RAV4 Moose test - Fail

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by PimTac
Originally Posted by 4WD
Originally Posted by edyvw
Considering "feedback" typical Toyota has on the steering wheel, I am not sure how they manage to enter between cones in the first place.


edyvw… been kinda wondering … what makes you such a big Toyota fan ? Just wanting to fit in well on this site ?





Anything he says has to be taken with five pounds of salt. Case in point, bragging about doing 130 on the interstate. Ya sure, you betcha.

The internet is a real distortion chamber.

With a decent vehicle 130 isnt much. It's not prudent, but its easy to attain.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by madRiver
Originally Posted by Pelican
I think that any vehicle with more than 3" of ground clearance would fail. Bolt on a Moose catcher and call it Bull's Eye !


Toyota RAV4 sucks at abrupt moves. Take a peek at recent Jeep Grand Cherokee at higher speed eloquently:


IIRC, the GC originally did not do well on this test. FCA improved the stability control programming to fix that.

 

[PimTac]

"With a decent vehicle 130 isnt much. It's not prudent, but its easy to attain."



It's just plain stupid. There is no reason at all to go that fast anywhere except on a racetrack.

 

[atikovi]

and the Autobahn.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by PimTac
"With a decent vehicle 130 isnt much. It's not prudent, but its easy to attain."



It's just plain stupid. There is no reason at all to go that fast anywhere except on a racetrack.


130mph is just a 5-6 seconds with the hammer down from a highway punch in a fast car. It's not smart, but it is super easy to do if you're not paying attention to your gauges. If you've driven cars in that class, you understand. If you haven't, this is like a guy with a precision rifle trying to explain to a golfer that, yes, hitting a 3" target reliably at 300 yards IS easy money.

 

[ndfergy]

Not exactly confidence inspiring but not surprising given its high ground clearance of ~ 8.5" and probable tune for a softer ride. There's no need in the CUV market, or SUV'S for that matter, to go over 7, 7.5 inches of ground clearance if the vehicle is not designed to go seriously off road. I wonder how Honda's CRV compares in this test. Mazda seems to do it right although ironically the CX-3 did poorly compared to its bigger brother. Maybe that's been rectified since.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by madRiver
Originally Posted by Pelican
I think that any vehicle with more than 3" of ground clearance would fail. Bolt on a Moose catcher and call it Bull's Eye !


Toyota RAV4 sucks at abrupt moves. Take a peek at recent Jeep Grand Cherokee at higher speed eloquently:


IIRC, the GC originally did not do well on this test. FCA improved the stability control programming to fix that.


I dunno man, it didn't do very well there when pushed past 71kmh. It wasn't jerky or dangerous looking like the RAV, but it didn't compete well in its size class (X5, Edge,etc.).

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by Linctex
Originally Posted by Ws6

Mine handles like a car. Maybe you just have experiences with lame SUVs?

Cx5 similar to mine:
.
.
BMW 3 series with MSport suspension for comparison...not any faster than the cx5.
.


That's crazy!

Kudos to Mazda, WHOAH!


Yup. And that was just the FWD model...love how my AWD turbo handles, and that's coming from a Z06 and 370Z. It has lower limits, for sure, but the DYNAMICS are awesome as heck for something with 7.5" of ground clearance!

The BMW M2 Comp package will hang with my SUV in this test, though.


Likewise, the Audi TT RS performs similarly to the CX5.



Moose test does not have anything to do with how vehicle will perform when it comes to handling on the track. Based on your interpretation CX5 would be neck in neck with M2 on the track, which of course, would not. It would not be able to carry candle to GLC AMG 43

Based on that interpretation, that Nissan Quashquai or whatever name is, would obliterate all these vehicles, including M2.
That does not mean Mazda did not do its homework, but if you are going to put exemplary vehicle in this test, it ain't Mazda, it is Nissan.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by PimTac
"With a decent vehicle 130 isnt much. It's not prudent, but its easy to attain."



It's just plain stupid. There is no reason at all to go that fast anywhere except on a racetrack.

There is no reason to buy anything but Yugo. It does its job, goes from point A to point B.

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by 4WD
Originally Posted by edyvw
Considering "feedback" typical Toyota has on the steering wheel, I am not sure how they manage to enter between cones in the first place.


edyvw… been kinda wondering … what makes you such a big Toyota fan ? Just wanting to fit in well on this site ?

That is the key!
On this site, average Bitog-er is watching RAV4 and thinking: yep, it is Toyota and I will if it is necessary die in it.

 

[Skippy722]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by 4WD
Originally Posted by edyvw
Considering "feedback" typical Toyota has on the steering wheel, I am not sure how they manage to enter between cones in the first place.


edyvw… been kinda wondering … what makes you such a big Toyota fan ? Just wanting to fit in well on this site ?

That is the key!
On this site, average Bitog-er is watching RAV4 and thinking: yep, it is Toyota and I will if it is necessary die in it.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by Linctex
Originally Posted by Ws6

Mine handles like a car. Maybe you just have experiences with lame SUVs?

Cx5 similar to mine:
.
.
BMW 3 series with MSport suspension for comparison...not any faster than the cx5.
.


That's crazy!

Kudos to Mazda, WHOAH!


Yup. And that was just the FWD model...love how my AWD turbo handles, and that's coming from a Z06 and 370Z. It has lower limits, for sure, but the DYNAMICS are awesome as heck for something with 7.5" of ground clearance!

The BMW M2 Comp package will hang with my SUV in this test, though.


Likewise, the Audi TT RS performs similarly to the CX5.



Moose test does not have anything to do with how vehicle will perform when it comes to handling on the track. Based on your interpretation CX5 would be neck in neck with M2 on the track, which of course, would not. It would not be able to carry candle to GLC AMG 43

Based on that interpretation, that Nissan Quashquai or whatever name is, would obliterate all these vehicles, including M2.
That does not mean Mazda did not do its homework, but if you are going to put exemplary vehicle in this test, it ain't Mazda, it is Nissan.

Ah...we are discussing moose test. Not lap times.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted by Ws6
I dunno man, it didn't do very well there when pushed past 71kmh. It wasn't jerky or dangerous looking like the RAV, but it didn't compete well in its size class (X5, Edge,etc.).


It originally bombed it like the RAV-4. It should be able to do roughly the same as the Mercedes unit it shares a platform with I'd expect. Whether the stability control programming gets that refined? Who knows.

 

[edyvw]

Quote
Ah...we are discussing moose test. Not lap times.

Then talk about Nissan, not Mazda. That is exemplary performer.

 

[zorobabel]

Originally Posted by Skippy722
Originally Posted by atikovi
Whether they are body on frame or unibody isn't the point. Most people seem to like them because they sit taller than cars and they have a better view over traffic. For that, they will be higher and handle more like trucks.


All the sitting taller thing does is perpetuate the cycle of ever bigger vehicles... people by bigger vehicles to have a better view, once everyone has that we are right back where we started, so now they go buy an even bigger vehicle to they can see again... rinse and repeat.

I'm still waiting for the day when I can see farther ahead, by looking underneath the truck in front of me.

 

[Skippy722]

Originally Posted by zorobabel
Originally Posted by Skippy722
Originally Posted by atikovi
Whether they are body on frame or unibody isn't the point. Most people seem to like them because they sit taller than cars and they have a better view over traffic. For that, they will be higher and handle more like trucks.


All the sitting taller thing does is perpetuate the cycle of ever bigger vehicles... people by bigger vehicles to have a better view, once everyone has that we are right back where we started, so now they go buy an even bigger vehicle to they can see again... rinse and repeat.

I'm still waiting for the day when I can see farther ahead, by looking underneath the truck in front of me.


Soon they'll all be so big even my 300 will be able to fit underneath them

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Quote
Ah...we are discussing moose test. Not lap times.

Then talk about Nissan, not Mazda. That is exemplary performer.

The Rogue is, for sure! The Kicks...scary though.

 

[4WD]

Come to Houston

 

[edyvw]

Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
Quote
Ah...we are discussing moose test. Not lap times.

Then talk about Nissan, not Mazda. That is exemplary performer.

The Rogue is, for sure! The Kicks...scary though.

Well, it has 7km/h advantage, so obviously better.

 

[Ws6]

Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by Ws6
Originally Posted by edyvw
Quote
Ah...we are discussing moose test. Not lap times.

Then talk about Nissan, not Mazda. That is exemplary performer.

The Rogue is, for sure! The Kicks...scary though.

Well, it has 7km/h advantage, so obviously better.

A 7 km/h advantage over what?