Moose test

[cat007]

I've been intrigued by some of the 'moose test' outcomes for various cars such as the Nissan Kicks! What a shocker! 11 minutes into the below:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2TfqH2qPBA


Has anyone ever done an equivalent evasive maneuver test for the Ford Falcon?

[smoo]

Holden did back in the 1970s

https://youtu.be/hdTRUrIOOik

[roKWiz]

Originally Posted by smoo

Holden did back in the 1970s

https://youtu.be/hdTRUrIOOik

Loved that ad.

I reckon most SUV's would handle like that Nissan given their high CoG.

I did something similar in the Pvan a few weeks back when a woman driver decided to do a U turn just as I was passing her.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by roKWiz

Loved that ad.

I reckon most SUV's would handle like that Nissan given their high CoG.

I did something similar in the Pvan a few weeks back when a woman driver decided to do a U turn just as I was passing her.

Every month I get a return rental car to drop at the airport for work. 600km drive.
I get what I’m given. Tonight I have a Corolla, but most of the time it’s an SUV from Toyota, Mazda, Kia, Hyundai, Nissan, Mitsubishi.
Scratch thru the surface of flashy electronics and pointless driver aids to compensate for the brain dead retards who can’t park or drive them and there is no substance underneath. Get them on a back road and drive with the smallest bit of enthusiasm, they are all a huge fail.
If a gun was to my head and I had to pick one, it would be the Highlander or CX5. I would rather be shot than live with anything from Nissan or Mitsubishi.

To contrast to that, I did 1700km over the last three days in my Porsche Cayenne of mostly back roads. Perhaps the above makers should study an SUV designed in the 1990s on how to make one handle and ride properly.

[cat007]

I hope the CX5 does better than the CX3 - which failed the moose tese horrendously!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZRWiKIERic

[Crazy Dazz]

Firstly, it is stupid to refer to this as a Moose Test.
North American and some Northern European manufacturers do actually conduct Moose Testing, which is a Crash test, so it is doubly confusing.

Realistically, the only purpose of this test, is to evaluate the responsiveness of the active suspension, in the event of two rapid changes in course. I am surprised that there are systems that can still be fooled, but even so its a somewhat pointless test.

Everything on a car is a compromise. The best you can hope for is that it best fits the purpose it is sold for, and that it's systems best cope with real world scenarios.

[Crazy Dazz]

I recall a "road test" where they took some modern "SUV"/ "softroader"s into the sand dunes to test actual off-road ability.
One of them had a plastic cover under the engine (presumably to stop mud/water spraying up) and in fairly tame driving they ripped it off going over the first sand-dune.

Today's crop are even worse. Underneath they are simply your basic juice-box hatch-back, only they have increased body height to accommodate people over 5' and jacked up the suspension to clear speed-humps.

[simon varley]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

North American and some Northern European manufacturers do actually conduct Moose Testing, which is a Crash test, so it is doubly confusing.

This is true. I've seen some Volvos after that test at Torslande (sp?) and it makes our roo hits look tame.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by smoo

Holden did back in the 1970s

https://youtu.be/hdTRUrIOOik

Prefer this one

https://youtu.be/9lb4sZJz2ww

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by smoo

Every month I get a return rental car to drop at the airport for work. 600km drive.
I get what I’m given. Tonight I have a Corolla, but most of the time it’s an SUV from Toyota, Mazda, Kia, Hyundai, Nissan, Mitsubishi.
Scratch thru the surface of flashy electronics and pointless driver aids to compensate for the brain dead retards who can’t park or drive them and there is no substance underneath. Get them on a back road and drive with the smallest bit of enthusiasm, they are all a huge fail.

Most new SUVs are not even worthy of the acronym. There is nothing S or U about most of them. They are just V's

Stats say SUV sales are through the roof, but most mainstream SUV's are just regular cars with bigger wheels and lifted suspension.

[smoo]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Most new SUVs are not even worthy of the acronym. There is nothing S or U about most of them. They are just V's

Stats say SUV sales are through the roof, but most mainstream SUV's are just regular cars with bigger wheels and lifted suspension.

Yeah I hear ya. I’ve never been a fan of the term as it is dramatically American.
I guess over the years people aren’t able to distinguish the mechanical difference between a RAV4 and a Land Cruiser so with the rise in the small cross over segment and softening of traditional 4wds, the acronym has a broad meaning. It is just easier to say SUV.

RoKWiz your encounter with the woman pulling a U turn exposes the risk in daily driving an older car where the model has become thin on the ground and somewhat irreplaceable to enthusiastic owners.
I have a VG Valiant I’m getting back on the road and once I convert the front end to disk brakes and go fuel injection I thought I might use it a few times a week, along with my 560sel Mercedes from the 1980s.
Not a chance, too many careless drivers glued to their phones and their attention everywhere but what’s going on infront of them. Not surprising that a lot of them are driving these types of SUVs or cross overs.

[roKWiz]

smoo, Re; the U turn, I was impressed with how the panel van handled that invasive move though.