Yes, that's right, it is the M50 I am talking about, not the e40...
Now, I know this is in Swedish, but there is a Swedish magazine called "Teknikens värld" which actually invented the "moose test" some times back in the late 80's or maybe earlier. It is called "moose test" because we have a bunch of dumb moose running around in our forests and wandering out on our roads now and then, causing serious accidents if we collide with them, and at that time it was common. So they wanted to test cars to see how they react in abrupt manoeuvrers during a normal driving speed. They set the speed to 72km/h, as that is a good average speed for the roads where those accidents were common, most of them had speed limits less than 90km/h and were not fenced on any parts at that time. Today, they have taken a lot of other measures also, fencing, clearing road sides (for better visibility) and other measures were taken also. Nevertheless, these tests are relevant to see how different cars react under these conditions, since there can be other occasions where we must abruptly react and steer clear of something we want to avoid.
The test pattern is this:
![Image]()
They test about 80 cars per year, so it is done on a regular basis. I don't think that the above needs a translation, the distances and the pattern is clear. To get the approval, the car must clear the cones at 72km/h and should of course not flip over or lose control.
![Image]()
My free translation of the comment above:
"This is very bad. The car hugely understeers and the car's assistance system is not even trying to get the car to the place the steering wheel points it to. We have many questions, but we won't get any answers. Instead we conclude that this car's behaviour in the moose test is the biggest disappoints we have had for a long time. The front wheel traction is not getting better during the tests, even though the tires are warm, and it becomes clear for us that the car's inability to shift track is a huge problem."
Some times ago we had a discussion regarding the e40, which was tested by some unknown YouTuber and was not approved. The discussion was about the M50 being better, or more precisely, the e40 was dangerous because it didn't manage according to the tester and the forum member blamed the e40 suspension and the 17" tires. I opposed to this, because I didn't believe it had anything to do with it, but I had no prove and not seen any M50 tests, so I had no data. Then I remembered having had an article about the M50 in my "To read when I am bored" folder, so I opened it, and there it was, M50 tested in Sweden by the inventors of the moose test, and it failed the test in spite of the best suspension and all the M50 bells and whistles, equipped with excellent tires, large, wide and staggered.
![Image]()
Pirelli P Zero Elect 255/35 20" on front and 285/30 20" rear, so nothing to complain about here, they didn't want to fail the test, but it failed because it could only do it at 67 km/h, just like the e40 did for that YouTuber. Is this something to worry about? No, not for me. I will not lose sleep or get rid of my e40 for this, but it definitely shows that the car is having some stability issues if pushed hard enough, and that the M50 and e40 are pretty much the same, even if the M50 is AWD. It also shows that in some aspects, having larger tires is not necessarily better than having 17" smaller ones, and if the e40 is dangerous because it didn't qualify for the moose test then the M50 is just as dangerous.
Anyway, long story short, the magazine tested three cars in that article, the i4 M50, The Polestar 4 LR single motor and the Porsche Taycan Plus. Only the Polestar managed well the moose test, but still, of all the things they tested and looked at, the summary is that the M50 is the best of the three, even if it isn't by a large margin, so they are not bashing the M50.
Here is the link to the article. Unfortunately it is in Swedish, but I include it anyway as a reference.
Edit: It seems like the link is not working, so I upload the file for those who can read Swedish.
Now, I know this is in Swedish, but there is a Swedish magazine called "Teknikens värld" which actually invented the "moose test" some times back in the late 80's or maybe earlier. It is called "moose test" because we have a bunch of dumb moose running around in our forests and wandering out on our roads now and then, causing serious accidents if we collide with them, and at that time it was common. So they wanted to test cars to see how they react in abrupt manoeuvrers during a normal driving speed. They set the speed to 72km/h, as that is a good average speed for the roads where those accidents were common, most of them had speed limits less than 90km/h and were not fenced on any parts at that time. Today, they have taken a lot of other measures also, fencing, clearing road sides (for better visibility) and other measures were taken also. Nevertheless, these tests are relevant to see how different cars react under these conditions, since there can be other occasions where we must abruptly react and steer clear of something we want to avoid.
The test pattern is this:
They test about 80 cars per year, so it is done on a regular basis. I don't think that the above needs a translation, the distances and the pattern is clear. To get the approval, the car must clear the cones at 72km/h and should of course not flip over or lose control.
My free translation of the comment above:
"This is very bad. The car hugely understeers and the car's assistance system is not even trying to get the car to the place the steering wheel points it to. We have many questions, but we won't get any answers. Instead we conclude that this car's behaviour in the moose test is the biggest disappoints we have had for a long time. The front wheel traction is not getting better during the tests, even though the tires are warm, and it becomes clear for us that the car's inability to shift track is a huge problem."
Some times ago we had a discussion regarding the e40, which was tested by some unknown YouTuber and was not approved. The discussion was about the M50 being better, or more precisely, the e40 was dangerous because it didn't manage according to the tester and the forum member blamed the e40 suspension and the 17" tires. I opposed to this, because I didn't believe it had anything to do with it, but I had no prove and not seen any M50 tests, so I had no data. Then I remembered having had an article about the M50 in my "To read when I am bored" folder, so I opened it, and there it was, M50 tested in Sweden by the inventors of the moose test, and it failed the test in spite of the best suspension and all the M50 bells and whistles, equipped with excellent tires, large, wide and staggered.
Pirelli P Zero Elect 255/35 20" on front and 285/30 20" rear, so nothing to complain about here, they didn't want to fail the test, but it failed because it could only do it at 67 km/h, just like the e40 did for that YouTuber. Is this something to worry about? No, not for me. I will not lose sleep or get rid of my e40 for this, but it definitely shows that the car is having some stability issues if pushed hard enough, and that the M50 and e40 are pretty much the same, even if the M50 is AWD. It also shows that in some aspects, having larger tires is not necessarily better than having 17" smaller ones, and if the e40 is dangerous because it didn't qualify for the moose test then the M50 is just as dangerous.
Anyway, long story short, the magazine tested three cars in that article, the i4 M50, The Polestar 4 LR single motor and the Porsche Taycan Plus. Only the Polestar managed well the moose test, but still, of all the things they tested and looked at, the summary is that the M50 is the best of the three, even if it isn't by a large margin, so they are not bashing the M50.
Here is the link to the article. Unfortunately it is in Swedish, but I include it anyway as a reference.
Edit: It seems like the link is not working, so I upload the file for those who can read Swedish.
