The reason antilocks are in the rear only is because the back of the truck
is so light, they tend to lock up too soon and the truck want's to spin
around on you.
As far as 4 wheel ABS should be standard, I'm glad it's not. One of the
reason I chose my 98 Dak was beacuse I could buy it without 4 wheels abs. I
had it in my wifes s-10 blazer and I absolutely hated it. The damn truck
wouldn't stop, I almost rolled it once. If there was not a car sitting next
to me that kept me from going over, I would have been on the side. I got rid
of the truck after that. I've driven my 98 dak 106,000 miles so far and have
not had any problem driving without antilocks. Anti locks are for people who
don't know how to use a brake pedal correctly. If you have no abs and you
mash the pedal, the whel lock up, you know the brakes work. IF you have abs
and mash the pedal, the car comes to a stop "eventually" and when you
complain that the brakes don't work right, everyone tells you it abs and you
don't know how to use it, it's fine. Well, they can keep their all wheel
abs. rear wheel abs in pickups is ok
Nick
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 08:21:51 -0700
From: Doug Fedeli <rdf@eznet.net>
Subject: Re: DML: ANTI-LOCK BRAKES MY A*&
They started putting ABS on the rears of trucks so the brakes can be set for
full
braking with a full load in the bed. When the truck is empty the ABS keeps
the rear
tires rolling instead of locking up. I used to have a Nissan that had a
proportioning valve mounted under the bed. As a load was put in the bed and
the
back of the truck dropped there was a lever between the bottom of the bed
and the
valve, which was mounted on the frame under the bed. That worked ok. I agree
that 4
wheel ABS should be standard on all cars and trucks. It would save a lot of
$ and
lives. I'm guessing the parts to install a basic 4WABS don't cost that much
any
more. By making it standard cuts into someone's profits.
Doug Fedeli
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:01:08 EDT