|
Haven't watched the videos yet, but the expression of the Toyota Hilux driver is brilliant!
|
|
Yes - I noticed that - very funny!
Change of underwear indicated?
|
|
|
|
|
Very interesting, thanks for posting those.
The Jeep (Yeep) Grand Cherokee clip is particularly damning. I was thinking "surely all the big 4x4s behave similarly" until they showed the VW Toureg doing the same manoeuvre with no problem at all.
|
|
The Moose test with the new Suzuki Jimny is scary.
|
|
I wonder if anyone looking for a particular type of vehicle would be swayed by this test, ie no one with an ounce of sense would expect a pick up or traditional 4x4 with their high CoG's to be able to take such violent moves in the same flat way a low CoG car, or would they?
Yes it's amusing but seems rather a pointless test showing what any schoolboy could tell you would happen if you drive a high vehicle like a sports car.
Maybe someone will run a series of video test of cars attempting to negotiate an offroad deeply rutted wet course involving deep standing water, again amusing but ultimately only showing what one would expect.
|
I wonder if anyone looking for a particular type of vehicle would be swayed by this test, ie no one with an ounce of sense would expect a pick up or traditional 4x4 with their high CoG's to be able to take such violent moves in the same flat way a low CoG car, or would they?
Yes it's amusing but seems rather a pointless test showing what any schoolboy could tell you would happen if you drive a high vehicle like a sports car.
The point of the videos is that most of the high CoG 4x4s and crew-cab pickups actually PASS the moose test easily, without getting out of shape - but a couple failed badly.
The Jeep Cherokee example is particularly telling. It loads the front nearside tyre so much that it breaks the rim seal more than half the time - and that was after the car had been inspected by engineers from the Jeep factory to ensure that the test was fair and tyre pressures, suspension settings etc had not been manipulated.
As I mentioned above, a VW Touareg was completely unruffled by the same test at the same speed.
|
|
|
|
The videos also show how significantly poorer SUVs, even smaller and normally very good handling ones like the Mazda CX-3 do when compared to the hatchback/saloon cars they are based on/similar to. The much higher centre of gravity appears to make a considerable difference, even though both have all the safety aids - the (bigger and heavier) Mazda3 aced the test, as did the Tesla.
SUVs and pickups might be in vogue at the moment, but they aren't as good on the handling front by some way compared to the hatchback/saloon cars in a tricky situation. That'll make a lot of difference to me when buying my next car, even if some SUVs do ok with all the driver aids turned on. I remember all the bad reviews about the Ford Fusion saying it was a pig to drive handling wise unless you had the upper models with the stability package - it seems it's still true for many higher sided vehicles/those with a high COG.
|
The videos also show how significantly poorer SUVs, even smaller and normally very good handling ones like the Mazda CX-3 do when compared to the hatchback/saloon cars they are based on/similar to. The much higher centre of gravity appears to make a considerable difference, even though both have all the safety aids - the (bigger and heavier) Mazda3 aced the test, as did the Tesla.
SUVs and pickups might be in vogue at the moment, but they aren't as good on the handling front by some way compared to the hatchback/saloon cars in a tricky situation. That'll make a lot of difference to me when buying my next car, even if some SUVs do ok with all the driver aids turned on. I remember all the bad reviews about the Ford Fusion saying it was a pig to drive handling wise unless you had the upper models with the stability package - it seems it's still true for many higher sided vehicles/those with a high COG.
Your argument is weakened significantly by the fact that the VW Touareg coped with the same test just fine - it doesn't have any trick suspension - if a modern Range Rover is put through that test, it handles even better but it does have some trick suspension.
|
I remember all the bad reviews about the Ford Fusion saying it was a pig to drive handling wise unless you had the upper models with the stability package - it seems it's still true for many higher sided vehicles/those with a high COG.
Are you sure you mean the Fusion Andy?. I ask, because we had one, a fairly basic 1.4 petrol, and while i never had cause to do a manoeuvre like the Moose test, i thought it handled brilliantly.
|
|
All these tests are very revealing, carried out on a nice dry, warm grippy test track- now can they be repeated on a wet slimy non grippy road surface please? Like UK roads in wintertime. That would be even more entertaining!
Edited by focussed on 07/04/2019 at 22:17
|
|
|
Are you sure you mean the Fusion Andy?. I ask, because we had one, a fairly basic 1.4 petrol, and while i never had cause to do a manoeuvre like the Moose test, i thought it handled brilliantly.
So did the Hilux, once you fitted the right size and decent tyres to it...clue...the same size as fitted to rest of the world and not what they mistakenly fitted at the time to high spec western european models.
It would appear some mistakes are repeatable if the commentary on the test video is correct.
|
|
|
I remember all the bad reviews about the Ford Fusion saying it was a pig to drive handling wise unless you had the upper models with the stability package - it seems it's still true for many higher sided vehicles/those with a high COG.
Are you sure you mean the Fusion Andy?. I ask, because we had one, a fairly basic 1.4 petrol, and while i never had cause to do a manoeuvre like the Moose test, i thought it handled brilliantly.
I was going by the reviews I read about that car when it came out. It could be that they added the stability package across the range when they updated the car (just a guess).
|
|
|
|
The videos also show how significantly poorer SUVs, even smaller and normally very good handling ones like the Mazda CX-3 do when compared to the hatchback/saloon cars they are based on/similar to. The much higher centre of gravity appears to make a considerable difference, even though both have all the safety aids - the (bigger and heavier) Mazda3 aced the test, as did the Tesla.
SUVs and pickups might be in vogue at the moment, but they aren't as good on the handling front by some way compared to the hatchback/saloon cars in a tricky situation. That'll make a lot of difference to me when buying my next car, even if some SUVs do ok with all the driver aids turned on. I remember all the bad reviews about the Ford Fusion saying it was a pig to drive handling wise unless you had the upper models with the stability package - it seems it's still true for many higher sided vehicles/those with a high COG.
Your argument is weakened significantly by the fact that the VW Touareg coped with the same test just fine - it doesn't have any trick suspension - if a modern Range Rover is put through that test, it handles even better but it does have some trick suspension.
My point was that some cars did ok perhaps because they yes, had better tuned suspensions, but also had better stability systems. Obviously all the standard saloons and hatchbacks did well, the MX-5 (not on the webpage, but from the same tester YT site) didn't miss a beat, even at 80kph. Lower CoG = more stable. Fair do's to VW for doing a good job with the suspension and stability system on their Touareg, although it is an expensive car, so it should have a decent system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Toyota Proace Verso did really well. I thought its centre of gravity would be too high for it to be any good.
|
|
|
