Funny things happen, I ordered a 1989 Ford Bronco (full size 4WD SUV) with the manual locking front hubs as standard equipment. Then there was a Chevy ad on the TV showing the Ford driver getting out in the middle of a water filled creek bed to lock the hubs, where Chevy had the automatic locking hubs. When the Bronco got delivered 2 weeks later, the automatic hubs were standard, and the manual were a $41 deduct. For those not familiar, the locking hubs engage the front drive axles to the front wheels. With the hubs unlocked, fuel economy is 3 MPG or more better, which is around 25%. The disadvantage of the automatic hubs are: don't know if they are engaged or not; if get stuck and have to rock to get out, they can be ruined easily since they lock/unlock with each change of direction; Much more expensive to repair ($250 for parts vs. $50). Most experienced 4 wheelers prefer the manual hub, but there are some variations out there including air pressure/vacuum or electric operated. I'm amazed at the number of drivers out there who spend the money for 4WD/FWD/All wheel drive, and don't know how to use, or even use it when it's slippery. On the other hand, daughter has a Ford Freestyle FWD minivan. I stopped at the Ford dealer to understand how the system worked so I could help her use it best. Sales didn't know, went with me to parts and service. We learned nothing. The unit is serviced as a unit, the parts book only had a picture of the unit, no gears, bearings, etc. The technician (mechanic) who had been to the service school didn't know anything more. Funny NYPD wrote: > this is not surprise at all. GM canceled the ABS as a standard equipment on all its America models couple of years ago, because of the poor performance and constant issue it created. > GM claimed the user still can buy it as a option, but GM does't take any responsibility if anything happened. It is the user responsibility to put the ABS on the vehicle. > Hard to understand, isn't it? > Funny N. > New Bedford, MA > http://www.AuElectronics.selfip.com > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Carl Denk > To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public. > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 9:00:50 AM > Subject: Re: [EE]:: ABS increases stopping distance by typically 20%+ on gravel surfaces > > Sure decreases stopping distance in certain conditions, take a sheet of > ice, compare just standing on the brakes with and without ABS on a > straight stop, or with one side wheels good traction. A skillful (how > many of those do you know) driver may be able to better the numbers. > And yes the ABS is great on turns, but not the answer.Was just the other > day with 2002 Cougar, front wheel drive, big engine, ABS and traction > control, was making tight (maybe 50' radius) turn at low speed on ice. > Was at no throttle, tranny in drive, front start sliding, a little > throttle ans front sliding friction turned to static friction, and turn > completed on planned track. Neither ABS or traction control helped > there. To add enough throttle for those to become active, and the > remainder of the turn would have been too fast for anything to help. > > > > William "Chops" Westfield wrote: > >> On Jan 25, 2008, at 11:08 PM, Apptech wrote: >> >> >> >>> A competent authority has assessed that ABS brakes INCREASE stopping >>> distances on gravel (metal) surfaces by typically 20+ percent. >>> >>> >> Is that a surprise? I thought the point of ABS was to increase >> CONTROL (steering) during heavy breaking, not so much to decrease >> stopping distance. In fact, I'm surprised that ABS *ever* decreases >> stopping distance... >> >> BillW >> >> >> -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist