Spy Photos: 2013 Dodge Viper Getting Cruise Control....

I see people driving on freeways and interstate's all the time that are incapable of keeping a consistent speed. Their cars have cruise control, but they're not using it. They end up playing the most annoying game of leap frog ever with me, when I'm using cruise.

You're logic would be like saying, "Everyone would be better at math if we didn't have calculators."

@arumage:

Excellent post!

@Mike Magrath

You are totally wrong about cars not needing cruise control. When you're on a long trip, it's nice to be able to pop the cruise on and move your foot off the accelerator to a different position for a while - even better if you have a bench seat though I realize the Viper is lacking in this category.

Just FYI, that switch bank is likely just a master LIN to the switch on the left side that controls the center screen on the cluster. You can't just have the control switches with out the cruise set. They are probably here just for common architecture and test parts. Cruise control comes in handy a lot in different testing enviroments.

Though, don't let me get in the way of the rumormill and complaining

Not having cruise control is just about a deal killer for me. Not only does it give your foot a rest on long freeway cruises, I used it a lot when I lived in a bigger city to avoid creeping much over 35mph and becoming a target for speeding tickets. Just think of cruise as adding hand controls to your steering wheel on the Interstate - you can have plenty of fun dialing in the speed a mile or two at a time as you second guess the terrain and try to stay in overdrive.

btw, I'm math challenged and have found that using calculators and Excel helped me understand algebra and other math concepts more than any text book ever did.

Thanks stress83. Mike is right about cruise control not being necessary though. It's not a need, but 600hp isn't a need either.

What's next? Cold air conditioning? Nav? A radio that isn't sourced from a Neon or PT Cruiser?

@ed341, apparently you aren't familiar with the radios often featured in super cars. They are, in general, the bare minimum if there at all. Most are basically off the shelf head units. Ferrari often uses chrysler radios, the ford gt had a straight out of best buy alpine, etc. Nobody cares what the stereo sounds like in these cars, the only thing you should listen to is the engine and the road.

Is that a cassette player?

Cars don't need seatbelts, air bags, disc brakes, V6, 8, 10, 12s either, and yet have them. I think cruise is a useful piece of safety equipment.

I dunno. Cruise could be handy in a Viper to help keep the leadfootitis away on long drives, especially up and down the 5.

Oh please. Safety? Explain.

Also, knew I'd take a good hit on this one. I'm getting it in the office too.
-mm

Mike it keeps toyota drivers from mistaking their pedals as often

"Consider: Cars don't need cruise contol. The more you use it, the worse you get at maintaining a constant speed without thinking about it. You'll be fine without it and probably pay more attention to the road. It's just another skill -- like math -- we relegate to computers who will one day be our overlord."

Partially agree, partially disagree. Taken at face value, the comment "cars don't need cruise control" is what I can agree with. Cars don't need disk brakes, bluetooth connectivity, heated/cooled seats, sunroofs, manumatics, or summer tires (for example) either.

But I mostly disagree. To echo arumage, a calculator allows you to perform mathematics calculations quicker and more accurately than your brain could. Similarly, cruise control allows you to keep a more consistent speed for a longer period of time than your foot ever could. This is because when things are controlled by humans (vs computers), there is always more room for error. Cruise control, therefore, is a good thing (if you value maintaining a constant speed) and should actually help people focus more on the road, instead of infinitessimal adjustments to their speed.

And in reality, there is no way those opposed to cruise control will ever win this argument. The benefits of having cruise control far outweigh any perceived benefits of not having it (convenience and resting your right foot.. versus.. "You'll be fine without it and probably pay more attention to the road"). The best thing about it is that if you don't want to use it, you don't have to! But it's there for those that do.

A Viper needs cruise control, if for no other reason, as a cop repellent.

Normally, I'm the first to beat the drum against addtional crap being added to sports cars but I honestly don't see the harm in cruise control.

It's a very handy feature on long trips and for making sure you stay off of Johnny Law's radar (pun intended) with low cost, low weight and little downside.

I understand your point about diminishing driving skills but think you might be taking liberties here. I'd be more worried about people not knowing how to handle 600bhp in the first place than I would about them maintaining a constant speed.

@ dbostondriver

Looks like a 6 disc CD changer to me. One from 2001, but a CD changer none the less.

Hypermilers (I know, they're a large part of the Viper demographic) don't necessarily value a constant cruise speed. You can significantly improve your highway fuel economy by slowing down going uphill and speeding up going downhill. Instead of having your engine fight against gravity, you let gravity do the work.

Adaptive cruise control? looks like there is a button for it next to the mode button

This is what I don't get about the auto snobs. Cruise in a Viper is sort of like SynchroRev Match in the 370Z: YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT.

Don't deny those of us to who long distance trips the pleasure of letting a computer do the work occasionally.

@greenpony, that gets back to playing with the speed buttons that most cruise controls have. Makes it easy to bleed off a few miles per hour going up a grade, and then either use cancel going downhill (or your foot) and then hit resume when you hit the flats.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against cruise control. But in hilly terrain, cruise control is annoying. I'd rather lose 10 mph going up a grade than have the ECU decide to downshift a gear or two to maintain an arbitrary speed.

steve-says is right

There is a road (here in Las Vegas (3 lanes in each direction with a left turn lane in the middle) where the speed limit is 35 mph for some dumb reason. I often see 5-7 motorcycles cops just sitting there and waiting to grab the next person who speeds. I always use cruise control on this stretch of road as I have been lucky enough to get a speeding ticket on this road. Cruise control is a must have - especially in a super car that is very noticeable.

Cars DO need cruise control. It's common knowledge that cruise control maintains a better constant speed than a human's right foot, which greatly improves fuel economy. Also, cruise control is a necessity on +hour long trips. Without it, the driver becomes fatigued, which leads to less attentive drivers which could result in a crash.

Really? I understand the Viper is a bare essentials drivers car with no nanies, but does it HAVE TO HAVE that cheap neon interrior and stereo from a rental Neon? This is a $90K car were talking about here.... Hope that is just a prototype mule thing.

Just a heads up its 2011, my watch has cruise control. All they need is a couple of buttons wired to the ecu, the throttle is already computer controlled (presumably this is drive by wire like everything else these days). I'd say if I had 600hp on tap though cruise would be welcome, you're probably twitch of your big toe away from gaining 20-30mph with that bad boy, might be a bit annoying on a highway.

I once owned a 350Z w/out cruise control. It sucked. The idea of a Viper having cruise doesn't bother me at all. Guess I'm not a true car enthusiast.....

I don't get the hate for cruise control... If you've traveled across states in one go than you'd understand. There are times where I wished for cruise control in the middle on nowhere. Granted anyone who uses cruise control in the city is retarded.

The hate for cruise control comes from the online Andretti-isms... creature comforts & safety devices are for the weak, according to the avg online auto enthusiast.

I think cruise control is fine. Especially combined w/smart engine/transmission management.

The real question to me is who is driving a Viper off a track for a long enough distance that they want CC? I imagine them to be boomy, stiff-legged and darty... perfect for the track, endearing on a grocery run, brain liquefying on a long trip. I suppose CC could indicate a dialing down of the Viper's character, but given how many cars these days are able to perform at the limit of physics without being complete torture chambers below 10/10ths, it could be a good, legitimate appeal broadening move. Something like going from the F40 to the 599 GTB. Same performance, a little less charm and a lot more usability.

Just because some people can't figure out when and how to put the cruise control creature comfort to good use, doesn't mean they get to pretend that the rest of us shouldn't use it when applicable. See steering wheel mounted spike for counter-example.

Flame me all you want for agreeing with Mike here. Call me a backwards thinking tribalist for all I care, but all this cruise control loving just tells me the degenerate state of driving skill in today's world.

The math analogy was a bad move on Mike's part, mostly because everyday driving isn't the same as complicated arithmetic and calculus and all that other math stuff (though for the record, simple mental math IS an important skill).

All this talk about allowing more concentration on the road rather than the "distraction" of modulating throttle for constant speed, how computers can do it better, or how people "need" to be able to give their feet a rest on long trips, or how you need it as a cop repellant, it just tells me that people don't value driving and driving ability anymore; it's just a chore to everyone. I'll say it right now that we don't all need to be racing drivers, but the ability to control a car with some degree of precision isn't limited to racing in the first place.

Against my better judgement based on what I'm seeing, I'll assume we're generally enthusiasts here: Isn't one of the points of automotive enthusiasm supposed to be that we want our cars (not necessarily EVERY car) to reflect our values? I'm not a fan of the Viper, but as a sports car, we should see it as a vehicle meant to nurture driving ability. Again, it doesn't necessarily have to be racing-driver abilities, but the basic control over the car and its movements should be a point of satisfaction for anyone who dares call themselves an enthusiast: To turn the chore of driving into an expression of yourself even in the most mundane tasks.

Lastly, no CC = infringement of freedom? like how a computer overriding an essential and proper function of the driver isn't a removal of freedom in its own way? I don't need to use it if I don't want to, just like I don't need to stick up for the things I value just because its none-of-my-business; how modern sports cars are all turning into playthings for rich boys and soccer moms who can't even bare the "extreme hardship" of working three or even two pedals. Fine. The argument's always over as soon as someone throws in the freedom-of-choice card. You're always SO OBJECTIVE and SO REASONABLE just because you appeal to something as deeply valued as freedom to defend your choices. Don't get me wrong and start bringing up Hitler fallacies, but there's a real need to think critically whenever we use the word freedom and not just throw it around to justify everything we do.

All these reactions defending and justifying CC are just showing that we've lost touch with what automotive enthusiasm is about. If Mike got flamed here and in the office, then even automotive journalism isn't safe.

Lastly, no CC = infringement of freedom? like how a computer overriding an essential and proper function of the driver isn't a removal of freedom in its own way? I don't need to use it if I don't want to, just like I don't need to stick up for the things I value just because its none-of-my-business; how modern sports cars are all turning into playthings for rich boys and soccer moms who can't even bare the "extreme hardship" of working three or even two pedals. Fine. The argument's always over as soon as someone throws in the freedom-of-choice card. You're always SO OBJECTIVE and SO REASONABLE just because you appeal to something as deeply valued as freedom to defend your choices. Don't get me wrong and start bringing up Hitler fallacies, but there's a real need to think critically whenever we use the word freedom and not just throw it around to justify everything we do.

All these reactions defending and justifying CC are just showing that we've lost touch with what automotive enthusiasm is about. If Mike got flamed here and in the office, then even automotive journalism isn't safe.

Backwards thinking tribalists unite!
-mm

I hate cruise control. I won't use it on any vehicle, even a family Volvo. Over long distances, I am falling asleep if I try to maintain constant speed. And if I wanted to save the environment, I would take the train anyway (which I admit I do take very often even despite having a vehicle). Cruise control is the worst thing invented in cars -- if anything it only encourages a technological movement towards cars that drive themselves, which is something I am not interested in at all (i.e., if I want to travel in comfort and not have to drive in the first place, I am taking a train or a plane then).

Aren't we jumping the gun a little?

No one has seen any spy shots of the car yet. These buttons could be for anything. Maybe the engineers just grafted them on there from another Chrysler steering wheel to test the paddle shifter option they are considering.

dghstlstrdp, there is a reason it is called 'cruise' control. That reason is that when its being used we're not racing, not even speeding. Driving straight at a constant speed requires barely any "driving ability". Everyone reading these comments is a car enthusiast so we can all agree on our passion for cars and driving. But when we're driving down the road at a continual rate, there is either cruise control; or holding our foot there....in the same spot...until needed otherwise........
This is not a time when "automotive enthusiasm" is needed my friend.

@dgmail, I said that way way up top there.

I barely ever use Cruise Control in any of the cars I've owned. But yeah one would think that should be a standard feature.

I think cruise control is a very useful feature to have when you are taking road trips. You are not forced to use it. On a car like the viper, I dont see many people taking road trips in it, so cruise control seems out of place here. My friend has an E46 M3 with the competition package, which deletes cruise control and other convenience features. Maybe this will be something similar.

Am I the only one who sees that this is a horribly done photoshop? Look at the left side of the chrome surround of the buttons in the closeup picture.

Definitely fake.

Damn... the interior looks as shitty as before. I just hope they really worked on that V10.

After carefully reading Mr. Magrath's article and dghstlstrdp's comments, I've decided to convert to the backwards thinking tribalists club and agree that cruise control is a luxery, not a necessity, and true auto enthusiasts don't/should never use it.

I've also compiled a list of other things that true auto enthusiasts should never use:

Windshield wipers. Not a necessity. You can see just fine without them, really. In fact, the more you use them, the less you'll probably pay attention to what's ahead of you on the road.

Keys and electric starters. Not a necessity. Whatever happened to the old crank starters, like on the Ford Model T's? Only true auto enthusiasts would appreciate cranking an engine to life manually using both hands, instead of a twist of the fingers with a key.

Safety belts and air bags. Not a necessity. True auto enthusiasts would never get into a crash in the first place, so safety belts aren't necessary to begin with. Pay attention to the road, avoid other dangerous drivers, never get into an accident, and you'll be fine.

Air conditioning. Not a necessity. Air conditioning adds weight to a car, and weight is the bane of all auto enthusiasm. If it gets hot, roll down a window.

Radios and car speakers. Not a necessity. Once again, radios and speakers add weight. If you get bored, play a road game with yourself- an auto enthusiast road game, but of course.

Paint. Do cars really need to be painted? I think you could shave one or two pounds from a car if all the paint was removed. Losing weight increases performance, after all.

Cup holders/glove boxes/door map holders/a big trunk. You don't need any of these, really. The soul purpose of a car is to drive it - anything else being carried in your car that doesn't pertain to driving is merely a distraction from the joy of driving itself, and therefor, is not necessary.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. All of these fancy new electronic gizmos like cruise control, turn signals, and fuel injection - they all detract from the job of driving, which is the single purpose that the driver should be focused on while he's in the car.

Case in point: if you're driving in a straight line from one state to the next and you feel that keeping your right foot in the same position for 7 hours nonstop is a CHORE and not a JOY, then you've obviously loss touch with your auto enthusiast self and need a reality check.

Amidoinitrite?

@bkerstetter, its not photoshopped, a hole was cut into the wheel and this was placed in there. Thats where the jagged lines come from

I understand some arguments about nannies, safety systems, and convenience features that add weight and complexity, but cruise control? Are you kidding me? Its a switch that will have the PCM do something it can already do. Oh god its the end of motoring as we know it, kill it with fire. People need to get off their pedastals, put the kool-aid down, and be logical for just a minute.

On a very tangential side note, I'd like to see the waistlines of the "auto enthusiasts" and "backwards tribalists" on this thread.

If any of you "purists" have over a 36 inch waist and over 15% body fat, you should be ashamed to be adding all that unnecessary weight to your car and you all need to get to the gym instead of spending time on the internets.

I say it is a piece of safety equipment because it will keep the OTHERS on the road moving along at whatever they set it, without doing the yo-yo with the accelerator so many do. No, it is probably not safety equipment for me in my car (in fact the cruise controls were disabled in the company cars when I worked in Saudi Arabia because it can lead to careless driving), but I believe devices that make other cars safer for me are still safety devices. Sure, it would be great if everyone (including my wife!) could maintain a constant speed, but most can't.

+5 points to lt1boy for awesomeness of post.

My sentiments exactly.

@lostboyz That's why I like my GT-R.

I see an awful photo shop job too...

@megatrontype_r

I am only aware of one internet, where are these other "internets" that you speak of? And what, fat guys can't be auto enthusiasts? While I agree that my fat butt and large waist line don't help my car's performance, that doesn't mean that I somehow don't love driving as much as you sexy gents out there.

I set my cruise to 109mph (for about 30 minutes) in northern Maine many years ago. It was fun. I also discovered that there is no limit on how high you can set the cruise, or how fast it will try to accelerate the car. Let's just say that at about 125 I decided I proved my point and let off the accel button. What was funny was how much throttle it was using. Factory cruise seems to target a certain acceleration rate, and to sustain that at triple digits required very large throttle openings in my Caprice.

@runreb211

Not understanding "internets" internet meme = GOOGLE IT

Oh, and please eat more salads so your car will not only go faster but get better gas mileage, thereby lessening our dependence on foreign oil. It might even make more room for those of us with you in coach. ;p

@lt1boy you basically nailed my thoughts there too.

Not sure why people want to be hardcore about everything all the time. It's not like it adds weight or cost beyond the physical buttons and maybe a brake and clutch switch. Nobody seems to have noticed @lostboyz's suggestion that it's simply for test purposes.

I have a base model 350Z. It has no cruise control and I didn't think anything of it when I bought the car. On long trips, my right foot quickly because my driving position in the car makes it hard to be a comfortable distance from the steering wheel and gas pedals at the same time. The very aggressively mapped throttle doesn't help either.

On the flip side, when I drove a cruise-less E30 318is 1500 miles across the southwest in two 11 hour shifts with no co-driver, I didn't miss CC at all because the pedal arrangement and driving position was far more comfortable for long distance driving.

Im glad to see that dodge has found a field of work even for the blind... interiors

Isnt that a stick shift? How can ACC work with a manual tranny?

I know the Nürburgring is long but dang cruise control