A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Chrysler
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sebring---- SUDDEN ACCELERATION



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old January 28th 05, 05:29 AM
Joe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Every model of every car has some incidence rate of "sudden acceleration".
After all, we're all human. After Audi installed a brake/shifter interlock,
that was the end of it for the 5000. Nobody ever really implicated the
5000's pedal arrangement. So it appears the only variable was the people who
owned Audi 5000's were more likely to blame somebody else for their mistake.

To believe that anything mechanical actually happened in that case is to
ignore all the evidence.

So, if sudden acceleration happens for real, and you're too ignorant of your
car to understand what went wrong, then there's nothing you can do. You
can't explain what happened to anybody. What I mean is, if your throttle
sticks, you need to say "my throttle stuck" instead of "I suffered sudden
acceleration due to the negligence of a large corporation" so everybody
won't dismiss you as an idiot. Your throttle is pretty simple. If it moves,
you'll have to figure out why.

If you can't do that, just turn the switch off like you're supposed to and
deal with the shame in private.



"James Goforth" > wrote in message
...
> Just curious, but if it was suspected to be merely a case of pedal
> mis-application, why was this situation peculiar only to Audi's and not
> all models?
> I would also be curious as to how many instances of the above
> mentioned condition were automatics vs. manuals.
>



Ads
  #82  
Old January 28th 05, 05:33 AM
Joe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #83  
Old January 28th 05, 05:33 AM
Joe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


> The fuel injection on current mechanically operated throttle bodies is
> controlled by the computer. I don't see how controlling the butterfly is
> inherently any slower than controlling the fuel. And you need both fuel
> and air to get the engine to respond.
>
>
> Matt


Drive one.


  #84  
Old January 28th 05, 05:36 AM
Joe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...

> Read again what I wrote. I didn't say that the current hemi
> implementation wasn't slower on throttle response, I simply said this
> doesn't have to be the case. That is, the design isn't INHERENTLY slower.
> The designers may choose to be slower, but that isn't an issue with the
> technology, that is an issue with the designers.
>
>
> Matt


Of course, but you're missing the point that if they were going to open the
throttle when you wanted to, they wouldn't need throttle by wire. That's
what it's for, to allow the engine to respond in a more orderly (slower)
way.


  #85  
Old January 28th 05, 12:05 PM
Matt Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Joe wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>Read again what I wrote. I didn't say that the current hemi
>>implementation wasn't slower on throttle response, I simply said this
>>doesn't have to be the case. That is, the design isn't INHERENTLY slower.
>>The designers may choose to be slower, but that isn't an issue with the
>>technology, that is an issue with the designers.
>>
>>
>>Matt

>
>
> Of course, but you're missing the point that if they were going to open the
> throttle when you wanted to, they wouldn't need throttle by wire. That's
> what it's for, to allow the engine to respond in a more orderly (slower)
> way.
>
>


That may well be one reason, but it is hardly the only reason.


Matt
  #86  
Old January 28th 05, 06:18 PM
Steve
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Joe wrote:

> "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.



One motor-driven throttle that can be used on EVERY engine in EVERY car
made by the company is cheaper to produce than a different throttle
cable for every engine/chassis combination. Not case-by-case, but in
terms of mass production.

As far as slowing down acceleration- that's mostly (my guess) to control
emissions and boost fuel economy. The real software benefit of TBW is
that the computer can cut the throttle whenever the automatic
transmission shifts, which allows the transmissions to be built even
lighter and cheaper than they already are because now the computer can
guarantee that there's no such thing as a "wide open throttle upshift,"
which transmissions used to have to be able to handle.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
question regarding heating issue 98 sebring deadbeat Chrysler 10 November 27th 04 08:40 PM
Blowing 30 AMP fuse ---- but only on acceleration. 1999 Sebring hardtop maxpower Chrysler 3 October 9th 04 04:01 PM
87 TBI Suburban bog / acceleration problem Michael Vosk 4x4 8 September 29th 04 04:55 AM
98 chevy s10 blazer acceleration is sluggish. PLEASE ADVISE Dave 4x4 0 April 8th 04 06:52 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.