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

As to why I dislike ABS... There are some circumstances in which ABS can actually be a hindrance and not allow you to have the greatest amount of control. However, those circumstances are not things you'd typically encounter on a daily basis. Snow and ice is really what I'm talking about here, because you can actually have more control without ABS in certain winter circumstances. That said, ABS assists in a straight stop from a forward direction in almost any condition. You also can't turn ABS off.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Nice said:
As to why I dislike ABS... There are some circumstances in which ABS can actually be a hindrance and not allow you to have the greatest amount of control. However, those circumstances are not things you'd typically encounter on a daily basis. Snow and ice is really what I'm talking about here, because you can actually have more control without ABS in certain winter circumstances. That said, ABS assists in a straight stop from a forward direction in almost any condition. You also can't turn ABS off.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to building up a small hill in front of your locking wheels to stop faster on loose snow? Modern ABSs such as VW's current one do just that. It will lock the wheels a bit on loose surfaces to get those piles of stuff in front of the wheels.
As for turning it off, any vehicle properly designed for the rough stuff will let you do that. Yay, an excuse to post Unimogs!

https://pic.armedcats.net/n/na/narf/2011/07/04/HBv19lrT_Pxgen_r_600x400.jpg
 
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.
Click to expand...
I'm just doing exactly what you do in just about every argument, being extremely pedantic....
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
Click to expand...
Or the hill wasn't steep enough where I was driving...
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?
Click to expand...
It's also basic physics that if I have my throttle open enough to allow a flow of 1litre/hour and drive for one hour I will use up 1litre of fuel. If I am using CC and it averages to 1litre/hour on an hour drive it will ALSO use 1litre of fuel. So once again your point about constant speed = best efficiency is incorrect because speed can vary in example 1 and STILL result in the same exact consumption as example 2 where speed is exactly the same.
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.
Click to expand...
No one says they are not but they get better fuel economy than either of us and don't use CC, so CC is obviously not the best way to save fuel.
ABS assists in a straight stop from a forward direction in almost any condition.
Click to expand...
The point of ABS is ability to turn while stopping, it does help on slippery surface in straight though.
 
Last edited:
prizrak said:
It's also basic physics that if I have my throttle open enough to allow a flow of 1litre/hour and drive for one hour I will use up 1litre of fuel. If I am using CC and it averages to 1litre/hour on an hour drive it will ALSO use 1litre of fuel. So once again your point about constant speed = best efficiency is incorrect because speed can vary in example 1 and STILL result in the same exact consumption as example 2 where speed is exactly the same.
Click to expand...

How is fuel per time related to fuel per distance? It's not, that's how.
 
narf said:
How is fuel per time related to fuel per distance? It's not, that's how.
Click to expand...
D = V*T, you can work out the relationship yourself...

You did not say anything about distance, here is what you said:
narf said:
Dogbert: constant speed = lowest consumption and fastest arrival.
Click to expand...
This says nothing about what gear the car is in, what distance it needs to cover or even what type of environmental factors are involved. If I'm going 60 with a tail wind and you are going the opposite way I will have less consumption than you will but your speed is still constant. I don't even need to bother with fastest arrival since clearly the higher the speed the faster is arrival and since this statement does not specify that a vehicle has any kind of top speed you can just keep accelerating to infinty :)
 
If you're going in the opposite direction you won't arrive at all, or will take very, very long to come around to your destination again.
 
narf said:
If you're going in the opposite direction you won't arrive at all, or will take very, very long to come around to your destination again.
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with fuel consumption? There was nothing mentioned about destination in my post, simply a difference between two cars (assuming all other things are equal) going same speed one with the wind and the other against having different fuel consumption figures.
 
Last edited:
narf said:
Right here:



Can't arrive without a destination.
Click to expand...
Tis untrue, I can stop driving and declare whereever I happen to be my destination :) But if it makes you feel better lets say both cars had their own specific destinations (with all other things being equal) :p
 
I don't see the big deal. Most modern cars will have electronic aids. I don't use CC either, as I dont want to doze into sleep while driving, but I dont see a problem with having it.
 
Yeah, I don't see what the big deal is. Especially since you have to go out of your way to turn CC on. It's not one of those things that is always active and require you to shut it off every time.
 
GraemeH said:
It's easy to complain that traction control isn't necessary, until you drive 1300 miles in one 24 hour stint without breaks. Then your ankle will tell you otherwise. I know.
Click to expand...
Meh, I've done longer (I intend to do the Grand 48 Hour Ubertrip sometime soon). Yeah, I limp a bit for like ten minutes, but it isn't that bad.
 
EyeMWing said:
Meh, I've done longer (I intend to do the Grand 48 Hour Ubertrip sometime soon). Yeah, I limp a bit for like ten minutes, but it isn't that bad.
Click to expand...

I didn't notice until your reply there that I wrote "traction control" instead of "cruise control". But you knew what I meant.

Anyway, I do understand the hesitance from viper fans as a big part of the car's reputation was built on its unconventional philosophy, so if anything it's a marketing issue rather than an ownership or driving one they're introducing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top