buick regal questions -- looking for advice

Can I drool now? Please? Heh.

Why I like RWD cars with big brakes. :)

I find that FWD is only really good for lighter, smaller cars in snow. Guess I've been driving RWD cars to long. Can't wait until my beater LeSabre dies. See- I can't justify a third car if mine is still running. My last Buick, a 1984 Regal, was like that. Ran worse and worse and finally 3/4 of the computers were dead - but still ran (had that wierd electro-mechanical FI). Silly thing wouldn't die. Lol.

Kind of reminds me of The Last Remake of Beau Jest, where their father was always "still alive and dying" :)

Ah. I don't consider part-time AWD/4WD to be the real thing. Full-time

Yeah I know. Never was made quite right. Of course I have the old late 80's LeSabre(wedge shaped one), which sucked a lot. Very poor front end suspension, though I only had it do that once.

Ick. I feel for you. GM seems to have fixed the problems since ~2000, though.

Charming. Can't idiot-proof everything.

So that means that minus the airbags and the morons, the damage was closer to $3000.

I can see it now. Lol.

The right thing to do is stop once things start breaking.

Perfect. Well, at least you got his insurance to get you a new car.

As they say, if you build a better mousetrap, a bigger idiot will come along to mess it up. OMG what a mess.

Good for them. In this case, your rates shouldn't go up as much as they did far more damage than the original crash did.

Yeah - about $10K in damages by the look of it.

I know someone with a 2002 Buick Century and it has the 3100 engine in it rated at 175 HP.

Yes it is. In general (yes, I do know there are conditions which turn it around) a slowing down rolling wheel stops you faster than a stuck wheel that you are skidding on. There is a often a large difference in the sliding coefficient of friction vs. the starting coefficient of friction.

When you are skidding, it is the sliding coefficient of friction between the rubber tire and the road which is at play. When accelerating the wheel rotation under power, or conversely applying a deceleration force to a rolling wheel, the coefficient of starting friction must be exceeded in order to break traction. The idea of ABS is to slow the rotation of the wheel down as much and quickly as possible, without the remaining momentum of the vehicle causing the starting coefficient of friction to be exceeded resulting in a skid.

Once in a skid, it is usually the case that the sliding coefficient of friction provides less deceleration than keeping the wheel rolling but slowing it. Stopping quicker was / is the primary objective of ABS. Being able to retain more stearability is also an objective and benefit of the system, but comes secondary to stopping quicker.

ABS in itself is not a traction or stabilization control system. ABS means just that, Anti-lock Braking System. It simply tries to slow the wheel rotation as much as possible without locking up the wheels and entering a skid. Stability or traction control systems go beyond; usually dealing with power application as well. Dealing with power application could be as simple as reducing throttle or it could increase power to some wheels while reducing it at others. I know the question wasn't for me specifically, but I have no idea how the "stabiltrak" system is implemented.

I think that Ian means it's goal isn't to make the car stop faster. All ABS intended to do was to make the car not skid and as a result there was better braking and steering.

performance

Go ahead :P

I drove a 95 Cavalier in the snow and I don't think that I would ever do it again by choice. When I learned how to drive I got an equal time in both FWD and RWD vehicles and I prefer RWD. But then again most people I know that drive both the same amount of time do. I think that I could justify having a few vehicles but no more then 3 or 4. Sorry to hear about your Regal :P

"SgtSilicon" wrote

Ok, you've convinced me, you don't understand what the intent and purpose of ABS is either.

Ian

I don't have a dog in this fight.

However, as an unbiased observer, let me take a stab at the answer Ian was seeking.

The key is the "A" in ABS. Antilock Brake Systems are supposed to help the driver avoid locking up the brakes in a panic stop situation. Sometimes you get a "slower" stop with ABS, but it is a more controlled, more consistent stop. But then, I read the Helm manuals.

---Bob Gross---

Here you are. It's an excerpt from an article on

Getting the ABS Concept The theory behind anti-lock brakes is simple. A skidding wheel (where the tire contact patch is sliding relative to the road) has less traction than a non-skidding wheel. If you have been stuck on ice, you know that if your wheels are spinning you have no traction. This is because the contact patch is sliding relative to the ice (see Brakes: How Friction Works for more). By keeping the wheels from skidding while you slow down, anti-lock brakes benefit you in two ways: You'll stop faster, and you'll be able to steer while you stop.

IIRC, the best tested stop so far for a car with ABS 60-0 is around 115ft. My old Buick takes nearly twice that(~180-200) as it doesn't have ABS and I can't just stomp on the pedal.

The sole purpose of ABS is to stop the brakes from locking up.

Do cars with ABS stop more quickly than cars without? ABS is designed to help the driver maintain control of the vehicle during emergency braking situations, not make the car stop more quickly. ABS may shorten stopping distances on wet or slippery roads and many systems will shorten stopping distances on dry roads. On very soft surfaces, such as loose gravel or unpacked snow, an ABS system may actually lengthen stopping distances. In wet or slippery conditions, you should still make sure you drive carefully, always keep a safe distance behind the vehicle in front of you, and maintain a speed consistent with the road conditions.

I had a "full" time 4 wheel drive 78 Suburan, 3/4 ton, NP 203 Transfercase. Factory Locking/Posi-Traction Rear End. Get a rear wheel hanging in the air you were fine. Get a front wheel in the air, or with limited traction, and you were not going anywhere. All AWD systems I have looked at are like this. Almost all Factory 4x4's are like this. It's not a problem of being cheep. It's a problem with being able to turn on hard surfaces.

All Wheel Drive is basicly a four wheel drive system, with out a gear reduction, or "Low" range. Since most AWD vehicals (out side of Trucks and SUV's), are not intended to be used off highway, they do not require heavy duty designed parts. A good example is something like a Dodge Caravan AWD. Chrysler made a minor modifacation to the trans-axle housing and to one C/V drive shaft. They added a housing for a rear drive shaft, and a rear drive unit. All light duty stuff, as it was never intended for more then a muddy drive way, a lose sand beach, or a snowy back road. Driven for it's intended useage it does fair enough. Attemp to do much off highway driving, and the system fails.

The only decent AWD systems are found on Turcks & SUV's. Where in most cases the only differance in the drive line parts is the transfer case. A good example of this is the AWD Old Bravada. You can convert one to four wheel drive by changing the transfer case, putting in the vaccume switch, and interior range selector. I can't remember if the drive shafts from the transfer case to the axles are the same. If not it uses the same axles as it S/T syblings. Just like the GMC AWD S & T trucks did.

The 2 AWD vehicals I would like to own, that I would keep in their factory AWD configs, are the GMC Syclone & Typhon. Yet finding affordible examples that do not need ground up restorations is a challenge.

You said before You have a 2001 Lesabra that does that. The 80's FWD fullsize GM's brake very well, when in good shape. There are two different bolt patterns to the cars, and two different brake sizes between 1984 to

As for the Suspension, Struts and coil springs are only good for so long. 80,000 to 100,000 is the service life of most struts. Yet people will drive on them till they out right fail mechanically. When the customer has the money, I perfer to install new springs when I install new struts.

This is especially true for rear coil spring, FWD GM's. As my business partner calls it "Ass-Drag Syndrome" Where the cars tend to ride down the road with the rear end squatted down. This is caused by engine torque, and weak rear suspension parts. GM FWD cars for the most part are fighting them selfs. The direction of motor placement, causes the torque from the motor, straning against it's mounts, to try to lift the chassis. Old Muscle cars used to torque the front ends lifting the left fender, and dropping the right. OLD RWD cars would also tend to torque at the rear end putting the left rear tire in better contact with the ground while rasing the right rear. GM FWD cars do not have the driveline torque absorbtion of the OLD RWD beasties. Probably why the FWD drivetrain has more mounts, and they tend to fail after a cirtant milage.

It looks to be a while before I will be purchasing any 99 up GM vehicals. Unless I win the lottery.

Want to test durability? let an idiot try it for a month. --A engeneer who shall remain nameless.

I was actually looking to do the repairs my self. Before talking to the insurance adjuster, who could not look at the car for a week. Which did not bother me since I had a rential car the evening of the wreck.

During that week I made a few calls, dropped by a few salvage yards, look at the cost of new parts,ect. Going from memory of what the car looked like the last time I saw it, I had even accoutned for sub frame damage. I could buy Air Bags from a 98 Century, with insterment cluster, for $650. That's with the same color covings. Not an Excessive cost at all for late model car parts.

I estimated my labor, Majority used parts, paint, and consumibles to come out to $7000, roughly. Which the insurance company would have paid.

That's too late. By then you have damaged the vehical. The right thing to do is call for some one with the proper knowledge and equipiment to recover the vehical.

No My insurance paid the loss. Since I had a rider in the policy stating they would pay full *loan* ballance. Something one claims adjuster I spoke with did not see in the policy, untill I pointed it out. At the time, the amount owed on the loan, exceeded the value giudes, or book value of the car. WE bought the new one, with only a small amount paid for by my insurance. Well it's actually a used one. It is the LAST car I will purchase for that dealership, or any one I know will purchase from there. But that's a story I am going to keep to my self, for now.

Yes it was and is a very large mess. Once things are done in the courts, I will personally get involved. The loacl Towing, Recovery, and Repo community is a small one. Every one seams to know every one else.

Actually it did quite a number on my insurance rates. My insurance rates before were low by compairson to other males my age. Especially with high perfromance cars (I have always had one in that insurance catagory).

The county the wreck happened in, is known for being a fund rasing thru citations county. They stuck me with a "fauilure to controll" ticket. If I would have nailled the deer, I probably would have gotten a simular ticket. The ticket put 2 points on my drivers license. I asked my lawyer about the ticket, his reply was this:

"You could pay me $500 to fight it, and probably lose, because it is that court system. Or you could just pay it, and deal with higher rates. We both know the traffic court in that county is crooked".

I took his advice. He has yet to ever give me advice that was not built on a factial basis. Not that he is always right, but he checks the laws before he speaks.

So basically I got the shaft all the way around. I still am because the hosptail won't bill my insurance company, who will not pay me to pay the hosptail. Nor since the hosptial says my back problem was tempory will they pay for me to get it fixxed. And trust me, my back is worth more then any new car.

Charles

I never said it was only to make stopping distances shorter. I clearly said that it was the main objective. Stearability while braking is another objective. It was others that said shorter stopping distance definately was NOT an objective of ABS. Anyone who states that is simply wrong. It is the main objective. Not alloowing the wheel to lock up results in shorter stopping distances and better control.

Also I might add, the data presented in the NHTSA document shows a clear trend of ABS on resulting in shorter stopping distances. Just because driver #3 didn't follow the trend as well doesn't prove ABS doesn't work. It simply indicates that there is a variance in driver #3 that is different than the other drivers. The over all trend is obvious. You can choose to ignore it because it discredits your position, but the truth is the truth.

Might I suggest to you a course in physics 101. Another in basic statistics might serve you well also.

I did acknowledge that ABS does make cars stop in shorter distances. I never said anything about it not working for drivers 1 2 or 3 did I? Nope. Hell, I even admitted that it worked by saying that it didn't have big decreases (which I assumed, but I guess incorrectly; compared with the other drivers) in distance.

BTW, if you read my earlier posts I did acknowledge that ABS does indeed reduce braking lengths, I said and I quote "All ABS intended to do was to make the car not skid and as a result there was better braking and steering." All my question was that if "Stopping quicker was / is the primary objective of ABS" why didn't it work for driver number 3?

And might I suggest that you read what has been said before you start typing and insulting people?

"SgtSilicon"wrote

It's not the main objective, Sarge...but you just keep believing that.

Ian

True, but done correctly, it's not so bad. That Lexus system, though, looks to be amazing. Can't wait. Oh - to do full time 4wd, you need two transfer cases, IIRC, to keep that fro happening. Very very few

IIRC, Pinzgauer also made a functional 3 transfer case 6*6. Lol. I still see these(Pinzs, not the 6*6) run in the Dakkar Rally from time to time.

Nice :) Since they depreciate like rocks, maybe I'll keep that on the list of candidates :)

OOOO... A GNX in a 1/2 ton truck. What's not to like? :)

NO - I just said MY LeSabre does it. I suspect that the design is better now, but from what I heave read, it's all dependant upon whether the car has the touring suspension or not. It makes a drastic difference in ride and safety.

I found this out the hard way, too. GM - eh - all I know is that my Volvo never needed new springs until it was well over 200K.

Oh, tell me about it. Lol.

Ahahahah. Exactly what I call it. :)

Hence, why I like RWD cars. Well, mid-engine is even better, but they are kind of rare outside of small tin-can roadsters.

Yep. I still remember my father's old Cutlass Supreme. Someone had dropped a 350V8 in it and omg it was hellishly fast if the ulgiest turd on the block. Okay, with the botched re-paint(somehow dark metallic blue ended up being bird-egg torquiose), calling it a turd gave the turd a bad name.

The new models have 240HP, IIRC - with the supercharger. THat's just too much torque on the front end. Even Lexus came to its senses with the 400 series - RWD.

I like older Volvos and of course, Lezus makes a couple of slick cars like the IS300.

Heh. I heard that suggested recently that the best way to engineeer anything was to have two focus groups - one with very bright one full of later thinkers like computer geeks, engineers, and RPG players, and the other with morons.

:)

Well, sure - but you think when stuff started to BREAK, he'd stop.

You can get one poijnt removed by going to traffic school, though, IIRC, every 18 months(the traffic fine). The second point will stay there, though, as that's a legitimate accident.

Still, that will drop your insurance down I bet.

The difference is that ABS gives you a perfect "PRO" stop on dry pavement every time. Of course, that means quicker stops overall, but only if conditions are same as the system was designed for.

Turning it off like most cars do with traction control - with an override switch is the best way, IMO.