Crown

Board: Other Sports Cars Language: English Region: Worldwide Share/Save/Bookmark Close

Forum - Thread


    Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    Terrifying results imo.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zaYFLb8WMGM


    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    Ouch! 


    --

    fritz


    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    Don't you just love the blown driver's front tire in the max-loaded swerve test?  7 different times?

    "Ouch" doesn't begin to cover it  wink


    --

    Mike

    Carrera GT + Tesla Roadster 1.5 + Panamera Turbo +  BMW Z8 + BMW 3.0 CSi + Bentley Arnage T + GT3 RS 4.0


    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    I thought Chrysler and Mercedes have parted long time ago? smiley


    --

    The secret of life is to admire without desiring.


    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    Rossi:

    I thought Chrysler and Mercedes have parted long time ago? smiley

    This is a Fiat contribution Smiley


    --

    911 Club Coupe, 72' 911 Targa 2.4 S, 12' Audi S4 Avant


    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    ui ui ui.... and this on a brand new model - outch


    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    No marketing guru whatsoever could fight against this. If a potential buyer checks this video its game over for them.

    its simply unacceptable for a car lf this range achieve this terrible results.


    --


    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    Those engineers that were on the scene have been Italian? They didn´t appear typically American to me. It´s indeed a very sad result, as shameful as it was for the first A-class this test should´ve become a test routine for any manufacturer by then. So it is somewhat surprising that, despite featuring specific equipment on this car, it fails so miserably on this test.


    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    Alex18_996CC:

    No marketing guru whatsoever could fight against this. If a potential buyer checks this video its game over for them.

    its simply unacceptable for a car lf this range achieve this terrible results.

    When the Mercedes A class had the elk problem , the PR disaster was  softened by the introduction/installation of the ESP on the A class , which for that time was a complete novelty for a car of that segment. I wonder what action will take Fiat/Chrysler with the Cherokee.


    --

    911 Club Coupe, 72' 911 Targa 2.4 S, 12' Audi S4 Avant


    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    m4ever:
    Alex18_996CC:

    No marketing guru whatsoever could fight against this. If a potential buyer checks this video its game over for them.

    its simply unacceptable for a car lf this range achieve this terrible results.

    When the Mercedes A class had the elk problem , the PR disaster was  softened by the introduction/installation of the ESP on the A class , which for that time was a complete novelty for a car of that segment. I wonder what action will take Fiat/Chrysler with the Cherokee.

    I was thinking the same thing. I think they will certainly be reviewing the choice of OEM tyres they fit and also looking into radically tweaking the ESP parameters. The comparison with the VW and Volvo SUVs certainly showed the stability of the Grand Cherokee in extreme manoeuvres in a very bad light. 

    If this kind of thing happens with correctly inflated tyres, what can be expected in the hands of the people who are good at ignoring their tyre monitor warning displays? Makes me think of the huge problems Ford experienced with the Explorer about 10-15 years ago. 


    --

    fritz


    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    I've send this to a couple of Jeep owners in my office.....I cannot believe that things like this happen in 2012.....but then big congrats and thanks to those testers for such a eye-opener kiss Good bye to Jeep I would say - actually I would go that far that  somebody should fine them for very obviously not testing their cars with max payload. I though all manufactures do their heat tests in Arizona - or Wintertests in Sweden and hundreds of thousands of miles other tests before a model gets released but this is very bad neglecting basics.... - 


    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    This is really astonishing and disappointing at the same time. I like Jeeps very much for their off road prowess, heritage and style combined with their affordable price (compared to the equivallent Land Rovers), but this showing is not good. You have to treat them as off roaders I guess, not as road cars.


    --
    FERRARI RULES!!!

    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    OMG Smiley, what a F...ing disaster.


    --
    Happy Driving

    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    BjoernB:

    I've send this to a couple of Jeep owners in my office.....I cannot believe that things like this happen in 2012.....but then big congrats and thanks to those testers for such a eye-opener kiss Good bye to Jeep I would say - actually I would go that far that  somebody should fine them for very obviously not testing their cars with max payload. I though all manufactures do their heat tests in Arizona - or Wintertests in Sweden and hundreds of thousands of miles other tests before a model gets released but this is very bad neglecting basics.... - 

    The Elk Test is a very extreme and specific test initiated by a Swedish magazine, and not part of the legal US Certification or Euro Type Approval procedures, but you'd think that after the MB A-Class disaster about 15 (?) years ago, every manufacturer (especially ones planning to sell cars to Scandinavia) would subject their cars to this test as a matter of course. Smiley


    --

    fritz


    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    REALZEUS:

    This is really astonishing and disappointing at the same time. I like Jeeps very much for their off road prowess, heritage and style combined with their affordable price (compared to the equivallent Land Rovers), but this showing is not good. You have to treat them as off roaders I guess, not as road cars.

    Even as an infrequent visitor to the USA I've experienced a close encounter with a Moose near the Grand Tetons National Park which involved hard braking, though no rapid lane changes like this test. I suspect those who live there, in Canada or parts of Scandinavia will appreciate just how important it is that even an SUV can swerve without falling over when 2 tonnes of meat suddenly lope across the road in front of them. SUVs and pick-up trucks are after all the vehicle-of-choice in the areas you are likely to come across Moose or Elk, for pretty obvious reasons. 


    --

    fritz


    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    That's insane; what a PR disaster for them. I imagine that they'll have to react to this sooner rather than later.

    Moose in Canada are everywhere up north, and they can do serious damage to 18 wheelers let alone passenger vehicles. frown


    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    fritz:
    REALZEUS:

    This is really astonishing and disappointing at the same time. I like Jeeps very much for their off road prowess, heritage and style combined with their affordable price (compared to the equivallent Land Rovers), but this showing is not good. You have to treat them as off roaders I guess, not as road cars.

    Even as an infrequent visitor to the USA I've experienced a close encounter with a Moose near the Grand Tetons National Park which involved hard braking, though no rapid lane changes like this test. I suspect those who live there, in Canada or parts of Scandinavia will appreciate just how important it is that even an SUV can swerve without falling over when 2 tonnes of meat suddenly lope across the road in front of them. SUVs and pick-up trucks are after all the vehicle-of-choice in the areas you are likely to come across Moose or Elk, for pretty obvious reasons. 

    Even though I see your point, your data are way off. The largest species of moose averages 650 kg for the male specimens. Still, quite a danger since all that strikes the windscreen and not the frontal crash structure.


    --
    FERRARI RULES!!!

    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    Moose Vs Car.png


    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    REALZEUS:
    fritz:
    REALZEUS:

    This is really astonishing and disappointing at the same time. I like Jeeps very much for their off road prowess, heritage and style combined with their affordable price (compared to the equivallent Land Rovers), but this showing is not good. You have to treat them as off roaders I guess, not as road cars.

    Even as an infrequent visitor to the USA I've experienced a close encounter with a Moose near the Grand Tetons National Park which involved hard braking, though no rapid lane changes like this test. I suspect those who live there, in Canada or parts of Scandinavia will appreciate just how important it is that even an SUV can swerve without falling over when 2 tonnes of meat suddenly lope across the road in front of them. SUVs and pick-up trucks are after all the vehicle-of-choice in the areas you are likely to come across Moose or Elk, for pretty obvious reasons. 

    Even though I see your point, your data are way off. The largest species of moose averages 650 kg for the male specimens. Still, quite a danger since all that strikes the windscreen and not the frontal crash structure.

    You are right, but if you get up close to a big angry bull on the rampage (which I only did from the "safe" side of the fence in the Skansen (?) zoo in Stockholm  Smiley), then you are inclined to believe that it would be much heavier than that.  Smiley
    They look huge.


    --

    fritz


    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    On its way to becoming the new Suzuki Samurai.


    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    I want one! It's such one hell of an SUV!

    Meaning: First, I take a plane tiket to the US. Second, I hire a good lawyer. Third, I rent one of those jeeps. Fourth, I do the "moose test" for no reason what so ever. Fifth, I get rich and buy a cayenne turbo when I get home. Smiley

    .

     


    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    amazon:

    I want one! It's such one hell of an SUV!

    Meaning: First, I take a plane tiket to the US. Second, I hire a good lawyer. Third, I rent one of those jeeps. Fourth, I do the "moose test" for no reason what so ever. Fifth, I get rich and buy a cayenne turbo when I get home. Smiley

    Check your inbox for a PM.  Smiley

    Not from me!  From nberry. Smiley


    --

    fritz


    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    This isn't the first time a Jeep has had difficulty with this type of test. Consumer Reports  had similar results I believe with their testing of the Jeep Wrangler years ago. Much of the problem is that a good suspension for off-roading makes a horrible on-road suspension. The large wheel articulation desireable in an off-road vehicle creates the dramatic weight transfer problem we see in the video. The electronic anti-skid or stability control systems can improve the situation somewhat but I don't think they are a cure all. The disengageable roll bars available on the Cayenne make a good solution but, as I understand it, the technology is still somewhat new and complicated and not totally reliable.   But I believe that technology is the real long term solution to making a good off-road vehicle safe on the highway. 


    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    fritz:
    amazon:

    I want one! It's such one hell of an SUV!

    Meaning: First, I take a plane tiket to the US. Second, I hire a good lawyer. Third, I rent one of those jeeps. Fourth, I do the "moose test" for no reason what so ever. Fifth, I get rich and buy a cayenne turbo when I get home. Smiley

    Check your inbox for a PM.  Smiley

    Not from me!  From nberry. Smiley

     

    Nothing yet! He must be very busy right now Smiley 


    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    GM Austin:

     Much of the problem is that a good suspension for off-roading makes a horrible on-road suspension. The large wheel articulation desireable in an off-road vehicle creates the dramatic weight transfer problem we see in the video. The electronic anti-skid or stability control systems can improve the situation somewhat but I don't think they are a cure all. 

    Hmmm.... I have avoided moose (and deer which are way more common) so far, but two days ago I had to complete a moose avoidance move in my Range Rover;  when passing a semi-truck followed by a slow minivan, the minivan decided to pass just as I pulled even with him (he did not check behind first).  My wife raised her arm just as I saw it, and I just had time to make a fast lane change into the opposing lane shoulder to avoid being sideswiped, still under power, and complete the pass.  So  you don't need animals to believe these tests are useful.... 


    --

    2011 Range Rover Sport S/C,  2009 Porsche 911S


    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    How did they manage such a shitty behavior.. the chassis is from Mercedes and their car has no such issues.


    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    Atzporsche:

    How did they manage such a shitty behavior.. the chassis is from Mercedes and their car has no such issues.

    The basic platform may have been from Daimler (but then, so was the A-Class Smiley), but this will surely be more a question of development (ESP parameter "tuning") and the choice of wheels and tyres. 


    --

    fritz


    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    Atzporsche:

    How did they manage such a shitty behavior.. the chassis is from Mercedes and their car has no such issues.

    The design objective is different. As I said previously, a good off-road suspension is a horrible on-road performer.  Jeep advertises that all their vehicles are Rubicon tested, or something like that.  Meaning their vehicles can navigate the Rubicon Trail, or any other similarly rugged terrain. High ground clearance is one thing that is required, which will give the vehicle a higher center of gravity (not desireable for on-road).  The next thing is wheel articulation.  In order to maintain contact with the ground when the ground is very uneven the wheels need the freedom to move very independently from one another from left to right so that you can maintain traction. If you are climbing a hill and the left wheel has to go over a large rock, you don't want the right wheel to come off the ground because of that.  You want the right wheel to maintain contact with the ground so you don't lose traction and the vehicle slide backward.  This means the anti-roll bar needs to be smaller in diameter than what would normally be recommended for good on-road performance.  The off-road desireable feature of the left and right wheels having good independent verticle movement is exactly counterproductive to good on-road performance, as we see in the video.  Severe body lean when cornering is a fact of life for the off-road tuned suspension. Correcting the bad on-road manners will compromise the off-road ability.  Jeeps and Land Rovers are both good off-road performers and both suffer from serious body lean when cornering at speed. If they take a model and alter it for good performance on the pavement (a Range Rover model comes to mind), one of the things they will do is increase the roll-bar diameter, reducing body lean when cornering, but also reducing the left/right independent whell movement and compromising the off-road ability. 


    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    GM Austin:
    Atzporsche:

    How did they manage such a shitty behavior.. the chassis is from Mercedes and their car has no such issues.

    The design objective is different. As I said previously, a good off-road suspension is a horrible on-road performer.  Jeep advertises that all their vehicles are Rubicon tested, or something like that.  Meaning their vehicles can navigate the Rubicon Trail, or any other similarly rugged terrain. High ground clearance is one thing that is required, which will give the vehicle a higher center of gravity (not desireable for on-road).  The next thing is wheel articulation.  In order to maintain contact with the ground when the ground is very uneven the wheels need the freedom to move very independently from one another from left to right so that you can maintain traction. If you are climbing a hill and the left wheel has to go over a large rock, you don't want the right wheel to come off the ground because of that.  You want the right wheel to maintain contact with the ground so you don't lose traction and the vehicle slide backward.  This means the anti-roll bar needs to be smaller in diameter than what would normally be recommended for good on-road performance.  The off-road desireable feature of the left and right wheels having good independent verticle movement is exactly counterproductive to good on-road performance, as we see in the video.  Severe body lean when cornering is a fact of life for the off-road tuned suspension. Correcting the bad on-road manners will compromise the off-road ability.  Jeeps and Land Rovers are both good off-road performers and both suffer from serious body lean when cornering at speed. If they take a model and alter it for good performance on the pavement (a Range Rover model comes to mind), one of the things they will do is increase the roll-bar diameter, reducing body lean when cornering, but also reducing the left/right independent whell movement and compromising the off-road ability. 

    Modern Landies tackle these issues with the use of adjustable suspension. Still, they are no Cayenne or X5 competitors on the road, but their off road credentials are second to none.


    --
    FERRARI RULES!!!

    Re: Jeep Grand Cherokee - Moose test

    GM Austin:
    Atzporsche:

    How did they manage such a shitty behavior.. the chassis is from Mercedes and their car has no such issues.

    The design objective is different. As I said previously, a good off-road suspension is a horrible on-road performer.  Jeep advertises that all their vehicles are Rubicon tested, or something like that.  Meaning their vehicles can navigate the Rubicon Trail, or any other similarly rugged terrain. High ground clearance is one thing that is required, which will give the vehicle a higher center of gravity (not desireable for on-road).  The next thing is wheel articulation.  In order to maintain contact with the ground when the ground is very uneven the wheels need the freedom to move very independently from one another from left to right so that you can maintain traction. If you are climbing a hill and the left wheel has to go over a large rock, you don't want the right wheel to come off the ground because of that.  You want the right wheel to maintain contact with the ground so you don't lose traction and the vehicle slide backward.  This means the anti-roll bar needs to be smaller in diameter than what would normally be recommended for good on-road performance.  The off-road desireable feature of the left and right wheels having good independent verticle movement is exactly counterproductive to good on-road performance, as we see in the video.  Severe body lean when cornering is a fact of life for the off-road tuned suspension. Correcting the bad on-road manners will compromise the off-road ability.  Jeeps and Land Rovers are both good off-road performers and both suffer from serious body lean when cornering at speed. If they take a model and alter it for good performance on the pavement (a Range Rover model comes to mind), one of the things they will do is increase the roll-bar diameter, reducing body lean when cornering, but also reducing the left/right independent whell movement and compromising the off-road ability. 

    The argument that a car cannot handle the Rubicon Trail and fast highway driving with equal competence is naturally valid. Too many concessions have to be made to real off-roading characteristics for a car like the Grand Cherokee to have sharp sports car handling. "Rubicon Tested" may sound good in the ads, but its not really what about 95% of the car's buyers should really be looking for considering the use they will put it to. 

    I just think after watching that video that, to my non-expert eyes:  
    a) the ragged transitions in attitude of the vehicle in the slalom stretches suggested that not enough work had been put into fine-tuning the ESP system to allow the transitions to be smooth and more controllable, at least in the hands of experienced drivers like these test drivers, and
    b) a better choice of wheels (widths?), tyres and recommended pressures would reduce the risk of the side walls being pinched between rim and asphalt causing immediate blow-outs with possibly disastrous consequences, as happened to 6 of the 7 cars tested in this case.
    These two measures would add a little to the development budget and probably to the production cost of the vehicle, but would not necessarily detract from its ability to negotiate the Rubicon Trail. 

    --

    fritz


     
    Edit

    Forum

    Board Subject Last post Rating Views Replies
    Porsche Sticky SUN'S LAST RUN TO WILSON, WY - 991 C2S CAB LIFE, END OF AN ERA (Part I) Thread Closed 9/24/20 12:47 AM
    watt
    576640 2849
    Porsche Sticky The moment I've been waiting for... 12/30/20 9:03 AM
    rhino
     
     
     
     
     
    356580 1279
    Porsche Sticky OFFICIAL: New Porsche 911 Turbo S (2020) 4/10/21 2:32 PM
    Joost
    85867 1085
    Porsche Sticky Welcome to Rennteam: Cars and Coffee... (photos) 4/4/21 8:01 AM
    bluelines
    43253 328
    Porsche Sticky ROAD TEST: New 992 Carrera 4S 3/3/21 10:57 PM
    Wonderbar
    35049 336
    Porsche Sticky Porsche Taycan Turbo S - Short Review 10/19/20 6:12 PM
    Leawood911
    32676 380
    Porsche Sticky SUN'S LAST RUN TO WILSON, WY - 991 C2S CAB LIFE, END OF AN ERA (Part II) 4/14/21 2:39 PM
    watt
    14878 299
    Porsche Sticky Porsche extends the Taycan model range (Taycan 2WD) 2/1/21 12:42 PM
    Leawood911
    4117 29
    Porsche OFFICIAL: New 991.2 GT3 (2017) 7/27/20 2:13 AM
    DJM48
    560833 5257
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 991 Turbo and Turbo S 4/20/20 8:24 AM
    schmoell
    533320 4260
    Porsche Cayman GT4 4/13/21 10:04 AM
    996FourEss
    400768 3585
    McLaren McLaren on a winning streak 4/13/21 8:01 AM
    BjoernB
    355283 3915
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 911 GT2 RS (2017) 12/27/20 4:06 PM
    Topspeed
    352186 3486
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 991.2 GT3 RS (2018) 11/5/20 9:55 PM
    DaveGordon
    312346 3242
    Porsche OFFICIAL: 911 R (2016) 12/8/20 7:51 PM
    DJM48
    309543 2646
    Porsche OFFICIAL: The new Porsche 992 – a design icon and high-tech sports car 2/28/21 8:05 PM
    Topspeed
    215183 1542
    Porsche Tesla Roadster 9/23/20 8:22 PM
    bluelines
    182246 4279
    Porsche OFFICIAL: New Panamera (2016) 2/11/21 9:22 AM
    Itsme
    160247 1379
    Others Alfa Romeo 4C 9/23/20 10:22 AM
    RCA
    137951 792
    Porsche 992 GT3 4/15/21 1:06 AM
    Grant
    108464 2035
    Lambo Lamborghini Huracan and variants 4/9/21 4:32 PM
    Topspeed
    105273 1225
    McLaren F1 2/25/21 11:33 AM
    RCA
    76998 207
    Porsche Welcome to the new Taycan Forum! 3/15/21 7:26 PM
    Enmanuel
    69399 1151
    AMG AMG GT R 11/19/20 11:47 PM
    Topspeed
    64467 819
    Lambo Aventador and SV 3/15/21 3:59 PM
    Topspeed
    63326 679
    Porsche 991 Speedster 9/3/20 4:29 PM
    Topspeed
    56287 878
    Porsche Nürburgring - Tesla vs. Taycan 11/23/20 6:10 PM
    Topspeed
    42897 596
    Others Bugatti Chiron 4/12/21 3:42 PM
    RCA
    36294 476
    Porsche Olive 991.2 GT3 Clubsport 1/1/21 7:58 PM
    throt
    33526 615
    BMW M BMW M2 Rumors 3/21/21 5:01 PM
    Topspeed
    28542 385
    271 items found, displaying 1 to 30.