Why do these people think they can ignore science. Tall, narrow vehicle, driven to extremes, and it flips! Who would have ever though? If you're concerned, buy a Civic.
There were some maneuvers I've done without fear in my Ford Maverick, LTD, or Cutlass Supreme, but would never even attempt in my Bronco. And on the other hand, there are other things that I can do in my Bronco that would never even think to try in the other cars. -- Wacky Races 2012!
The test was rigged. The rumor is that they had overloaded teh vehicle and maybe played with the adjustable suspension.
Once the Chrysler engineers showed up at the scene, the magazine could not duplicate the results. I hear they tried over and over agin to duplicate this result. This same model vehicle recently passed the German "moose test".
Not seeing the tires blow I don't know if and how it happened! I own a 2005 jeep liberty and I would say it is not the safest car around but not the worst either! What year where these test done? How many times in your lifetime will you have to do a maneuver like that video shows?
Not knowing what the tires or the pressures were, it's not possible to say anything without some additional background information. Given a rigged test, I wouldn't be surprised if the tires weren't 100% to begin with.
One thing I can say that over 25 years and probably well over 500k miles I had 3 sudden blowouts and one tire that partly separated from the rim. Of the blowouts, one tire was deformed and had some visible theread separation, but I was too cheap to replace it (was a poor student at that time) the other was a well worn tire that picked up a nail, and a third one was unexplained. The partial separation was caused by a very high speed (smoking) turn and the tire was most likely underinflated to begin with. -- Wacky Races 2012!
I would think the 100% comment on the tires from aurgathor is not only possible inflation issues but with wear and tear on the tires. the Chrysler engineers were only there to try and confirm the results - which they could not do according to the link by Lurch77. -- Brian
"It drops into your stomach like a Abrams's tank.... driven by Rosanne Barr..." A. Bourdain
quote:The situation seemed similar to the Consumer Reports affair with Isuzu, where a vehicle that had passed the magazines tests was retested to bring failure, with different testing equipment than competitors (outriggers which Isuzu charged were partly responsible for the results).
Yeah, I read that, and had the same thought as you. It was not Isuzu.
Like the test this article is about, it was pretty clear it was rigged. Consumer reports had to try over two dozen time to make it get up on two wheels. There used to be a video, now removed from the internet, where you could hear the Consumer reports people egging the driver one, shouting things like, "Come on! Flip it!". And when it finally did go onto two wheel, everyone started cheering.
That thing does look a little wild coming through that test. But I'm sure there are a lot of factors involved. I was searching for it but can't find it. I recall just a few years ago a journalist flipping over a brand new BMW 3 series doing a similar lane change maneuver. Not a car I would expect to go topside doing that. But it can happen.
In nearly all vehicles, if you try to turn really fast circles (doughnuts) to try to rollover a vehicle, the tires nearly always break free of the pavement before enough side force can be produced. But when a vehicle is already traveling at speed, and a sudden and extreme side turn is made, the tire traction can exist long enough to cause a rollover. This is related to the fact that there are two different frictional coefficients between the tires and the roadway. A STATIC coefficient of friction is usually slightly higher than the DYNAMIC coefficient of friction. As long as traction is maintained, then the higher STATIC value applies, but as soon as the tires start sliding, the lower DYNAMIC value applies.