are mustangs dangerous?

[_VOIDNEXUS_]

I've been thinkin of buying a mustang for a while now but the amount of mustang crqshing videos I see on yt scares me. Are they really flawed or are they all driver error? 

 

[Izineth]

I would say its mostly people being idiots.  Its really a meme.  The older mustangs did get a little bit squirrely over bumps at times because of the solid rear axle but the newer ones have IRS.  I think they started with IRS in 2015.  I would say as long as you keep your foot out of it and drive responsibly they should be fine.   Keep the aggressive driving on the track and not the street, plus taking some performance driving lessons doesn't hurt.  Its when people drive beyond their limits that they get into trouble.

[minibois]

A horse could be very dangerous, especially if the driver is inexperienced and careless.

Oh wait, you mean the car..

 

I would have to say it's mostly the driver, wanting to feel the 'power' in their car and being less careful because of it.

[Kawaii Koneko]

Which generation?

 

From what I understand, they didn't have traction control for quite awhile. Probably not the best thing for an inexperienced driver in a RWD vehicle hence many of the crash videos...

[straight_stewie]

49 minutes ago, _VOIDNEXUS_ said:

I've been thinkin of buying a mustang for a while now but the amount of mustang crqshing videos I see on yt scares me. Are they really flawed or are they all driver error? 

The car is one of the most popular selling cars in the world. If the car was dangerously flawed, Ford would have been killed, mired in endless lawsuits by now.

The reason you see all of these videos is because it's a meme: People who want a fast car but don't actually know anything about cars, including how to drive them, often buy Mustangs, and then lose control of them trying to show off.

You can lose control of any machine under any circumstances if you don't know how to operate it properly, or if you exceed your own limits in the operation of said machine. That does not mean that the machine is flawed, inasmuch as the assumption that someone who buys a machine knows how to safely use it isn't flawed.

 

[mr moose]

Very few cars are inherently dangerous, it's the driver asking too much in most cases.   New drivers generally don't understand their own limits and they certainly don't understand the limits of cars over time.  If you learnt to drive in a new car with traction control, emergency response, reverse sensors and all the shit that goes into them, then you get in a 20 year old car,  then you need to be extra alert and mindful that the car is different. 

 

There are many things that most drivers (but especially new drivers) overlook,  age of tyre is one of them.  Tyres can look in great condition but by virtue of age (being on an older car) they can harden which results in less grip especially when wet. 

 

So no, mustangs are not more dangerous, but older cars can be if you aren't being taught how to drive within the limits of the car and your experience.

 

 

[GDRRiley]

its a Ford so just like any GM product it shouldn't be bought.

 

[Zusafek]

Most are driver error. I've owned several mustangs and never crashed. But then again, I learned to drive with zero driving aids to assist me. I actually disable majority of the driving aids in all my new cars. I hate traction control and antilock brakes. 

[Guest]

The Driver is Dangerous. 

 

The car is called a Pony for a reason. Generally at best, a small block 5 point Slow litre (305cui) different horse power ranges depending on the year (stock vehicles). And off stock, can make some really high HP and do some nice burn outs. Not too long of a wheel base and not too high off the ground, they handle very well which is a really nice feature in a sports car.

 

I've never been in a Mustang that seemed to "scare" me. You can really tell it lacks the low end torque that a 5.7L (350cui) would have at the same horse power, but again, all this depends on the years we speak of. This is just in general. 

 

So far, any stock mustangs I've come across, my 81' El Camino eats em' alive.  

 

 

 

[theninja35]

43 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

its a Ford so just like any GM product it shouldn't be bought.

I'm interested in your thoughts on Mopars but I'm too afraid to ask so don't answer.

 

Anyway, the Viper is a real killer. Even the new ones with all the fancy safety stuff is still pretty brutal to drive. I've driven a Scat Pack Charger and I can't imagine a Mustang is much harder to drive, so it just comes down to people who don't know how to drive the Mustang.

[Ravendarat]

Its more driver error than anything but when talking about the videos its a law of averages thing. Mustangs are readily available, cheap to buy comparatively to similar preforming cars and have become an internet meme in itself so you are gonna see a ton of videos about them. 

[Lord Vile]

1 hour ago, GDRRiley said:

its a Ford so just like any GM product it shouldn't be bought.

 

Could be worse it could be french 

[Donut417]

2 hours ago, _VOIDNEXUS_ said:

I've been thinkin of buying a mustang for a while now but the amount of mustang crqshing videos I see on yt scares me. Are they really flawed or are they all driver error? 

 

Do you intend to follow the law and obey the rules of the road? If yes then there is probably a 99.8% chance you will be fine. If not then there is a good chance you won't be fine. 

[GDRRiley]

1 hour ago, theninja35 said:

I'm interested in your thoughts on Mopars but I'm too afraid to ask so don't answer.

just no, Mopile is where they will end up. I do like older chevys but GM went to sh*t.

 

40 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Could be worse it could be french 

mopile and ford are sitting right on top of the french not far to fall to the bottom.

[PlayStation 2]

Buy yourself a 2004-2006 GTO, so you can keep your dignity intact.

[straight_stewie]

6 hours ago, Zusafek said:

I hate traction control and antilock brakes.

Agreed. A skilled and attentive driver can beat the stop distances of anti-lock breaks on any surface, including pavement.

[nbrowser]

No, Mustangs aren't dangerous, it's the loose nut behind the wheel that can be dangerous...if they don't know how to control the car if they want to drive it spirited...then you get them slamming into trees, poles, curbs etc. A car is only as good as the driver at the controls.

[mr moose]

55 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

Agreed. A skilled and attentive driver can beat the stop distances of anti-lock breaks on any surface, including pavement.

Got some sort of tests or article to support that?  My experience with ABS is that it applies the maximum breaking force possible without locking the wheels, meaning you cannot apply more breaking force by disabling the system.   Even if you were as skilled at driving as the abs is at preventing lock up the best you could do is match it. 

[Warin]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Got some sort of tests or article to support that?  My experience with ABS is that it applies the maximum breaking force possible without locking the wheels, meaning you cannot apply more breaking force by disabling the system.   Even if you were as skilled at driving as the abs is at preventing lock up the best you could do is match it. 

A lot of drivers overestimate their abilities.  I know a few guys who claim they can outshift a dual clutch automatic transmission, but the simple fact is that modern automatic transmissions shift faster and more accurately than all but the finest race drivers, which the majority of folks certainly are not.  

[Zodiark1593]

The Mustang is quite excellent, if you’re in Mid Life Crisis mode and all. My Dad has been wanting one for awhile, but the way he drives. Fast, jerky steering, not great with maintenance. Recipe for disaster, that one. 

[straight_stewie]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

My experience with ABS is that it applies the maximum breaking force possible without locking the wheels, meaning you cannot apply more breaking force by disabling the system

Except that's not how ABS works, atleast in nearly every affordable street car anyway.

ABS actually works by noticing wheel lock, and then dumping some brake pressure, and then removing itself from the system such that the brakes are again at pedal pressure, where they inevitably lock up again, so the system dumps brake pressure, and then removes itself from the system such that the brakes are again at... Well, you get the point.

It is this pattern that causes that telltale ABS chatter. It is also this pattern which causes ABS to never be able to truly reach the maximum theoretical braking performance of a given vehicle in a given scenario: Because it explicitly relies on the wheels repeatedly locking up. It costs ALOT of money to be able to build a system that can tell when the tires are going to lock up before they actually do, and these systems are generally only found on pony cars. Thoroughbred pony cars, not wild caught ones.

It is noticeably horrendous in older cheap cars, where you can actually feel the ABS jerking the car (it throws you forward in the seat, then suddenly there's no braking force, then it throws you forward in the seat again). Ones that are this bad are arguably more dangerous even to inexperienced drivers than no ABS at all because the sudden, unpredictable yet repeated extreme weight transfer on and off the steering wheels can easily cause the operator to lose steering control of the vehicle.

Additionally, the general logic behind ABS doesn't even hold in all cases: Many times (especially on low traction surfaces), the fastest way to stop is to lock up your tires, atleast initially (for example, loose snow over pavement, or loose gravel over hardpacked dirt). In fact, in certain scenarios the fastest way to stop is to lock the tires and hold them until stopped (this is arguably a very complex statement if we need to make it rigorous and account for all road conditions. For dry pavement and reasonably soft tires, the idea is that there is a point at which the surface layer of the tire will start to melt, beyond the point where that melting actually increases traction (it's a thing, that's why heated tires or a hot track has better grip than a cold track or cold tires). If the amount of energy you need to expend to stop the vehicle is less than the amount of energy required to melt the surface layer of the tire beyond that point, then locking up the tires and holding them is the fastest way to stop. This case is extremely rare and really only applies to light vehicles with tires that have a relatively large contact patch and are travelling at slow speeds).

The physics behind how cars interact with the surfaces on which they drive are extremely complicated, and commonly held rules of thumb often amount to lies to children explanations.

ABS is designed for the least common denominator: The driver who is significantly more worried about their phone than their life, and who instinctively pushes the brake pedal all the way to the floor and holds it there when they are the least bit startled no matter the situation. ABS rarely offers the best or even the fastest way to stop a car. In fact, it's commonly held, and even shown in video, that manually applying the maximum brake pressure possible before ABS activates provides you with better stopping performance than letting the ABS handle it.

With just a few days of practice with an analog car in an empty parking lot, even an average driver can learn threshold braking adequately enough to beat ABS stopping distances in prepared scenarios.

A few notes about the following video:

• No, the tests are not exactly scientific, or even thorough, but I believe that they are honest.
• Yes, the no ABS two wheel drive test exhibited a stop time that was approximately half a second longer than the ABS stop time. This could have been improved with practice, it also doesn't amount to very much distance, but that's admittedly only because the driver is experienced.
• His 4-wheel drive no ABS tests start out rather poorly, but quickly progress to be much better, beating the fastest ABS test by by almost a whole second, hence my original statement:

  2 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

  A skilled and attentive driver can beat the stop distances of anti-lock brakes

   

 

[Dylanc1500]

36 minutes ago, Grumpy Old Man said:

Dangerous? .... Sometimes, but in the right hands is definitely the best "vehicle"

 

They will definetely keep you honest, but when you build that bond and gain their trust, they will listen listen to you to the end of the earth.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

Except that's not how ABS works, atleast in nearly every affordable street car anyway.

ABS actually works by noticing wheel lock, and then dumping some brake pressure, and then removing itself from the system such that the brakes are again at pedal pressure, where they inevitably lock up again, so the system dumps brake pressure, and then removes itself from the system such that the brakes are again at... Well, you get the point.

It is this pattern that causes that telltale ABS chatter. It is also this pattern which causes ABS to never be able to truly reach the maximum theoretical braking performance of a given vehicle in a given scenario: Because it explicitly relies on the wheels repeatedly locking up. It costs ALOT of money to be able to build a system that can tell when the tires are going to lock up before they actually do, and these systems are generally only found on pony cars. Thoroughbred pony cars, not wild caught ones.

It is noticeably horrendous in older cheap cars, where you can actually feel the ABS jerking the car (it throws you forward in the seat, then suddenly there's no braking force, then it throws you forward in the seat again). Ones that are this bad are arguably more dangerous even to inexperienced drivers than no ABS at all because the sudden, unpredictable yet repeated extreme weight transfer on and off the steering wheels can easily cause the operator to lose steering control of the vehicle.

Additionally, the general logic behind ABS doesn't even hold in all cases: Many times (especially on low traction surfaces), the fastest way to stop is to lock up your tires, atleast initially (for example, loose snow over pavement, or loose gravel over hardpacked dirt). In fact, in certain scenarios the fastest way to stop is to lock the tires and hold them until stopped (this is arguably a very complex statement if we need to make it rigorous and account for all road conditions. For dry pavement and reasonably soft tires, the idea is that there is a point at which the surface layer of the tire will start to melt, beyond the point where that melting actually increases traction (it's a thing, that's why heated tires or a hot track has better grip than a cold track or cold tires). If the amount of energy you need to expend to stop the vehicle is less than the amount of energy required to melt the surface layer of the tire beyond that point, then locking up the tires and holding them is the fastest way to stop. This case is extremely rare and really only applies to light vehicles with tires that have a relatively large contact patch and are travelling at slow speeds).

The physics behind how cars interact with the surfaces on which they drive are extremely complicated, and commonly held rules of thumb often amount to lies to children explanations.

ABS is designed for the least common denominator: The driver who is significantly more worried about their phone than their life, and who instinctively pushes the brake pedal all the way to the floor and holds it there when they are the least bit startled no matter the situation. ABS rarely offers the best or even the fastest way to stop a car. In fact, it's commonly held, and even shown in video, that manually applying the maximum brake pressure possible before ABS activates provides you with better stopping performance than letting the ABS handle it.

With just a few days of practice with an analog car in an empty parking lot, even an average driver can learn threshold braking adequately enough to beat ABS stopping distances in prepared scenarios.

A few notes about the following video:

• No, the tests are not exactly scientific, or even thorough, but I believe that they are honest.
• Yes, the no ABS two wheel drive test exhibited a stop time that was approximately half a second longer than the ABS stop time. This could have been improved with practice, it also doesn't amount to very much distance, but that's only because the driver is experienced.
• His 4-wheel drive no ABS tests start out rather poorly, but quickly progress to be much better, beating the fastest ABS test by by almost a whole second, hence my original statement:

   

 

You must drive some shit cars then.   All I saw in that video was one person who (assuming didn't intentionally apply some bias to have some video content) with a bit of practice in a prepared and controlled environment was able to get a hand tested result 1/4 of a sec faster.   

 

 

I'd like to see him or anyone brake better in an emergency situation.

 

 

[Letgomyleghoe]

8 hours ago, Kawaii Koneko said:

From what I understand, they didn't have traction control for quite awhile. Probably not the best thing for an inexperienced driver in a RWD vehicle hence many of the crash videos...

Is it not normal to learn in RWD cars? That’s what I learned in and always will prefer. Actually I take that back, some of the new 70-30 awd cars are fun.

[straight_stewie]

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I'd like to see him or anyone brake better in an emergency situation.

Happens all the time... ABS braking systems fail more frequently than non ABS systems as well, apparently.

By this government studies conclusion, drivers still need to learn threshold braking to make effective and safe use of ABS systems:

Quote

Conclusions

 

Law enforcement to maintain safe distance and adhere to speed limit while driving, is needed to raise the effectiveness of ABS. This is as necessary as considering mandatory outfitting of ABS. Safety authorities should first consider the global experience and local evidence, before adopting any specific policy in this regard. The drivers need to learn the right way to use ABS for maximum effectiveness.

Well, by my logic, if you need to learn threshold breaking to safely and effectively use ABS, and you need to learn threshold braking to not use ABS, and using ABS actually decreases braking performance once you learn threshold braking, then ABS is entirely redundant, and possibly worse than not having it (which the study also shows, although that conclusion is not explicitly stated...)

Hence, my statement:

Quote

ABS is designed for the least common denominator: The driver who is significantly more worried about their phone than their life, and who instinctively pushes the brake pedal all the way to the floor and holds it there when they are the least bit startled no matter the situation. ABS rarely offers the best or even the fastest way to stop a car

Is indeed supported by a government study into real traffic incidents, as per your initial request.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3649935/