Why No Adaptive Cruise on Mach1?

[Bit_the_Bullitt]

I never left.

It's a nanny.

But again, it's a switchable "nanny." So why is that an issue then? Some people like the convenience of it, so let em enjoy it...

Sponsored

 

[Norm Peterson]

Depends on your point of view. Some people might call a standard CC a nanny. I've met folks in my time that absolutely hate CC in any form and refuse to use it. Mainly, they don't trust the technology. I've had CC on every car I've owned except one and I won't own another without it. I've only had it fail on one car and that was the on/off switch so it wouldn't work at all until I got that fixed. I've never had any issues with unexpected accelerations or anything else that could be considered dangerous. My 2016 GT is the first ACC eauipped car I've owned and I love it, especially on long road trips. It's not an autopilot, I'm still driving the car, but it eases some of the work load and can make a big difference at the end of a long day.

I'd been driving for more than 20 years before owning a car that had even basic cruise control (1987 Maxima). So for all of my driving life, cruise control has been a frivolous luxury feature that's never going to work the throttle the same way I would naturally work it myself. I don't worry all that much about possible failure modes, though Toyota did have a few cars where CC failure was involved in crashes (one incident being rather spectacular and involving a driver who had extensive driving experience).

For me at least, it's hard to deal with the fact that cruise control works differently than I would under many circumstances. Easier to just do all of the throttle control work myself. I think that's a little stronger than simply 'point of view'.


The funny thing is, I can remember that before I actually did start driving I wondered just how people did - or even could - hold a reasonably constant speed or throttle position. So while 12 year old me probably would have wanted cruise control, 17 year old me had outgrown any desire for it whatsoever.


Norm

 

[Norm Peterson]

I've got ACC on my 2016 GT. A lot depends on the circumstances and rate of closure between my car and the vehicle in front of me. If it's gentle enough, all the ACC has to do is lift off the throttle, which happens more often than not, just like we would while driving the car manually. If the closure rate exceeds a predetermined rate, the ACC will apply the brakes. I've felt everything from a very mild application to one that was surprisingly aggressive when someone changed lanes in front of me and my following distance was suddenly much shorter than the following distance I had asked the ACC to maintain.

Any ACC braking is going to take me by surprise to the extent that it'll feel like something about my car has gone wrong (my immediate thoughts are going to run toward questions like 'did my engine momentarily lose ignition or fueling?' up to 'did something seize up?'). Whisky Tango Foxtrot moments at times when they'd be the last things I want to have to deal with.

I have no reason to believe the brake lights wouldn't be activated when it was the ACC applying brakes just as they do when I apply the brakes. That just makes sense.

Hopefully it works that way.


Norm

 

[Bit_the_Bullitt]

Any ACC braking is going to take me by surprise to the extent that it'll feel like something about my car has gone wrong (my immediate thoughts are going to run toward questions like 'did my engine momentarily lose ignition or fueling?' up to 'did something seize up?'). Whisky Tango Foxtrot moments at times when they'd be the last things I want to have to deal with.



Hopefully it works that way.


Norm

They do work that way (brake lights light up when ACC activates). In some cars it's immediately, in some when it's a large speed difference, I'm sure there's a logic built into this, such as in some moments ACC just lets off the gas a bit slowing down enough, in some it actually puts on brakes, i.e. lights come on.

I don't disagree though, some ACCs are very sensitive to where it's disruptive. Sometimes you can set sensitivity. But I wouldn't discard them all for the few of them that don't work well and as long as they are toggable to turn off (for example, in my manual '18 Accord it was only ACC or nothing, while wife's F150 you can choose ACC/regular, I suspect Mustangs are the same way), it's all good.

 

[Norm Peterson]

But again, it's a switchable "nanny." So why is that an issue then? Some people like the convenience of it, so let em enjoy it...

At least where it's available, it's optional and not tied to performance or interior content options. At least for me, the S&S package that it's a part of doesn't include anything I'd ever want so for now it'd be easy enough to avoid ACC.

For those who would never use it, it's needless electronic clutter that brings alignment requirements of its own to the table if you're inclined to make any suspension or wheel/tire changes. ADAS features rely on the car's ride heights and other parameters being known to the system(s). Not things that even a decent DIY'er would be able to recalibrate.


Norm

 

[Norm Peterson]

I don't agree with that. My car is a man's car, and ACC works really well. I only use ACC for those stretches of road that have those "average speeding cameras" placed X km apart. Set the speed to one or two km/h above the limit, shift to 6th gear for the fuel economy, and then move my foot of the gas pedal. People swerve in and out of my lane, and ACC adapts very well.

Are you sure that's a good thing to be letting your car teach you? It's not hard to envision a driver first thinking that the ACC is going to take care of a situation for you, but suddenly realizing that it wasn't switched on.


Norm

 

[dhborden]

Any ACC braking is going to take me by surprise to the extent that it'll feel like something about my car has gone wrong (my immediate thoughts are going to run toward questions like 'did my engine momentarily lose ignition or fueling?' up to 'did something seize up?'). Whisky Tango Foxtrot moments at times when they'd be the last things I want to have to deal with.



Hopefully it works that way.


Norm

Yes, the brake lights go on when ACC brakes for you. And its reaction is way better than we puny humans.

 

[Michael_vroomvroom]

Are you sure that's a good thing to be letting your car teach you? It's not hard to envision a driver first thinking that the ACC is going to take care of a situation for you, but suddenly realizing that it wasn't switched on.

Since I'm watching everything as normal, except, I don't need to eyeball the speedometer, I'm not worried about that.

Since I normally have the ACC set on the "keep the furthest away from the car in front" setting, ACC almost always reacts before I would. A bit more abrupt than I'd do myself, probably partially due to the "keep far away" setting, but it's an acceptable compromise to me. Never thought I'd like any form of CC, but for these "speed control" stretches, I really like ACC.

 

[SpeedLu]

But again, it's a switchable "nanny." So why is that an issue then? Some people like the convenience of it, so let em enjoy it...

It's fine that it can be turned off, just saying, it's a nanny. The problem becomes when these optional nannies are implemented as standard with NO option to turn them off. L

 

[Bit_the_Bullitt]

It's fine that it can be turned off, just saying, it's a nanny. The problem becomes when these optional nannies are implemented as standard with NO option to turn them off. L

Yes, I think most people would agree with you there. I'd say if not too expensive as a feature (or doesn't automatically make all cars more expensive as they have to make this standard) and you can toggle it on and off easily, I think most people would like it.

 

[Bikeman315]

It's fine that it can be turned off, just saying, it's a nanny. The problem becomes when these optional nannies are implemented as standard with NO option to turn them off. L

No it's not. ABS brakes are a nanny. Traction control is a nanny. Pre-collision alert is a nanny. Something that takes over control under a pre-described set of conditions is a nanny. ACC is a convenience feature. You can choose to buy it or not. You can choose to use it or not. Try buying a car without ABS.

 

[Jay Marcase]

I'd been driving for more than 20 years before owning a car that had even basic cruise control (1987 Maxima). So for all of my driving life, cruise control has been a frivolous luxury feature that's never going to work the throttle the same way I would naturally work it myself. I don't worry all that much about possible failure modes, though Toyota did have a few cars where CC failure was involved in crashes (one incident being rather spectacular and involving a driver who had extensive driving experience).

For me at least, it's hard to deal with the fact that cruise control works differently than I would under many circumstances. Easier to just do all of the throttle control work myself. I think that's a little stronger than simply 'point of view'.


The funny thing is, I can remember that before I actually did start driving I wondered just how people did - or even could - hold a reasonably constant speed or throttle position. So while 12 year old me probably would have wanted cruise control, 17 year old me had outgrown any desire for it whatsoever.


Norm

At the end of the day, $60k and no ACC is a joke. Ford is being lazy and thinks it can get away with it because individuals such as yourself make excuses for them. You may not like any assists in your car and that’s why you can toggle them off or on.

True ”driver’s cars” don‘t have door panels, navigation systems, sound systems, air conditioning, leather, or any creature comforts...it’s just driver and car. If your car isn’t spec‘d as such, then you’re as accepting of creature comforts as the rest of us but presenting your preference as standards and everyone’s else’s as “laymen additions”.

That sir is disingenuous.

 

[Intrepid175]

I'd been driving for more than 20 years before owning a car that had even basic cruise control (1987 Maxima). So for all of my driving life, cruise control has been a frivolous luxury feature that's never going to work the throttle the same way I would naturally work it myself. I don't worry all that much about possible failure modes, though Toyota did have a few cars where CC failure was involved in crashes (one incident being rather spectacular and involving a driver who had extensive driving experience).

For me at least, it's hard to deal with the fact that cruise control works differently than I would under many circumstances. Easier to just do all of the throttle control work myself. I think that's a little stronger than simply 'point of view'.


The funny thing is, I can remember that before I actually did start driving I wondered just how people did - or even could - hold a reasonably constant speed or throttle position. So while 12 year old me probably would have wanted cruise control, 17 year old me had outgrown any desire for it whatsoever.


Norm

I've met a number of folks through the years that simply don't use cruise controls because they don't like them, don't trust them, or whatever. That's their choice. As I indicated before, I've been using cruise controls for a very long time, at least since 1975. I use them almost all the time, especially on a road trip and one thing I've learned because of that is that most folks on the road don't hold speed worth a flip. They're continually speeding up and slowing down, speeding up and slowing down. Others aren't capable of holding speed independent of anyone else on the road. I've had folks creep up on me over 20 to 30 miles, finally catch up to me, move over to pass and then sit there, overlapping my rear quarter for miles on end. I'd speed up and they'd speed up. I'd slow down and they'd slow down. It can be very frustrating. So I use my cruise control because it keeps me consistent and because, to be honest, after a few hours, sometimes less, I don't hold speed worth a flip either. I mean no offense by this but I'm sure the cruise control works the throttle differently than you do. It's probably a lot more smooth and consistent than you are, and that's going to be true for pretty much all of us. The system is designed to do one thing and that's hold a set speed. The adaptive part just allows for minor fluctuations traffic which works ok most of the time in my experience, and not so much in others. We can all decide which way we want to go with it.

 

[Jay Marcase]

Since I'm watching everything as normal, except, I don't need to eyeball the speedometer, I'm not worried about that.

Since I normally have the ACC set on the "keep the furthest away from the car in front" setting, ACC almost always reacts before I would. A bit more abrupt than I'd do myself, probably partially due to the "keep far away" setting, but it's an acceptable compromise to me. Never thought I'd like any form of CC, but for these "speed control" stretches, I really like ACC.

I love the ACC especially on long drives with the top down and a cigar! The braking sometimes is a little less conservative than I am but I have a healthy understanding of the limitations of the system and when I do and don’t need to intervene.

 

[Norm Peterson]

At the end of the day, $60k and no ACC is a joke.

That's you trying to present your opinion as a universal truth. It carries no more weight than mine where ACC isn't anywhere near essential.

Sorry if I can't get on board with today's notion that my car should be able to do all these things for me that I am fully capable of handling in real time all by myself.


Norm

Sponsored