Jeep Grand Cherokee lethal in evasive maneuver - Page 3 - JeepForum.com
Search  
Sign Up   Today's Posts
User: Pass: Remember?
Advertise Here
Jeep Home Jeep Forum Jeep Classifieds Jeep Registry JeepSpace Jeep Reviews Jeep Gallery Jeep Clubs Jeep Groups Jeep Videos Jeep Events Jeep Articles
Go Back JeepForum.com > Models > Jeep Grand Cherokee & Commander Forums > WK2 Grand Cherokee Forum > Jeep Grand Cherokee lethal in evasive maneuver

Stainless Steel Door Hinge PinsPoly Door Hinge BushingsNew jk doors from steinjager

Reply
Unread 07-12-2012, 07:08 AM   #31
Bale
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Jeep Heaven, Norway
Posts: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by hububub View Post
Tires look low, first off, we have no idea what else they did to jack it up. I have never had any issue with mine. They may have turned off the esc you do not know... isn't this the country of SAAB ???? socialists anyway...
Please check your facts. The ESC was on. The tires were as specified by Jeep, with tire pressure as listed in the owner's manual. It's all there on their website. The second round of tests was performed with Chrysler representatives present.

The previous version GC passed the test, as have a lot of comparable SUVs, even Jeeps. The problem is maybe just a sloppy ESC design. ESCs are supposed to prevent flipovers, even in extreme situations, and in the previous version GC it did exactly that.

Nobody clams that this extreme maneuver happens regularly. Probably never, for the vast majority of us. But given a choice between two comparable large SUVs, everything else equal, who would choose the one that fails an extreme flipover test?

__________________
1998 ZG (ZJ) Grand Cherokee Ltd, 4L 4x4
Bale is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 07-12-2012, 09:24 AM   #32
w1pf
Who, me?
 
w1pf's Avatar
2007 WK 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Amherst, MA
Posts: 754
Wk

Chrysler says when they observed the magazine's re-run of the test with proper load, they did not observe the wheels-in-the-air event (they said nothing about the tires). So it isn't quite clear who to believe, probably a bit of truth on both sides.

Also, it seems to me the defining document for vehicle load rating is the certification label on the door of the door of the vehicle (that is certainly true here in the US). What does that label say on the test vehicle? I don't even know what that label looks like on a vehicle destined for Sweden.. Just wondering.
__________________
2014 WK2 Overland 5.9L
2007 WK Limited 5.7L
And some past Durangos
Red WK #19, Hemi #68.. I think..
Durango Owners Club DOTY 2011
-------
"Must have been that yesterday was the day that I was born"
w1pf is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 07-12-2012, 09:54 AM   #33
WhiteOut
Web Wheeler
 
WhiteOut's Avatar
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bale View Post
But given a choice between two comparable large SUVs, everything else equal, who would choose the one that fails an extreme flipover test?
I wouldn't be considering tests a random magazine pulled out of their *** and are not used to certify a vehicle for saftey.
WhiteOut is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 07-12-2012, 01:55 PM   #34
jgiuliani
Registered User
2012  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Apex, NC
Posts: 108
Man some of you guys are too funny. Drinking the Jeep coolaid? It's like you consider it a personal assault if someone says something negative about the vehicle. Why is it so hard to believe that there could be an issue with the design in extreme circumstances? Based on what I've seen so far in my 8 months of ownership (of the wk2, I've owned TJ's in the past), and from all the other issues documented on this and other forums, I find it totally plausible. In my opinion this particular model was pushed to market too soon without adequate testing of some major components so I find it completely believable there could be a problem with rollover in an extreme evasive maneuver.
jgiuliani is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 07-12-2012, 08:34 PM   #35
SPL170db
Registered User
2011  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Northern, NJ
Posts: 284
Believability is in repeatability.........and apparently they were not able to repeat those results. Hence they are not valid
SPL170db is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 07-12-2012, 08:52 PM   #36
Jackal01
Moderator
 
Jackal01's Avatar
2011 JK Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Houston, Texas, Texas
Posts: 2,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgiuliani View Post
Man some of you guys are too funny. Drinking the Jeep coolaid? It's like you consider it a personal assault if someone says something negative about the vehicle. Why is it so hard to believe that there could be an issue with the design in extreme circumstances? Based on what I've seen so far in my 8 months of ownership (of the wk2, I've owned TJ's in the past), and from all the other issues documented on this and other forums, I find it totally plausible. In my opinion this particular model was pushed to market too soon without adequate testing of some major components so I find it completely believable there could be a problem with rollover in an extreme evasive maneuver.
Kool-Aid

It is not believed because of the several issues noted by Chrysler. My biggest issue with the entire "test" is that none of them were wearing any sorta of personal protective equipment. Anyone who is anybody with any sorta of legitimate agency or company would protect the occupants in a test vehicle.
__________________
2011 Billet JKUS

Jackal01 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 07-12-2012, 09:01 PM   #37
airec13
Registered User
2012 WK 
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Royal Oak, Michigan
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackal01

Kool-Aid

It is not believed because of the several issues noted by Chrysler. My biggest issue with the entire "test" is that none of them were wearing any sorta of personal protective equipment. Anyone who is anybody with any sorta of legitimate agency or company would protect the occupants in a test vehicle.
Yes, agree. And test vehicles doing extreme maneuvers by reputable sources typically have outriggers installed.
airec13 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 07-12-2012, 09:04 PM   #38
ivester1992
Registered User
2006 TJ Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: fort stewart, Georgia
Posts: 751
just like on the test thats linked to the comments section on that web page.
__________________
4.88s, 35 bfg a/t, 4.5 inch rubicon express springs, rear 4 link, single radius front, 6 inch rc 2.0 shocks, rc quick discos, eautogrilles rockers and corners.
ivester1992 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 07-12-2012, 09:50 PM   #39
Jackal01
Moderator
 
Jackal01's Avatar
2011 JK Wrangler 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Houston, Texas, Texas
Posts: 2,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by airec13 View Post
Yes, agree. And test vehicles doing extreme maneuvers by reputable sources typically have outriggers installed.
That, too, usually.
__________________
2011 Billet JKUS

Jackal01 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 07-13-2012, 05:40 AM   #40
w1pf
Who, me?
 
w1pf's Avatar
2007 WK 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Amherst, MA
Posts: 754
It isn't "Drinking the koolaid" on the jeep side any more than it is on the magazine side.

Just because it's in a magazine (or on the internet) doesn't mean it is all true. Both sides need to be taken with a grain of salt.
__________________
2014 WK2 Overland 5.9L
2007 WK Limited 5.7L
And some past Durangos
Red WK #19, Hemi #68.. I think..
Durango Owners Club DOTY 2011
-------
"Must have been that yesterday was the day that I was born"
w1pf is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 07-13-2012, 07:02 AM   #41
jgiuliani
Registered User
2012  
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Apex, NC
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by w1pf
It isn't "Drinking the koolaid" on the jeep side any more than it is on the magazine side.

Just because it's in a magazine (or on the internet) doesn't mean it is all true. Both sides need to be taken with a grain of salt.
I totally agree. It might all be BS. It would be ignorant of me to draw a conclusion based on that article from a source I am not familiar with. I simply said its possible based on my experiences and from what I read from both sides. That mag must have some credibility in Europe or Chrysler would not have invested time and money to send reps and formulate a response. They obviously felt there was enough influence there to formally dispute those tests. Some folks on these forums are so brand-loyal they lose objectivity.
jgiuliani is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 07-13-2012, 07:55 AM   #42
hammer1234
Registered User
2011 WK 
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: , Massachusetts
Posts: 119
Quote:
Originally Posted by airec13 View Post
Yes, agree. And test vehicles doing extreme maneuvers by reputable sources typically have outriggers installed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackal01 View Post
That, too, usually.
Just wondering...do the outriggers significantly affect the test results?

My own impression is that this test was a bit of a corner case but that it was valid based on the data that the magazine had at the time...and that IMO Chrysler could do more to address the test result than it has so far. I do like my GC (except for the repair visits so far which I never had with the Toyota Highlander it replaced) but I am trying to look at this objectively.
hammer1234 is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 07-13-2012, 10:11 AM   #43
nathantw
Registered User
2012 WK 
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgc4ever View Post
You could roll and kill yourself with any car or SUV if you turn it hard enough. You've got to be smart enough to just hit the brakes instead of swerving (even if it means hitting the car or deer), depending on the situation, speed, etc.
Thanks for the tip.

There was one time I was traveling at around 15 - 20mph on the street. I changed lanes and the truck ahead of me stopped a lot sooner than I had anticipated. Lucky for me noboy was in the lane I just vacated because I slammed on the brakes, anti-lock brakes kicking in, and swerved back into that other lane. Whew. No harm, no foul.
nathantw is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 07-13-2012, 10:35 AM   #44
MacDad
Registered User
2012 WK 
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 12
This Swedish magazine has just practiced what I technically call "Chicken Sh-t Journalism" ...working in journalism myself I've found it pretty easy to spot and I have no patience for it.

They've gotten more "clicks" and publicity on their article than they could have dreamed of... but they have not stayed (if they ever were) objective here.

All you have to look at is the magazine's RESPONSE to the fact they were unable to recreate their results with others present: they now point to tires/rims being damaged? ... that's called deflection.

How about defending the original report and the test that it was based on? So essentially they're saying "never mind that but look over here now at this." But the whole reason readers are looking here at all is THAT --that where the Jeep was called "FATAL" and that is now only fatal to the original report. Don't tell us to never mind. What they've done was irresponsible and it appears they know it. And what they're doing now is the schoolyard equivalent of "but your momma's fat!"

How many clicks would the magazine have gotten with an article that had originally said "the Jeep Grand Cherokee's tires are damaged after we put it through an extreme avoidance maneuver" ? They were going for controversy to boost readership with their "fatal" test...they know it, they won't admit it though as that will invalidate their reputation and call into question everything they've done in the past and whatever they do in the future.

...still interesting about the tires/rims (but not one that would garner massive attention)... and, actually, if you look at the comments in the blog item Jeep has posted about the test you'll see that they've responded saying they're looking into the testing results on the rims/tires and take safety seriously etc etc.

As an owner of two Wk2s myself, I hope Jeep/Chrysler gets to the bottom of that one...and lets all of us know. But I also know that, if I ever have to pull a lane change like that to avoid a moose or a truck or a child or whatever, I won't be all that concerned that I've then got a tire issue in comparison to the accident I managed to avoid.
MacDad is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Unread 07-13-2012, 12:52 PM   #45
jlused
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Chatham, NJ
Posts: 28
TV has posted a response to Jeep / Chrysler with more video of the follow up tests (see link below). I would not call this poor journalism. They are a legitimate and well respected magazine, and the truth is that the JC handles the purely driver-induced maneuver very poorly. They have included comparisons videos of the VW Touareg and Volvo XC90, and both handle the test well. As an owner of a Gen III Durango with 18-inch wheels, this test has me slightly concerned, although I think the longer wheelbase and less grippy tires on my D would make it more likely to understeer. Ultimately, I hope I never have to make such an extreme maneuver, but it would be nice to know that the vehicle can handle it if I did.

http://www.teknikensvarld.se/jeepmoosetest-part4/
jlused is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the JeepForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid e-mail address for yourself.
Note: All free e-mails have been banned due to mis-use. (Yahoo, Gmail, Hotmail, etc.)
Don't have a non-free e-mail address? Click here for a solution: Manual Account Creation
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Thread Tools


Suggested Threads





Jeep, Wrangler, Cherokee, Grand Cherokee, and other models are copyrighted and trademarked to Jeep/Chrysler Corporation. JeepForum.com is not in any way associated with Jeep or the Chrysler Corp.