"maxpower" > wrote in message
...
>
> "James C. Reeves" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Steve" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > I firmly believe that virtually 100% of the cases of "unintended
>> > acceleration" in cars made prior to about 2001 were because of driver
>> > error. There's simply NO way that an engine with a mechanical throttle
>> > linkage can accelerate unless the return spring breaks, and it doesn't
> "go
>> > back to normal" immediately thereafter- it stays broken.
>> >
>> > Howver, in recent years more cars are being built with "throttle by
> wire"
>> > in which a computer-controlled servo moves the throttle blades, not a
>> > direct mechanical linkage to the accelerator pedal. I know that the
>> > systems and software go through tremendous testing, but I no longer
>> > feel
>> > confident in saying that it "cannot happen" anymore.
>> >
>>
>> Which begs the question...why make a very simple and reliable system more
>> complicated (with all the associated problems that more complicated
> systems
>> have)?
>>
>> ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY, no cables, brackets, save on money and supposed to
>> be
> a faster response for acceleration
>
I doubt that, I think it's for slower acceleration. If they put "throttle
response" in the hands of the computer, it can respond whenever it wants to.
At least that's the feeling I get when I drive one. If the computer decides
to downshift, it can wait before it actually opens the throttle.

This has got to be much easier for engine management. Cheaper? No. That's
just stupid, to think a motor-driven throttle is cheaper than a cable.