View Single Post
Old 09-28-2002, 11:56 PM   #1 (permalink)
Unit 5302
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 5,246
Default Do Anti-Lock Brakes Suck?

In study after study the only time anti-lock brakes are more effective at slowing a car down faster than conventional brakes is on dry, well conditioned pavement.

On dirt, ice, snow, and wet pavement, anti-lock brakes take up to 60% further to stop a vehicle.

Were poor conditions not part of why anti-lock brakes were truely developed? On dry pavement, better braking isn't as important in my opinion as that characteristic can be modified by the fitment of better, high performance tires.

It's my belief that conventional brakes actually have a plane of travel that goes beyond "lock-up" and "not in use." In fact, you can even turn the wheel of the car while braking with conventional brakes. My experience with anti-lock brakes is scary. I know my 2002 GT comes with them, but quite frankly, they are just about the single scariest part of my car to me. Anti-lock brakes don't stop under poor weather conditions. On slippery pavement, the ABS computer becomes confused in many cases almost refusing to apply any brake pressure. Rear anti-lock trucks are the scariest. The front brakes lock up, and the rears do nothing because the computer is constantly reading lockup.

What do you people think? Are they another couple thousand dollars of unnecessary expense on our new cars? Could Ford sell the Mustang GT for under $20k, fully loaded by getting rid of the two technologies?
Unit 5302 is offline   Reply With Quote