Glad you didn't buy a Jeep Grand Cherokee?

[Huskoda]

Yeah, its another reason I don't like low profile tyres. The octavia does quite well in that test though.

. The Yeti one is damn impressive for its height!

[Yeti_Man]

Yeah, its another reason I don't like low profile tyres. The octavia does quite well in that test though.

. The Yeti one is damn impressive for its height!

I find that interesting - you can see the visible effect of the centre of gravity moving upwards by loading the roof box more. The Yeti really doesnt drive like a taller upright vehicle.

[CFB]

After watching both the jeep and yeti tests, I know which one I will not be buying, even if I do suddenly come into a load of cash.

The jeep.

[BossFox]

After watching both the jeep and yeti tests, I know which one I will not be buying, even if I do suddenly come into a load of cash.

The jeep.

To be fair, you'd probably go and buy a Range Rover.

Then you'd find it's surprisingly not that much better than the Yeti, although the heated steering wheel is nice.

Having worked out more than double running costs and more than tripple the purchase price you'd be back in the Yeti.

I don't miss mine at all.

[Snowman89]

Personally I believe the problem in these tests is the large alloys wheels. Both on the Jeep and the Superb.

The Superb shown is running on 18" rims. Nothing that big is available on the Yeti.

Heavy car + not much sidewall to flex = not a good combination IMO.

In the video skoda actually states that they stopped selling the 18" wheels to the superb until they performed more tests.

Skickat från min GT-I9100 via Tapatalk 2

[Yeti_Man]

To be fair, you'd probably go and buy a Range Rover.

Then you'd find it's surprisingly not that much better than the Yeti, although the heated steering wheel is nice.

Having worked out more than double running costs and more than tripple the purchase price you'd be back in the Yeti.

I don't miss mine at all.

In total honesty that would be one of the last on my list given the problems friends have experienced with them over the past couple of years - turbo failures, air suspension failures, engine issues, electrical failures (even with the main offroad response computer) - one mate went from two faultless years in an S class to three dealer visits in the first three months of RR ownership! :( He sold it after eight months and is back in an S class Merc.

The two big 4x4's I fancy are still a fully loaded Tourag or the Grand Cherokee Overland Summit (fully loaded as standard!) Smaller alloys (deeper tyre sidewalls) and some work on the ESP software should sort the issues hopefully.

[r999]

In the video skoda actually states that they stopped selling the 18" wheels to the superb until they performed more tests.

Skickat från min GT-I9100 via Tapatalk 2

Thanks for that interesting information. When I said the talk in the video was boring, I should have said boring only to people like me who are not smart enough to understand Swedish.

Good to know Skoda acted responsibly. Jeep could hardly do the same: they would have had to re-design, or stop selling, the entire vehicle.

[Yeti_Man]

Good to know Skoda acted responsibly. Jeep could hardly do the same: they would have had to re-design, or stop selling, the entire vehicle.

Why would they have to redesign the whole vehicle?! Surely its down to the software, wheel combo and suspension components? The previous Cherokee's actually had the safest stats of American SUV's in avoiding a roll over so this is a big shame. :(

[DGW]

Yeah, its another reason I don't like low profile tyres. The octavia does quite well in that test though.

.

Is that Octavia shod with 15" or 16" wheels?

[r999]

Why would they have to redesign the whole vehicle?! Surely its down to the software, wheel combo and suspension components?

Fair enough; I was employing the figure of speech called hyperbole. But by the time one has re-designed the suspension (the scope for which is limited by the floor pan, bulkhead, etc - and any changes to those really would involve starting from scratch) one has done a lot of work. When the A-Class failed the moose test, Mercedes cancelled all leave for its engineers, who worked day and night for many weeks and ended up having to change such a lot that the car's character was quite different afterwards.

[Yeti_Man]

When the A-Class failed the moose test, Mercedes cancelled all leave for its engineers, who worked day and night for many weeks and ended up having to change such a lot that the car's character was quite different afterwards.

The revisions made to the A class were purely suspension and software related but I take the point. All this stuff should be ironed out before production starts.

[CFB]

To be fair, you'd probably go and buy a Range Rover.

Nope. Can't stand 'em and never have.

Now a proper Land Rover is a different matter but I would also need something for the longer trips.

I quite fancy one of those re-engineered Jags.

[BossFox]

OK, but my point was that any luxury 4x4 doesn't do things much better than a Yeti IMO for daily use.

[r999]

The revisions made to the A class were purely suspension and software related but I take the point. All this stuff should be ironed out before production starts.

Mercedes-Benz spent 250 million dollars to fix the A-Class after the moose test and they succeeded (at the further cost of turning it into one of the most boring cars I've driven). Jeep, it appears, has mostly relied on issuing denials and trying to put up a smokescreen. There is a full analysis of the Jeep issue here: http://www.4wdhandbo...over-moose-test . It appears Jeep made revisions in January 2011 that they claim cured the problem. As the Swedish tests were done in 2012, it evidently didn't work. For my part, I'd have no confidence at all that they will now do anything further to fix it.

Edited 19 December, 2012 by r999

[Yeti_Man]

OK, but my point was that any luxury 4x4 doesn't do things much better than a Yeti IMO for daily use.

Thats the same conclusion Ive come to so its nice to hear it from someone thats actually come from one to a Yeti. Just carrying around extra mass for the hell of it isnt great in a few ways but Id simply love a six cylinder engine and bigger dimensions (particularly boot space)for the annual long distance drives abroad. :( Oh and Id still buy the Jeep as I get the feeling theres alot of misinformation around this particular test on the net.

[speedsport]

Mercedes-Benz spent 250 million dollars to fix the A-Class after the moose test and they succeeded (at the further cost of turning it into one of the most boring cars I've driven). Jeep, it appears, has mostly relied on issuing denials and trying to put up a smokescreen. There is a full analysis of the Jeep issue here: http://www.4wdhandbo...over-moose-test . It appears Jeep made revisions in January 2011 that they claim cured the problem. As the Swedish tests were done in 2012, it evidently didn't work. For my part, I'd have no confidence at all that they will now do anything further to fix it.

Wasn't the A Class introduced (and hurridly withdrawn) during the time that Chrysler was owned by Daimler-Benz / Mercedes (or whatever the ownership arangements were) - and wasn't the Grand Cherokee introduced at the same time? Could the cars have shared people from the same design team?

[CFB]

OK, but my point was that any luxury 4x4 doesn't do things much better than a Yeti IMO for daily use.

I agree. I also think the luxury varieties are not as great value for money in terms of their capabilities and practicality as compared to the yeti

yeti is an excellent car for daily use and I'm sticking with it

[Hairball]

The Yeti is a bug eyed animal bred in CZ using some older parts from the VAG group...... BUT! Those older parts have had the bugs and niggles ironed out of them in other cars when newer latest parts may be arguably un proven in the real world.

However the Yeti is far more than the sum of its parts and in my humble opinion and performs miracles in SUV 4X4 handling, ride and driving satisfaction. No clever expensive electric/air suspension to go wrong either. OK it is a compromise but a bloody good one. Nothing in its price band comes close for a truly everyday take almost anywhere companion.

[Llanigraham]

+1 ^^^^

[Snowman89]

Thanks for that interesting information. When I said the talk in the video was boring, I should have said boring only to people like me who are not smart enough to understand Swedish.

Good to know Skoda acted responsibly. Jeep could hardly do the same: they would have had to re-design, or stop selling, the entire vehicle.

Hehe yeah i kind of realized that since i guess there arent that many swedes here in Briskoda Just thought i would share what the guy from Skoda said

Yeah the Jeep and Hilux is really embarrasing.. I guess they totally forgot about the moose test.

In the Hilux video that someone posted earlier the reporter were saying that the rear suspension/rear axle isnt adjusted for the rear to skid if doing a quick manouver. Instead it gets traction again and you can see in the video what happends then..

[Yeti_Man]

Yeah the Jeep and Hilux is really embarrasing.. I guess they totally forgot about the moose test.

I don't think it's a case of them forgetting the test or even it truly being as embarrassing as the net reports suggest. I'm also pretty dubious regarding the different test results between different engined cars. IMO the main testing has been done on the US car with its Pentastar V6 and not the heavier euro diesel vehicles. Bear in mind the magazine admitted to overloading the vehicle in the original run, they admitted it also happened on only 1 single run. Days later Jeep engineers were present when they loaded it correctly and did 11 runs and couldn't make it lift a wheel or debead a tyre. And this was *before* the revised software. IMHO it was sensationalised by them, overloaded (bad in any vehicle but worse in one with a high CoG), and there has now been an update to improve stability further.

[Snowman89]

I don't think it's a case of them forgetting the test or even it truly being as embarrassing as the net reports suggest. I'm also pretty dubious regarding the different test results between different engined cars. IMO the main testing has been done on the US car with its Pentastar V6 and not the heavier euro diesel vehicles. Bear in mind the magazine admitted to overloading the vehicle in the original run, they admitted it also happened on only 1 single run. Days later Jeep engineers were present when they loaded it correctly and did 11 runs and couldn't make it lift a wheel or debead a tyre. And this was *before* the revised software. IMHO it was sensationalised by them, overloaded (bad in any vehicle but worse in one with a high CoG), and there has now been an update to improve stability further.

Im not sure if you are reffering to the Jeep or the Hillux?

If it was for the Jeep Teknikensvarld states this:

"The car was tested in the same way as thousands of other cars have been tested by Teknikens Värld over the years. Loaded (driver, passenger and anchored sandbags with a low center of gravity in the boot) in accordance to Jeep's specifications for maximum payload, the factory installed original tires filled with the amount of air pressure as specified by Jeep (also confirmed by Jeep/Chrysler) and all safety systems such as electronic stability control and anti-rollover system turned on. Jeep Grand Cherokee has air suspension and we put this in Auto mode, a setting that most Grand Cherokee owners use when they drive their car.

Everything was therefore completely by the book, just like an ordinary car owner would do, although the performance was very poor. Over and over again with three different Jeep Grand Cherokee - which you can see in the new film here.

Due to a complete incorrect statement by Chrysler, many people believe that we performed the first moose test with 50 kilos (110 lbs) overload in the Jeep Grand Cherokee. This is not the least bit true. We performed the first moose test with 100 kilos (220 lbs) less than the maximum payload (602 kilos/1 327 lbs) that is registered for the car, a figure which officially comes from Jeep/Chrysler."

Source : http://www.teknikens...oosetest-part4/

For the Hilux they did not overload the car and Toyota even made an official "fix" for this problem. They immediatley stopped selling the car with 16" wheels and low profile tires and replaced it with 15" and all those who had bought it with 16" also got 15" free of charge. Teknikensvarld redid the moose test and the Hilux passed the test this time with only lifting the right front wheel for just a bit, but the car was still very stable and had no risk of tipping over.

If you would like to read some swedish jibberish the full explanation and review is to be found here: http://www.teknikensvarld.se/2007/12/17/3446/toyota-stoppar-permanent-forsaljningen-av-hilux-med-16-tumshjul/

Edited 19 December, 2012 by Snowman89

[Yeti_Man]

I was referring to the jeep. There are certainly a lot of versions of the events for this one!

http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2012/08/jeep-grand-cherokee-survives-different-european-moose-test.html

[Snowman89]

I was referring to the jeep. There are certainly a lot of versions of the events for this one!

http://news.consumer...moose-test.html

If you also read the whole articles instead of just parts of it you can also find this in the one you linked:

"..Note that there are many variables here. AMS ran a different test with a different driver on a different surface on a different day compared to the Swedes. Any of these variables could result in different results than the Swedish test..."

Teknikensvarld is also aware of that their test is a "worse/better" (depends on what view you are looking at it from..) than the ISO-test. But it is still something that might happend in a real life situation.

So i would say that no one is saying that the Swedish or German test was incorrect, both performed the same kind of tests. But the did NOT perform exactly the same test, therefore you cant really say that just because the German paper didnt see any problems, there werent any..

Edited 19 December, 2012 by Snowman89

[Snowman89]

Here is also some more information regarding Teknikensvarld "overloading" the Jeep:

"Since the behaviour of the Jeep Grand Cherokee was both dangerous and potentially lethal, we suspected that the car was actually packed with too much weight. We immediately proceeded to weigh the car on a scale and got our answer. The Jeep Grand Cherokee does not have a curb weight of 2 347 kilos (5 174 lbs) that the Swedish certificate of registration indicates (see the attached image below), a figure that Jeep/Chrysler has provided to Transportstyrelsen. In fact, the car actually has a curb weight of 2 505 kilos (5 523 lbs) with a driver in the car. That is a full 158 kilos (348 lbs) more than what Jeep/Chrysler claims the car to weigh in the official documentation provided to Swedish authorities.

Add the 602 kilos (1 327 lbs) that Jeep/Chrysler claims the car being capable to load and the total gross weight is now at 3 107 kilos (6 850 lbs). This can be compared to the claimed total gross weight in the vehicle’s registration papers – 2 949 kilos (6 501 lbs). This, again, is a number that Jeep/Chrysler have provided. In other words – if one packs a Jeep Grand Cherokee Overland 3.0 CRD V6 with the maximum allowed capacity, one overshoots the total gross weight of the car by 158 kilos (348 lbs). Worth mentioning is that we only overshot the total net weight by 58 kilos (128 lbs) since we unloaded 100 kilos (220 lbs) out of the car when we performed the test as can be seen in the video clip. The car still went up on two wheels."

Source: http://www.teknikens...oosetest-part3/

There seem to be some truth in that they did overload the car. But that was just when they went after the figures that Jeep had released for the car.. Which any car owner would do since i guess NO ONE weighs theyr car before loading it?

Edited 19 December, 2012 by Snowman89