Fortunately we have no mooses here, so the test is irrelevant.
Now an Idiot test, I see cars failing that most days.
BTW, I thought a failure in the Moose/Elk test caused one or more wheels to leave the ground.
intrade,
Dec 7, 1:20pm
again? when will they ever learn huh The origins of the moose test fail goes to mercedes A class was supposed to come as fuelcell car in 2004. But reality put a curvball in the launch of that fuel cell car and it enver happend but was top heavy with internal combustion engine high up and empty floor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEWH9n5ocdw.
3tomany,
Dec 7, 1:42pm
The test is a basic avoidance maneuver so is very relevant to every day driving. It may just as well be a child or cyclist as a moose. No manufacturer should fail this basic handling test.
sr2,
Dec 7, 1:57pm
At 2230 Kg dry for a smaller urban SUV (i.e. 1/2 a ton heavier than the 2010 non-hybrid model) it's a "lard arse"!
What would you expect?
tony9,
Dec 7, 2:01pm
But the in each case the vehicles did get past the avoidance section OK. In the classic moose fail, the vehicle rolls back over the moose (or whatever).
richardmayes,
Dec 7, 2:18pm
Have you seen the moose test?
In the real world most DRIVERS Would fail it. No matter how good the car was. I doubt I'd be able to do it, even if you lent me the latest GT-whatever.
Just a marketing exercise for vested interests to use to try to score points over each other. Any resemblance to real world people or events is strictly coincidental.
tony9,
Dec 7, 2:44pm
Agreed.
sw20,
Dec 7, 3:23pm
We had to do it one late night on the way back from Nelson as youngsters in an early '90s Toyota Celica. When a large dog was standing in the middle of our lane as we approached somewhat above 100km/h.
sr2,
Dec 7, 3:34pm
I hear what you're saying, but having lived in Auckland's rush hour traffic for many decades I'd argue the moose test is very relevant.
Sadly most of the "steerers" out there think a car will travel in any direction you point it!
s_nz,
Dec 7, 4:21pm
I'm surprised that brands launch their vehicles in Sweden without first checking they pass that test.
As others have said, the test is conducted by a commercial magazine (Teknikens Värld), so exists primary for there commercial gain. While the test has been running since the 1970's. It seems to create no shortage of photos of cars with wheels off the ground, tires popped etc.
It is a fairly harsh test in that they load the vehicle's to their maximum payload before putting them through the intense handling test. Most car's have their handling compromised to some degree when fully loaded, and the test is obviously harsher on vehicle's that advertise higher payloads.
In the Rav4 test, you can see that there is a suspension bounce. Setting the stability control up to pulse one wheels break at a particular time can get rid of this at trivial cost to the automaker.
Some Swedish market only trickery could also be employed. A heap of embarrassment could be saved by carefully selected tire / wheel combo's for that market, increased manufacture recommended air pressure, derated payload, or even suspension changes (more dampening, spring rate set for max payload).
With regards to those that say the test is irrelevant due to lack of moose here, the test isn't designed to simulate a moose, and that name was coined by a newspaper in another country decades after the Swedish started running the test. From Wikipedia:
"In reality, the test is rather constructed to simulate, for example, a reversing car or a child rushing out onto the road.[3][4] This is because it is more likely that the moose will continue across the road than remain in place or turn back, making it more advisable to brake hard and try to slip behind the animal than to swerve in front of it.[5]"
apollo11,
Dec 7, 5:12pm
Perhaps it's big enough to go 'through' the moose?
In fairness you need to be clear. "Toyota" did not fail any test . A single model of Toyota made in the USA failed the moose test.
tamarillo,
Dec 8, 6:29am
I think it is very relevant in a world where people buy high rise soft roaders over cars wagon and hatches with no idea that in a critical situation they simply not as stable or safe. It’s physics. Ps I hate them
kazbanz,
Dec 8, 6:55am
In NZ I really do agree with you wholeheartedly. With some exceptions a 4x4 vehicle is useless. BUT the test was done in Canada. I can see that awd "softroaders" would be used for intender purpose over there.
richardmayes,
Dec 8, 7:15am
Swings / roundabouts
Sure a car that can pass the moose test is better than a car that can't pass the moose test. ASSUMING all other safety features are equal.
One evening I was in my AU coon following a lovely classic mini towards the Rimutaka hill.
The mini performed a moose test type movement, and that was the ONLY thing that alerted me to the fact that a dead pine tree had fallen from the last shelter belt before the hill, and was blocking the lane.
I doubt my AU1 stationwagon could have done the moose test to get around the tree like the mini did. So I have the mini driver to thank for alerting me, without him I might have plowed straight into the fallen tree.
But in EVERY other crash scenario I can think of, I would FAR rather be in an AU coon than a classic mini!
richardmayes,
Dec 8, 7:25am
And an Evo whatever or a type R civic is far more stable with stronger brakes and a higher cornering limit than most standard saloon cars. Does that mean we shouldn't drive falcodores and camrys too?
But people aren't stupid, and townie automatic softroader suvs have twken over the world because are great for the job they were made for - picking up 3 kids from school and then carting them across town at dusk with a load of groceries in the back in commuter traffic. Sure there is less performance and handling at the limit but they provide what day to day life calls for. Legroom, boot space, a bit more ground clearance over the kerb, and a great view ahead.
A lot of people really don't care if their steering feels like the rack ends are connected to the hubs with stretchy bungee cords where the tie rods should be!
Any stability/safety limit would by definition be arbitrary. The moose test just sets the arbitrary bar too high, IMHO.
lythande1,
Dec 8, 9:25am
"electronic stability control appeared to not activate in any of its tests."
Oh no! How will we manage! Back in the day when there was no anything control except the driver. but shock horror. lets' not buy one huh.
gunhand,
Dec 8, 11:50am
Yet it eventually passed at 72kph which is slightly above the their benchmark of 70kph. Wonder how they decided 70kph was the pass grade for SUVs or whatever?
From the text in that article, Note that a pass in Teknikens Värld’s eyes is a successful 70km/h test. Note, in Teknikens Varlds eyes. What make his/their eyes the true test?
3tomany,
Dec 8, 4:36pm
Toyota have a string of vehicles that fail the test, most prevalent was the Hilux.
The moose test is more about how well stability control is calibrated than anything else - some vehicles you wouldn't expect to do well (like the X-Trail) can complete it at high speeds and some vehicles you'd expect to pass with ease struggle (Passat)
bigmacnfries,
Dec 9, 4:23am
Did you get run over by a Toyota as a child? Hilux has a 5 star Ancap Rating which means more than a stupid Moose test.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.