 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / March 2006Lets Bomb Toyota
It appears that Toyota is killing GM and Ford. The f.cking Japs are winning the war, and it's time we stop them. I suggest we drop a massive bomb on every Toyota plant and dealership in the USA, and in other countries, and destroy them all. Also, if you see a Toyota vehicle on the highway, take your Ford or Chevy and ram the Toy into a pile of rubble. The Ford or Chevy will survive and the Toy will be nothing but a ball of fire on the side of the highway, killing the anti-American traitor that bought that Toy using American money. It serves that driver right for being a traitor to America. Lets destroy Toyota now.... > It appears that Toyota is killing GM and Ford. Maybe you should ask why this is happening in the first place. > It appears that Toyota is killing GM and Ford. The f.cking Japs are > winning the war, and it's time we stop them. I suggest we drop a > massive bomb on every Toyota plant and dealership in the USA, and in > other countries, and destroy them all. You should be arrested for terrorists threats. Also, if you see a Toyota > vehicle on the highway, take your Ford or Chevy and ram the Toy into a > pile of rubble. The Ford or Chevy will survive and the Toy will be > nothing but a ball of fire on the side of the highway, killing the > anti-American traitor that bought that Toy using American money. It > serves that driver right for being a traitor to America. Lets destroy > Toyota now.... Competition improves products and lowers costs. It may indeed improve quality but why then does it cost 20% to 30% more to drive home a Toyota? ;) mike hunt >> It appears that Toyota is killing GM and Ford. The f.cking Japs are >> winning the war, and it's time we stop them. I suggest we drop a [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Competition improves products and lowers costs. > It may indeed improve quality but why then does it cost 20% to 30% more to > drive home a Toyota? ;) Because Toyota has more engineers and a huge marketing force to bring the product to the public far faster than GM or Ford can even dream of. GM and Ford talk a good show - just that they cannot produce. Mack The one thing they do however is to outsell Toyota year after year. Apparently not many buyers agree with your opinion. ;) mike hunt . >> It may indeed improve quality but why then does it cost 20% to 30% more >> to drive home a Toyota? ;) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Mack > The one thing they do however is to outsell Toyota year after year. > Apparently not many buyers agree with your opinion. ;) Um, wait one more year. You have to recall, Toyoa is WORLDWIDE, while GM and Ford can't get anyone to buy their junk outside North America... > mike hunt > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >> Mack Nice try. GM is number one in the world as well. LOL mike hunt >> The one thing they do however is to outsell Toyota year after year. >> Apparently not many buyers agree with your opinion. ;) [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >>> >>> Mack >Nice try. GM is number one in the world as well. LOL Nice try. GM's market share is plummeting, as domestic loyalists decline in numbers. LOL. You keep forgetting it is a share of an ever growing market in the US. When the Commerce Department posted the total sales for 2005 GM was still number one at 26%, Ford was still number two at 18%, Chrysler was still number three at 13%and Toyota was still number four at less than 11% of the market. The domestics sold 57% of all of the vehicles sold in the US in 2005 and ALL of the twenty odd import brands combined sold just over 40%. If you add in GM and Fords import brands the percentage shift even more, in favor of the domestics LOL mike hunt >>Nice try. GM is number one in the world as well. LOL > > Nice try. GM's market share is plummeting, as domestic loyalists > decline in numbers. LOL. (top posting corrected) >>>Nice try. GM is number one in the world as well. LOL >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >GM and Fords import brands the percentage shift even more, in favor of the >domestics LOL Yeah, the domestics are doing so well they have to shutter factories and their debt is rated as "junk" (kind of like their cars). LOL. But the still outsell Toyota LOL mike hunt >>You keep forgetting it is a share of an ever growing market in the US. >>When [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Yeah, the domestics are doing so well they have to shutter factories > and their debt is rated as "junk" (kind of like their cars). LOL. >But the still outsell Toyota LOL Ford does not. GM soon will not. LOL >> Yeah, the domestics are doing so well they have to shutter factories >> and their debt is rated as "junk" (kind of like their cars). LOL. As we expect DIZZY is well........DIZZY once again US Commerce Department repot of total US vehicle sales for 2005 GM 26% 4,316,000 Ford 18% 2,988,000 Chrysler 13% 2,158,000 Toyota 11% 1,826,000 mike hunt >>But they still outsell Toyota LOL > > Ford does not. GM soon will not. LOL > >>> Yeah, the domestics are doing so well they have to shutter factories >>> and their debt is rated as "junk" (kind of like their cars). LOL. > As we expect DIZZY is well........DIZZY once again > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > mike hunt Those numbers are stale. They look more like 2004 numbers reported in 2005. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if they were and you knew it when you posted them as 2005 numbers. Toyota's at 2,260,000 and GM is at 4,454,000. See the Autonews.com "Data Center." Yeah, GM's still in the lead but Toyota's way up. And making money, too. > >>But they still outsell Toyota LOL > > > > Ford does not. GM soon will not. LOL > > > >>> Yeah, the domestics are doing so well they have to shutter factories > >>> and their debt is rated as "junk" (kind of like their cars). LOL. You are free to believe what ever you choose but if you want to enlighten yourself, rather than just stating your opinion, consult the CD for the 2004 and 2005 sales total, WBMA mike hunt >> As we expect DIZZY is well........DIZZY once again >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from > http://www.SecureIX.com *** > You are free to believe what ever you choose but if you want to enlighten > yourself, rather than just stating your opinion, consult the CD for the > 2004 and 2005 sales total, WBMA > > mike hunt Dig through the commerce site? Hahahaha. Good one. Autonews will do just fine and Autonews says you're wrong. Works for me. If you'd like us to consider your figures, you'll have to tell us where you found them. I hope your grandchildren's parents don't let you in their house when the grandkids have homework to do. > >> As we expect DIZZY is well........DIZZY once again > >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from > > http://www.SecureIX.com *** > You are free to believe what ever you choose but if you want to > enlighten yourself, rather than just stating your opinion, consult > the CD for the 2004 and 2005 sales total, WBMA > > mike hunt Mike, since you've found these numbers in the CD's website, please post a link here so we can all go read up on it too. JP Since the US by treaty help overwhelm the Axis Powers during WWII and won the Pacific War against the Japanese, do we really need to waste bombs on Toyota??? Are there ones on this newsgroup that propose a military engagement like Gulf War 1 and Gulf War 2??? Snip How many time do you need to be told were to look before you go looking? LOL mike hunt >> You are free to believe what ever you choose but if you want to >> enlighten yourself, rather than just stating your opinion, consult [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > so we can all go read up on it too. > JP >> You are free to believe what ever you choose but if you want to >> enlighten yourself, rather than just stating your opinion, consult [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > since you've found these numbers in the CD's website, please post a link here > so we can all go read up on it too. "Mike Hunt" is a proven liar who routinely makes outrageous claims and refuses to back them up. This is his standard M.O. > As we expect DIZZY is well........DIZZY once again > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Chrysler 13% 2,158,000 > Toyota 11% 1,826,000 As we expect, "Mike" shows what a f.cking idiot he is, once again. Do you have the market-share numbers for Japan handy? LOL World-wide sales is the issue, "Mike". > Nice try. GM is number one in the world as well. LOL Wait one more year, I said. Don't read the WSJ? Don't listen to Business Reports? Toyota is about half a million cars behind GM right now. A far cry from 10 years ago. It is projected Toyota will be #1 by the 2007 model year. > mike hunt > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >>>> >>>> Mack  SignatureIn the grand scheme fo things... What difference does it make? GM's market share keeps dropping Mike. Soon, soon Toyota Passes GM. See these links: Chrysler, Toyota sales up, Ford and GM drop http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/01/news/economy/car_sales.reut/index.htm The Tragedy of General Motors http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/02/20/8369111/index.htm Toyota, GM locked in fight for worldwide supremacy (02/13/05) http://detnews.com/2005/specialreport/0502/13/A01-87977.htm > The one thing they do however is to outsell Toyota year after year. > Apparently not many buyers agree with your opinion. ;) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >> Mack True, but it is a share of an ever growing market in the US. GM sells more vehicles today, at 26% of the market, than when it controlled nearly 50% of the market in years past. Toyotas 2005 share of the market was just under 11% mike hunt > GM's market share keeps dropping Mike. Soon, soon Toyota Passes GM. See > these links: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >>> >>> Mack > True, but it is a share of an ever growing market in the US. GM sells > more vehicles today, at 26% of the market, than when it controlled > nearly 50% of the market in years past. Toyotas 2005 share of the > market was just under 11% you keep repeating this. could you post a reference? One reason is that if it's true, why is GM continuing to lay off TENS of thousands of labor and closing plants if their sales are so healthy? JP The US Department of Commerce. Because their newer plants are more efficient, requiring fewer workers that build more vehicles. mike hunt >> True, but it is a share of an ever growing market in the US. GM sells >> more vehicles today, at 26% of the market, than when it controlled [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > thousands of labor and closing plants if their sales are so healthy? > JP >True, What is true, top poster? >but it is a share of an ever growing market in the US. GM sells more >vehicles today, at 26% of the market, than when it controlled nearly 50% of >the market in years past. Sounds like they're doing great, "Mike". Now, what's in the news today? "BOTH General Motors and Ford said on Wednesday they would cut production in the second quarter, a move that reflects their falling sales and shrinking market share in the United States." http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/general-motors-ford-hit-the-brakes/2006/03/0 2/1141191794244.html >> GM's market share keeps dropping Mike. Soon, soon Toyota Passes GM. See >> these links: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> Toyota, GM locked in fight for worldwide supremacy (02/13/05) >> http://detnews.com/2005/specialreport/0502/13/A01-87977.htm But they still outsell Toyota LOL mike hunt >>True, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > production in the second quarter, a move that reflects their falling > sales and shrinking market share in the United States." >But they still outsell Toyota LOL Ford does not. GM soon will not. LOL >> "BOTH General Motors and Ford said on Wednesday they would cut >> production in the second quarter, a move that reflects their falling >> sales and shrinking market share in the United States." >The one thing they do however is to outsell Toyota year after year. Who out-sells Toyota, top poster? >Apparently not many buyers agree with your opinion. ;) You are lying again, "Mike". >>The one thing they do however is to outsell Toyota year after year. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You are lying again, "Mike". No, he's right. GM is still outselling Toyota... But not for long... >"dizzy" <dizzy@nospam.invalid> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >No, he's right. GM is still outselling Toyota... That's not the lie. > It may indeed improve quality but why then does it cost 20% to 30% more to > drive home a Toyota? ;) > mike hunt Hahahah! What "20% to 30%" difference is that? You were taken to task over this the other day for your intransigence vis-a-vis Matrix and Vibe pricing and, yet, here you are, back again, with the same blather. Sure, dealers can screw around with trades and other gimmicks but the bottom line is the prices offered to cash (or bank-financed) buyers with no trades and cash rebates considered or loan discount rates evaluated at net present value. Toyota is no more expensive than GM for comparable cars. My '01 Sienna cost me no more than what Chevy and Dodge were asking and today it's worth MORE than the Chevy and Dodge vans I considered. Chevy's own Olympic ads tell you to go to to Edmunds and click "head2head" to compare. Doing so brings you to a page that shows the base Impala is $1K less than the Camry, TMV. Yep, sure, that's 5% less BUT the Camry has a better, more sophisticated engine (no pushrods) and a 5-speed automatic vs the Impala's 4-speed. The Camry would flat-out win on price if one considered the 4-cylinder Camry instead. Performance of the 4-cylinder Camry is comparable to the Impala and such a comparison is valid: The V6 Camry is considerably faster than the base Impala and a little slower than the upgrade Impala. http://www.pricegrabber.com/search.php?form_keyword=impala&topcat_id=13 3.5L V6 Impala 0-60 of 8.3sec 3.9L V6 Impala 0-60 of 7.4sec http://www.pricegrabber.com/search.php?form_keyword=camry&topcat_id=13 2.4L I4 Camry 0-60 of 8.6 seconds. 3.0L V6 Camry 0-60 of 7.6 seonds I consider giving up .3 sec on the 0-60 time to get better fuel mileage, cheaper tuneups and more space in the engine compartment to be a good trade. If you want a manual transmission because you enjoy shifting for yourself or you get better mileage with a stick than an auto (as I do), then the Impala is not an option at all. Going manual would save even more money on the Camry. However, if you'd like to argue that the Impala wins because it has more simulated wood trim... well, you got me there. [snip absolute BS by "partrioticamerican"] > > Competition improves products and lowers costs. The only thing that saves money in a Camry is it 4cy motor. Eight out of ten Camry sold in the US has only a 4 cy motor Every other manufacture sell cars with V6s at Camry 4cy prices. ;) mike hunt >> It may indeed improve quality but why then does it cost 20% to 30% more >> to [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from > http://www.SecureIX.com *** >The only thing that saves money in a Camry is it 4cy motor. Eight out of >ten Camry sold in the US has only a 4 cy motor Every other manufacture sell >cars with V6s at Camry 4cy prices. ;) Wrong, as usual. You forgot to say 'in my world.' mike hunt >>The only thing that saves money in a Camry is it 4cy motor. Eight out of >>ten Camry sold in the US has only a 4 cy motor Every other manufacture >>sell >>cars with V6s at Camry 4cy prices. ;) > > Wrong, as usual. > The only thing that saves money in a Camry is it 4cy motor. Eight out of > ten Camry sold in the US has only a 4 cy motor Every other manufacture sell > cars with V6s at Camry 4cy prices. ;) > mike hunt Wrong. The I4 Camry's cheaper. Go look it up on Edmunds or KBB. Your choice. Don't forget to add on the extra $600 for ABS to that Impala. And that I4 Camry is just .3 sec slower 0-60 than the base Impala V6. I'm not hung up on cylinder count, I'll be happy to take a car that's just about as fast but gets better fuel economy. I think you'd be better off arguing the simulated wood-grain trim issue. The Impala wins on simulated wood-grain trim. > >> It may indeed improve quality but why then does it cost 20% to 30% more > >> to [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > >> > > > [snip absolute BS by "partrioticamerican"] > >> > Competition improves products and lowers costs. I guess we can assume you still have not gone out into the real world and obtained a drive home price for a Camry and several of its competitors of the same size and with the same equipment, right LOL mike hunt >> It may indeed improve quality but why then does it cost 20% to 30% more >> to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > over > this the other day > I guess we can assume you still have not gone out into the real world and > obtained a drive home price for a Camry and several of its competitors of > the same size and with the same equipment, right LOL > > mike hunt Why would I waste some salesguy's time on that? And, as I said earlier, 1. Define "drive home price." Which you have not done. Financing arrangements, for instance, will have to be adjusted to represent Net Present Value of loan terms discounting. 2. If you know Edmunds, KBB, etc to be in error, I suggest you notify them. I'm sure they will be glad of your assistance and shower you with rich reward. Until then, they're the experts and you're an also-ran. Bear in mind that Chevy must think Edmunds is more of an authority than you because their ads call for viewers to "go to Edmunds.com and click 'head2head,'" rather than, "go to your phone and call 'mike hunt.'" And Edmunds and KBB agree, your "20% to 30%" price advantage to the Impala is a fantasy. By the way, Nukester called our attention to this a little while ago: ABS is standard on the Camry, a $600 option on the Impala. As I noted earlier, the price gap between the V6 Camry, with its superior engine and transmission and better performance, and the base Impala was just $1K or 5%. Well, a better car for a little more money - why not? Turns out the price difference is $400 or just 2%, once one takes ABS into account. A better car for slightly more money - why not? Buwahahahaha! > >> It may indeed improve quality but why then does it cost 20% to 30% more > >> to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > over > > this the other day The drive home price is the total cost of driving home a vehicle, not the selling price. The drive home price includes standard equipment, the selling price of the vehicle, any require added dealer options and fees, taxes, interest etc less the value of any trade. mike hunt . >> I guess we can assume you still have not gone out into the real world and >> obtained a drive home price for a Camry and several of its competitors of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 1. Define "drive home price." ://www.SecureIX.com *** The selling price of a used car is important The total cost of ownership is important If you have to throw the car away after a few years is totally different from being able to get a good resale value > The drive home price is the total cost of driving home a vehicle, not the > selling price. The drive home price includes standard equipment, the > selling price of the vehicle, any require added dealer options and fees, > taxes, interest etc less the value of any trade. > mike hunt In other words, the cash price plus whatever the dealer can screw out of the customer? Gee, no GM or Ford dealer would EVER try to take advantage of a customer. Riiiight. "Drive Home Price." I'll remember that. Of course, if you have no trade - or know what your trade is really worth - and have the flexibility or smarts to arrange your own financing, then the cash price is what really counts. So, we're back to who do I trust as a guide. That would be Edmunds, chump, not you. > >> I guess we can assume you still have not gone out into the real world and > >> obtained a drive home price for a Camry and several of its competitors of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > > 1. Define "drive home price." ://www.SecureIX.com *** > By the way, Nukester called our attention to this a little while ago: ABS is > standard on the Camry, a $600 option on the Impala. That, in itself, is reason enough to pick the Impala. Dave >> By the way, Nukester called our attention to this a little while ago: >> ABS [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Dave That, in itself, is reason enough to pick the Camry. >>> By the way, Nukester called our attention to this a little while ago: >>> ABS [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >That, in itself, is reason enough to pick the Camry. Yet another moron who doesn't know that anti-lock brakes save lives?? Signature*Pace: Torture, Killings Widespread in Iraq SYDNEY, Australia (AP) -- Human rights abuses in Iraq are as bad now as they were under Saddam Hussein, as lawlessness and sectarian violence sweep the country, the former U.N. human rights chief in Iraq said Thursday. John Pace, who last month left his post as director of the human rights office at the U.N. Assistance Mission for Iraq, said the level of extra-judicial executions and torture is soaring, and morgue workers are being threatened by both government-backed militia and insurgents not to properly investigate deaths. -- gburnore at DataBasix dot Com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³ Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase =========================================================================== >>>> By the way, Nukester called our attention to this a little while ago: >>>> ABS [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Yet another moron who doesn't know that anti-lock brakes save lives?? This from another moron that assumes that all new safety features are perfect and will save lives like the killer airbags? How in the hell did you ever get into DP? We have to deal in black and white, and you're as grey as I've ever seen a liberal. Charles of Schaumburg >>>>> By the way, Nukester called our attention to this a little while ago: >>>>> ABS [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >This from another moron that assumes that all new safety features are >perfect and will save lives like the killer airbags? Anti-lock brakes are not new, dipshit. Your assumption that they are proves you to be an idiot. Again. >How in the hell did you ever get into DP? We have to deal in black and >white, and you're as grey as I've ever seen a liberal. I'm not a liberal, dipshit. Signaturegburnore at DataBasix dot Com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³ Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase =========================================================================== > On 3/2/2006 9:47 AM ... Gary L. Burnore wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Anti-lock brakes are not new, dipshit. Your assumption that they are > proves you to be an idiot. Again. And they aren't saving lives either... http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/antilock.html#4 ...so he is wrong on two counts... >> How in the hell did you ever get into DP? We have to deal in black and >> white, and you're as grey as I've ever seen a liberal. >> > I'm not a liberal, dipshit. > > On 3/2/2006 9:47 AM ... Gary L. Burnore wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >And And stay the f.ck out of my email, you ignorant f.cking twat. Signaturegburnore at DataBasix dot Com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³ Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase =========================================================================== > On 3/2/2006 8:42 PM ... Gary L. Burnore wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > And stay the f.ck out of my email, you ignorant f.cking twat. What part of the insurance institute report confused you? > > On 3/2/2006 8:42 PM ... Gary L. Burnore wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > >What part of the insurance institute report confused you? What part of stay out of my email confused you? Signaturegburnore at DataBasix dot Com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³ Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase =========================================================================== > On 3/2/2006 9:02 PM ... Gary L. Burnore wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > What part of stay out of my email confused you? This is a public Newsgroup. It has nothing to do with your email. The two are completely different system. But I did take note of the diversion as a way to keep from answering the question. ;-) >>>>By the way, Nukester called our attention to this a little while ago: >>>>ABS [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Yet another moron who doesn't know that anti-lock brakes save lives?? People who actually know how to drive have been getting by without them for years. I just got my first ABS-equipped car in '02; how did I manage to live this long? ABS only saves lives when morons are driving; the rest of us slow down to an appropriate speed and/or threshold brake, as required. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > People who actually know how to drive have been getting by without them > for years. I just got my first ABS-equipped car in '02; how did I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > nate accidents are accidents because they're unexpected. ABS, when used properly, help you avoid accidents. The problem with the past 20+ years of ABS isn't their lack of usefullness, but people educating themselves to brake differently in emergency situations. It's education. JP > On 3/2/2006 6:56 PM ... Jon R Patrick wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > It's education. > JP No it teaches them how to brake improperly. In some cases a controlled skid is desired as another form of directional control. ABS takes that control option away from the driver. > > On 3/2/2006 6:56 PM ... Jon R Patrick wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >No it teaches them how to brake improperly. In some cases a controlled >skid is desired Oh f.cking BULLSHIT. No skid is controlled. Ever. Signaturegburnore at DataBasix dot Com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³ Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase =========================================================================== > On 3/2/2006 8:42 PM ... Gary L. Burnore wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Oh f.cking BULLSHIT. No skid is controlled. Ever. Nice trim job "for added directional control is important to the context". I take it You've never watched those competition shows back in the 1960's where Hollywood stunt drivers would do a 360 skid of the cars perfectly into a parallel parking space for points? And you apparently haven't watched very many dirt races or stunt races either where there is plenty of "skidding" going on and they obviously have total control of the vehicle. You may want to take some ice driving lessons in Colorado sometime. They'll show you how to do it. > > On 3/2/2006 8:42 PM ... Gary L. Burnore wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > vehicle. You may want to take some ice driving lessons in Colorado > sometime. They'll show you how to do it. He doesn't get it. He's probably never driven an old car with rear wheel drive and 4 wheel drum brakes and no power steering and had to make it mind on bad roads. You learn to sense what the car is capable of doing almost by the seat of your pants. You have to. He believes in the Nanny State. ABS and killer airbags. Way to go, Burn-More. Charles of Schaumburg > On 3/2/2006 10:11 PM ... n5hsr wrote: >>> On 3/2/2006 8:42 PM ... Gary L. Burnore wrote: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Charles of Schaumburg Probably true. Most of what is being discussed here is based on acquired/honed skills and/or personal first-hand experiences. With 35 years, zero accidents (even as a teenager) and almost a million miles behind me, I can probably claim having had more and varied types of experiences on the subject of driving. At least compared with the person that only seems to have profane expletives in his vocabulary (which alone is quite telling) You forgot to mention the bias-ply tires we had back then. Now those were a real joy to handle on wet roads?! Some serious wet traction issues with those puppies! Just trying to pull away from a light in either my mothers 1969 Impala or my 1967 GTO was hard to do without spinning up the wheels. Even my dad's 1965 VW Karmann-Ghia would easily spin tires on wet pavement (with only a 45HP engine!). > > On 3/2/2006 10:11 PM ... n5hsr wrote: >>>> On 3/2/2006 8:42 PM ... Gary L. Burnore wrote: [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > Even my dad's 1965 VW Karmann-Ghia would easily spin tires on wet pavement > (with only a 45HP engine!). You're right, I'd forgotten bias ply tires. You just had to learn to drive with them. When we got our first car that came with radials, Dad got bias ply tires to replace them the first replacement cycle, cause he was so used to the bias ply driving. . . . Charles of Schaumburg. > On 3/4/2006 7:23 AM ... n5hsr wrote: >>> On 3/2/2006 10:11 PM ... n5hsr wrote: [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > Charles of Schaumburg. Once I had my first set of radials, I never went back. The handling between the two was very different though. >>> No it teaches them how to brake improperly. In some cases a controlled >>> skid is desired [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >1960's where Hollywood stunt drivers would do a 360 skid of the cars >perfectly into a parallel parking space for points? Well, that is not applicaable to real-world driving. >And you apparently >haven't watched very many dirt races or stunt races either where there >is plenty of "skidding" going on and they obviously have total control >of the vehicle. You may want to take some ice driving lessons in >Colorado sometime. They'll show you how to do it. That's not skidding while braking, though. > On 3/2/2006 10:27 PM ... dizzy wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Well, that is not applicaable to real-world driving. How so? Perhaps the average person can't handle a car to the level that a professional stunt driver can, but many can and apparently do very well given the statistics with ABS or not (since there is no difference). It also demonstrates that skid maneuvers *are* a option in terms of added directional control. In fact, one can make the car do things that steering alone can never do. Surely you've amazed yourself a time or two with a skid maneuver. ;-) >> And you apparently >> haven't watched very many dirt races or stunt races either where there [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That's not skidding while braking, though. Not completely true. Braking is occurring while going into the turns when the slide begins. The key is to not stomp the brakes (which unfortunately is what ABS systems teach one to do). Since there is a mix of cars out there (I own cars with both types of brakes) that require very different breaking reaction, it has to contribute to confusion for many. In a panic, one doesn't stop to think, (am I driving a car with ABS?) One intuitively does what comes naturally (trained for one type of system or the other). >>> I take it You've never watched those competition shows back in the >>> 1960's where Hollywood stunt drivers would do a 360 skid of the cars [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >How so? How so, huh? Get real. >>> And you apparently >>> haven't watched very many dirt races or stunt races either where there [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Not completely true. The point is they never want locked-wheel braking. >Braking is occurring while going into the turns >when the slide begins. And the controlled skidding commences when power is applied. >The key is to not stomp the brakes Thus to avoid locking them, as I said. > On 3/3/2006 8:53 PM ... dizzy wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > The point is they never want locked-wheel braking. Who said they do? >> Braking is occurring while going into the turns >> when the slide begins. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Thus to avoid locking them, as I said. Correct. > > On 3/3/2006 8:53 PM ... dizzy wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Who said they do? Skidding occurs when you lock your wheels. >>> Braking is occurring while going into the turns >>> when the slide begins. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Correct. Signaturegburnore at DataBasix dot Com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³ Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase =========================================================================== > On 3/3/2006 9:16 PM ... Gary L. Burnore wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> > Skidding occurs when you lock your wheels. The obvious is understood (Locked wheels equals skid...every time). But the reverse it is not necessarily so (A skid does not equal locked wheels). For example, dirt racers (bike or car) take the corners of the track while in a controlled sideways skid all the way around the curves. They go into the corners on the brakes initially to slow down from the "flat", but also use the brakes to kick the rear end around when entering the curve. If they don't, they'll never make it around the curve at those speeds without getting themselves into a controlled skid. For most of the skid/cornering maneuver (for several hundred feet, in fact), their wheels aren't "locked". The skid, however, did begin at the end of a braking maneuver while entering the curve, then back on the throttle to maintain the controlled skid for the rest of the way around the curve. The driver spends 1/3 of his time in the race in a controlled skid. He has to. Steering alone won't get him around the curves fast enough. He needs a controlled skid to do it. I think I see the point you're missing to the discussion. Your assumption that the wheels *must* be locked to skid. And your assumption that without ABS, wheels will always be locked for the duration. Neither are true. A momentary locked (or semi-locked) wheel is very helpful to start a controlled skid so to change vehicle direction more quickly than steering alone can. But to control the remaining skid to obtain that goal, one must not keep them locked (or one finds themselves into a field or wall instead!). This is an extremely easy maneuver to do with standard brakes. It is a very difficult maneuver to do with anti-lock brakes. It is a maneuver I'm sure most all of us have done in an emergency situation (usually without realizing we have done it). >>>> Braking is occurring while going into the turns >>>> when the slide begins. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> >> Correct. > > On 3/3/2006 9:16 PM ... Gary L. Burnore wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >For example, dirt racers Even dirt racers know that driving on a ROAD isn't the same thing as driving on a dirt track. You're obviously beyond help, dipshit. Signaturegburnore at DataBasix dot Com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³ Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase =========================================================================== > On 3/3/2006 11:08 PM ... Gary L. Burnore wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Even dirt racers know that driving on a ROAD isn't the same thing as > driving on a dirt track. You're obviously beyond help, dipshit. I bet they use the skills when ever needed to and where ever they need to to avoid something...assuming they don't have ABS on the family sedan and can do it. ;-) >> > On 3/3/2006 9:16 PM ... Gary L. Burnore wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Even dirt racers know that driving on a ROAD isn't the same thing as > driving on a dirt track. You're obviously beyond help, dipshit. If Arkansas 53 in Clark County is still there, try driving that sometime and then tell me that again, dumbass. Both Arkansas 53 and Arkansas 239 up in Greene county were dirt roads, even though they were designated state highways. . . . Not everyone has every inch of everything paved over like your comfortable Slubburbia. Charles of Schaumburg > On 3/4/2006 7:37 AM ... n5hsr wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Charles of Schaumburg And the laws of physics apply no matter where on earth one finds oneself. Our "brake masher" friend apparently thinks otherwise. He would discover very quickly that mashing the brakes on a dirt racer in a curve will cause it to run off into the wall no matter if he is on the race track or on the road. The outcome is predictable. Oh wait, he said skids *aren't* predictable. I forgot! ;-) > I take it You've never watched those competition shows back in the > 1960's where Hollywood stunt drivers would do a 360 skid of the cars [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > total control of the vehicle. You may want to take some ice driving > lessons in Colorado sometime. They'll show you how to do it. WAIT! We may agree on something!!! I think I'll agree that the average, 50% percentile american driver would possibly NOT need ABS _IF_ they were trained and experienced like a Frakkin' Professional Stunt Driver!!! What an unbelievably bad arguement. Seriously, If I had questions as to whether you were just a troll, you just answered them. j > On 3/3/2006 5:36 AM ... Jon R Patrick wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > possibly NOT need ABS _IF_ they were trained and experienced like a > Frakkin' Professional Stunt Driver!!! Then you didn't read the report. Apparently everyone is a stunt driver since they don't statistically make any difference. > What an unbelievably bad arguement. Seriously, If I had questions as to > whether you were just a troll, you just answered them. The example was to demonstrate that a controlled skid was possible (to counter the argument that it wasn't. Not that everyone was a stunt driver. >> I take it You've never watched those competition shows back in the >> 1960's where Hollywood stunt drivers would do a 360 skid of the cars [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > j The point is that some of us had cars that we had to learn to drive without the benifit of: Radial tires ABS Air bags Seat belts Disk brakes Power steering. Front wheel drive. When you have a vehicle with bias-ply tires, drum brakes, a nice hard metal dash and that's it, you learn to have a little respect for what it can do. Now with all the Nanny-State stuff on cars, the new drivers couldn't handle them it fhey had to. The 50% percentile ain't what it used to be. Charles of Schamburg > > On 3/2/2006 8:42 PM ... Gary L. Burnore wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > of the vehicle. You may want to take some ice driving lessons in > Colorado sometime. They'll show you how to do it. I've done plenty of screwing around trying to duplicate some of those maneuvers (and a handbrake is a useful tool for that). I'm not an expert but I can spin the car around. However, I've never encountered a situation on the road where skidding (or any kind of tire slip) was a GOOD thing. It was always something that needed correction. I've driven on lots of snow and ice. Given a choice, I'll take a car with a GOOD ABS system (individual wheel feedback) over a non-ABS car any day. Unless I sometime buy a car specifically for the track. > Given a choice, I'll take a car with a GOOD ABS system (individual wheel > feedback) over a non-ABS car any day. I could maybe agree with you IF they ever came out with a GOOD abs system. It's one of those things that looks better on paper than in practice, as indicated by the statistics. My main gripe is that abs sometimes engages at inappropriate times. When it engages, you lose all control of the brakes. I have sailed right out in to the middle of intersections because of a bit of sand on the roadway that caused the abs to engage. I was lucky not to have hit anything, but there are others who haven't been so lucky. A bit of washboard in the road surface at the approach to a stop sign will cause it too. Bottom line for me is, abs has caused me more close calls than I would have had without it. Maybe they'll perfect it someday, but that day ain't here yet. Dave >> Given a choice, I'll take a car with a GOOD ABS system (individual wheel >> feedback) over a non-ABS car any day. > >I could maybe agree with you IF they ever came out with a GOOD abs system. The one on my wife's Camery is great. >It's one of those things that looks better on paper than in practice, as >indicated by the statistics. >My main gripe is that abs sometimes engages at inappropriate times. When it >engages, you lose all control of the brakes. I have sailed right out in to >the middle of intersections because of a bit of sand on the roadway that >caused the abs to engage. That's simply not logical. If you've passed the sand, the breaks should sense it and you should stop fine. Perhaps somethings wrong with your particular vehicle? Signaturegburnore at DataBasix dot Com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³ Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase =========================================================================== > >> Given a choice, I'll take a car with a GOOD ABS system (individual wheel > >> feedback) over a non-ABS car any day. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > That's simply not logical. If you've passed the sand, Where did I say that I'd passed the sand? I said that there was sand on the roadway. the breaks > should sense it and you should stop fine. *Breaks* aren't designed to sense what is on the roadway. Perhaps somethings wrong > with your particular vehicle? No, they work as designed. If you check the archives, there are many others that have the same problem with abs. Dave >> >> Given a choice, I'll take a car with a GOOD ABS system (individual >wheel [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >Where did I say that I'd passed the sand? I said that there was sand on the >roadway. Then you had already lost control and non-anti-lock brakes would have made it worse. Signaturegburnore at DataBasix dot Com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ Official .sig, Accept no substitutes. | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ 0 1 7 2 3 / Ý³Þ 3 7 4 9 3 0 Û³ Black Helicopter Repair Services, Ltd.| Official Proof of Purchase =========================================================================== > On 3/3/2006 12:38 PM ... Gary L. Burnore wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Then you had already lost control and non-anti-lock brakes would have > made it worse. ABS systems today are generally better at handling this type of situation. Some of the earlier implementations have documented cases where all it took was one wheel (or two wheels on one side) contacting the slipery surface and braking was seriously compromised on the other "firmly holding" wheels while the ABS system was trying to compensate. I understand that that situation rarely happens on the newer vehicles. In fact the 1997 vehicle I own (hardly new) with ABS doesn't seem to have that problem, where the 1989 vehicle I had did. I don't think any one of us can one can claim that it would have been worse (or better, for that matter) had the brakes not been anti-lock. There is no way to know that fact. It would also largely depend on the drivers skill (in either case) >>> >> Given a choice, I'll take a car with a GOOD ABS system (individual >>wheel [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Then you had already lost control and non-anti-lock brakes would have > made it worse. Bullshit. A driver that's used to using non-ABS would be able to bring the car almost to a skid and stop it in a short distance by sensing how much traction he has and getting right up to the limit of it. In most US cars I've had the misfortune to drive with ABS, it just lengthens your stop quite a bit, and if you hadn't planned for a longer stopping distance . . . . Charles of Schaumburg > On 3/4/2006 7:46 AM ... n5hsr wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Bullshit. Actually, not knowing the overall dynamics at play, it's hard to make any claim either way (if it would have been better or worse) for that particular event. > A driver that's used to using non-ABS would be able to bring the > car almost to a skid and stop it in a short distance by sensing how much > traction he has and getting right up to the limit of it. That is true. Very rarely it it a problem to feel and/or hear what the wheels are doing at any point in time and adjust brake/accelerator levels or direction accordingly. As the insurance statistics seem to prove out, the general population appear to be able to maintain vehicle control equally well with either system. > In most US cars > I've had the misfortune to drive with ABS, it just lengthens your stop quite > a bit, and if you hadn't planned for a longer stopping distance . . . . Actually, there is some debate at the NHTSA about this topic. Some documentation exists to substantiate your statement, other documents seem to say it isn't the case. ABS does *seem* to have the most trouble when dealing with gravel/aggregate surfaces (sand is an aggregate) and in particular when each of the wheels have vastly different traction levels and/or are on different surface types (a common occurrence if one finds the need to straddle to the shoulder of the road). In those cases, the likelihood of increased stopping distances seems to occur with ABS systems when compared to standard brakes under the same situation. But then ABS seems to do fine on dry or wet asphalt/concrete surfaces and when all wheels are all on a similar surface, at least from the reports I've read on them over the years. Then there are different ABS systems. Some are better and some worse at the job. The newer systems are likely better overall at dealing with those "uneven" road situations. Then factor in driver reaction, skill, what system they learned to drive under, etc. just adds more to the equation that any control system is dealing with. My personal experience has been both. Cars I owned years ago had terrible ABS systems. Several events affected my ability to stop as quickly (one side on ice for example, so the other side wouldn't "brake" hardly at all. The newer vehicles don't seem to have that problem...although the "pulse feedback" of the ABS completely removes the driver from knowing what is going on with the vehicle (quite unnerving to say the least) One thing for sure. People like our "brake-masher" friend probably do need supplementary control systems. I wonder if he closes his eyes when he mashes the brake too! ;-) > > Given a choice, I'll take a car with a GOOD ABS system (individual wheel > > feedback) over a non-ABS car any day. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Dave Well, there are different systems. The ABS on my EuroVan appeared to reduce pressure on ALL wheels when one was slipping and that was bad. In situations where there's ice on one side of the lane, no ABS would have been preferable. On my more recent cars, this doesn't happen and I've been happy with system performance on them. How old was that vehicle? A more contemporary system might work better in that regard. It's something you could test out on a sandy strip the next time you look for a car (I'll bet salespeople love it when people "test" the brakes). > > > Given a choice, I'll take a car with a GOOD ABS system (individual wheel > > > feedback) over a non-ABS car any day. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Well, there are different systems. The ABS on my EuroVan appeared to reduce > pressure on ALL wheels when one was slipping and that was bad. That's a pretty good description of what I've experienced. In > situations where there's ice on one side of the lane, no ABS would have been > preferable. On my more recent cars, this doesn't happen and I've been happy > with system performance on them. > > How old was that vehicle? Mine is a '99 Sierra Z71. My wife complains about her '01 Sport Trac doing the same thing. > > > > Given a choice, I'll take a car with a GOOD ABS system (individual > wheel [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Mine is a '99 Sierra Z71. My wife complains about her '01 Sport Trac doing > the same thing. Next time you vehicle-shop, you should try panic-stopping the latest ABS efforts on sand, part sand and other interesting surfaces during the course of a test-drive. I'm not sure that you'd like a new system better - I don't know of much improvement since '99 or '01 - but at least you'll get the salesperson to EARN his commission! Gary L. Burnore <gburnore@databasix.com> wrote in news:du6of4$hfa$7 @blackhelicopter.databasix.com: >>That, in itself, is reason enough to pick the Camry. > > Yet another moron who doesn't know that anti-lock brakes save lives?? why on earth are you attacking me when I said to choose the Camry because it comes with ABS? >>>> By the way, Nukester called our attention to this a little while >>>> ago: ABS [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Yet another moron who doesn't know that anti-lock brakes save lives?? Hold on, Scott'll be right here to up the count. > On 3/2/2006 7:27 AM ... Gary L. Burnore wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Yet another moron who doesn't know that anti-lock brakes save lives?? Statistics seem to say otherwise: http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/antilock.html > > On 3/2/2006 7:27 AM ... Gary L. Burnore wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/antilock.html If accurate, that is very interesting. Still, it's not broken down by region (snows a lot here) and the author does not conclude that people should not buy them. I found this interesting: "Leonard Evans, a researcher with General Motors, reported that antilock-equipped cars were less likely to rear-end other vehicles but more likely to have other vehicles rear-end them.(6) " The guy behind usually has to pay. If anti-locks help me avoid paying for the accident - I'm for them. And we live where it's snowy. I suppose, reading this, I might reconsider their value if I lived in Southern AZ or CA. One other thing that I remember from years ago - GM introduced ABS on the Cavalier and its overall braking distance went UP. That would be disadvantageous. Most cars, however, have really good braking systems now and I would expect this difference to be an anomaly. However, it could help explain why ABS isn't meeting expectations. If that report is accurate. I think the Insurance Institute is basically saying that it's the individual's call. It doesn't matter either way to them, apparently. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message