.
Eh, I don't think it's a big deal. IMO, most grill guards just push themselves into the grill and do as much damage as without them, anyway.
Pshaw! You need a custom guard from a shop, not some half-assed pre-fab POS that damages the car.
Quote from: r0tor on July 16, 2012, 04:40:25 PM
They load it to the max the vehicle can carry... I'd bet the jeep can weigh more
You're grasping at straws, here.
The GC has a shitty suspension setup. Period.
Or it has a great suspension for its intended purpose and a not-so-great suspension for executing extreme emergency maneuvers at speed.
So if your car is low enough and you hit a moose, will it go over you?
Maybe I should lower my car some more for the sake of safety.
:devil:
Quote from: thecarnut on July 17, 2012, 10:34:08 AM
So if your car is low enough and you hit a moose, will it go over you?
Maybe I should lower my car some more for the sake of safety.
:devil:
You have to speed up to hit it with enough force to flip it over your car.
Better get a supercharger too.
Quote from: Raza on July 17, 2012, 11:11:43 AM
You have to speed up to hit it with enough force to flip it over your car.
Better get a supercharger too.
Meh, coilovers and a V8 swap would work.
I would like to see this attempted.
For science.
Quote from: thecarnut on July 17, 2012, 10:34:08 AM
So if your car is low enough and you hit a moose, will it go over you?
Maybe I should lower my car some more for the sake of safety.
:devil:
I think I remember an internet story from a couple years ago about a motorcycle rider who claimed to have survived a moose encounter by ducking down and driving under its belly as it stood broadside in the middle of the road. I don't know if there was any truth to it, but I guess it might be physically possible if the moose was big enough, the bike was low enough, and everything lined up perfectly.
Quote from: Tave on July 17, 2012, 10:01:06 AM
Or it has a great suspension for its intended purpose and a not-so-great suspension for executing extreme emergency maneuvers at speed.
Yeah, no.
Quote from: Tave on July 17, 2012, 12:21:48 PM
I think I remember an internet story from a couple years ago about a motorcycle rider who claimed to have survived a moose encounter by ducking down and driving under its belly as it stood broadside in the middle of the road. I don't know if there was any truth to it, but I guess it might be physically possible if the moose was big enough, the bike was low enough, and everything lined up perfectly.
A moose aint that big. I suppose you could slide under it with lots of luck.
Quote from: Tave on July 17, 2012, 10:01:06 AM
Or it has a great suspension for its intended purpose and a not-so-great suspension for executing extreme emergency maneuvers at speed.
I dunno; this is apparently the first vehicle in years they've had fail so catastrophically and consistently...
Quote from: Tave on July 17, 2012, 12:21:48 PM
I think I remember an internet story from a couple years ago about a motorcycle rider who claimed to have survived a moose encounter by ducking down and driving under its belly as it stood broadside in the middle of the road. I don't know if there was any truth to it, but I guess it might be physically possible if the moose was big enough, the bike was low enough, and everything lined up perfectly.
Damn, what kind of bike is low enough to do that?! Maybe a cafe racer or something small.
Quote from: r0tor on July 17, 2012, 02:04:18 PM
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.
Somehow I don't think most buyers are going to give a damn about this test
Quote from: thecarnut on July 17, 2012, 02:05:04 PM
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.
Quote from: r0tor on July 17, 2012, 02:41:15 PM
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 :ohyeah:
Explain this . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0tYD_nIoJk&feature=youtube_gdata_player.
And I don't have the air suspension like the moose tester, so i guess I will survive
Quote from: r0tor on July 17, 2012, 03:55:07 PM
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?
Quote from: mzziaz on July 17, 2012, 01:35:07 PM
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.
Quote from: giant_mtb on July 17, 2012, 01:36:39 PM
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.
Quote from: mzziaz on July 17, 2012, 01:34:19 PM
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.
Quote from: thecarnut on July 17, 2012, 05:00:48 PM
That JC wasn't fully loaded up when it was tested?
Maybe just to an everyday realistic weight...
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
Quote from: 2o6 on July 17, 2012, 08:25:26 PM
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.
But they still shouldn't flip over.
Quote from: CJ on July 18, 2012, 06:08:09 AM
But they still shouldn't flip over.
A car flipping over with ESP is even worse :huh:
Quote from: r0tor on July 17, 2012, 03:55:07 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on July 18, 2012, 10:18:28 AM
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.
Quote from: r0tor on July 18, 2012, 07:53:43 PM
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.
Quote from: r0tor on July 18, 2012, 07:53:43 PM
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.
Quote from: Galaxy on July 19, 2012, 12:27:33 AM
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 :huh:
Or to avoid a second moose.
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.
Quote from: Secret Chimp on July 19, 2012, 10:13:37 AM
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
No more straws to grasp!
Quote from: r0tor on July 19, 2012, 12:07:29 PM
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.
Quote from: Secret Chimp on July 19, 2012, 12:27:19 PM
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.
Quote from: Tave on July 19, 2012, 05:16:06 PM
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.
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....
Quote from: Galaxy on July 19, 2012, 05:24:38 PM
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/ (http://www.teknikensvarld.se/2011/06/12/14314/algtestet--resultat-bil-for-bil/)
Seems to me the JGC's speed is faster then most of the other trucks and suv's on that list...
My dad had an OLDER Cherokee. One of the really square ones. I laughed when I drove it, the visors are full of warnings about a high center of gravity and that the vehicle doesn't handle like a regular car.
Duh.
Quote from: Tave on July 19, 2012, 06:07:08 PM
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/ (http://www.teknikensvarld.se/2011/06/12/14314/algtestet--resultat-bil-for-bil/)
My bad I had memorized that they drove it at highway speeds.
Btw. wtf is the Citroen Xantia doing at the top of the list? :confused:
Quote from: r0tor on July 19, 2012, 06:06:04 PM
Load up a xc90 to 7000 pounds and let's see what happens....
The difference is that Volvo does not allow you to load an XC90 to 7000lbs.
Quote from: Galaxy on July 20, 2012, 12:09:15 AM
My bad I had memorized that they drove it at highway speeds.
Btw. wtf is the Citroen Xantia doing at the top of the list? :confused:
Xantia Activas post some insane grip numbers. There's reports of that car posting over 1g on stock 205 tires.
Quote from: Galaxy on July 20, 2012, 12:09:15 AM
My bad I had memorized that they drove it at highway speeds.
Btw. wtf is the Citroen Xantia doing at the top of the list? :confused:
Active suspension, interesting car.
Quote from: mzziaz on July 17, 2012, 01:35:07 PM
A moose aint that big. I suppose you could slide under it with lots of luck.
You must have mini mooses. Ours are huge. A bull moose will be 7ft (2.1m) at the shoulders and weigh 1500 lbs (680 kg) with an antler spread of almost 6ft.
Quote from: SVT666 on July 20, 2012, 09:58:55 AM
You must have mini mooses. Ours are huge. A bull moose will be 7ft (2.1m) at the shoulders and weigh 1500 lbs (680 kg) with an antler spread of almost 6ft.
I doubt you have moose so large you can drive under it with a bike. That, or you have really small motorbikes.
Quote from: mzziaz on July 20, 2012, 10:24:47 AM
I doubt you have moose so large you can drive under it with a bike. That, or you have really small motorbikes.
No, but the belly of a full grown bull moose will be between 3'6" and 4'0" off the ground.
The premise was that a driver on a motorcycle could just duck and drive under a moose since they are so big, which i doubted.
Yeah, I don't buy it either, unless you're riding a ridiculously low sportbike.
I had a very similar experience years ago in the Passat. Avoid to the left, into oncoming traffic, find a free slot, drive into it, and then over the median. It's mostly instinct at that point, you're just reacting and attacking. I'm predisposed to react in that manner, whereas other people would react differently. So you can't just say "oh an average person wouldn't do this", because you don't know what they would do.
Quote from: Galaxy on July 20, 2012, 12:11:57 AM
The difference is that Volvo does not allow you to load an XC90 to 7000lbs.
So in this great test it carries a fraction of the weight and then is claimed to be perfectly fine because of that... itd a BS test from the get go
Quote from: r0tor on July 20, 2012, 02:34:24 PM
So in this great test it carries a fraction of the weight and then is claimed to be perfectly fine because of that... itd a BS test from the get go
Again, look at what the JGC does even when loaded down to what Chrysler claims is the correct weight. It bobbles around and blows tires.
Quote from: r0tor on July 20, 2012, 02:34:24 PM
So in this great test it carries a fraction of the weight and then is claimed to be perfectly fine because of that... itd a BS test from the get go
Oh noes! The Porsche 911 Turbo
also carried a fraction of the weight the JGC did! This test is full of shit!
:facepalm:
All the cars are loaded up to what the manufacturers max load specifications. Chrysler designed it to carry that much, so it better be able to do so safely at any speed.
Quote from: thecarnut on July 20, 2012, 03:23:51 PM
Oh noes! The Porsche 911 Turbo also carried a fraction of the weight the JGC did! This test is full of shit!
:facepalm:
All the cars are loaded up to what the manufacturers max load specifications. Chrysler designed it to carry that much, so it better be able to do so safely at any speed.
Nothing is safe at any speed
Quote from: Galaxy on July 20, 2012, 12:09:15 AM
My bad I had memorized that they drove it at highway speeds.
Btw. wtf is the Citroen Xantia doing at the top of the list? :confused:
This video explains everything
http://youtu.be/09-C33SrJi8
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
Would a GMC 2500 HD Crew Cab 4x4 be able to pass the moose test?
Probably not...
Hell, why dont they make vehicles also do the test towing their max capacity... cause you never know when one of them damn moose will suddenly jump out
Quit acting as if the Grand Cherokee is the only vehicle sold or tested.
Quote from: r0tor on July 20, 2012, 04:07:55 PM
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
It's not an advantage if it can't carry that load safely. If you don't care about load affecting handling, you can overload something else.
Good, then let's also make the vehicles tow there max during the test to make sure it can tow safely
Quote from: r0tor on July 20, 2012, 02:34:24 PM
So in this great test it carries a fraction of the weight and then is claimed to be perfectly fine because of that... itd a BS test from the get go
No one has said that one should not buy a GC because of this, or that the GC is not a great car. People just want Chrysler to look into this situation to see if something needs to be done.
You are acting like the father of a princess who is upset that princess got scolded because she pulled the plants out of the pots at school.
No, I'm just pointing out its a stupid test and I applaud Chrysler for calling the testers idiots
... the fact that the JGC bobbles around like the shocks are blown and pops tires is the test's fault?
Quote from: Secret Chimp on July 21, 2012, 12:52:11 PM
... the fact that the JGC bobbles around like the shocks are blown and pops tires is the test's fault?
It's a 4x4 off roader. The fact that it makes the turn at all is pretty good.
Quote from: 280Z Turbo on July 21, 2012, 01:17:56 PM
It's a 4x4 off roader. The fact that it makes the turn at all is pretty good.
Exactly
Quote from: Tave on July 17, 2012, 09:02:50 AM
Pshaw! You need a custom guard from a shop, not some half-assed pre-fab POS that damages the car.
$$$
And we get new rigs every five years.
I mean, shit, if I could do what I wanted, they would all get BFGs, custom bumpers/guards, winches, lights, external mounts for shovel, Pulaski, hi-lift, etc. As it is, we're lucky to get LT tires and a discount at the end from the body shop for all the dents and scratches!
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.
Quote from: Rupert on July 22, 2012, 12:36:58 AM
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.
Quote from: r0tor on July 20, 2012, 04:07:55 PM
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. :huh:
Quote from: Rupert on July 22, 2012, 12:36:58 AM
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.
Quote from: Rupert on July 22, 2012, 12:36:58 AM
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).
Damn those bridezillas...
Quote from: Raza on July 22, 2012, 07:28:31 AM
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...
Um, guys, I think he made that up.
Quote from: ifcar on July 22, 2012, 09:41:35 AM
Um, guys, I think he made that up.
Haha ok, I thought that might have been the case
Quote from: Raza link=topic=27747.msg1752690#msg1752690 date=1342963711
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.
Quote from: ifcar on July 22, 2012, 06:37:14 AM
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.
Then they'd only sell like two.
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.
There still are options.
Didn't say there aren't. Rather, my comments regarding the JGC might lead one to think that I think the opposite. ;)
Quote from: 93JC on July 20, 2012, 11:48:16 AM
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.
Quote from: Rupert on July 22, 2012, 11:54:48 AM
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
Quote from: Tave on July 22, 2012, 01:43:24 PM
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.
(http://www.motorcyclenews.com/upload/253737/images/01zx6r-09.jpg)
I think you can expect 3.5 - 3.8 ft under the belly of a very large moose in AK.
Quote from: ifcar on July 22, 2012, 09:41:35 AM
Um, guys, I think he made that up.
It's been a while since I've brought up the Sweisskagg Institute. :lol:
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.
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.
Quote from: Submariner on July 15, 2012, 03:36:13 PM
Some of the vehicles I'd feel comfortable hitting a moose with:
(http://www.unimog.dk/billeder/U500artikel/img01.jpg)
(http://www.komatsu.com/CompanyInfo/press/images/2010101511464522814.jpg)
(http://www.military-today.com/tanks/m1a1_abrams.jpg)
Otherwise, I'm swerving.
Even better, one of these
(http://realitypod.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/bagger2881-1.jpg)
Quote from: nickdrinkwater on July 31, 2012, 05:33:01 PM
Even better, one of these
(http://realitypod.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/bagger2881-1.jpg)
It's crazy to think that was constructed in 1978. And that a similar machine was completed in the late '50s. :confused: :rockon:
WHAT do you even use something that big on???
Seems like the bother building it you could just do whatever with regular machines/trucks...