New Grand Cherokee miserably fails moose test

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: VNTS
When the test is conducted properly with measured inputs into the steering wheel, ie a repeatable test, it passed, but when you have the Swedish meatballs conducting and rigging the test, anyone can make any vehichle fail?



True, but this is intended to replicate a sudden 'Panic' situation. A good, experienced driver may have instinctively controlled the vehicle better, but the point is, in this maneuver, the Jeep handled dangerously.

We have ratings for crash survive ability, why not Crash avoidance?
 
"In 2007 Toyota Hilux showed the same tendency to tip over. After Toyota performed their own moose test they decided to stop sales of the Hilux with 16-inch wheels in Europe. The moose test with Toyota Hilux can be seen on film here."

I guess it was OK for North Americans
confused2.gif
 
The solid axle models wouldn't have blown the tire out for sure.

My guess is, had the WK2 had a set of solid axles and everything else being the same, would have got sideways then maybe turned over?

It looks like it both blew out the tire and went up on two wheels from the independent suspension folding up.
 
Originally Posted By: caravanmike

second paragraph of the link:
http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php/2012/07/grand-cherokee-survives-german-moose-test

This article says that the Swedish mag (TV) in "subsequent tests was unable to get any Jeep Grand Cherokee to fail the test. " Looking at the initial video that dparm posted (which included the subsequent test), I would not agree with that conclusion. The wheels still get off the ground (to a lesser degree) and in addition the tire bursts.


The Allpar article also mentions that the vehicle was tested by AMS/ADAC and passed the test. What it forgets to make clear is that the AMS/ADAC test is different from the TV test, so it's like comparing apples to oranges to a certain degree.

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/201...moose-test.html

I'm not saying one test is better than the other. They are just different tests. Which one is more representative of a real life scenario? I don't know. Ideally, it'd be nice if a vehicle could pass both.


By the way, the vehicle in question seems to have had some stability issues to begin with which lead Chrysler to applying a software update to its stability control system...

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magaz...rview/index.htm
 
Originally Posted By: expat
Originally Posted By: VNTS
When the test is conducted properly with measured inputs into the steering wheel, ie a repeatable test, it passed, but when you have the Swedish meatballs conducting and rigging the test, anyone can make any vehichle fail?



True, but this is intended to replicate a sudden 'Panic' situation. A good, experienced driver may have instinctively controlled the vehicle better, but the point is, in this maneuver, the Jeep handled dangerously.

We have ratings for crash survive ability, why not Crash avoidance?


And of course a professional driver can also deliberately get it up on two wheels better than an inexperienced driver reacting by instinct alone....
whistle.gif



I'm still impressed that even when they managed to pull the front tire off the rim, it never rolled and never left its lane.
 
Good Lord, can we say "cognitive dissonance"? Try to separate your emotional attachment to the brand or to your own recent purchases from what your eyes are telling you while you watch the video. In the real world, people overload their vehicles and overreact to obstacles in the road. In the real world, this Jeep's handling is probably not what most consumers expect... "truck based" notwithstanding. As much as we love to hate the electronic nannies, this vehicle is in dire need of better stability control programming.
 
Originally Posted By: caravanmike
Originally Posted By: martinq
Originally Posted By: VNTS
The magazines test has been totally discredited, basically they faked it.
How? Where?
the actual driver of the vehicle admitted to overloading it and of course the magazine denies it.

second paragraph of the link:
http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php/2012/07/grand-cherokee-survives-german-moose-test


That link provides really no sources for their claim that the driver said it was overloaded. This has been an evolving story and this one article isn't the final voice in what happened.

Chrysler claims the vehicle was overloaded. The magazine says it wasn't overloaded and Chrysler is wrong.

I'm not taking a position either way on the vehicle or the test, but you can't just point to that article and say the car was overloaded. The magazine flatly says that it wasn't overloaded.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: 07Wolfie
Good Lord, can we say "cognitive dissonance"? Try to separate your emotional attachment to the brand or to your own recent purchases from what your eyes are telling you while you watch the video. In the real world, people overload their vehicles and overreact to obstacles in the road. In the real world, this Jeep's handling is probably not what most consumers expect... "truck based" notwithstanding. As much as we love to hate the electronic nannies, this vehicle is in dire need of better stability control programming.


I tend to agree, Half the problem is the vehicle (in my mind) is geared to a market that DOESN'T expect the vehicle to handle differently to a car.
As a car, the handling is unacceptable.
 
Originally Posted By: Miller88
I'm guessing the previous generation would have done better ...

No way. I had the older gen with quadra coil and quadra trac. All black 98 GC limited. Was a beauty, leather and a 318 v8. Unstoppable in all conditions especially deep snow or ice. Great off road. But on the road it was downright dangerous. Leaning over on road grades, wobbling back and forth on the highway. Was all over the road. Narrow and top heavy. Made me nervous one day avoiding an 18 wheeler blowout. Almost rolled over on a minimal evasion of road debris. Was gone by the end of the week, the kids were young at the time. Chrysler knew it was bad, why the widened the wheelbase.

Looks like a conflict between computers, SUV's and testers using car tests.
 
Originally Posted By: caravanmike
Originally Posted By: martinq
Originally Posted By: VNTS
The magazines test has been totally discredited, basically they faked it.
How? Where?
the actual driver of the vehicle admitted to overloading it and of course the magazine denies it.

second paragraph of the link:
http://www.allpar.com/news/index.php/2012/07/grand-cherokee-survives-german-moose-test


Care to post where the magazine denies it? They are pretty detailed about what happened and where using Chrysler's rated payload. There are four pages of reading here:
http://www.teknikensvarld.se/jeepmoosetest/
http://www.teknikensvarld.se/jeepmoosetest-part2/
http://www.teknikensvarld.se/jeepmoosetest-part3/
http://www.teknikensvarld.se/jeepmoosetest-part4/

Here is someones summation of the weight issue:

"The reported curb weight is 2347 kg. This, together with the reported payload capacity of 602 kg, together becomes the reported total gross weight: 2949 kg. Tests run at this weight have shown successful results.

However, when Teknikens Värld measured the curb weight, they came to a different answer: 2505 kg, a whopping 158 kg above what Jeep/Chrysler reported. This, together with the payload capacity, gives a total gross weight of 3107 kg, way above the reported total gross weight (naturally).

The initial video wasn't actually made with that gross weight, but with 100 kg less. Still, this is 58 kg above the reported total gross weight, which is what Jeep/Chrysler is claiming and is correct in."
 
Hmm weird. Wondering if my Cherokee feels so good because it's leaf sprung in the back?

When it was stock, I had to make a few maneuvers, had it sideways at one point trying to avoid a car sitting in my lane with no lights on or hazards that stopped for a deer.

Now ... I don't drive it much above 55.
 
If it's this bad NEW what's it going to be like in a couple years when it's suspension has gone and it's being driven by some teenager??

The "overloaded" tactic doesn't fly. People do actually overload and neglect their cars. It's obviously junk. Sorry if that hurts your fragile ego, but maybe it's time to face the truth!
 
There's a lot not to like about this suspension but it looks like it will hold up well. If time shows I'm wrong about that feel free to call me out. That said, yes, things will deteriorate somewhat and they won't all be kept up.

It is the responsibility of the operator to know the limits of the equipment.
 
Originally Posted By: expat

I tend to agree, Half the problem is the vehicle (in my mind) is geared to a market that DOESN'T expect the vehicle to handle differently to a car.
As a car, the handling is unacceptable.


This. It is either a Jeep or a car, it can't be both. This "crossover" market drives me crazy. All it does is convince people their SUVs are more car-like (in lots of cases they are) and will in fact handle just like a car. I see people attempting speeds and maneuvers on the highway in crossovers that I don't feel comfortable doing in a sports sedan.

My Cherokee has a 2" lift and over sized tires. I do have larger performance swaybars, tighter steering, and nice shocks so it handles similar to stock. I still drive it like a Jeep though, not a sports car.

I like Jeeps but maybe this test will open Chrysler's eyes a bit.

I wonder what the results of this test would be if it was done with other SUVs or even trucks. I bet most of them wouldn't do so well.
 
A couple of things:

This test really has nothing to do with a moose, it simulates a high speed panic avoidance maneuver, something we all hope to never have to do but it could happen to anyone at anytime.

Short of running the tires on no air, unplugging critical electronics or swapping in non-OEM parts in place of OEM parts, I could care less that they "rigged the test". The Jeep is on the extreme margin of even staying on the road compared to its competitors and 70 km/h is not that fast, this is what I would expect at 100 not 70.

Something in the suspension tuning is WAY WAY off, the basic physics between the VW, Volvo and Jeep are not that different. A vehicle doesn't go from safe to wildly unstable from 58 additional kg.
 
July 27, 2012 , Auburn Hills, Mich. - An evaluation of the 2012 Jeep Grand Cherokee by Germany-based magazine Auto, Motor und Sport (AMS) found the vehicle – including its advanced safety systems – performed successfully and as designed. The Grand Cherokee completed multiple repetitions of an evasive maneuver sometimes known as the “moose test” or “elk test.” The maneuver was performed by an AMS driver at an automotive test site in Germany that is sanctioned by the Allgemeiner Deutscher Automobil-Club (ADAC). Course dimensions and layout, checked and approved by AMS, were those set out by the International Standards Organization (ISO). The result reaffirms the Grand Cherokee’s place among the safest vehicles on the road today, evidenced by its listing as a “Top Safety Pick” by the U.S. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety – one of the honors that made it the most awarded SUV ever.

http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/n...t-5305076.html


English Translation of Auto Motor and Sport story:

Jeep Grand Cherokee passes the moose test; Jeep does not roll over

The new Jeep Grand Cherokee does not roll over even at high speed, with sharp steering maneuvers, maximum passengers and fully loaded. During the Auto Motor und Sport moose test, the vehicle remained safely on the road and none of the four wheels lost contact with the road.

With this, Auto Motor und Sport puts into perspective the results of the Swedish magazine, Teknikens Varld, that alleged a danger of the SUV tipping during fast direction change towards the last of the three pylon lanes.

Even though the Jeep Grand Cherokee had already passed the first test performed by Auto Motor und Sport, including an avoidance test with releasing the accelerator pedal provoking a load shift, the test was repeated once more by auto motor und sport after the result in Sweden.

Under standardized conditions for road surface and with pylon lanes set depending on vehicle width in accordance to the guidelines determined by the VDA (Verband der Deutschen Automobilindustrie; German Automotive Manufacturer Association), the Jeep remained safely on the road during the magazine’s test.

Whether loaded with 2 people on board or with the maximum permissible total weight, all four wheels maintained contact with the ground to the greatest possible extent. The tested Jeep did not demonstrate one-sided uplift or, let alone, tipping. This confirms the theory that the Cherokee in Sweden was overloaded.
 
Originally Posted By: RageOfFury
This confirms the theory that the Cherokee in Sweden was overloaded.

Or that the two tests (AMS vs Swedish TV) were not really comparable due to a number of variables, as the CR article I linked to previously pointed out.
 
Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: expat
Originally Posted By: VNTS
When the test is conducted properly with measured inputs into the steering wheel, ie a repeatable test, it passed, but when you have the Swedish meatballs conducting and rigging the test, anyone can make any vehichle fail?



True, but this is intended to replicate a sudden 'Panic' situation. A good, experienced driver may have instinctively controlled the vehicle better, but the point is, in this maneuver, the Jeep handled dangerously.

We have ratings for crash survive ability, why not Crash avoidance?


And of course a professional driver can also deliberately get it up on two wheels better than an inexperienced driver reacting by instinct alone....
whistle.gif



I'm still impressed that even when they managed to pull the front tire off the rim, it never rolled and never left its lane.


I agree. I think its another case of run a test, or pay for the test and get the results you want. It sucks because you don't know who to believe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top