[bstone]

Originally Posted by Eug 

However, CVT isn't the same thing as Auto.


?

Double that '?'. How does engine braking cause brake problems?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

^hey you, not helping!

A yummy chocolate cake.

The 4 speed auto isn't offered on the 2010+ Outback, just CVT or 6 speed. Any reports of those breaking down, being expensive to repair, etc? What the heck difference does a 6th gear make?

CVT, expensive to repair? OH YEAH!

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Originally Posted by Athens 

- Using the engine to slow down on hills, can wear on your brakes.

?

If you have a manual, you can shift back more easily and use the engine brake. Of course, you can do that in an automatic as well, but I doubt many people actually do that. I've seen it happen only once when someone was towing a trailer downhill.

Of course, I have no idea whether the additional wear on the brakes is appreciable or not, though, but this is what I think Athens is referring to.

[The Final Dakar]

I think the point is, if you're using the engine to slow down the car on hills, then logically you're wearing on the brakes less than if they shouldering all the burden.

Hence, another Athens WTF

[sek929]

I've always found engine braking to be silly. Which is worse, wear on your engine and transmission or wear on cheap brake pads?

[Thorzdad]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I've always found engine braking to be silly. Which is worse, wear on your engine and transmission or wear on cheap brake pads?

Better a little extra wear on your engine, than failed brakes halfway down the Rockies.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Eug 

However, CVT isn't the same thing as Auto. CVT has the benefits of auto, but is also smoother than auto.


?

Fixed above, was a typo, reduce should have been in there.

I haven't used a car with CVT in it yet, unless whats in my Ford is but its supposed to be some new Double clutch Auto with no torque converter. But my biggest issue with Autos is the lag time for power. If I floor it, I don't get the power I want until the Transmission figures it out. At least with a manual I can down shift right away and have instant response to what I want. The gear ratios are also different between Auto and Manuals most of the time. Manuals have a more aggressive ratio which is why even in the same type of car the manual feels like it has more power and more kick. I dunno if thats true with modern cars because all the 5 speeds ive driven are older cars.

Originally Posted by sek929 

I've always found engine braking to be silly. Which is worse, wear on your engine and transmission or wear on cheap brake pads?

Engine braking isn't a lot of stress on the engine. Its the same forces inside the engine. If its pulling your car forward or slowing your car down its the same. A big concern in places with a lot of hills is brake fade. I experienced that once and its scary as hell. If you live in a place with a lot of hills or steep hills its a concern. Gearing down to come to a stop at a light, or using your engine on a hill can extend brakes by a a lot. Instead of replacing pads every 2-3 years you can go as long as 6. The cost of all those brake jobs really do add up. Other situations that come to mind is having to slow down quickly with out locking your front tires on the freeway and maneuvering around a object and escape power to avoid being hit from behind. You can do that with a Manual, not with a Auto. Picture a accident in front of you has just occurred while doing 110. If you slam on your brakes and lock up your going into it no matter what. If you gear down 2 and red line, you cut your velocity down by a lot but maintain steering and can swerve around the accident. As your doing that your transmission is also in a power gear allowing you to accelerate out of the swerve for stability and to avoid being hit from behind as you have lost speed from the maneuver. Besides this scenario being taught in advance driving classes, I actually lived through that scenario once. New cars have Anti-lock brakes which solves part of the problem, but in a Auto even with Anti-lock brakes, transmission lag screws you. And personally I hate Anti-lock brakes and if I could get a new car with out them I would.

Another example of control that is helpful is with ice and snow. You can reduce the torque to the wheels allowing for a smooth slow start by gearing up to 2 and starting from 2 vs first gear. The few times a year we do get snow this has been extremely useful. I need to wait until we get snow to see how the traction control handles snow in my new car. On gravel when flooring it the system does a pretty good job getting the car going. So im not to worried.

Lastly Automatics make driving BOOOORING.

My Ford has a actual hill button that changes the Transmission mode into a adaptive engine brake. Its a bit odd but works most of the time. The reason the practice is not common on Automatics with gearing down is because of how much more complicated Automatics are, its a lot easier to cause damage to them which becomes a expensive repair. Manuals are super simple. I believe the Automatic Transmission is one of the most complex mechanical devices invented. I think it still holds true today?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

Better a little extra wear on your engine, than failed brakes halfway down the Rockies.

Your sense of adventure is lacking.

Anyway, I thought engine braking was ok in manuals/only when necessary in automatics.
Though it is worth noting that when I took Driver's Ed in school the instructor had me specifically take the auto down a notch on the hill. Don't know if that was to instruct in its general use, or to show me the option for extreme situations. It was a pretty steep hill.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I've always found engine braking to be silly. Which is worse, wear on your engine and transmission or wear on cheap brake pads?

It's not at all silly, e. g. I find it helps you a lot when driving on snowy and icy roads. You retain much more control than when you're just using your breaks.

[andi*pandi]

Originally Posted by bstone 

I wonder if it's possible to swap in the 4EAT. I think it might be a bolt up to the engine, but unsure about the TCU.

If I'm buying a new car, I'm not going to do any transmission swaps!

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It's not at all silly, e. g. I find it helps you a lot when driving on snowy and icy roads. You retain much more control than when you're just using your breaks.

Naturally, it depends on the indented porpoises.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Lastly Automatics make driving BOOOORING.

Boring when driving is a good thing. Nice and safe... unless it's so boring you fall asleep.

My Ford has a actual hill button that changes the Transmission mode into a adaptive engine brake. Its a bit odd but works most of the time.

My Prius uses (simulated) engine breaking preferentially, and actually only activates the brakes when necessary. So, when you lightly press the brake pedal for a gradual stop, you may be nearly 100% (simulated) engine breaking, but if you slam on the brakes, you're using all of the the regular braking plus engine braking. There isn't any way of turning this off either, partially because the energy used for engine braking is recaptured in the battery (which is why I say it's simulated engine braking).

Consequently, brake pads last longer.

BTW, another oddity is there is no reverse gear either. It just runs the same "gear" in reverse.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Thorzdad 

Better a little extra wear on your engine, than failed brakes halfway down the Rockies.

When your pads wear down to the indicators, your brakes stop working completely?

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

If I'm buying a new car, I'm not going to do any transmission swaps!

Don't worry, it was just an opportunity for him to spout off more acronyms.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

When your pads wear down to the indicators, your brakes stop working completely?

NO they just become 100% useless due to brake fade. If you over heat your brakes they fail until they cool off. But if get to that point you have warped your routers anyways and will need serious repairs.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Boring when driving is a good thing. Nice and safe... unless it's so boring you fall asleep.

For a bus, yes. For a sports car, no. For stuff in-between, YMMV.

[Waragainstsleep]

I hate getting stuck behind slow drivers on fast roads. I have almost been bored to sleep before now and it certainly affects my concentration.

I could be making this up but I think I heard it somewhere: On some old Renault 5 Turbos, engine braking could be really dangerous. Kicking down a gear could push the revs up over the threshold for the turn to spin up and actually made you go faster instead of slowing you down.

As far as braking and control and accidents goes, I've had some near interesting experiences in my time. Personally I find the British DSA guidelines to be horribly incorrect under certain circumstances but when they are basically the same in every situation possible, this should be no surprise to anyone. Basically, if in doubt, the DSA says you should slow down. I say if you have time to think about it, you should think about it before you slow down. If I had £1 for every time some idiot coming the other way in a country lane has stopped at the narrowest available place in the road, right before the widest available place in order to let me pass, I could buy something to race Shaddim with. And insure it. In England.
One time I came around a blind bend to find a queue of traffic I didn't expect. I admit I was going a touch fast, but where 90% of drivers would have slammed the brakes on without thinking, locked them up and plowed into the car in front, I glanced around, saw that there was no-one on either pavement (sidewalk) and nothing coming the other way and basically screeched to a halt alongside the car in front, quickly reversing back to where I should have been, no harm done. My passenger had panicked, then accepted that she was going to die and simply buried her face in her hands. I have no doubt that she would have been among that 90%.

Another time, I was on my way to work when my brake line burst and I lost all pressure in my braking system rendering them useless. I had 5 miles to go and was due to hit rush hour traffic in about 2-3 but I still had my gears and my handbrake and I made it there and later home again without any incident. Again, I suspect most people would have fared worse but perhaps thats just the impression I get from all those movies where the brake lines get cut and the idiot at the wheel doesn't think to turn off the ignition, or put the car in neutral and roll to a stop.

Maybe its just me, but I find when I'm in real danger of having an accident, everything sort of slows down and I find I'm able to think and react surprisingly quickly. Does everyone/anyone else get that?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Athens 

NO they just become 100% useless due to brake fade. If you over heat your brakes they fail until they cool off. But if get to that point you have warped your routers anyways and will need serious repairs.

It was a rhetorical question, genius.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by bstone 

That's very nice. I also work in the field for several months every year. Want to come by the garage? I'll put you to work patching and plugging tires. If you're good then maybe I'll have you do oil changes. In a year or two you can do brake jobs. Disc, no drums you for yet. That's too advanced.

I've been doing my own oil changes and brake jobs since I've been driving, thanks.

[Laminar]

Vertically aligned lol.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I could be making this up but I think I heard it somewhere: On some old Renault 5 Turbos, engine braking could be really dangerous. Kicking down a gear could push the revs up over the threshold for the turn to spin up and actually made you go faster instead of slowing you down.

My Volvo 850 T5 did that ALL the time if you were trying to heel and toe. You'd tap the throttle, and then about a half second later as you're trying to slow down, the turbo would kick in and the car would understeer its way into whatever's in front of you. I only owned that car for a year (and only tracked it once), mostly because of the massive turbo lag would be downright dangerous sometimes, coupled with torque steer.

[chabig]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Maybe its just me, but I find when I'm in real danger of having an accident, everything sort of slows down and I find I'm able to think and react surprisingly quickly. Does everyone/anyone else get that?

It feels like time moves slower, and you think you react quickly, but you don't. It's only a perception.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

For a bus, yes. For a sports car, no. For stuff in-between, YMMV.

A more exciting sports car doesn't make it safer. It makes it more exciting.

I'll point out that sports cars have higher price-corrected insurance rates.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

It was a rhetorical question, genius.

Nice come back, look it up, realize it was a stupid comment then post it was a rhetorical question. I think the genius belongs to you.

[imitchellg5]

This R2 unit has a bad motivator!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Eug 

A more exciting sports car doesn't make it safer. It makes it more exciting.

I'll point out that sports cars have higher price-corrected insurance rates.

What driving enthusiast wants an ultra-safe sports car? That's just pointless. If I want 3rd gear, *I* shift to 3rd gear, not the damned computer. The idea of a sporty car is interaction and being immersed in the experience, not numbly driving along at the whim of a clueless slushbox. It's like people who can't drive a fast car without the traction control on, you learn how to properly use the throttle and you don't have those problems. If I want to ride on the ragged edge, it's my choice. And yes, I turned the traction control off on my new car the day I got it and haven't had it on since.

[imitchellg5]

You know it turns itself back on as soon as you get back in the car?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by chabig 

It feels like time moves slower, and you think you react quickly, but you don't. It's only a perception.

If time feels like its moving slower, surely that means you are reacting faster?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

You know it turns itself back on as soon as you get back in the car?

Sneaky funny post.

Shaddim says, "D'OH!"

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

If time feels like its moving slower, surely that means you are reacting faster?

...wait. You honestly think you go into the Matrix every time you're about to have an accident?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Maybe its just me, but I find when I'm in real danger of having an accident, everything sort of slows down and I find I'm able to think and react surprisingly quickly. Does everyone/anyone else get that?

I liv my whole life in that mode, so no, it doesn't happen - everything's slow already.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

What driving enthusiast wants an ultra-safe sports car? That's just pointless. If I want 3rd gear, *I* shift to 3rd gear, not the damned computer. The idea of a sporty car is interaction and being immersed in the experience, not numbly driving along at the whim of a clueless slushbox. It's like people who can't drive a fast car without the traction control on, you learn how to properly use the throttle and you don't have those problems. If I want to ride on the ragged edge, it's my choice. And yes, I turned the traction control off on my new car the day I got it and haven't had it on since.

I didn't say sports enthusiasts want a safer car. I just said that the suggestion that increased sportiness in a sports car makes the sports car safer is BS.

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

...wait. You honestly think you go into the Matrix every time you're about to have an accident?

The sad part is many people actually believe they go into some sort of Neo mode, because somehow their neurologic makeup is magically superior to everyone else in the world.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The sad part is many people actually believe they go into some sort of Neo mode, because somehow their neurologic makeup is magically superior to everyone else in the world.

Actually, I wouldn't argue that. I believe that some people's "neurological makeup" is certainly superior to other people's. Some people are faster and better at making decisions, at learning new things, at adapting to new situations, at performing physical tasks. I for example would not only catch Laminar's keys from across the room, but I would do so behind my back, while walking towards the door, in a manner so smooth and casual that Lam's beautiful sister would look on in envy...and desire.

Why? Neurological superiority. Book it.

[Eug]

Yes, some people are faster than others, and some people are smarter than others too. The problem is that most people consider themselves better than average, which of course doesn't make sense.

There was a poll done by a news outlet a couple of years ago locally, and while I don't remember the exact numbers, something like 75% of male drivers said they were above average. The number was lower for females but still above 50%.

[Eug]

I couldn't find the poll, but found something even better, a peer reviewed published paper.

93% of Americans think they're better than their fellow drivers

It also seems that Americans are more inclined to believe this than Swedes are.

In the US sample 93% believed themselves to be more skillful drivers than the median driver and 69% of the Swedish drivers shared this belief in relation to their comparison group.

[The Final Dakar]

Let's hear it for American Exceptionalism.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Eug 

There was a poll done by a news outlet a couple of years ago locally, and while I don't remember the exact numbers, something like 75% of male drivers said they were above average. The number was lower for females but still above 50%.

Don't just ask them... ...get them to perform a scandi flick.

[angelmb]

I think you’ll agree that these are profoundly strange stories. In the first instance, the officer appears to be describing something that is quite impossible. How can someone watch his bullets hit someone? Just as strange is the second man’s claim not to have heard the sound of his gun going off. How can that be? Yet, in interviews with police officers who have been involved with shootings, these same details appear again and again: extreme visual clarity, tunnel vision, diminished sound, and the sense that time is slowing down. This is how the human body reacts to extreme stress, and it makes sense.

Our mind, faced with a life-threatening situation, drastically limits the range and amount of information that we have to deal with. Sound and memory and broader social understanding are sacrificed in favor of heightened awareness of the threat directly in front of us. In a critical sense, the police officers whom Klinger describes performed better because their senses narrowed: that narrowing allowed them to focus on the threat in front of them.

But what happens when this stress response is taken to an extreme? Dave Grossman, a former army lieutenant colonel and the author of On Killing, argues that the optimal state of “arousal”—the range in which stress improves performance—is when our heart rate is between 115 and 145 beats per minute. Grossman says that when he measured the heart rate of champion marksman Ron Avery, Avery’s pulse was at the top of that range when he was performing in the field. The basketball superstar Larry Bird used to say that at critical moments in the game, the court would go quiet and the players would seem to be moving in slow motion. He clearly played basketball in that same optimal range of arousal in which Ron Avery performed. But very few basketball players see the court as clearly as Larry Bird did, and that’s because very few people play in that optimal range. Most of us, under pressure, get too aroused, and past a certain point, our bodies begin shutting down so many sources of information that we start to become useless.

“After 145,” Grossman says, “bad things begin to happen. Complex motor skills start to break down. Doing something with one hand and not the other becomes very difficult. . . . At 175, we begin to see an absolute breakdown of cognitive processing. . . . The forebrain shuts down, and the mid-brain—the part of your brain that is the same as your dog’s (all mammals have that part of the brain)—reaches up and hijacks the forebrain. Have you ever tried to have a discussion with an angry or frightened human being? You can’t do it. . . . You might as well try to argue with your dog.” Vision becomes even more restricted. Behavior becomes inappropriately aggressive. In an extraordinary number of cases, people who are being fired upon void their bowels because at the heightened level of threat represented by a heart rate of 175 and above, the body considers that kind of physiological control a nonessential activity. Blood is withdrawn from our outer muscle layer and concentrated in core muscle mass. The evolutionary point of that is to make the muscles as hard as possible—to turn them into a kind of armor and limit bleeding in the event of injury. But that leaves us clumsy and helpless. Grossman says that everyone should practice dialing 911 for this very reason, because he has heard of too many situations where, in an emergency, people pick up the phone and cannot perform this most basic of functions. With their heart rate soaring and their motor coordination deteriorating, they dial 411 and not 911 because that’s the only number they remember, or they forget to press “send” on their cell phone, or they simply cannot pick out the individual numbers at all. “You must rehearse it,” Grossman says, “because only if you have rehearsed it will it be there.”


Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking.
– Malcolm Gladwell

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

CVT, expensive to repair? OH YEAH!

Especially when Kool-Aid man breaks through your transmission.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

You know it turns itself back on as soon as you get back in the car?

Yep. I meant that I've not had it on since I got it, I always do a pre-drive check of the system.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I didn't say sports enthusiasts want a safer car. I just said that the suggestion that increased sportiness in a sports car makes the sports car safer is BS.

Actually, carbon-ceramic brakes make them easier to stop, faster throttle response gives you improved acceleration control, a stiffer suspension gives you a better feel for the road. A lot of "sportiness" is there to give a driver better control, and that makes for a safer car, as long as the driver isn't a ham-fisted oaf.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Let's hear it for American Exceptionalism.

I don't think I am, I know I am. Been driving since 1987 and haven't had an accident that has involved damage to me, my car, or anyone else. That's a fair driving record.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Actually, carbon-ceramic brakes make them easier to stop, faster throttle response gives you improved acceleration control, a stiffer suspension gives you a better feel for the road. A lot of "sportiness" is there to give a driver better control, and that makes for a safer car, as long as the driver isn't a ham-fisted oaf.

The nicer brakes are often to counteract the higher speeds. If you just went slower in the first place then it wouldn't be as much of an issue. Similarly you don't necessarily uber-precise acceleration control if you're not racing the car.

Anyways, that's why I pointed out that insurance rates (corrected for car pricing) is higher with sports cars. Dunno about "ham-fisted oafs", but aggressive drivers gravitate towards sports cars, for obvious reasons.

I suppose if you put such hi end features in a family car, some could improve safety slightly, but if you're really concerned about safety as opposed to performance, then you may often be better off investing in crumple zone and air bag design, etc. or ABS brakes.

So back to the original statement: Sportiness is not about safety, it's about performance.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Eug 

So back to the original statement: Sportiness is not about safety, it's about performance.

But safety is about performance of critical components (brakes, steering, etc.). I guarantee that Shad's Lambo will come to a stop in an emergency situation faster than the average crapmobile will.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yep. I meant that I've not had it on since I got it, I always do a pre-drive check of the system.

May I ask why? Unless your daily drive is the Nürburgring, that makes little to no sense.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

May I ask why? Unless your daily drive is the Nürburgring, that makes little to no sense.

Because we have roads here in the Smoky Mountains that rival what you can experience anywhere in Europe, and I drive them on a regular basis. This is one of many, and it's only a short distance from my home.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

sense.

He's driving a ****ing Lambo. Let's ease up on the sense. Driving a Lambo makes him happy. Driving it without TCS makes him happier. Case closed.

Edit: And there you go

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

But safety is about performance of critical components (brakes, steering, etc.). I guarantee that Shad's Lambo will come to a stop in an emergency situation faster than the average crapmobile will.

It'd be interesting to compare the braking and control of a Lambo on a big icy patch to the original poster's Subaru Legacy.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Subaru won that competition.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I wouldn't be surprised if the Subaru won that competition.

How about against a Prius?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Eug 

It'd be interesting to compare the braking and control of a Lambo on an icy patch to the original poster's Subaru Legacy.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Subaru won that competition.

I would, given the responsiveness of the Lambo's ABS and the size of it's brake rotors. Not much of an issue around here, though. Very few days in the year where we have those conditions, and I'd rather drive a hardtop in that weather.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I would, given the responsiveness of the Lambo's ABS and the size of it's brake rotors. Not much of an issue around here, though. Very few days in the year where we have those conditions, and I'd rather drive a hardtop in that weather.

Subaru's 4WD is quite popular, and some say it's more advanced than Lamborghini's.