That was much what he said. He was wrong, and so are you, with respect.

It is true that on totally flat sheet ice, anti-locks can be defeated if all 4 wheels lock up at almost exactly the same time, but that would be a rare event. It is also true that on very loose gravel and deep snow, anti-locks can increase stopping distance because locked tires will dig into the snow more. Both cases probably should have been avoided in the first place or should have you driving more slowly anyway.

In every OTHER use case, anti-locks reduce stopping distance over humans. Study after study has been done, you simply cannot brake as well as the system can. You're only human.

Antilocks have been around for a very long time, since before WWII, first developed for airplanes. The first electronic system was developed for Concorde. Cars have had it in various forms since the 50's, most luxury cars since the 70s/80's in various limited forms.

Modern systems are even better, generally being 4 sensor, 4 valve systems that apply brakes differently depending on the conditions. They also allow you to steer while braking better.

For example, thanks to modern Electronic Stability Control, if you apply the brakes and then turn the steering wheel, the computer knows to apply more brake power to the inside of the turn than the outside, helping you turn faster. You can't physically do that with one brake pedal.

Another benefit is assisted braking, studies have been done that show that a majority of people do not use full brake power in an emergency stop. The computer can read the speed at which you apply the brakes, not just how hard, and if it thinks you're doing an emergency stop, it can go ahead and apply 100% brake force.

My new Yukon surprised my wife doing just that, because it also reads how fast you take you foot off the accelerator. We were trying it out to see how well it handled and she took her foot off and hit the brake quickly, it felt like someone threw out an anchor that just dug into the road. I'm not convinced my new truck actually has better brakes than my old one, but it sure applies them at full force much faster. Both of us were thankfully wearing seat belts because we were thrown into them pretty hard, it was a rather violent stop.

It also has the benefit of forward collision warning and auto emergency braking, if it detects a crash is coming, it won't even wait for you to apply the brakes, it will apply them for you to try and avoid the crash.

Consider that we drive FAR more miles on US roads than we did 30 years ago. The death rate on the roads is actually less in real terms and FAR less in terms of numbers of miles driven.

In 1982, deaths on US roads were 2.76 per million miles traveled, in 2012 deaths on US roads were 1.13 per million miles. Not all of that is due to any one thing, but it does mean that all the changes made to cars HAVE had a huge effect on the death rate, I don't think people are better drivers today, we just don't die as often.

I'll leave you with this video, as a father of 3 kids, I completely get it....

 

Another, longer video that shows how good the systems really are...

I'll grant you, driver skill and paying attention are also key elements and can also save the day.. but we're human and imperfect, isn't it nice to know that when we slip up, there is a helping hand to step in and save us?

 

I'm not at all saying that will happen. I'm saying it MIGHT happen. It is one possible solution to GM's CAFE challenge.

CAFE is an average, that is what the A stands for. It is an average across all the vehicles that a company sells. Sell enough 50 MPG cars and you can sell a smaller number of 20 MPG cars.

It isn't the number of models, it is the number of cars sold. Selling 100,000 Volts makes 10 times the difference in an average as selling 10,000 volts.

This is one reason why cars like the Chevy SS are so limited and so expensive, they only sold about 2,500 of them last year. That car REALLY hurts their averages, so they want to sell fewer of them at a higher price rather than more of them at a lower price.


The Tesla now gets up to 400 miles per charge. Granted, it is an expensive car, but that is changing as well...

Yes, they do, but each company is free to come up with their own solutions.

The Volt is rated at 101 MPG city / 93 MPG highway. What do you think each one does for the CAFE for GM?

Perhaps Ford will follow the same solution... but it isn't enough to just OFFER an Electric Focus/Escape, they actually have to sell to count... They need to get hundreds of thousands of them on the road to offset the V8 engines.

BTW, before you get all "they'll never take the V8 out"... The new 2015 Ford Expedition doesn't offer a V8 at all. If the F-150 offers a V8 in 5 years, I'll be shocked, I think the current V8 version is just there to soften the blow, the inventory around me appears to be mostly EB V6 models.

 

I'm not telling you my opinion, I'm telling you which way the wind is blowing...

 

Should there come such a time? I am not an air quality expert, I honestly don't know. I suspect very few people do.

What I will say is that toxins can accumulate, if the amount put out has been reduced by 99%, that sounds great, until you consider if the remaining 1% is a problem or not. And is 1%, one time ok, or every day of every week of every month for the next 100 years?

Lead paint was banned, as was asbestos... Neither are harmful if they stay where you put them, both are if they don't... If the stuff coming out of a power plant is harmful, then no amount should be acceptable... Either figure out how to trap 100% of it, or don't run the power plant...

You might well say, "wait a minute, we aren't going to turn off all the power plants and go back to caves!".

Fair enough... but we might if we discovered that whatever was coming out of the power plants was going to cause human sterility within a few generations. What would be the point otherwise?

That is a completely out in left field extreme example, but sometimes it takes such examples to point out why less extreme things are done. The Anthrax one for example... You wouldn't just remove 99% of the Anthrax from your kitchen floor, that wouldn't be acceptable to anyone who understood the situation. You'd remove it ALL!.

Up to and including demolishing the entire house if that is what it took to remove it...

 

I love a good steak! But you shouldn't eat it every day, it is bad for you!

 

So, TLDR:

When people ask, and I smile and tell them I have a V6, they will begin to look in awe?

Nice.

 

.

 

I wouldn't tell them that, I'd tell them you have a Mustang...

I'll admit, when someone buys one the first question I ask is, "V6 or V8"?, but maybe I shouldn't... after all, the V6 today makes more power than MOST of the V8 Mustangs ever built.

Enjoy your V6, 305 ponies out of a NA 3.7L V6 is a beautiful thing...

 

It's a hoot ain't it? lol

 

And do you really think the same won't also apply with the Camaro as well ?

As the Camaro will also become just as limited and expensive as a direct result hurting their averages just as well.. So ask yourself this question, other than just a select few, will the Camaro still be within reach as being affordable to the average Joe ? Chances are no they won't, therefore how long do you really think GM will continue production of the Camaro if it's no longer profitable enough

Not quite fast enough as of yet !

And just how many electric Volts does GM sell to offset they're V8 engines ? No more than what Ford currently does.. Also does GM currently sell hundreds of thousands of them on the road ? The answer once again, is no they do not..

And I'm actually really surprised the Expedition is still in production at all, so that really doesn't come as any surprise due to the Expedition's large size..

In the meantime, until Ford provides an official confirmation, I don't care what kind of spin these magazine articles claim, as far as I'm concerned, it's all nothing but just speculation..

 

Yeah i dont know man. I was bored of my v6 after 6 months, you cant really do any engine mods besides a tune and intake. 305hp is nothing special for a 3800lbs car. V8 just offers so much more, you can put headers on it and it wont sound like a weed whacker etc. No offence, im not trying to insult anyone, its just my train of thought. My GT gets no worse gas mileage than my v6 did, i barely notice a difference in my bank account in all seriousness. Cars can be classified, and when we talk about muscle cars they must have a v8, just like a sedan must have 4 doors. Its characteristic to the car, and it makes up its persona and driving dynamics.

 

Oh heck I didn't get this car to get all crazy with the engine mods. I've got a 100,000 mile warranty on it so it won't see any engine mods for years. I get just as much enjoyment out of taking really good care of the car as I would out of swapping cams or adding different heads. Not really my thing. I got all that out of my system when I had my 65. I don't mind making the car handle a little better but other than that this car is my daily driver not something I want to spend countless hours and dollars tinkering with. I don't know what kind of mpg your V6 was getting but I'm averaging right at 21.5 in mostly city driving. On the highway it gets up around 28. Much better than my GT got. I get the whole muscle cars "gotta have a V8" point of view. Lots of guys out there that subscribe to that philosophy. I personally don't consider the modern day Mustang a "muscle car". It's more of a grand touring car. I don't mind having the V6 in that regard because it's still faster and definitely handles better than most of the cars from the muscle car era. I would love to have a GT as just a weekend car. Even then I wouldn't be all about engine mods. I like the cars as they are for the most part. Hope you have loads of fun with yours.

 

What is great is that you can buy your V8 and do all that, and he can buy his V6 and not do all that...

Everyone is happy!!!

(except the EPA perhaps)

Choice for everyone!

 

Yes, I do think that day is coming... of course, Chevy might do it with a 4.0L V8 rather than a turbo 3.5L V6, who knows...

But I think the day of the 6.2L pushrod engine is doomed. I can't tell you when however, it could be in 5 years, or it could be in 20 years...

I drove the new Expedition a few months ago, it is really nice... the power from that EB engine far surpasses what the old 5.4L V8 provided... it doesn't sound the same, but it sure does have better power...

This is just a refresh, to stay in the game. A full redesign is coming in 2017, probably along the lines of the F-150 I imagine. I used to own a 1999 Expedition, boy was that a different vehicle than what they sell today.

I fully agree with you, it is just speculation... However, alluding to my post above... I do feel the wind blowing...

 

I've watched the videos of the V6 with the proforce supercharger. 475 hp in a 3.7 long block is nothing to sneeze at lol.

 

Fair enough, but once this new mustang comes out with no v8 available there is absolutely no reason for me to buy Ford. I bought this car because its v8, 2 door, and rwd. Its a bargain when it comes to that config. The obvious choice if i had money would be Ferrari, Maserati, Aston Martin etc... but i cant afford that so i get a mustang which gives me that same config for much less (v8, rwd coupe). No v8 anymore? Cya later, ill buy an infitinity g37s before i buy the upcoming v6 mustang they will be pushing for the price of the no longer existing GT.

 

Completely understandable. I don't think you would be alone in that regard. The only question for Ford would be if they could attract enough new buyers that are not as adamant about the V8 as they are about the performance level in general.

 

I'll just put this way, If Chevy can produce a 4.0L V8 ? Then so can Ford, as the Mustang GT has always been powered by a V8 during it's entire 50 year history and I mean no disrespect towards any of the V6 owners, however if I wanted to own V6 powered Mustangs ? I would've opted for them over the GT from the get go..

As I've mentioned in this thread time after time, If 2017 does indeed end up being the last year for the V8 powered Mustang ? Ford better be prepared to lose many of the Mustang faithful over to the competition and btw; this is not an opinion, it's a fact !

 

X!


1974, the one and only year Mustang with no V8 in the US.