By on July 30, 2012

When last we saw the Jeep Grand Cherokee, it was blowing tires and going bumper-up like Seka. Redemption is on the horizon, however…

Auto motor und sport claims that they have duplicated the conditions of the so-called “moose test”, and this time the Grand Cherokee passed with flying colors. There doesn’t appear to be any video evidence to this effect, and perhaps it’s all a big publicity stunt, but there you go. Do you trust the Swedes, the Germans, the Italians, or your own lying eyes?

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!


43 Comments on “Grand Cherokee Passes Another “Moose Test”...”

  • avatar

    My uncle (NYPD retired) told me “never swerve for an animal” when I was learning to drive. Therefore, I do not swerve. Instead, my strategy is to ACCELERATE. Hit them with enough force and they will either EXPLODE or be thrown vertically over the vehicle.

    I’d rather risk front end damage than a rollover. I can drive home from front end damage.

    Fortunately, I live in NYC so Deer aren’t a problem, but, for my drives through NJ and Pennsylvania I’m always on my toes.

    • 0 avatar

      If you hit a low object (Dog, possum, fox, wild boar etc.) then you are correct. If you hit a tall animal (Moose, Elk, big deer, possibly cow) then all you will do is sweep its legs out from under it and all of a sudden find the body coming through the windshield into your face. Most likely you will die.

    • 0 avatar

      I’m not sure you’d want to do that with a moose. The trouble with them is that it’s a lot of weight up high on the end of very long legs. When they’re hit the vehicle takes out the legs and the body of the moose takes out the passenger compartment – often flattening out the roofline completely.

      Almost anything else I’m inclined to agree about not swerving, although I doubt if I would speed up.

      • 0 avatar

        Yeah, hitting a 100-200 lbs deer is not quite the same as hitting a 1500-2000 lbs moose. I’ve hit my fair share of deer, and I agree, it’s best to just go straight and nail the suckers than to try and swerve. For one thing, you usually don’t have time to swerve, so you hit the deer anyway, and then end up in the ditch, or worse, in the opposite lane. I had a Astro van nearly up on two wheels swerving to miss a deer once. Because of my cat-like reflexes, we made it through unscathed, though the guy behind me was less fortunate. After the impressive show of driving skill, my wife (who was in the van) ordered me to never do that again and just hit the damn deer. She apparently saw too much pavement out her passenger side window.

        With a moose, I’d take my chances on swerving.

      • 0 avatar

        Naah, just make sure your car is taller than any animal you’d find on your travel. So in the case of moose, make it a monster truck.

    • 0 avatar
      Robert Schwartz

      We have a lot of deer around here, and every year or two I read about an unlucky person who was killed by a deer going through his windshield.

      Moose can be 10 times as big as deer. Fortunately, we don’t have moose around here.

      I think rolling your car is far less dangerous than hitting a moose. Of course be sure to buckle up first.

      Do I really have to say that?

    • 0 avatar

      You want to stand on the brakes and ask questions later. If it’s at point-blank range, at least try turn enough so its carcass lands on the passenger side or hopefully send the moose spinning.

      Better the passenger take the hit because you can possibly continue to steer, stop or drive into town for medical.

    • 0 avatar

      That was uninformed advice on a biblical scale, seriously, that was some of the worst advice ever given.

    • 0 avatar

      Is that your system for dealing with squeegee guys in NYC?

    • 0 avatar

      When it comes to an instant reaction, I don’t think you can be taught how to respond. You are either a swerver or a braker by instinct. I know from experience my natural reaction is to brake as hard as possible in a straight line, which won’t always avoid an impact but will ensure the tyres are transmitting maximum braking force to the road, reducing the impact as much as possible. Swervers it seems to me may avoid the impact altogether but usually cede control immediately, and may well collide with something worse without reducing speed, for example an oncoming car or a tree. So I’m glad that I am instinctively a braker, but at the same time wouldn’t be too keen on hitting a large animal, which would be bad news.

      • 0 avatar

        Standing on the brakes and steering around a moose isn’t so much a problem now that all forms of traction nannies are the norm. The problem is what happens after getting past the moose.

        The 2nd maneuver is to get back in your lane and avoid the tree, ditch or oncoming traffic without losing control. This is what caused the 3-wheel-motion or rollover in moose testing.

        This can take some talent or practice because traction nannies can be overwhelmed. You may have to let up on the brakes, stab the gas and counter steer the roll.

      • 0 avatar

        I’d agree that it’s probably hard to teach one or the other, but I’ve done both in different emergency situations.

        On a divided highway with nobody close, I swerved hard at 70 mph to avoid a deer with my Mazda3 and just clipped its hoof. I didn’t have time to think. It’s just what happened. I was relaxed and aware that I was alone when it jumped out. I hope that’s the reason I swerved, and that I wouldn’t do such a thing with a vehicle beside me or while driving something clumsy.

        On a non-divided highway when a car came into my lane, I just got on the brakes and let him hit me head on. Again, I didn’t have time to think. It’s just what happened. That one was at night and I didn’t know if there was anyone else in the oncoming lane. I also don’t know that I could have avoided him at the point I realized he was coming at me. I was on the outside lane of a curve.

        I think I made the right choice in both situations, but I can’t be sure that I always would. There was absolutely no loss of control at any point during my swerve. I’m not sure why you think a person is likely to lose control of a car while steering hard at moderate (legal or at least socially acceptable) speeds. With a clumsy vehicle, braking in a straight line is probably almost always the best first reaction. It’s probably even best in most situations with a car, at least for a second until you have time to analyze the situation. I don’t think I had anywhere near a second in either of the situations I described though.

        The one thing I would absolutely not do is accelerate into an object. The less kinetic energy involved, the better. I can think of no sort of collision that I’d rather take at a higher speed.

      • 0 avatar


        My instincts and reflexes have been tempered by 25 years of video gaming. Believe me, as soon as I identify the threat, I’m smashing my gas pedal.

        The only exception are infants, children and old ladies. Then again – they shouldn’t be in the middle of a highway.

    • 0 avatar

      youtube “horse crashes into car”

    • 0 avatar

      ::shrugs:: I don’t have a truck and if I have the space, I’ll try to avoid. Christmas of 08 I was coming off of a bridge doing about 60 mph when the headlights lighted up a deer who casually kept on strolling. I had two choices – jam the brakes and hope I stop in time and if I didn’t, hopefully the impact damage wouldn’t be to bad or crank the wheel and go around.

      I was doing at or above 60 mph when I cranked the wheel so hard every vertebra in my spine popped like I was popping my knuckles. The car just stuck and went around the deer and along I went juiced up on adrenaline with a big cheesy smile thinking go S-197 with an FR3 suspension and grippy BFG KDW 255/45R18s

  • avatar

    Maybe the moose in Sweden are bigger than in Germany. Thus, you have to swerve more for a Swedish moose which affects stability more vs. a smaller German moose that requires less swerving. This would explain the difference. It is amazing how tin hats affect thinking. I got mine at a tea party.

  • avatar

    I believe there was a Mythbusters episode where they tested out the “accelerate through the deer/moose” theory, and the results (using an old sports car, mind you) marginally favoured accelerating through the moose.

    Of course, you never know – tons of variables could change that from a life-saving reflex, to a fatal one.

    • 0 avatar

      I’d probably throw on my brakes and decelerate around a moose if it was of humongous size but, #1 I’ve never seen a moose in real life and #2 I live in a place I’d never see an animal that size during driving.

      Cats, dogs, squirrels, racoons and possums however have felt the cold sidewall of my EAGLE RSA 245/45/20’s.

      • 0 avatar

        If you have never even seen a moose up close and personal, I respectfully request that you STFU on the subject. Seeing a deer up close is about the same relative thing as seeing a house cat vs a male lion. Moose are nothing to be trifled with. “Decelerate around a moose” – you will be lucky if you see it in time to realise what it is on a dark night in Maine. And they have a distinct tendency to move – you had best be lucky in which direction you choose to go.

      • 0 avatar

        The Moose test SHOULD BE: can the vehicle destroy the animal by accelerating through it.

        To have a driver attempt to drive around a big animal in a hurry isn’t fair.

  • avatar

    +5 for the Monday morning Seka reference. How do I get any work done now?

  • avatar

    Yeah, I read that article too but I still would not want to put our 2012 Grand Cherokee through such paces. It felt pretty wobbly with the stability control ON. Very top-heavy, in case you don’t know.

    With the stability control OFF, fuggedaboutit!

  • avatar

    My sister was bitten by a moose.

  • avatar

    One thing for certain, if you hit a moose, it will be moose burgers for at least 2 months.

  • avatar

    Years ago a guy at work nailed a moose with a first gen RX-7. His face was torn up bad and he still carries the scars all over his face.

  • avatar
    Ex Radio Operator

    I believe the folks at the tea party only hand out tin hats to kool aid drinking morons. How’s that for snarky? Also, brake, don’t dodge.

  • avatar

    For those of you who think it’s hilarious to slag off Tea Party members as morons wearing tin foil hats, take a few moments to watch some of the videos on You Tube that David Kirkham, of Kirkham Motorsports on working with metal. Kirkham builds some of the finest Cobra replicas made and is a master metal shaper. He also is a Tea Party activist.

    I may not like left wing politics, but I’ve always thought it was counter productive to think that your opponents are stupid. Leftists may not be as smart as they think, and some, like Maxine Waters, are so dense that they help lower humanity’s average IQ, but there are plenty of bright lefties. One thing that I’ve learned about smart folks is that they can be very wrong about a lot of things. Heidegger joined the NSDP.

  • avatar

    Mr. Schreiber. If I were dressed up as a Pirate, how seriously would you listen to me when talking politics? But somehow if I were dressed up as Paul Revere that adds credibility to what I say.

  • avatar

    I am a little late to the party but a few observations:
    1. I read in connection with the A-class moose test that the Swedish use real rough asphalt on their test track and that due to that, Mercedes engineers at first weren’t able to reproduce the test (i.e. they didn’t manage to knock the car over).
    2. People use high beams too little on dark country roads. If you’re driving more than 40 mph on an empty dark road at night, you have to have the high beams on, as otherwise, you won’t be able to stop in the distance you can see.
    3. In such manouvers, speed matters. A lot. I have had training for similar evasive manouvers. Going in at 50, you easily manage to stop before the obstacle. At 60, you get around comfortably. At 70, you end up in an uncontrolled spin.

  • avatar

    Is the ‘Moose Test’ really reasonable? It seems to be the second maneuver that causes problems, making a high-G turn while the car is still rebounding from the first high-G turn. Does the ‘Moose Test’ allow a reasonable distance for recovery from the first maneuver before initiating the second maneuver?

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Lou_BC: Space inside the cab has grown just like extended cabs and crewcabs have gotten larger inside.
  • Lou_BC: @Lie2me – You can get a Tonka truck to drive. Tuscany makes F150 and HD Tonka’s. http:// www....
  • tankinbeans: Thinking and planning ahead further than the next quarter is declasse. Short term gains in the stock...
  • highdesertcat: Agree, GM was a failed automaker that died….. and should have stayed dead instead of being...
  • MRF 95 T-Bird: As you must know by the 1975 model year International got out of the light duty Pickup and Travelall...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber