[gsbaker]

Not to be argumentative, but if the traffic is that heavy, I'll take hitting the moose over hitting oncoming traffic. Chances are that in a sedan or sports car, you'll go right under the moose and clip its legs out from under it and it will roll over the top of your car. They are very tall animals. As far as smaller animals, such as deer, I will always choose hitting the animal than leaving the road or hitting oncoming traffic.

A moose is quite massive and may sooner go through your windshield than roll over the hood.

oh, someone already posted a photo

 

[Scandinavian]

What EVs can pass the test at the required speed?

I was under the impression that few cars do well on this test.

Even more surprising is that the Moose test by the same magazine with the i4edrive40, manage to do the test at 74 km/h! That is a lot faster than the i4M50 managed At 67 km/h! Sounds very surprising. I would have thought that the suspension on the M50 would be much better tuned compared to the edrive40?

One thing that I think I remember is that the test.specification is with the car loaded to its max load rating. This most likely to simulate a family travelling with luggage. When I read the original article they said that the unloaded 100 kg from the Taycan and it passed the test.

As stated the testers are very experienced people so it is unlikely they did miss any tyre pressure adjustments??

 

[toddggg]

Interesting, this has me wondering if the i4 carrying its weight so low is actually a disadvantage here... Cars with a higher center of gravity, when the wheel is jerked in one direction will roll somewhat and place more weight on the outside tires causing them to dig in and grip more. However if the weight is all low like it is with the battery in the floor, I can see where the weight transfer might be less resulting in less ultimate grip on those outside tires.
Just my engineer brain rattling here.

 

[Hugggy_Bear]

 

[pjam73]

We have herds of deers in our area in Lincolnshire and every day on the A15 there is usually a carcass of one or two by the roadside, with bits of vehicles near them.

In Australia on rural roads it's very common - normal, expected - to see dead kangaroos littering the sides of the highways, and as flattened roadkill in the centre of the road. Bits of cars around too. Some places are worse than others, plus there are dead wombats too. That's why people living in the country have huge steel roo bars bolted to the front of their cars. The kangaroos are most active at dawn and dusk, so that's the most stressful time to be driving, particularly towards the end of a long day of driving. When my wife and I are driving the front passenger is on kangaroo duty at those times. We're actually told to not try to avoid them (so this test is moot) because more people die hitting oncoming traffic or trees - there are very few roadside barriers here. Kangaroos come in different sizes and can definitely disable a car but I've not heard of them rolling up on to the car like a large moose or even large deer could do.

Plus if you've ever seen a startled kangaroo on the road they are the dumbest super agile creatures and will run hop along beside your car for meters and then jump towards the car, not away from it. So you wouldn't have much luck trying to swerve to avoid it anyway

Having said all that I've only had one incident in 18 years of driving down here, and there was no damage to the rental car I was in.🤞

 

[A_Camera]

Even more surprising is that the Moose test by the same magazine with the i4edrive40, manage to do the test at 74 km/h! That is a lot faster than the i4M50 managed At 67 km/h! Sounds very surprising. I would have thought that the suspension on the M50 would be much better tuned compared to the edrive40?

One thing that I think I remember is that the test.specification is with the car loaded to its max load rating. This most likely to simulate a family travelling with luggage. When I read the original article they said that the unloaded 100 kg from the Taycan and it passed the test.

As stated the testers are very experienced people so it is unlikely they did miss any tyre pressure adjustments??

I can't find their e40 test. Could you post a link?

 

[A_Camera]

View attachment 50217

Yes. People underestimate the size and weight of the animals in the woods until they hit one IRL. Their anatomy is also pretty different to human and their bodies are much stronger and stiffer, which is why even pretty "small" animals like a deer or wild boar can cause substantial damage or even death.

 

[A_Camera]

xDrive or not won’t make a difference in the moose test, wider tires won’t make a pass/fail difference either. However, a lighter car and/or stiffer suspension will. I can’t access the video of the Swedish test (if one is published/exists). If I could, I might be able to tell if they were in the sport damper setting or comfort.

That setting and driver skill can make a difference between passing and failing.

These guys were able to get the eDrive40 with the 19” Hankook staggered setup (245/255) with base suspension to pass the moose test at 73kmph:

I know from going through an identical Hankook set, that they are not very grippy tires, so it’s not like they had the best tires on this successful test.

There’s no reason the M50 with the same tires (or better like in the Swedish test) and appropriate damper setting wouldn’t pass above 70kmph also. It is clear to me, that since nobody mentioned damper settings, they are unaware of the Adaptive M suspension settings despite being competent drivers or not. Setting the Adaptive M suspension in Sport mode reduces body roll quite a bit, which would increase the chances of a successful moose test.

I think it's wrong to assume that these people don't know enough about the cars they are testing. They have been doing this since the 70's and they are professionals. Of course, they can make mistakes also, but it's not like a YouTuber nobody who takes out a car for test, pretending to be a buyer and then makes a short video "review" of the car to chase clicks and likes. Now, of course, it is impossible to perform tests which would test every possible combination of tires, brands, drive modes, drivers, road types and road quality and so on, but these guys are professionals, not just a bunch of amateurs.

Regarding the differences between the e40 and the M50, it would be interesting if the same magazine tested both. Comparing tests done by different testers in different places is not entirely fair, but in my mind, I can imagine that the M50 has a disadvantage over the e40 in this test, because the M50 is more front heavy, and heavier in total, so steering can cause difficulties in some situations.

 

[pdk42]

I think it's wrong to assume that these people don't know enough about the cars they are testing. They have been doing this since the 70's and they are professionals. Of course, they can make mistakes also, but it's not like a YouTuber nobody who takes out a car for test, pretending to be a buyer and then makes a short video "review" of the car to chase clicks and likes. Now, of course, it is impossible to perform tests which would test every possible combination of tires, brands, drive modes, drivers, road types and road quality and so on, but these guys are professionals, not just a bunch of amateurs.

Regarding the differences between the e40 and the M50, it would be interesting if the same magazine tested both. Comparing tests done by different testers in different places is not entirely fair, but in my mind, I can imagine that the M50 has a disadvantage over the e40 in this test, because the M50 is more front heavy, and heavier in total, so steering can cause difficulties in some situations.

Let’s face it, most EVs are too heavy to be considered good handling cars.

 

[A_Camera]

Let’s face it, most EVs are too heavy to be considered good handling cars.

I agree that EVs are generally too heavy, but "good handling" is subjective. The higher weight has advantages also, not just disadvantages. For example, I like the i4 e40 handling during strong cross winds. I know this has been discussed several times, but in my opinion, it is the best of all the cars I ever had, so while there might be even better out there, I think that one of the contributing factor is the higher weight, much higher than anything I ever had.

 

[Scandinavian]

I can't find their e40 test. Could you post a link?

I did not find their e40 test, but referred to a comment they posted for the M50.

 

[Scandinavian]

I agree that EVs are generally too heavy, but "good handling" is subjective. The higher weight has advantages also, not just disadvantages. For example, I like the i4 e40 handling during strong cross winds. I know this has been discussed several times, but in my opinion, it is the best of all the cars I ever had, so while there might be even better out there, I think that one of the contributing factor is the higher weight, much higher than anything I ever had.

Since the i4M50 was the heaviest car in the test, maybe the weight here was the real disadvantage? Surprised that it is heavier than the Taycan I have to say.

I would have thought that due to front motor in the M50, it would have better grip in front than the e40?

 

[A_Camera]

Since the i4M50 was the heaviest car in the test, maybe the weight here was the real disadvantage? Surprised that it is heavier than the Taycan I have to say.

I would have thought that due to front motor in the M50, it would have better grip in front than the e40?

Yes, that was what I mentioned also. Perhaps the weight and the existence of a front motor is not always an advantage. The M50 is not a 4WD as opposed to many would believe it is, and it is also my understanding that the front motor is rarely used, so while it is useful in some situations, it is only a free spinning dead weight in others. It is contributing to better regen, but I would think it is not in use at all in situations like this, at this slow speed. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot of reliable information about when exactly it is used and when not.

 

[A_Camera]

I did not find their e40 test, but referred to a comment they posted for the M50.
View attachment 50219

Interesting how I could miss those last words... Anyway, maybe it's time to log in and dig deeper to see if I can find the e40 test.

 

[A_Camera]

Found it... Thanks for the head up.

In this test they compared the e40 with three other cars, the Audi e-tron GT quattro, the Mercedes EQE 350+ and the Polestar 2 LR Dual motor. Interestingly, even this time the conclusion was that the e40 is the winner. The EQE was on my radar also, but I voted against, mainly because I was not sure about if the car was worth that much for me. Anyway, I include the full pdf article here for those who are interested.

Regarding the moose test, this was the result:

All four managed with margin, even the heaviest EQE. Regarding the e40, they say that: "The i4 is soft and leans heavily to the sides, but the steering is responsive and the traction control works well. Eventually, the understeer becomes too strong." (Thanks to Google translate this time, since I was lazy) Interestingly, they say about the EQE that: "At low speeds, the rear wheels steer and the EQE is a bit erratic. Above 70 km/h, the behavior changes and the car becomes more stable." I would not appreciate if my car would be erratic at slow speeds, and if that is caused by the rear wheel steering then I'd be worried.

Anyway, their overall point system gave the e40 the highest rate. Not that it is important for me, but it's good to know that others may feel the same sort of satisfaction like I am feeling when I drive my car and not feeling envious when I see other, more expensive ones anywhere.

But they are also saying that don't buy this car if you need leg room in the back and need a lot of luggage space. Personally I am not that tall, so if I would ever sit in the back row I can still do it, but sure, my wife's EV6 is more comfortable according my reference, which are my adult children and their partners. Not that the i4 is bad, but the EV6 is better. When it comes to luggage space, I really don't know if I could complain about that. It is more than I and and my wife will ever need, and in fact, I could transport three adults luggage from Switzerland to Sweden when my son moved back to Sweden after his university studies in Zürich and he brought his girl friend with him. We had no problems, and did not need to use the rear seat for luggage. But of course, I can see that for a family with two small children and maybe pram also, the space would be less than optimal, but I am not sure that our EV6 has more space, and that car is built on an EV platform. But it is as it is, and the luggage space is not something which can come as a surprise for anyone buying a car, and it is definitely more than enough for me. Also, volume is not everything, some cars have a high volume luggage space, but not practical to load due to the tiny hatch one has to load the luggage through and then push it in, deep into the car. The i4 is much more practical, even if volume wise may not be a winner against all cars.

 

[cruzer666]

It would be interesting to see an M50 moose test, I was curious and looked, it doesn’t appear there is one published video out there. Performance of the test also relies heavily on the DSC actions the car takes so nobody can really predict how well the car will perform unless a correct test is done. Given how heavy the M50 is (and i4 in general), the result is not entirely surprising, the surprising part is how poorly an M50, with top of the line Adaptive M suspension, did compared to an eDrive40 with standard, non-adjustable, suspension.

Proper moose test (not what we see commonly with either people that have been doing it for a while or amateurs) is to specify load, tire pressure, stability control/DSC settings and suspension settings.

Here's a test and review (~90 seconds) done for a 718 Boxster for reference of what proper looks like:

All relevant settings are specified at the end of the test and load and vehicle specs are posted through the video. Personally, I wouldn't want to do this on my M50, I never had to do it in real life and I feel like something would break

 

[rollermonkey]

My chief problem with the moose test has always been the requirement to get back into the original lane so quickly.

Animals tend not to cross roads when there is a lot of traffic. I can't pretend that I'm an expert in moose psychology, but humans are unlikely to do the full moose test maneuver in the real world, rather maintaining full braking power until the animal moves or they have fully stopped.

I've never encountered anything larger than a deer on US roads, and so don't place an inordinate amount of value on which cars pass or do not pass the moose test. Yes, deer can ruin a car or kill people in one, but at a much lower rate per impact than for moose. The success at braking seems more critical to my mind.

 

[cuke2u]

My chief problem with the moose test has always been the requirement to get back into the original lane so quickly.

Animals tend not to cross roads when there is a lot of traffic. I can't pretend that I'm an expert in moose psychology, but humans are unlikely to do the full moose test maneuver in the real world, rather maintaining full braking power until the animal moves or they have fully stopped.

I've never encountered anything larger than a deer on US roads, and so don't place an inordinate amount of value on which cars pass or do not pass the moose test. Yes, deer can ruin a car or kill people in one, but at a much lower rate per impact than for moose. The success at braking seems more critical to my mind.

I've always seen it, despite the 'theatre', as an unrealistic test because the majority of drivers would not react in that manner, or even be able to mimic the reactions of a professional driver.

But you are incorrect about how animals 'choose' to cross a road. A herd of deer when startled do not make choices, or even solo males, and will just run into a road irrespective of traffic, unfortunately that is why they get hit.

Avoiding Deer on the Road

74,000 traffic accidents every year are caused by deer on the road. Here's how you can avoid them

mocktheorytest.com

 

[rollermonkey]

Ive never seen more than 3 deer together in the wild, so again, I'm not personally placing a lot of value in the moose test. Even where I am now, I see deer only rarely. Thrice in the past decade? Same place each time, at an intersection. Where I was already braking heavily to make my turn or stop. Seattle suburban deer may just be better at road crossing than their Swedish cousins.

Maybe if I lived in a more wilderness region I'd think differently, but I never have, so I don't.

 

[Jonathan S.]

^ I see deer more like three times per week. Sometimes more like three times per day.