Crown

Terrifying results imo.

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

Ouch! 

fritz

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  

Mike

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

I thought Chrysler and Mercedes have parted long time ago?

The secret of life is to admire without desiring.

Rossi:

I thought Chrysler and Mercedes have parted long time ago?

This is a Fiat contribution

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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  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.... - 

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.

OMG , what a F...ing disaster.

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  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. 

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. 

fritz

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.

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.

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  ), then you are inclined to believe that it would be much heavier than that.  
They look huge.

fritz

On its way to becoming the new Suzuki Samurai.

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.

.

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.

Check your inbox for a PM.  

Not from me!  From nberry. 

fritz

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. 

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.

Check your inbox for a PM.  

Not from me!  From nberry. 

Nothing yet! He must be very busy right now  

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

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

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 ), but this will surely be more a question of development (ESP parameter "tuning") and the choice of wheels and tyres. 

fritz

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. 

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.

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