By on July 10, 2012
YouTube Preview Image

The blogosphere has been buzzing for the past two days over a test conducted by Swedish auto rag Teknikens Varld, in which a new Jeep Grand Cherokee nearly rolled over. The so-called “moose test”, which purports to simulate a 40mph swerve-avoidance maneuver, made Teknikens Varld world-famous in 1997 when it caused the then-new Mercedes A-Class to roll over. Although the magazine was able to coax some pretty acrobatic behavior out of a Toyota truck in 2007, the news that compact pickups can roll over in certain situations didn’t exactly shock the globe.

When a Grand Cherokee loaded with five passengers and luggage failed the test, however, it propelled the magazine back into the spotlight once more. (Our piece on the “moose test” was in progress over the past twenty-four hours, as I wanted to go a little further into the reasons and dynamics behind rollovers and it was taking longer to write than a quick link. Sorry for the delay!)

TTAC readers familiar with the way American car companies do business no doubt
expected Chrysler to issue a blanket but not particularly convincing denial while they huddled with their attorneys and applied pressure behind the scenes. It’s what GM would do. Maybe even what Ford would do. But Chrysler is Italian now, so they came out swinging… and yes, they actually used the word “criminal”. Che casino!

The full response from Gualberto Ranieri can be found here, but I’ll excerpt the entertaining and relevant parts below.

the vehicle was definitely “set up,” which is nothing short of criminal… the vehicle used to perform the extreme maneuver was overloaded by 110 lbs.

Chrysler Group sent engineers to Sweden to witness the magazine again perform the aggressive maneuver, even though it is not used by any regulatory agency to establish safety ratings.

This time the Grand Cherokee was loaded properly. (Because we were watching, perhaps?) And the atypical outcome observed previously could not be repeated. Despite numerous attempts.

Expect the magazine to maintain its innocence, even though its editors have been caught red-handed. Because the truth doesn’t just hurt. It stings.

Italians use the courts like a bludgeon — many TTAC readers who are also race fans will recall that Frank Williams faced criminal charges after the death of Ayrton Senna on an Italian course — and so the use of “criminal” is more than simply bluster. It may mean that Fiat will pursue legal action.

In the mind of your humble author, there are two probable scenarios:

Scenario 1: Due to weather, tire/road interactions, and other factors too numerous to understand but which have all combined to make every racing driver’s life a living hell at some point, the Grand Cherokee was quite easy to roll over during the magazine’s initial tests but simply refused to cooperate under Chrysler’s investigation. Everything was done in good faith and the whole thing was simply unfortunate. Also, it would be a bad idea to drive the Grand Cherokee, with those tires, anywhere one might encounter a moose, or deer, or feral child.

Scenario 2: The editors decided the magazine needed some headlines, what with the dismal economy, advertising market, and whatnot. They chose a sacrifical lamb — a Grand Cherokee, which barely has any European market presence and therefore could be easily used for such purpose without raising too many hackles or losing any full-page ad buys. They loaded the car up and fussed with inflation pressures until they had a genuinely spectacular photo. Then they sat back and prepared to reap the rewards of ten million international visitors. Unfortunately for them, Chrysler is part of Fiat now, and Chrysler didn’t just sit in Auburn Hills and chuckle at the Swedes. They demanded confirmation. And under legitimate test conditions, Teknikens couldn’t make the car come up on two wheels. They will be utterly crucified in court, Fiat will end up owning the magazine and turning it into a lifestyle publication called “Grand Cherokee Luxury Monthly”, and if you are shopping for a Grand Cherokee you can forget the whole thing because it was truly a set-up, a scam, a sting, a criminal enterprise.

The truth is likely somewhere between the two, but I bet you it’s closer to the second scenario than the first. This kind of test-rigging has an illustrious history. Remember the Dateline-rigged gas tanks? How about the Consumer Reports robot that rolled the Trooper. (Wait a minute: it’s pronounced THE TROOOPARRRRR!) It’s easy to rank the following headlines in order of revenue potential:

  • Odd-Looking American SUV Doesn’t Do Anything Odd In Moose Test. Well, what good is that?
  • Odd-Looking American SUV Not Exactly A Caterham Seven With deDion Rear Suspension Option When It Comes To the Swerving And Whatnot. Additional clicks: Zero!
  • Evil Descendant Of The Vehicle Which Was Callously Driven Through Your Grandmother’s Flowerbed By Two Chaps Who Later On Punched Your Grandfather Repeatedly For Talking Back Suddently Rolls Over, Bursts Into Flames, Poisons The Groundwater When Its Adaptive Headlights Spot Small Fauna. Now we’re cooking with gas!

In the click-land of the Internet, there’s no such thing as bad publicity, so unless FIAT actually does sue them into the ground, this “moose test” continues to be a big win for Teknikens Varld. You hadn’t heard of them before, had you? Of course not. It’s a brave new world out there. In the so-called “New World”, however, in a world where full-sized trucks on lift kits are used to take kids to school and the Ford Expedition can be seen on every freeway, the Grand Cherokee is likely to continue to be a solid choice… even if you live in a moose-rich area.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

125 Comments on “Chrysler’s Gualberto Ranieri Calls Grand Cherokee Moose Test “Criminal”, “Set-Up”...”


  • avatar
    highdesertcat

    As the owner of a 2012 Grand Cherokee, I told my wife to be especially vigilant around moose, deer and elk.

    • 0 avatar
      NormSV650

      But side you see the tire sidewall disappear behind the wheel?!

      Surprise! Toyota Hilux Fails the Moose Test

      http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2007/10/surprise-2007-toyota-hilux-fails-the-moose-test/

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        norm, I suspect any and all vehicles will flunk the moose test if you crank hard enough on the steering wheel at speed.

        But, in all seriousness, yesterday I almost tipped over our rental 2012 Wrangler Unlimited on the beach near where we’re staying.

        Hell, I was only going 5mph down a twisty beachroad on the way to the beach with eight people in the Jeep, plus all their gear and surfboards on top of the roll bars.

        It must have been the weight of the beer coolers and charcoal briquettes stacked in the cargo area behind the back seat, that made it unstable. All the people were sitting amidships along the CG.

        Everyone thought it was great fun like an amusement ride, but it scared the crap out of me.

      • 0 avatar
        WRohrl

        @HDC – I’d wager that any 8(!) people in a Wrangler will raise the Center of Gravity significantly. To claim that since they were seated amidships they didn’t affect the CG is nonsense. They only way they would not affect it is if they were all occupying the same exact point in space which is not possible. Also I’d guess you were likely over 5mph… You’re lucky your family isn’t all in the hospital and you aren’t in jail. Hopefully someone walked on the way back or you became the shuttle driver.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        WRohrl, I agree with you about the CG. But what I wanted to communicate was that there weren’t a bunch of drunks spilling out over all sides of the Wrangler. Three of the passengers were young kids sitting on the lap of the rear seat occupants.

        And because it was all blood relatives, as the driver, I took it easy. Still, it was quite a shock to have the passenger side tilt up and feel the passenger side wheels smack back down on the trail. Got my undivided attention.

        We rented two Wranglers again this trip. The other one was ahead of me and was the shorter version like a two-door, loaded with 5 full-grown adults and a bunch of cargo for a beach outing (two surfboards on the rollbars, umbrellas, tents, collapsible tables, propane stove, water, etc) It had no problems negotiating the tight turns on the mountain trail down to the beach.

        I drove the longer 4-door version and I had to twist the steering wheel quite a bit to get it around the bends in the trail.

        The trails where we’re at do not allow you to go very fast. They’re crawling trails up and down the mountains with very tight turns. I remember seeing 5mph on the speedo before getting to the bend. The Wrangler ahead of me was just getting into the bend.

        One of the things we did have to look out for were not Moose, but riders on horseback. They shared the same trail with us but often they let us pass because the horses became nervous with vehicles behind them.

        Anyway, it was scary but no harm was done.

      • 0 avatar
        marauder_pilot

        GWVR on a Wrangler is about a thousand pounds. 8 average sized Americans and some gear could put you close to double that. Of course it nearly rolled. And if it had, you’d have been so far up legal shit creek for having 1500+ pounds on a 1000-pound-capacity vehicle that you’d find yourself in the Fecal Sea.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        Aw hell, dude, during my tour in Nam in ’67 we routinely hauled 6 fully grown men and their flight gear up to the C47 gunships on the line in WWII vintage Jeeps. Talk about overloading! No one flipped over then at the breakneck speeds we were driving around other parked aircraft on the flightline.

        You underestimate Wranglers. This was clearly my error for twisting the steering wheel too sharply on a rigid-axle vehicle, negotiating a downhill, decreasing-radius turn.

        Even so, it got my attention when the wheels came down again. Going back, uphill, we had no problems.

    • 0 avatar
      lightbulb

      This does not give any confidence in their new Jeep. I have a 04 Liberty which I drive daily. Even with IFS it jerks side to side on uneven surfaces, especially at speed on the highway. My father’s 2003 Grand Cherokee is much worse. I hate driving it since it rocks violently on uneven ground. I am surprise the new Grand Cherokee is this bad at it’s limits since it is based on a vehicle that did pass the moose test. It’s odd that many SUV’s can passe this test but the Jeep did not. Must be some major design flaws. Chrysler needs to rethink the suspension and tires on this vehicle.

      • 0 avatar
        mmmach1

        Lightbulb should change his handle to DIMBULB. Dimbulb did you read the article or just cant seem to understand it?

      • 0 avatar

        Pretty much every anti-rollover strategy on an SUV is a compromise against off-road ability.

        Popular strategies include:
        -Rock hard tire compounds
        -Lower ride height
        -Really shitty camber settings

        Probably the best bet is stability control, but that doesn’t keep a driver from throwing the wheel to full lock in a split second at 70mph. The manufacturers are just waiting for steer-by-wire to fix that issue.

        I’ll take my Jeeps flippy, thanks. Everything else should just be a CUV or a wagon. And CUVs are gradually morphing into wagons on their own.

    • 0 avatar
      DrSandman

      I’ve got a 2012 Overland. I was looking for the settings of the air-suspension in the test.

      I wonder if the car had been set to “Off-road Height 1″ prior to the test? There seems to be an awful lot of space between the tires and the fender for the normal ride height.

      Or, perhaps, is the wagon in the process of lowering itself to the “Aero-Ride Height” as the test is underway?

  • avatar
    stryker1

    “continues to be a big with for Teknikens Varld.”

    I suspect that “with” should be a “win”

    Otherwise, entertaining read.

  • avatar
    krhodes1

    My ’02 Grand Cherokee feels like you could roll it over at walking pace. A jacked up wagon with marginal suspension and a high center of gravity that gets even higher when you fully load it is easy to roll. Shocker. In other news, the sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning.

    I love how 110lbs in a 6000lb+ GVW SUV is supposed to make a difference, and no one EVER overloads thier car…

    • 0 avatar
      Nostrathomas

      Not sure if it’s model specific, but having recently driven my sister-in-laws Jeep Liberty, I felt like thing would rollover just from changing lanes. It was easily the most dangerous vehicle I’ve driven.

      To be honest, whenever I drive any SUV/Crossover, I feel pretty unsure the whole time because of the high center of gravity. Even my MIL’s Nissan Murano, which I’ve always heard was pretty decent, was still shockingly bouncy in the corners, compared to any crappy normal car. At the end of the day, you’re still fighting the laws of gravity with a vehicle that’s jacked up. Stability control can only do so much.

      There’s an easy solution….buy a wagon, people!

      • 0 avatar
        chuckrs

        Part of the problem there might be if you came from a good-handling car. I got one of those Liberty things as a loaner. I felt like a Shriner on a motorized bar stool. But I doubt it was really that bad.

      • 0 avatar
        Nostrathomas

        chuckrs: My daily driver is a Cayman, so the results are admittedly a bit skewed. However I do get a chance to drive a lot of rentals and family members cars, and it felt worse than any of them ever has. The Liberty is the only car I’ve ever been scared to get back into…you just can’t trust it.

      • 0 avatar

        Though a popular girl vehicle, the liberty has some actual off-road genes. Especially compared to a Cayman, it’s from a different universe.

    • 0 avatar
      SC5door

      Explain to me how your 02 GC is in any way shape or form similar to the one in the test here?

      Same name possibly?

      Same name. Totally different Jeeps underneath.

    • 0 avatar
      lightbulb

      Other larger SUV’s have passed the test so why can’t the GC?

      • 0 avatar
        Greg Locock

        Passing any of these lane change maneuvers depends crucially on getting the CG height correct. Just chucking a bunch of water filled dummies and a few sandbags in to take it to the recommended max weight is not enough.

      • 0 avatar
        billfrombuckhead

        Actually 3 Grand Cherokees including the one in the video passed a bunch of times when the Chrysler engineers were there observing!

  • avatar
    1998redwagon

    i had no idea that jeep grand cherokee had been through my grandmother’s flowerbed before it rolled over in the moose test. i am glad we got that clarified!

  • avatar
    Sinistermisterman

    Y’gotta love the Italian way of doing things. The usual corporate way of responding to something like this would involve a committee discussing their response, a measured statement, background legal work etc… No, no. Slag them off and call them criminal. Love it!

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    …TTAC readers familiar with the way American car companies do business no doubt expected Chrysler to issue a blanket but not particularly convincing denial while they huddled with their attorneys and applied pressure behind the scenes. It’s what GM would do. Maybe even what Ford would do…

    And Toyota would go problem, we ain’t got no stinkin’ problems. What are you talking about problems. Corolla! Corolla! Corolla! Corolla!!!

  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    I am going to reserve all judgment until more information is released, because these things have a tendency of developing in a very unexpected way – SOMETIMES – on a timeline that’s anything longer than a few weeks or months.

    Most people understand that a vehicle with a relatively high center of gravity, all conditions being equal, is more prone to tipping up its wheels and/or rolling over than a vehicle that doesn’t have a relatively high COG.

    This does give me an opportunity to chime in on a somewhat related (on the periphery) issue that’s been on my mind lately: Roof strength standards.

    Am I naive to be of the opinion that it 1) is ridiculous that vehicles sold in the U.S. aren’t required to pass much more stringent roof strength standards than currently mandated, and 2) that it should NOT be that difficult or expensive for manufacturers to lean on their engineering departments in devising & implementing even relatively low tech solutions to dramatically boost the strength of vehicle roofs (especially those of trucks, SUVs, CUVs)?

    • 0 avatar
      relton

      Roof crush just isn’t a factor in killing people.

      Ask yourself a simple question. The land is full of convertibles, that are completely exempt from roof crush standards. If a strong roof is necessary for safety, wouldn’t convertibles have a terrible record of killing people since they don’t meet the standards of closed cars?

      The answer, of course, is that rollover fatalities in convertibles are statistically no different than any other class of vehicle.

      Rollove deaths are almost entirely caused by occupant ejection, not roof crush.

      Making the roof stronger and heavier raises the center of gravity, at least a little, an increases the chance of a full rollover, a little.

      Roof standards should disappear, and regulatory effort expended on more important things.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        The typical convertible is far more likely to have a FAR lower center of gravity than any SUV, though, let alone a full size one, and I’d take a SWAG and state that compliance with seat belt laws, at what’s close to or above 80% (the last time I was informed), at least significantly reduces the “injuries/fatalities due to vehicular ejection” category.

        With modern alloys, especially incredibly strong and lightweight ones that can be formed into any shape and dimension without dramatic expense, it shouldn’t add much weight or cost to augment roof strength by a factor of many.

        On an admittedly more anecdotal level, I’ve known of, seen and read about many serious injurious and deaths as a result, at least in part, of a vehicle’s roof collapsing (whether in a rollover or not).

      • 0 avatar
        BobAsh

        Hell no! Just sit in any modern car and try to look around. What you will see are pillars the size of Dorian columns. Especially A-pillars thick enough to hide 18-wheeler are truly great for safety.

        And why is that? Because of the roof strenght standards. Even windshield frames of convertibles are strong enough to withstand rollover nowadays.

        We need lighter cars, which drivers are able to see out of, not more tanks.

      • 0 avatar
        golden2husky

        …….We need lighter cars, which drivers are able to see out of, not more tanks…..

        Yes we need lighter cars. And we need better visibility. Let’s start with lowering the beltline so we can see out the side. Save the weight by getting rid of useless bulk and size. I don’t like the thick pillars either, but roof crush standards are needed. We saw what we got when the automakers were left to their own devices, and that was pretty much no ability to preserve any semblance to a passenger compartment if there was a rollover….

    • 0 avatar
      smokingclutch

      Sure, if you want to ban convertibles.

    • 0 avatar
      benzaholic

      Easy solution is already what’s been implemented by everybody:
      roof pillars so bulky that they interfere with the driver’s external visibility.

      • 0 avatar
        DeadWeight

        Is that the real reason for those wide pillars (which I also detest), though?

        I was of the impression it was far more due to aesthetics (the designers want to infuse all those 4 cylinder 23k run-a-bout CUVs with some flare and panache, especially) and the desire to trick women into thinking that the Incredible Hulk himself could not make his way into their Equinox/Escape/CR-V/etc, to do harm to them or their little ones.

        Engineers, speaketh.

      • 0 avatar
        Brian P

        Yes, the thickness of those pillars is to strengthen the vehicle, although it’s primarily for side impact and limiting deformation in frontal impact, rather than for roof crush.

        Watch any NHTSA/IIHS frontal offset impact of just about any vehicle from the 1990′s or before (there are plenty of them on-line), and note how the A-pillar frequently collapses, along with considerable deformation in the foot-well area. Now compare that to just about any corresponding current vehicle, and note how the A-pillar generally stays intact and frequently to the extent that it still allows the door to be opened after the crash. That requires *considerable* stiffening of the A-pillar and window framing. Convertibles normally have considerable bracing underneath to make up for the lack of a roof, and that’s why they are often heavier than the sedan counterparts.

        The B-pillar is mostly for side impact. Pick any 1990s or before side-impact video and that of the corresponding modern vehicle. Side intrusion is considerably less with the newer models. But it comes at the cost of a stiff (read: thick) B-pillar, and some would argue that the high belt-lines on today’s vehicles are also at least in part for crash protection. It’s a whole lot easier to build crash structure out of steel than glass.

        The tradeoff … is lousy outward visibility.

        VW Jetta Mk3 (through 1998): Great outward visibility, so-so crash protection.
        VW Jetta Mk5 (2006 onward): Lousy outward visibility, great crash protection.
        There are those who would argue that the Mk4 struck the best compromise, and I can’t say I disagree. (I have a Mk5, and the outward visibility, particularly B-pillars and rear quarters, is one thing I don’t like about it.)

      • 0 avatar
        Georgewilliamherbert

        Engineer here. The pillars don’t have to be that bulky to be strong, though you’d have to make them out of something other than pressed thin steel buildups. A 1″ diameter round standard steel rod (about 0.78 square inch of cross sectional area) in standard mild steel can support something like 28,000 lbs of force. If it’s a 1.5″ diameter 0.075″ thick mild steel tube it’s got about 0.35″ cross sectional area and can support about 12,000 lbs of force, but will be stiffer. You can work the numbers pretty easily on racing roll cage specs, on what loads they are expected to support.

        it’s a little harder than that, because it’s really not a column load (straight up and down) but something approximating a truss structure (roof, A pillars, B pillars, etc) and both compression and bending loads, etc. The loads aren’t in straight lines, you have to solve for both compression and bending in all the members. And for some of the structures, column load critical length is enough to reduce the column’s strength in compression. But understanding the bare compressive strength of the members is a good first step.

        If we take a 3,500 lb car and want 5x own weight crush resistance, then that’s about 17,500 lbs force. If we’re paranoid and want 10x own weight, that’s still only about 1 square inch of mild steel, or about 0.4-0.5 square inch of 4130. 2″ diameter round pillar, 6.3 or so inches around, 0.065″ thick would do nicely. Running that from roofline to the floor, 54 inches of length (including inclined windshield angle) would be about 12 lbs for both sides. About 50 lbs plus or minus for crossmembers and B pillars for a whole roof structure that strong, plus or minus a bit. And there are certainly stronger alloys and materials than that (any good aluminum alloy, 4340 steel, HY-120, maraging steel, etc).

        This is all about economics of production and lazyness of structural engineering in typical cars, and standards that aren’t good enough. Racing cages and structures are better, good enough that racers are only very rarely hurt by cages failing. But road cars (even with big doors and the like) can be much much better.

        Why do I care about this? Learned driving in western Marin County, California. I’ve seen enough flattened, off-road-upside-down, and wrapped-around-trees cars in my lifetime…

      • 0 avatar
        majo8

        Part of the reason for the bulk on some a-pillars is that there’s an airbag stuffed inside the pillar.

    • 0 avatar
      rnc

      Don’t know a thing about roof crush and roll over standards in this country (but what I’ve learned in from this website is any it’s not bad, b/c the manufacturers of choice (at the time) would do the opposite).

      My ex-BIL was one of those lucky SOB’s who survived b/c he was ejected from a car, something about taking a 90 degree turn at 80-90mph, rolling over 7-8 times and landing upside down in a pond (+) wearing a seat belt that don’t go together well. I wear mine.

  • avatar
    MeaCulpa

    The moose test is, in my opinion of course, just about the only meaningful handling test for a car, it’s about avoiding a danger in your lane then turning back into the correct lane again, something that’s actually useful for a commuter carhttp://www.teknikensvarld.se/Global/Nyheter/2012/07/10/Teknikens-Varld-algtest-bana-moose-test-track.jpg
    Being familiar with Swedish libel law and the countries protection of the press and free speech I wish the Italians the best of luck as they don’t stand a snowballs chance in hell unless they do the seediest thing known to man and sue in England (where libel reform is on its way).

    TV has responded to the Italian-American claims by saying that they followed the load ratings recorded in the vehicular registry (determined by the manufacturer) that are re-printed on the proof of registration, that the tires where of the same brand and dimensions that all cheerokes are fitted with (Continental CrossContact 265/50 R20) and inflated to the pressure recommended in the operators/owners manual (2,5 kilos, 250 kPa, 36 psi when cold) and that all safety systems where left in the default mode. Then this little gem of critiquing a poorly engineered “car” shows up in the same statement.

    “Vid alla genomförda älgtest med Jeep Grand Cherokee har bilen antingen gått upp på två hjul och varit nära att välta eller krängt av däcken från fälgarna. Vid älgtesten med Chrysler/Fiat närvarande krängdes däcken av fälgarna. Totalt sju gånger har däcken krängts av fälgarna, ett mycket allvarligt problem som vi endast upplevt en gång tidigare – med Skoda Superb 2010 (bilden intill). När ett däck krängs av fälgen blottas fälgkanten som griper tag i asfaltunderlaget och kan leda till tvärkast och efterföljande rullning.
    Då, 2010, insåg Skoda att de försett Superb med för lågt däcktryck och för hög maxlast. De skickade därefter ut nya rekommendationer och fordonsuppgifter.”

    “During all the moose tests conducted with the Jeep Grand Cherokee the car has either, “gone up” on two wheels and been close to flipping over, or it has forced the tiers of the rim. During the test with [representatives of] Chrysler/Fiat present the tiers where forced of the rim. In total the tiers has been forced of the rims seven times, a severe problem that we have only encountered once previously with the Skoda Superb. When a tier is forced of the rim the lip of the rim becomes exposed, the lip then “grabs” the tarmac which can lead to a “twitchy skid”* and rollover. In 2010 Skoda realized that they had recommended to low a tier pressure and to high a load rating. They subsequently altered the recommendations and ratings.”

    *In want of a better word/translation

    • 0 avatar
      MeaCulpa

      Damn scumbags! All that translation work and the whole shebang was available in English. http://www.teknikensvarld.se/jeepmoosetest-part2/ sour f**king grapes Chrysler/Fiat.

      The maximum load of the tested diesel is 602 kg (1327 pounds) including passengers.

    • 0 avatar
      Slab

      This is exactly how my sister rolled a Dodge truck back in 80s. A front tire blew out and the wheel dug into the road, turning the truck into a pole vaulter.

  • avatar
    Geekcarlover

    WHAT!!?! Cars/trucks with a high center of gravity are more likely to become unstuck from the road when you whip it through curves at high speed? This is news to me. My old CJ-5 never did that. Except for the half dozen times it did it before I learned to slow down.

  • avatar
    Domestic Hearse

    And now, it’s time to turn the Alces Alces over to TTAC’s tame racing driver. Some say the saddle he’s going to sit upon comes straight from Vodka McBigbra’s boudoir. And that while avoiding the Jeep Grand Cherokee that wandered into his line, he resorted to shuffle steering. All we know is, he’s called the Jack.

  • avatar
    Manic

    Go to the source: “When we performed the moose test with Chrysler/Fiat present the car manufacturer’s representatives on site provided the loading of the car. Then the tires were pried off the rims instead of going up on two wheels like before. A total of seven times, the tires were pried off the wheels, a very serious error that we have only seen once before – with Skoda Superb in 2010 (see image). When a tire is pried off the wheel the rim’s edge is exposed, which get stuck in the asphalt and may lead to a snatch and a roll over.”

    http://www.teknikensvarld.se/jeepmoosetest-part2/

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    I think we have seen this movie before, only it was called “Ford Explorer.” IIRC, both these vehicles, when loaded with the rated 5 passengers and luggage are tippy. Often the manufacturer will specify a maximum load weight and weasel out that way. But, when you do the math, the maximum weight precludes any lugguage in the car with all seats occupied by average-sized adults.

    My quarrel with the test in the video is that it was not conducted on pavement, but on some sort of sand which was softer than pavaement. It’s pretty clear that the outside front wheel dug in to the sand, “tripping” the vehicle over on its side. On pavement, it’s more likely that the tire would just slide (which is one reason for not putting oversized, extra-wide tires on your SUV). If, as the comments claim, the magazine rolled the tires off the rim when tested with the manufacturer, Chrysler/Fiat would be wise to stay out of court. No one is going to believe that rolling a tire off the rim is safe behavior.

    • 0 avatar
      MeaCulpa

      Sand? It’s a runway so concrete is plausible, but sand? Most likely it’s tarmac/asphalt that’s faded from the sun and rain. I think you should consider visiting an optometrist. What you’re seeing is the tier holding on to the rim for dear life http://www.teknikensvarld.se/bildgalleri/jeep-grand-cherokee-moose-test/?p=4#imageView

    • 0 avatar
      probert

      The ford explorer killed a lot of people.

      • 0 avatar

        Yes, they were known for doing that completely on their own with no one behind the wheel.

      • 0 avatar
        LBJs Love Child

        Explain “a lot”.

        A contemporary response from FoMoCo (and the DOT):

        Ford’s analysis of safety data from the U.S. Department of Transportation confirms that over the past 10 years Explorer consistently ranks among the safest vehicles in its class. The fatality rate for passenger cars is 1.5 per 100 million miles of vehicle travel. The rate for compact SUVs is lower – 1.3. And the Explorer is even lower at 1.1.

        Focusing on rollover accidents alone, the Explorer is safer than competitive SUVs. Ford analysis of government safety data reveals that the Explorer line is involved in 19 percent fewer fatal rollovers than other similar SUVs. And, state safety data, which covers fatal and non-fatal rollovers, show that Explorers are involved in 16 percent fewer rollovers than competitive SUVs.

    • 0 avatar
      Slab

      The video posted above is not the test. That’s of some guys goofing around in the desert somewhere. Click on the red words “nearly rolled over” to see the actual test.

  • avatar
    Mr. Sparky

    This isn’t the first time that this generation of Grand Cherokee has been videoed doing the hokey pokey during an emergency lane change. Consumer Reports, killer of the Suzuki Samarai, does essentially the same test, and their 2011 V6 Laredo tester, while not quite matching the “exciting” performance of the Swedes, did really poorly.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6O9zSr-yAc&feature=player_embedded

    Given the market power of CR, Chrysler promptly issued a service bulletin to reflash V6 Cherokees to update the stability control software so that they could get the CR blessing.

    http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/02/update-chrysler-fixes-2011-jeep-grand-cherokee-handling-problem.html

    Given that Chrysler has already had to tweak this vehicle once due to poor emergency lane change performance, I don’t think I would be whipping out the term criminal just yet if I were them.

    In fact, with these two videos, somewhere a bunch of trial lawyers are feeling warm and fuzzy in their private regions…

    • 0 avatar
      DaeGoesFast

      I’m surprised you’re the only one, but at least someone mentioned the undue fate of the Suzuki Samurai! It was the incident that first put Consumer Reports on the map. It was just a publicity move, but after the dust of the ongoing court cases settled, the damage to Suzuki’s image had been done.

      It’s all here, Suzuki vs. Consumer Reports:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2Bv9WL3vpY&feature=plcp

      I want to say Teknikens Varld is just making a similar attempt to bolster their image, but that Jeep certainly looks more at risk of a rollover than the Samurai ever was.

      *edit*
      I just found another vid about Isuzu vs Consumer Reports, and watched a bit. It claims, “In 1988 the Federal government, specifically the NHTSA also concluded that this test was not reliable because it did not relate to real world obstacle avoidance maneuvers and the test could be manipulated by the driver.”

      - Source, Isuzu vs Consumer Reports:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZBh3zxxOqw&feature=relmfu

  • avatar

    Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yer?
    See the løveli lakes
    The wonderful telephøne system
    And mani interesting furry animals
    Including the majestic møøse
    A Møøse once bit my sister …

    I can’t be the only one who thought of Monty Python while reading this article.

  • avatar
    dcecr

    The Jeep in the video accompanying this story looks like a WJ (1999-2004 model).

    (current owner of a WK, past owner of a WJ, XJ and ZJ)

  • avatar
    Mr. Sparky

    “the vehicle was definitely “set up,” which is nothing short of criminal… the vehicle used to perform the extreme maneuver was overloaded by 110 lbs.”

    According to Jeep’s website, an Overland 4X4 has a 1590 lbs payload which means that if the vehicle was overloaded by 110 lbs, it was exceeded by just under SEVEN PERCENT.

    It’s really quite reasonable to have a payload margin of error under 7% for a SUV… I’m mean, it’s not like people load these things full of people and cargo or put luggage racks on them or such… Nor would people expect to encounter a deer, cow, or feral child should they need load the vehicle up.

    For 2013, all Grand Cherokees will come with a standard “Orvis” scale so that you can weight each passenger and piece of luggage! See, problem solved!

    • 0 avatar
      MeaCulpa

      The Swedish “car” has a maximum payload of 602 kg or about 1300 lbs, it was a diesel so that might explain the lower load rating (heavier engine). I think that the rated roof load is somewhere around the 70kg/150lbs, imagine the handling then.

    • 0 avatar
      SC5door

      Which Jeep website? Jeep.com

      That’s for the US market buddy.

      Try looking for the export specs next time.

  • avatar
    mr_muttonchops

    I’d be careful throwing around the term “criminal” when your brand/company has had it’s factory workers photographed drinking on the job site.

    • 0 avatar
      MeaCulpa

      And when the guy driving that you accuse of being a criminal is a former cop (retired after 40+ years in blue working highway patrol/traffic safety) that was a driving instructor, oh he also has a couple of national titles in Rally. Pretty much the last guy this side of a sitting judge you’ll want to slander.

      • 0 avatar

        Because we all know that cops always tell the truth 100% of the time.

      • 0 avatar
        MeaCulpa

        @Ronnie Schreiber
        Well some do others don’t, in either case you should have SOMETHING to back up your claim of foul play, until then I would say that it’s safe to presume that most courts would find the Peeler more trustworthy.

      • 0 avatar

        Again, I’m making no claim of foul play, just keeping an open, skeptical mind. You’re the one who’s insisting that we must accept things as stated.

        Undoubtedly courts are prone to give cops’ testimony credence, unfortunately.

        From Alan Dershowitz’s 10 Rules about criminal law.

        1. 99.99% of criminal defendants in US courts are, in fact, guilty of one of the crimes with which they are charged.
        2. We act as though rule #1 doesn’t exist.
        3. All cops lie on the stand.
        4. We act as though rule #3 doesn’t exist.

        Your childlike faith in law enforcement officers and Swedish car magazines is touching.

        Baruth’s never lied to me or about me, nor taken away my property or my liberty, something I can’t say about cops.

      • 0 avatar
        MeaCulpa

        @Ronnie Schreiber
        I usually have little trust in Law enforcement and in Swedish car mags, I do however believe that you should back up your claims of foul play, especially when you make said claims in reference to somebody who is a person of authority or somebody that the public or courts has reason to believe generally.

        According to the local – and by god awful – tabloid Expressen, TV claims that the car WAS overloaded as the manufacturer hadn’t adjusted it’s load ratings according to the equipment fitted when they had the information entered into the national register (the same probably holds true for all of Europe as the system is quite uniform). The actual “safe” load rating of the car tested was 50kg less than the 604kg the car was registered for, bringing the cars load rating down to 554kg (about 1200 pounds).
        Was the mag in the wrong? I would say that they should have put the car on the scales, as the later did, but on the other hand they should be able to rely on the figures supplied by the manufacturer. I – albeit perhaps naively – don’t view the incident as some malicious set up directed at Fiat/Chrysler/Jeep, when the testing where done with the presumption that the figures given to consumers and authorities where correct.

        Was Chrysler in the wrong? Well they where right in claiming that the car was over loaded, on the other hand they could take measures to inform the consumers – if not authorities – that the load rating stated was incorrect for a car equipped as the one tested and that the car would be unsafe if loaded according to the figures they had previously supplied. Perhaps they – as I also should, before becoming all Pissy – should have exercised some moderation in their response, screaming “criminal setup” from the top of your lungs when you’re largely to blame for the situation is pretty god damn stupid, especially when Chrysler’s response was guilty of the sin of omission on multiple accounts and of a severe lack of knowledge of a foreign legal system.

        Is the car unsafe? Yes, no If and buts about it. When TV – again according to the same tabloid quoting TV’s Editor-in-chief – tested the car a second time with representatives from Fiat/Chrysler present and doing the loading it did not go as far up on two wheels, instead the tiers where pried from the rims in 6 of 11 tests conducted. Something – if true, TV claims that they have video of the incident – makes all the talk of criminal setup seem a bit fishy and makes the press release in general seem like the worst attempt at damage control ever.

        Where JB acting prickish. Surprisingly less than usual, I do think that the piece could have been written in less of a everybody-is-a-sellout-but-us tone, but compared to the usual fare it wasn’t all that bad. I do apologize to him for my pissynes (I also suspect that pissynes isn’t an actual word) and hostility. If he ever appears in Stockholm I’ll treat him to a big-bra sized über quad-pint of beer.

        “And thus the native hue of resolution, Is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought”, Was i Pissy? Oh, by god, yes I was!

        In conclusion, me Pissy and apologetic, Chrysler acting sleazy and in need of outside counsel, TV overloading, car unsafe.

        Tabloid link http://www.expressen.se/motor/chrysler-jeepen-var-overlastad-i-kortestet/

  • avatar
    Ingvar

    There is no conspiracy. TV puts all their tested cars through that test. And the GC failed, spectacularely. It is as simple as that.

    As said, the moose test is a simulation of a catastrophe avoidance maneuver, like when a child suddenly runs into the street with no thought on traffic. As the GC is mostly used on road and in city traffic, it should be able of making that maneuver without tipping.

  • avatar
    Brian P

    I wonder about the manner of loading.

    The vehicle manufacturers specify the amount of the loading, but not how high.

    You can put the compact but heavy bags of sand on the floor and the large, light bags of clothing on top … or you can put the bags of clothing on the floor and put the bags of sand on top. Same weight, big difference in center of gravity location.

    The temperature of the test conditions (both tire temperature and road temperature) will have some effect on the grip, too.

    It’s quite possible that even with identical loading conditions, if a vehicle is right on the bleeding edge of tipping over, it might tip on one day where pavement grip is optimum and not tip on another day with a little less grip.

  • avatar

    As Chrysler is Italian now, Chrysler should know that while not official, the Moose test nevertheless has become an integral part of European testing. Ever since the Moose test killed the introduction of the Mercedes A Class in the 90s, automakers in Europe design for that test.

    • 0 avatar
      Robert.Walter

      Agreed. A certain OEM with which you have some history, teaches its in-house counsel that “de-facto” standards created by things like the Elk Test have equal standing in a jury’s mind as do government and industry norms.

      In other words, one can ignore these tests, but does so at one’s own peril.

  • avatar
    Mullholland

    The surface isn’t a road. It isn’t a runway. It may be sand. But it certainly is a “not-so-dry” lake bed. A soggy unpredictable surface that’s much more challenging than 98% of the surfaces (paved asphalt roads or cement highways) this vehicle sees in real life. And who ever saw a moose on a dry/not-so-dry lake bed.
    While a useful publicity stunt for the magazine with a serious helping of troll-bait, the test is bogus. I don’t care how many they’ve tested (and rolled) or plan to do. Plus it seems to me that the vehicle tested is of a previous model year and one that isn’t currently being sold by Jeep. I wonder if they’d be interested in adapting their test on a more historical model. I propose Corvair vs. Moose.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      The video in the article has nothing to do with the moose test, isn’t from Sweden, and isn’t of a new Grand Cherokee. That looks like a series one from more than a decade ago with the old 5.9 liter Magnum engine. There is a link in one of the posts here which will show stills of the actual moose test. It looks like it may have been conducted on a runway.

    • 0 avatar
      MeaCulpa

      Wow, just wow. What are you smoking? You do understand that the video on top of this page isn’t the actual test in question although there’s a link to the test?

  • avatar
    el scotto

    Well, duh. A large vehicle with a high center of gravity is prone to roll over and handle poorly. However they make excellent urban assault vehicles. Bad pavement? curbs? sidewalks? pish-posh; all are drivable. Memes of hatred about such vehicles? Oh yes, between “I hate SUVs” bumper stickers and soccer moms whose family has 5 cars running at the same time telling my truck was not Eco-friendly. Would a Miata just go under the moose?

  • avatar
    probert

    Regarding your 2 examples of supposed false findings:

    Isuzu sued Consumer reports ; CR was not only found not guilty but Isuzu had to pay their court costs.

    The second may have been sloppy journalism but when when GM put the gas tanks outside the vehicle perimeter they condemned a lot of people to a particularly gruesome death. But they probably saved $5.00 per vehicle . Cost /benefit wise it probably paid off.

    I don’t think your second scenario sounds valid. I was surprised that the test was on dirt – so many things could be at fault. In the end I think vehicle instability will be the main culprit.

    • 0 avatar

      NBC didn’t just do “sloppy journalism”, they fitted model rocket engines in order to ignite the leaking fuel. Sorry, but “it may be a lie but it teaches a greater truth” doesn’t cut it.

      As for the Isuzu/CR litigation, from USA Today:
      [start quote]
      “The settlement involves no money, but it includes a “clarification” by Consumers Union that writing that Samurai “easily” rolls over in turns may have been “misconstrued or misunderstood.”

      Consumers Union also says in the agreement that it “never intended to imply that the Samurai easily rolls over in routine driving conditions.” And it notes that it “never questioned the safety of any other Suzuki model” and, in fact, “praised the Suzuki Sidekick and recommended the Suzuki Vitara/XL-7.”

      Consumers Union must refer to the agreement whenever it mentions ratings or testing of the Samurai. For example, when subscribers search for articles about the Samurai on the Consumer Reports Web site, the agreement will appear at the top of the articles.”[End quote]

      I could find nothing that indicates that Suzuki had to pay CR’s legal fees.

    • 0 avatar
      rnc

      It did pay off(?), they actaully ran the actuarial(sp) tables on the expected number of char victums vs. the cost of shutting down assembly, redesigning truck and retooling assembly line, etc. and chose option A. They were right in terms of $, but true cost I don’t know?

  • avatar

    I’m more or less with JB on this one, but is the margin of error so narrow that 110 lbs of overloading will cause a rollover? That’s just a couple of heavy suitcases.

    • 0 avatar
      MeaCulpa

      Why are you with Jack on this? He has nothing but a press release to back up his usual claims.
      If the “car” was overloaded with bags it would have landed on it’s roof, luckily the test was conducted with sand bags tied to the floor and not with a realistic load.

      • 0 avatar
        el scotto

        You’re just getting all pissy about this article, aren’t you?

      • 0 avatar
        MeaCulpa

        @el scotto
        Yes I am, had I read the byline prior to reading the article I could have spared myself the grief. If my wifi was working properly I might have been in a better mood and slightly less pissy. Having said that, this is the weakest thing published on TTAC since the M-GmbH history thing.

      • 0 avatar

        Jack’s sort of agnostic on the subject and offered two alternatives. I said that I was “more or less” in agreement with him. That introduces even more uncertainty. Then I said that a 110 lb overloading doesn’t sound like much of a margin of error.

        That seems to me like someone with an open mind. You, however want me to simply accept what TV says. TV could be correct, or they may not be. I don’t see why I have to take their claims at face value. It wouldn’t be the first time journalists have fudged things for ratings.

        What’s your dog in this fight?

    • 0 avatar
      jpolicke

      We have no way of knowing the weight distribution in either test. TV may have spread the weight realistically or unnaturally high in obtain a dramatic result, just as Chrysler may have placed it unrealistically low. I doubt the latter happened as TV would have immediately spotted it and called foul.

      If both vehicles were loaded similarly with only a 110 pound difference, that’s really a razor-thin margin of safety. Does anyone ever really know the exact weight of all their passengers and luggage? Who does these calculations before embarking on a trip? Maybe .01% of the driving public?

      • 0 avatar
        MeaCulpa

        They secure it on the floor of the luggage compartment.

      • 0 avatar
        MeaCulpa

        They secure it on the floor of the luggage compartment, the same way they have done for the last 30 years.

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Using life-size dumbies for the test would’ve been more realistic as belted in passenger’s torsos are up high and will get thrown to the outside of the maneuver and shift even more weight off the light side.

        Many people assume that simi tractors that tip over when taking an on ramp were simply going too fast when likely it was the result of an unsecured load.

    • 0 avatar
      Greg Locock

      Trouble is, if you design around a 110 lb overload, then somebody will overload that new figure by 100lb, and so it goes.

      So what the manufacturers do is advertise the figure they work to, and rely on the consumer taking some responsibility. Sure, overload your truck, it’ll probably survive. But then accept that it won’t pass all the tests.

      Personal responsibility is great concept isn’t it?

      Alternatively, we’ll fix little potentiometers to the springs, and then put a federally mandated ignition key interlock in, and prevent you from driving if the truck is overloaded. If you can’t take personal responsibility for not driving like a dill in an overloaded truck, we’ll do that. Grins.

      Yes 110 lb is significant especially if it is above the cg. longitudinal location is also important.

  • avatar
    DenverMike

    In other shocking news, heavy cars take longer to stop.

    In either case, you drive accordingly, with a bit more vigilance and awareness than say, a Camry. Beyond that, what ever you did to get you up on two wheels, do the opposite.

  • avatar

    Funny no one’s hung up on the inability to repeat the result.

    Repeatable results are pretty much the basis of an intact scientific method. Then there’s that whole “extraordinary results require extraordinary proof” thing.

    Personally, I just assume any C/SUV or Truck is more likely to roll over. They’re also more likely to “win” in almost any other collision with a car. Consider it a wash.

    • 0 avatar
      Felis Concolor

      For centuries, the scientific method has been strengthened and refined through its core principle, which is summed up in three simple words: show your work. Sadly, that principle has been abandoned by many who profess to be scientists, but instead turn out to be scare mongers who attempt to frighten their readers into ignoring the lack of research, documentation, data and proper procedure in their findings.

      Personally, I blame the CAGW crowd’s behavior for this sad state of affairs.

    • 0 avatar
      Manic

      Well, when TV loaded SUV then they repeatedly got “driving on 2 wheels” result, when Fiatsler people loaded, TV got 7 times results where tire was removed from rim. Seems all depends on how you place people and bags.
      I suppose Chrysler will have to change something like MB did with A-class, maybe different tire pressure requirements are enough.

  • avatar
    jpolicke

    How is it that back in 1973 Volvo was able to make the 240 survive a rollover without massive A-pillars? Who took the secret with them when they died?

    • 0 avatar
      Robert.Walter

      How died, rollover? Or did the swede test driver with a neck of steel retire, thus removing the greatest obstacle to roof crush? Just kidding, I think the domed shape of those roofs went a long way toward distributing load, despite mild steel, than do the flatter roofs we know today.

  • avatar
    Creature of the Wheel

    All those commenters afraid to drive a Cherokee are free to find other transportation. But I would like to ask – What do you want done to the Jeep? As far as I see, the overturning moment is based on three factors; the CG height, the track width, and the lateral acceleration.

    CG Height – We can’t lower it significantly since its a damned Cherokee. The ride height is a design feature.

    Track width – Can’t make wider without approaching Hummer territory. A wide track is inconvenient on both trail and road.

    Lateral acceleraton – We install lower grip tires or slow down the steering ratio. That seems like a real winning option. Sacrifice everyday performance to avoid a potential problem in an extreme case.

    So you might roll a Cherokee if it’s fully loaded, you are going at a good speed, and you execute a tight lane-change maneuver. Big f’n deal! You can drive one straight off the road and into a tree if you attempt a tight corner at 80mph. You can jump a sharp rise in the road if you take it too fast. You can ram into the back of a schoolbus full of children if you don’t hit the brake in time. It’s called driving. The driver is required to possess a certain degree of skill, judgement, and restraint.

    • 0 avatar
      Robert.Walter

      Springs, sta-bars and stiffer tires anyone? Or would that wreck the plushness of the ride?

      • 0 avatar
        Creature of the Wheel

        Springs, bars, and sidewall stiffness do nothing to alter the fundamental factors resulting in a overturning moment – the CG height, track width, and lateral acceleration. I suppose you could use them to make the Cherokee understeer horribly and thus prevent it reaching a lateral acceleration high enough to induce roll over, but then you are artificially limiting its ultimate grip which you may want and need in all those instances you aren’t trying to shuttle five adults plus luggage at high speed at night in moose country.

      • 0 avatar
        Flipper35

        Shock valving, specifically rebound, also has an effect on rollover tendancy. When the car is steered left and heeling over on it’s right side there is preload on teh springs on that side. When you turn back tight the springs push the right side back up giving the roll to the left side additional momentum. If the rebound valving is set to allow a quick rebound the car will heel over to the left (possibly causing a rollover) far more than if the rebound were heavily dampened.

      • 0 avatar
        Brian P

        The spring and antiroll bar rates do have an effect. When there is body lean, the entire C of G of the vehicle is shifted outwards a little bit. The other thing is that compliant ride motions can set up a pendulum effect, in which the outward tilting (body roll) and the corresponding outward shift of the C of G overshoot, and if it is on the very edge of tipping over, that overshoot could put it over the edge. The above post concerning rebound damping is a way of addressing the overshoot.

        The vehicle’s ESP system matters, also. It was noted in the original video that the ESP and roll mitigation did not seem effective. If the system detects the vehicle is about to roll, slam on the outside front brake. Overrule the ABS and let it lock up for a moment until the impending roll subsides. A locked wheel can’t do any steering – this will straighten out the vehicle (and slow it down, which is generally helpful under these conditions).

  • avatar
    azmtbkr81

    Yes, if you could please lower it, put bigger wheels, smaller tires, taller doors, and bulky, bulbous fenders to differentiate it from a minivan that would really be ideal. Oh and don’t forget to make the seat as high off the ground as possible while keeping ground clearance no more than 4 inches so that it is easy to load bags of Costco dog food. Also please make it ride more like a Camry, it is too darn bumpy!

  • avatar
    punkybrewstershubby

    I think that what we should do is for some of us to send TTAC $1 to be used towards the rental fee for (1) 2012 Jeep Grand Cherry for one day, making damn sure the PDW/LDW is paid for, and have them do their own “Moose Avoidance Manuever” to show the world a true, unbiased test. Any takers?

  • avatar
    Maymar

    Am I the only one that wants to see the moose test on a new Mercedes ML? I mean, I know they’re not identical, but they’re using a related chassis, similar dimensions, and a Benz-designed stability control system.

  • avatar
    el scotto

    @MeaCulpa, thank you for your civilized response. I’ll listen to anyone on here who uses civility and at least some facts . Don’t want you to think I’m some nut lurking the ‘net, just got done paying bills. Fixing my WI-fi is usually a PITA.

  • avatar
    chicagoland

    One good thing about Fiat, they are not afraid of the “PC Auto haters” in the media. They are not going to apologize.

  • avatar
    oldyak

    This whole thing is hilarious to read!
    Goofy Swede`s rolling a Jeep because of a moose in the road.
    Lets look at Michigan with an overabundance of deer and see how many Jeeps roll over.
    Lets look at Memphis with an overabundance of drunks to avoid and see how many Jeeps roll over…
    Lets look at Arizona and see how many Jeeps roll over avoiding illegal aliens..
    Lets look at Florida and see how many jeeps roll over avoiding blue hairs,alligators and an occasional Cuban…
    How about D.C.
    how many Jeeps roll over avoiding congressmen and senators….

    • 0 avatar
      zenofchaos

      In all but the last entry, I could see a situation where that may actually occur.

      The last one…. not so much. Maybe rolling over while swerving TOWARDS politicians.

  • avatar
    200k-min

    Overloaded or not everytime there is a winter storm 99.9% of all the vehicles I see in the ditch are SUV’s….and a good number of them are on their roof.

    Part of that is undoubtedly the driver but given the statistics I see with my own eyes the physics of the vehicle have to come into play.

    Do your moose test with any mid-sized sedan, do it overloaded, I doubt you’ll have near the failure rates vs. any SUV, aka, wagon on stilts.

    • 0 avatar
      el scotto

      I disagree, too many don’t realize 4 wheel drive go does not equal 4wd wheel drive stop. They’re ignorant of the fact that 4wd gives you traction but the road conditions make for poor stopping. Then again, I’ve been driving 4wd off and on since I started driving. I think too many got out of their sedans and thought 4wd made them invincible.

  • avatar
    DaveDFW

    I find it pretty difficult to defend Jeep in this instance. It should be virtually impossible to roll any vehicle by using any driving control input when the vehicle is on smooth, flat pavement.

    All it took for the Jeep was a full load and two opposite flicks of the steering wheel?

    Get these things off the road.

    • 0 avatar
      SC5door

      Why?

      You’ve given no proof that the Jeep is unsafe in any way shape or form.

    • 0 avatar
      el scotto

      It all gets down to physics. Drive anything fast enough and cut the wheel and see what happens. When my butt tells me I’m getting tippy in a curve, I tap the brakes. If Jeeps need put off the road what about all the other C/SUVs?

      • 0 avatar
        05lgt

        Depending on my inputs, traction available, and …um speed… cutting the wheels makes my extra sticky after market tired car push, powerslide, or spin. Only way it’s flipping is if the damn thing hits something like a curb while I’m being a doofus. BTDT ended up on the wheels but one side was road marred. Then again, it’s got about 4″ of ground clearance and is worthless “off road”. So much for “anything”. It does love graded dirt and or gravel though:)

  • avatar
    el scotto

    I’m waiting for some fool to write “My C/SUV handles just like it’s sedan counterpart due to brand X’s superior engineering”. Sure.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • J & J Sutherland, Canada
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India