Potential used GM buyer in 2004-2005

About the ABS thing. Most people don't use them right anyways so they don't really do anything.

"It's also assumed by many that modern cars with anti-lock brakes (ABS) are safer than older cars without ABS; however, several studies have found that drivers of ABS-equipped cars often fail to fully depress the brake pedal in a panic stop, not realizing that the ABS system will prevent the wheels from locking and causing the vehicle to skid. Failure to fully brake means greater stopping distances and a higher likelihood of hitting whatever's in front of you. ABS-equipped cars are only safer than non-ABS-equipped cars if the system is used as designed."

I'd say the growing number of teenagers and women drivers these days could use ABS, not to offend any of them in here. Back in 95 when I owned a 92 Cavalier Z24 model with ABS, it saved me from rear ending someone at 70 miles an hour...the stop distance did not have much of a gap, but the ABS kicked in and I heard those tires "chirp" from the ABS pulsing that brake fluid on all fours..when I came to a full stop, I was maybe 2 feet away from the car infront of me. I was another teenager thinking that speeding made me look cool. I realized I could have ended a life or two in just a couple seconds.

Jason,

Steer clear of the base model Rgeal / Century & Impala - ABS isn't standard on those models. I'm the opposite of you Jason, I wish alot of these standard features were dropped as standard

I wish more models offered ABS as an option rather than standard.

For 25 years myself & millions of other people been stopping cars just fine without ABS.

Good luck in your search.

========= Harryface =========

That's the way my 2003 Malibu is....no ABS. I prefer it that way, as I've found that the ABS that GM uses in their different cars to be not that good.

I also wonder if ABS is the reason that the two ABS equipped cars are brake pads and rotors like they were candy.

Brad

It seems that offering ABS as a option is now beginning to happen, which I agree with you is a good thing. Even GM is making ABS a option on some base models, as you noted. Chrysler offers them as a option, even on some high-end models now. Seems they've realized from the studies that ABS isn't good for everyone. I've had three vehicles with some version of ABS (Dakota

I have noticed the same thing.

I get about twice as much use out of pads/rotors in non-ABS-equipped vehicles compared to ABS-equipped vehicles.

Brad

New Accord or Toyota, GM cant come close..at least Accord and Camary can kept their intake manifolds from leaking. There is no comparison!

But apparently, from what we read in the various NG's, Honda can't keep their trannys together nor can Toyota stop their engines from 'gelling' up. ;)

mike hunt

Andy & Carol wrote:

But the ABS prevents you from doing doughtnuts in the parking lots :)

don't be silly, the way to do donuts in the snow with a FWD car is in reverse and the brakes are not used. The other cool thing is to turn soft going forward and hit the parking brake. Granted that's a lot easier in cars with a handle E-brake, rather than foot. GW

Brad Clarke wrote:

I gotta say, ABS has helped save my butt a couple of times under icey conditions. Not as usefull at other times.

Many here seem to think their brake pads wear much quicker on ABS equipped vehicles. My question is WHY IS THAT?? (unless you do panic stops every day) Don't ABS brakes work exactly the same as non ABS systems until they approach a wheel lock-up?

My '99 Malibu (ABS standard that year). gets about 50K km (30K miles) from a set of front pads before the squealer hits the disk. Thats about 50/50 City/Highway & I consider myself a 'moderate' driver. IIRC, my older, non ABS, GM's did somewhat better.

I'll guess that some manufacturers reduced the size/weight of brake components about the time ABS was introduced and the true cause may be undersized parts not ABS. And/or has there been a move to softer brake pads lately??

Comments welcome.

Al.

and how is that? That's FWD that prevents you from doing proper doughnuts. Unless you're going across an ice covered parking lot at 50 and locking 'em up and going for a 360 that way... (not like I've ever done that... I can spin my winter truck in 4-lo like a top though... ;)

Ray

Not sure why. I can see a explanation if traction control is included. With some traction control systems the system applies the brake to the single spinning wheel (that doesn't have traction) in order to transfer more power to the non-spinning wheel (that has the traction). That will wear the brakes in a hurry!

Actually saw a Nissan Sentra do a doughnut a few weeks ago using reverse....looked pretty impressive for a FWD car. real cars (V8 - RWD) do it better tho'

Yep, that's how I do it when I get bored of driving straight :)

...and hope you don't find the one bare spot in the parking lot :)

Actually, I saw it once. Guy managed to lock up his FWD car and spin around in a few circles. Nice accident on the freeway. The doofus ended up facing the wrong direction on the freeway.

Thankfully, nobody got hit.(miracle)

So - yes, it's possible to fishtail and spin a FWD car if you are a doofus ;)

I have bought a 1999 GMC Jimmy (brand new) and I have had to:

- replace the rear main seal

- replace the oil cooler lines (three times)

- re-glue the outside door cladding

- replace the wheel hubs+ bearings (3 of them)

- replace the seat back handle

- replace the head gasket

- then another oil leak: I was told the rear main seal was leaking again as well as the manifold intake. Just when I was pondering what to do about this, the engine blows (I have put in a new engine) after less than four years and 110,000 kms.

- replaced the turn signal (around CDN$500)

- noise in the dashboard: it appears that an engine mount is bad

Get yourself a Honda !