edmunds Inside Line: Spy Photos: 2013 Dodge Viper Getting Cruise Control....

AiR

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
11,985
Location
Suecia
Car(s)
Bulgogi Knedliky 1.6 GDI (Hyundai i30)
so i assumes you're one of the nutsacks that is reeling a car in at a speeddifference of 1kmh, but sees a car coming on the third band and moves over early because otherwise he would be boxed in, and have to break? and then taking fucking ages to get by the car in front?

it's more important to monitor the cars coming from behind you than the ones in front when in cruise control
It's important to monitor the rear of course, but our previous discussion was about using cruise in a lemmings train in the left lane, which is no problem as long as you keep focus on the front. At least that's what I talked about. Three lanes? That's a result of you people breeding too much on too small surface area. There are two lanes ;)
Naturally I move to the left lane at a suitable moment so I do not get in the way of people or have to break cruise. Then I make sure my overtaking speed is reasonable compared to the overtaking target until I find a spot I like. Then I settle in at 110. I am also annoyed by people who do not overtake fast enough, as it leads to already mentioned boxing in of me, which makes me break cruise, which makes me unhappy. The most annoying thing on the motorway are people without cruise who cannot maintain a constant speed. And sport bikers who think the motorway is a slalom course. And norwegians.
 
Last edited:

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,903
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
Volume per time is unrelated to fuel consumption in volume per distance or distance per volume. For example, idling along in first I will have low volume per time but enormous volume per distance while idling in sixth will have even higher volume per time but much lower volume per distance.
Just admit that your statement was absolutely wrong :) As an example of how wrong it is:
Road by my house has a speed limit of 50mph.
My car reaches 50mph in 2nd gear, so by your logic if I am going at a constant speed (50) in 2nd gear with CC turned on I should use less fuel than I go between 45-50 in 5th.
That's simply wrong. If the downhill bit is steep enough to overcome friction/drag my CC will step off the gas completely and indicate 0.0l/100km consumption, as observed every day twice when going down the Holtenau bridge over the Kiel Canal:
So do the drive with CC there and w/o CC back and observe your consumption gauge and then tell me if you see a noticeable difference. BUT you have to keep your foot 100% steady on the throttle no matter what.
Maybe it's your CC that flails?
We have the same CC likely...
As you wish. Here's why you should avoid varying speeds and prefer constantly going along at your average speed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)#Power
tl;dr: The power required to overcome aerodynamic drag grows with the third power of the speed. Going 25% faster requires 100% more power for overcoming aerodynamic drag, while the slower bits do not require 100% less power - on average you lose fuel.
That's great but it still says nothing about "rolling" terrain.

You don't seem to be understanding a very simple point. CC will keep constant speed at all times, I won't, when I was doing the only drive of my life where I used CC it was an empty road with no one around, I didn't care if I droped to 45 on the way up and went up to 70 on the way down I kept my foot at the same exact place no matter what. So I wasn't using any more fuel on the way up (car just dropped to w/e speed current throttle setting allowed it to be) and used less of it on the way down. If I really wanted to save some fuel I could have released the throttle at the crest (something a CC will NEVER do) and let it coast down only going back on the throttle at the very end.

P.S. none of the hypermilers use CC, think about it.
 
Last edited:

Wallio

Active Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
156
Wow I'm really surprised how many people love CC on here. In my 10 years of driving, I used it once, to make sure it worked, then disengaged it. Call me an arrogant snob if you want, but if you can't maintain throttle control with your good old right hoof, I'm sorry but you shouldn't be driving.

And yes it is a big deal that the Viper has CC now, and yes, sorry to say, this does kill the car to me (stated from the biggest Viper fanboy ever here). The entire point of a Viper is its a drivers car. No aids, no autos, loud noise, little sense of survival. I get to borrow my buddy's '05 now and again, and its wonderful, pure driving nivrana. Now it will be another poser car for 50+ year olds who can't get it up but still want chicks, just like a vette.

A Viper is supposed to be the anti-vette, but not anymore. Stability control and CC? 2013 is a long way away. There will be TCS and and auto announced before then, mark my words. This is why Chrysler is going down the crapper.........
 
Last edited:

AiR

Forum Addict
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
11,985
Location
Suecia
Car(s)
Bulgogi Knedliky 1.6 GDI (Hyundai i30)
A Viper is supposed to be the anti-vette, but not anymore. Stability control and CC? 2013 is a long way away. There will be TCS and and auto announced before then, mark my words. This is why Chrysler is going down the crapper.........
We can already mark Dodge boss Ralph Gilles words
Dodge Head Honcho said:
"I want the new Viper to be a more forgiving car to drive and accessible to more people. We've never had stability control on a high-performance car, which is about to happen on the new car."
So yes, naturally it'll have stability control, like any other car. Just because you're rich and want a fast car doesnt mean you have a deathwish. And Chrysler went down the crapper once already, so it's not like they have a choice. They have to change. I don't really understand why they keep a low-volume halo car like the Viper alive, especially not in a corporation that includes Ferrari, which sell significantly more cars than Dodge sells Vipers, at higher prices. Developing a whole new car only to sell 500-1500 of it a year (for just $90k), weird.

Wow I'm really surprised how many people love CC on here. In my 10 years of driving, I used it once, to make sure it worked, then disengaged it. Call me an arrogant snob if you want, but if you can't maintain throttle control with your good old right hoof, I'm sorry but you shouldn't be driving.
I can. But why would I want to? I do a thousand kilometers a week, my foot thanks me every day for using cruise control. Saves me fuel too. Narf-mode: 4,92l/100km last tank.
 
Last edited:

Wallio

Active Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
156
I doubt the new softer, weaker Viper will even sell 500 a year. The reason they were bringing the car back was it had a hardcore fanbase. But this base won't buy these posermobiles. Sigh, between this and the R/T minivan, its tough being a Mopar fan lately.

OT: 1000 kilometres eh? Thats what about 14 miles? :p (this is a joke!)
 

Mr. Nice

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
2,419
Wow I'm really surprised how many people love CC on here. In my 10 years of driving, I used it once, to make sure it worked, then disengaged it. Call me an arrogant snob if you want, but if you can't maintain throttle control with your good old right hoof, I'm sorry but you shouldn't be driving.

And yes it is a big deal that the Viper has CC now, and yes, sorry to say, this does kill the car to me (stated from the biggest Viper fanboy ever here). The entire point of a Viper is its a drivers car. No aids, no autos, loud noise, little sense of survival. I get to borrow my buddy's '05 now and again, and its wonderful, pure driving nivrana. Now it will be another poser car for 50+ year olds who can't get it up but still want chicks, just like a vette.

A Viper is supposed to be the anti-vette, but not anymore. Stability control and CC? 2013 is a long way away. There will be TCS and and auto announced before then, mark my words. This is why Chrysler is going down the crapper.........
Dude, I don't know what's wrong with you, but there is definitely a deficiency somewhere.

If you didn't realize it, the Viper and cars like it have always been primarily for old men who have THE MONEY to be able to afford them. Most young people can't afford to run out and buy a seventy to ninety thousand dollar sports car (this figure broadly encompasses the range of Viper prices over the years).

An arrogant snob looks down on people because they have reason to think that they are better, calling yourself an arrogant snob because you don't like cruise control is pure idiocy. It wouldn't surprise me at all if you turned out to be Mike Magrath, as his posts and columns tend to be just as ridiculous.

Stability Control is something that the Federal Government decided had to become a part of not just the new Viper, but all cars.

Cruise control is something that makes a long journey in the car that much more bearable, as you don't have to keep your foot in close to the same position from one gas station to the next over many hours. It has little to do with maintaining speed, and much more to do with being comfortable and not cramping up when you're driving long distance.
 
Last edited:

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,903
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
Stability Control is something that the Federal Government decided had to become a part of not just the new Viper, but all cars.
ANd that is a damn shame.
Cruise control is something that makes a long journey in the car that much more bearable, as you don't have to keep your foot in close to the same position from one gas station to the next over many hours. It has little to do with maintaining speed, and much more to do with being comfortable and not cramping up when you're driving long distance.
Maybe I'm missing something here but explain this to me. How are you any more comfortable with CC than w/o? You still have to keep you leg somewhere near the brakes just in case. Also if your sitting position is low with legs outstretched it won't really be much difference (as it is in the Viper)
 

Mr. Nice

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
2,419
Maybe I'm missing something here but explain this to me. How are you any more comfortable with CC than w/o? You still have to keep you leg somewhere near the brakes just in case. Also if your sitting position is low with legs outstretched it won't really be much difference (as it is in the Viper)
You can take your foot off of the gas and move your leg around while maintaining a steady speed. I can't do this in my car, as it doesn't have cruise control. Occasionally, I drive 800 miles in one day. My previous car had cruise, and I can attest to the fact that it made the trip much easier.
 

Viper007Bond

Chicken Nugget Connoisseur
STAFF MEMBER
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Messages
31,049
Location
Portland, Oregon
Car(s)
2008 Dodge Viper, 2006 MB CLS55 AMG
ANd that is a damn shame.
No it's really not. Stability control that you can't turn off is a shame.

When you're not on the track, not crashing into a pole is a lot more important than being able to get the back end out.
 

smib

is a big honkin' homo
Joined
Aug 31, 2007
Messages
6,465
Location
Connecticut, USA
Car(s)
2010 Mazda3
No it's really not. Stability control that you can't turn off is a shame.

When you're not on the track, not crashing into a pole is a lot more important than being able to get the back end out.
But, pooooowwweeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
 

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
17,996
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
Even with CC and traction the Viper will remain a modern day AC Cobra. If you want more features buy a Ferrari.
 

Wallio

Active Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
156
Most young people can afford a Viper, as a good used one only costs 35k tops. My buddy paid 27900 for his, at an auction but still.

And I'm sorry but a driver's car doesn't need cruise or stablity control (despite what obama says). Why would it help on the road? You legally won't be going fast enough to use it. And as mentioned, you'll turn it off at the track, so what's the point?

I generally don't look down upon people, but I HATE driver aids, as stuff like ABS, TCS, CC, etc are why so many people in America (my g/f iincluded) are awful drivers. You don't need to drive anymore, just program the computer and turn the wheel a few times.

Oh well, if nothing else these new Vipers might the old ones more valuable.
 

argatoga

Can't Start His Wank
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
17,996
Location
Seattle
Car(s)
'13 Moto Guzzi V7, '08 Pontiac Solstice GXP
I generally don't look down upon people, but I HATE driver aids, as stuff like ABS, TCS, CC, etc are why so many people in America (my g/f iincluded) are awful drivers. You don't need to drive anymore, just program the computer and turn the wheel a few times.
Do you work for TVR? :p
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,903
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
No it's really not. Stability control that you can't turn off is a shame.

When you're not on the track, not crashing into a pole is a lot more important than being able to get the back end out.
My problem is not TC its the fact that it's mandatory. It removes MY choice of getting a vehicle that has no extraneous electronic aids.
 

Mr. Nice

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2007
Messages
2,419
Most young people can afford a Viper, as a good used one only costs 35k tops. My buddy paid 27900 for his, at an auction but still.

And I'm sorry but a driver's car doesn't need cruise or stablity control (despite what obama says). Why would it help on the road? You legally won't be going fast enough to use it. And as mentioned, you'll turn it off at the track, so what's the point?

I generally don't look down upon people, but I HATE driver aids, as stuff like ABS, TCS, CC, etc are why so many people in America (my g/f iincluded) are awful drivers. You don't need to drive anymore, just program the computer and turn the wheel a few times.

Oh well, if nothing else these new Vipers might the old ones more valuable.
Driver aids are not why people are awful drivers. People are awful drivers, and I know this will shock and astound you but, people are awful drivers because they're awful drivers.

I dislike that you soon won't be able to buy a new car without aids (I really dislike ABS) but the stuff that you can turn off isn't really a big deal. Also, as Tiff once proved, they actually do work.

 

2Billion

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2005
Messages
3,642
Car(s)
'10 Toyota Matrix XR
Most young people can afford a Viper, as a good used one only costs 35k tops. My buddy paid 27900 for his, at an auction but still.

And I'm sorry but a driver's car doesn't need cruise or stablity control (despite what obama says). Why would it help on the road? You legally won't be going fast enough to use it. And as mentioned, you'll turn it off at the track, so what's the point?

I generally don't look down upon people, but I HATE driver aids, as stuff like ABS, TCS, CC, etc are why so many people in America (my g/f iincluded) are awful drivers. You don't need to drive anymore, just program the computer and turn the wheel a few times.

Oh well, if nothing else these new Vipers might the old ones more valuable.
Just for reference, stability control is less for high speed than it is for bad road conditions and emergencies. I do have it, and while it's useless at the track (though I drive a sensible hatchback, so naturally the entire car is useless at the track) it is very useful on a roundabout after an ice storm. Not sure I'd be driving a Viper after an ice storm, but that's still the reason it exists.

I understand not wanting to use it, and all stability control should have an off switch somewhere, but it has a place.
 

Viper007Bond

Chicken Nugget Connoisseur
STAFF MEMBER
Joined
Sep 21, 2003
Messages
31,049
Location
Portland, Oregon
Car(s)
2008 Dodge Viper, 2006 MB CLS55 AMG
Most young people can afford a Viper, as a good used one only costs 35k tops. My buddy paid 27900 for his, at an auction but still.
RT/10 I take it? All the SRT-10's I've seen start at about $45k.

And I'm sorry but a driver's car doesn't need cruise or stablity control (despite what obama says). Why would it help on the road? You legally won't be going fast enough to use it. And as mentioned, you'll turn it off at the track, so what's the point?

I generally don't look down upon people, but I HATE driver aids, as stuff like ABS, TCS, CC, etc are why so many people in America (my g/f iincluded) are awful drivers. You don't need to drive anymore, just program the computer and turn the wheel a few times.

Oh well, if nothing else these new Vipers might the old ones more valuable.
EDIT: Oh, haha, someone else posted this (I guess I need to keep reading the rest of the thread). :p


I'll just leave this here to prove how wrong you are:



It's all about proving control in emergency situations. Stability control especially keeps you going towards where you're steering.

Off buttons exist for a reason too.
 
Last edited:

Wallio

Active Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
156
RT/10 I take it? All the SRT-10's I've seen start at about $45k.



EDIT: Oh, haha, someone else posted this (I guess I need to keep reading the rest of the thread). :p


I'll just leave this here to prove how wrong you are:



It's all about proving control in emergency situations. Stability control especially keeps you going towards where you're steering.

Off buttons exist for a reason too.
Nope SRT10 with 30k miles. In PA, there's a decent amount of Vipers, mostly RT/10s and GTSs but some SRTs as well and the most expensive one is a First Year for $42500. All the others are 38 annd below. Just gotta know where to look.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,168
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
I doubt the new softer, weaker Viper will even sell 500 a year. The reason they were bringing the car back was it had a hardcore fanbase. But this base won't buy these posermobiles.
The hard-core fan base is small. The majority of motorists will be more appealed by the "soft" Viper, hence I believe it might actually sell in greater numbers because it becomes more usable.

I really dislike ABS
What's your beef with ABS in a road car?

Just for reference, stability control is less for high speed than it is for bad road conditions and emergencies.
:nod: without ESP the Octavia would not be as shiny as it still is today. :shakefist: at people suddenly switching lanes without indicating or looking while pootling down an Autobahn in a snow storm, yet :hug: at computers for helping me sort it out - if the grip level for each tyre is significantly different then any driver this side of Senna would have trouble slowing down the car or swerving to avoid the idiot. Touch the brakes without any electronics and you start spinning.

Just admit that your statement was absolutely wrong :) As an example of how wrong it is:
Road by my house has a speed limit of 50mph.
My car reaches 50mph in 2nd gear, so by your logic if I am going at a constant speed (50) in 2nd gear with CC turned on I should use less fuel than I go between 45-50 in 5th.
:yawn: You're just looking for excuses. Nobody in their right mind would compare cruise control consumption in second gear with foot consumption in fifth. All my statements refer to going along in the same gear, the correct gear for the situation.

So do the drive with CC there and w/o CC back and observe your consumption gauge and then tell me if you see a noticeable difference. BUT you have to keep your foot 100% steady on the throttle no matter what.
With or without CC, the consumption varies wildly. You can probably guess, being German I love to keep a look at the data :lol: I can tell you time of day has a bigger impact on fuel than cruise control (huge traffic = more consumption, no traffic = higher speed = more consumption). Wind direction and speed has a bigger impact on fuel than cruise control. Outside temperature can have bigger impact than cruise control (cold = lots of cold running, hot = A/C).

In order to get any reliable data you would need a huge number of data points, getting a few readings is pointless due to other variables having bigger impacts.

We have the same CC likely...
Go down a steep enough hill in top gear at reasonable speed in cruise control, you will then observe that it entirely shuts off the fuel supply and even may speed up if the hill is steep enough.
Either you have no idea what you were talking about, or your cruise control sucks. Your choice :tease:

That's great but it still says nothing about "rolling" terrain.
Differences in elevation are goverened by this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy
tl;dr: Going up a hill needs energy, going down a hill gives back the exact same energy. At what speeds you go up or down does not matter for potential energy, that's where aerodynamic drag plays the biggest role because of its growth with v?.

You don't seem to be understanding a very simple point. CC will keep constant speed at all times, I won't, when I was doing the only drive of my life where I used CC it was an empty road with no one around, I didn't care if I droped to 45 on the way up and went up to 70 on the way down I kept my foot at the same exact place no matter what. So I wasn't using any more fuel on the way up (car just dropped to w/e speed current throttle setting allowed it to be) and used less of it on the way down. If I really wanted to save some fuel I could have released the throttle at the crest (something a CC will NEVER do) and let it coast down only going back on the throttle at the very end.
It is an illusion that you save fuel by coasting up a hill.
The energy it takes to store the potential energy comes out of your fuel, no matter what you do. In your foot-controlled case it comes out of the kinetic energy of your car, you slow down. That kinetic energy is restored by you applying the throttle on the way down.
The cruise control provides the energy for going up the hill while going up the hill, and uses the potential energy stored up there to go down the hill without much or any throttle.
The key difference is aerodynamic drag. On your way down you go much faster than the cruise control and get the penalty of aerodynamics. If you didn't go much faster you would lose time due to going up slower.

It's highschool physics. I mean, how hard can it be?

P.S. none of the hypermilers use CC, think about it.
The religious hypermilers are idiots, think about it.
Mindlessly staying on your god-given speed choice will ruin your consumption. You still have to make adjustments to perfectly fit the situation.
 
Top