Toyota stalling may be linked to on-board computers, electronic control module

Post by john
Yeah, I think all the recent problems are likely computer related.
These ECUs just aren't up to their tasks.

Really. The ECUs definitely have problems, but please show us a better
way that doesn't involve electronics. Carbs worked well, but wasted
fuel. Without electronics, are air would be dirtier, we would use more fuel.

Please suggest a better way.

Jeff

Post by john
The problem, according to NHTSA, may be linked to onboard computers.
"The agency indicates
the problem could be linked to the onboard computer, or electronic
control module. "
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20091205/AUTO01/912050334/1148/auto01/Feds-probe-stalling-reports-in-2-Toyota-models

FatterDumber& Happier Moe

2009-12-06 18:33:28 UTC

Post by john
Yeah, I think all the recent problems are likely computer related.
These ECUs just aren't up to their tasks.

Carburetors worked well? How soon we forget. Hard starting in the
winter, flooding in the summer, the cars had to run over rich when cold
so they would stay running, sticking chokes, worn accelerator pumps,
carburetor kits, adjusting idle speed and mixture, those were the good
old days. Starters seldom made it to 60,000 miles, go back a little
further, points, condensers, tune ups, spark plugs every 10K miles.
Give me the computers and electronics any day, well except for this
electric/electronic steering thing, I'm not so sure about that, but come
to think of it, I wasn't so sure about electronic fuel injection when
it came out.

dr_jeff

2009-12-06 18:48:00 UTC

Post by FatterDumber& Happier Moe

Post by john
Yeah, I think all the recent problems are likely computer related.
These ECUs just aren't up to their tasks.

Carburetors worked well? How soon we forget. Hard starting in the
winter, flooding in the summer, the cars had to run over rich when cold
so they would stay running, sticking chokes, worn accelerator pumps,
carburetor kits, adjusting idle speed and mixture, those were the good
old days. Starters seldom made it to 60,000 miles, go back a little
further, points, condensers, tune ups, spark plugs every 10K miles. Give
me the computers and electronics any day, well except for this
electric/electronic steering thing, I'm not so sure about that, but come
to think of it, I wasn't so sure about electronic fuel injection when
it came out.

You made my point exactly. Carbs did work well compared to the
alternatives, though. They were also a pain in the back. And, they
helped me go to college (my dad had an autoparts store). Let's not
forget how the carbs help gas get into the oil, which sold more oil.
And, helped destroy bearings, which was my bread and butter (literally).

Jeff

Nate Nagel

2009-12-06 18:51:13 UTC

Post by FatterDumber& Happier Moe

Post by john
Yeah, I think all the recent problems are likely computer related.
These ECUs just aren't up to their tasks.

Carburetors worked well? How soon we forget. Hard starting in the
winter, flooding in the summer, the cars had to run over rich when cold
so they would stay running, sticking chokes, worn accelerator pumps,
carburetor kits, adjusting idle speed and mixture, those were the good
old days. Starters seldom made it to 60,000 miles, go back a little
further, points, condensers, tune ups, spark plugs every 10K miles. Give
me the computers and electronics any day, well except for this
electric/electronic steering thing, I'm not so sure about that, but come
to think of it, I wasn't so sure about electronic fuel injection when
it came out.

I have no problem with electronics, I wish they were just a little more
robust.

And I remember carbs too, but I don't remember having all that many
problems with them. Only one that really sucked was the 2bbl Rochester
on my dad's Chevy pickup; eventually replaced it with a Q-jet so it
didn't have to be kitted every year. Like clockwork, about a year after
you kitted it, the float would start sticking to the bottom of the bowl.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

s***@some.domain

2009-12-07 05:46:14 UTC

Post by john

Post by john
Yeah, I think all the recent problems are likely computer related.
These ECUs just aren't up to their tasks.

Post by john
The problem, according to NHTSA, may be linked to onboard computers.
"The agency indicates
the problem could be linked to the onboard computer, or electronic
control module. "

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20091205/AUTO01/912050334/1148/auto01/Feds-
probe-stalling-reports-in-2-Toyota-models
Carburetors worked well? How soon we forget. Hard starting in the
winter, flooding in the summer, the cars had to run over rich when cold
so they would stay running, sticking chokes, worn accelerator pumps,
carburetor kits, adjusting idle speed and mixture, those were the good
old days. Starters seldom made it to 60,000 miles, go back a little
further, points, condensers, tune ups, spark plugs every 10K miles.
Give me the computers and electronics any day, well except for this
electric/electronic steering thing, I'm not so sure about that, but come
to think of it, I wasn't so sure about electronic fuel injection when
it came out.

uh, get a horse?

ransley

2009-12-07 12:21:26 UTC

On Dec 6, 12:33 pm, FatterDumber& Happier Moe

Post by john
Yeah, I think all the recent problems are likely computer related.
These ECUs just aren't up to their tasks.

Eh duh, carbs suck compared to injection in every regard especialy
pollution, what ever the issue it needs to de fixed, I think it will
cost toyota quite a bit eventualy, but how many of these runaway
claims are operator, or mat caused, probably most of them. They will
be the number one phony excuse for anyone involved in an accident, so
every day there are many phoney complaints made. This will be the #1
claim, yes officer I hit the wall, my toyota made me do it.

Ashton Crusher

2009-12-06 18:38:18 UTC

Post by john
Yeah, I think all the recent problems are likely computer related.
These ECUs just aren't up to their tasks.

I didn't read his comments to say ALL ECUs, just the ones in these
vehicles. Most vehicles with ECUs don't have this kind of stalling
problem.

hls

2009-12-06 23:44:37 UTC

Post by Ashton Crusher
I didn't read his comments to say ALL ECUs, just the ones in these
vehicles. Most vehicles with ECUs don't have this kind of stalling
problem.

I have seen tons of problems with a range of ECU's, particularly GM.
GM had a run of ECU's that were very dangerous in that they would
stall (die) under full speed freeway conditions if you lifted your foot from
the pedal.

I fought the f***ing dealership for a long time on this, and they didnt
even read the bulletins.

Finally, I got to the right guy at GM and he roasted the dealer over the
coals, but got me a new ECU under warranty which cured the problem.

We went electronic because it was powerful and simple. There were
certainly mechanical systems, even with FI. Fluids computers might have
been able to take some of the trouble out of the system.

Military standards for components would have helped insure that the damn
ECUs would work longer than a string of Christmas lights. But this might
have
been very expensive. Adequate quality would not have been expensive and
could
have removed most of the problems.

hls

2009-12-07 00:06:05 UTC

"hls" <***@nospam.nix> wrote in message news:***@giganews.com...
. Fluids computers might have

Post by hls
been able to take some of the trouble out of the system.

Should have been"fluidic computers".

dr_jeff

2009-12-07 00:07:49 UTC

Post by hls
. Fluids computers might have

Post by hls
been able to take some of the trouble out of the system.

Should have been"fluidic computers".

What do you mean by "fluidic computers"?

hls

2009-12-07 14:29:44 UTC

"dr_jeff" <***@msu.edu> wrote in message news:***@giganews.com...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluidics

Basically fluidics devices, amplifiers, sensors are passive devices which
can
handle some logic jobs.

Don Stauffer

2009-12-07 14:23:33 UTC

Post by dr_jeff
Really. The ECUs definitely have problems, but please show us a better
way that doesn't involve electronics. Carbs worked well, but wasted
fuel. Without electronics, are air would be dirtier, we would use more fuel.

Why did carbs "waste" fuel? They used enrichment at high manifold
pressure, but so do FI systems. The last generation of carburetors were
quite good. What really is the difference between a carb and a throttle
body electronic injection system? One is controlled by a pneumatic
computer, the other by an electronic one. Admittedly electronic
computers can be miniaturized, and add more computation.

Essentially the carbs of the seventies and eighties DID have computers.
The amount of measurement of their environment and the amount of
control was remarkable. There were even the deceleration controls that
got rid of richness during trailing throttle. They were marvels of
fluidic computing.

Kevin

2009-12-07 19:19:38 UTC

Post by dr_jeff
fuel.

computers.

Post by Don Stauffer
The amount of measurement of their environment and the amount of
control was remarkable. There were even the deceleration controls that
got rid of richness during trailing throttle. They were marvels of
fluidic computing.

mainly because the best carb didn`t atomize as good as a FI under
pressure did. KB

--
THUNDERSNAKE #9

Protect your rights or "Lose" them
The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others

dsi1

2009-12-07 19:37:23 UTC

Post by Don Stauffer
Why did carbs "waste" fuel? They used enrichment at high manifold
pressure, but so do FI systems. The last generation of carburetors were
quite good. What really is the difference between a carb and a throttle
body electronic injection system? One is controlled by a pneumatic
computer, the other by an electronic one. Admittedly electronic
computers can be miniaturized, and add more computation.
Essentially the carbs of the seventies and eighties DID have computers.
The amount of measurement of their environment and the amount of
control was remarkable. There were even the deceleration controls that
got rid of richness during trailing throttle. They were marvels of
fluidic computing.

Carbs were pretty remarkable for what they did. I have a fondness for
these devices and found working on them to be a relaxing pastime
although I'd usually disconnect or adjust the little dashpot to not
retard the throttle closing. :-) That said, going back to carbs would be
a big step backwards.

Vic Smith

2009-12-07 21:50:40 UTC

On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 08:23:33 -0600, Don Stauffer

Why did carbs "waste" fuel? They used enrichment at high manifold
pressure, but so do FI systems. The last generation of carburetors were
quite good. What really is the difference between a carb and a throttle
body electronic injection system? One is controlled by a pneumatic
computer, the other by an electronic one. Admittedly electronic
computers can be miniaturized, and add more computation.
Essentially the carbs of the seventies and eighties DID have computers.
The amount of measurement of their environment and the amount of
control was remarkable. There were even the deceleration controls that
got rid of richness during trailing throttle. They were marvels of
fluidic computing.

Maybe the carbs were "improved" in their last years, but I never had a
carb that was as good as the electronic controlled fuel injection I've
had, especially when it gets real cold out. Or for MPG.
Whether throttle body of port injection.
I stayed with carbs longer than most, but finally came over.
Didn't like the idea of fuel pump in the tank, and replacing expensive
injectors.
Then I priced a rebuilt 4-bbl for a 350 and came over.
Think it was about 600 bucks.
Previous rebuilt Carter 2-bbl I'd bought had cost me - $25.

--Vic

hls

2009-12-07 22:11:54 UTC

Post by Vic Smith
Maybe the carbs were "improved" in their last years, but I never had a
carb that was as good as the electronic controlled fuel injection I've
had, especially when it gets real cold out. Or for MPG.
Whether throttle body of port injection.

Ive had both throttle body (on a damn Fiero), and tons of tune port
injection
engines. For my part, that throttle body unit was a POS, and perfectly
mated
to the car and engine.

TPI outperformed every other form if aspiration for me. Carburetors did
work
well enough, but the "average" carburetor didnt even compare with injection.

Admittedly, there were special carburetors available, like Webers, but I
never
had that setup and cannot comment.

Vic Smith

2009-12-07 22:52:50 UTC

Ive had both throttle body (on a damn Fiero), and tons of tune port
injection
engines. For my part, that throttle body unit was a POS, and perfectly
mated
to the car and engine.

I'm stilling driving a '90 Corsica 2.2 with TB. Just recently it's
started bogging on heavy acceleration. Could be the TB, but likely
just needs a plenum cleaning. I'm about to give it away or junk it,
so I'll probably never find out.
Drove a '85 Cav 2.0 with TB for years and never had a problem with the
TB.
Never had an issue with port injection beyond replacing a few
injectors.
Never had a carb I didn't have to tinker with or rebuild. Mostly
Carters. That's all I know,

Post by hls
TPI outperformed every other form if aspiration for me. Carburetors did
work
well enough, but the "average" carburetor didnt even compare with injection.
Admittedly, there were special carburetors available, like Webers, but I
never
had that setup and cannot comment.

All I know about those is I had duals on a '67 VW 1600 and they were a
pain in the ass to balance. No issues otherwise.

--Vic

dsi1

2009-12-08 00:07:01 UTC

Post by Vic Smith
I'm stilling driving a '90 Corsica 2.2 with TB. Just recently it's
started bogging on heavy acceleration. Could be the TB, but likely
just needs a plenum cleaning. I'm about to give it away or junk it,
so I'll probably never find out.
Drove a '85 Cav 2.0 with TB for years and never had a problem with the
TB.

My 84 Cavalier was a pretty good car too. I could never understand how
it could get 27 MPG. All of my other cars since never get anything above
21. Weird. The cost of parts for that Chevy a mind-blower too. I could
get repair parts so cheaply, you'd think they were stolen. How often
does that happen? :-)

Post by Vic Smith
Never had an issue with port injection beyond replacing a few
injectors.
Never had a carb I didn't have to tinker with or rebuild. Mostly
Carters. That's all I know,

dr_jeff

2009-12-08 00:11:13 UTC

It happens every day. People take the cars and take them apart for the
parts.

With my car, I get around 35 mpg on the highway, depending on the
weather. And how fast I drive.

Jeff

Post by Vic Smith
Never had an issue with port injection beyond replacing a few
injectors.
Never had a carb I didn't have to tinker with or rebuild. Mostly
Carters. That's all I know,

dsi1

2009-12-08 00:25:21 UTC

My 84 Cavalier was a pretty good car too. I could never understand how
it could get 27 MPG. All of my other cars since never get anything
above 21. Weird. The cost of parts for that Chevy a mind-blower too. I
could get repair parts so cheaply, you'd think they were stolen. How
often does that happen? :-)

It happens every day. People take the cars and take them apart for the
parts.

The parts I'm talking about weren't used - just the usual stuff you get
at NAPA. I did buy a front bumper and the those energy absorbing bumper
thingies from a junkyard though. My wife crashed into a car and pushed
it into another car. The Cavalier sustained minor damage. I was a bit
shocked to find that the G forces were enough to bent the filament
backwards on the bumper mounted lights. That was a pretty good bumper.

Post by dr_jeff
With my car, I get around 35 mpg on the highway, depending on the
weather. And how fast I drive.

Most anybody would get better MPG than me - I don't take long trips.

Post by dr_jeff
Jeff

Post by Vic Smith
Never had an issue with port injection beyond replacing a few
injectors.
Never had a carb I didn't have to tinker with or rebuild. Mostly
Carters. That's all I know,

dr_jeff

2009-12-08 00:35:00 UTC

My 84 Cavalier was a pretty good car too. I could never understand
how it could get 27 MPG. All of my other cars since never get
anything above 21. Weird. The cost of parts for that Chevy a
mind-blower too. I could get repair parts so cheaply, you'd think
they were stolen. How often does that happen? :-)

It happens every day. People take the cars and take them apart for the
parts.

Yeah, I know. I just left off the sarcasm marks. Couldn't resist. ;-)

Post by dr_jeff
With my car, I get around 35 mpg on the highway, depending on the
weather. And how fast I drive.

Most anybody would get better MPG than me - I don't take long trips.

Post by dr_jeff
Jeff

Post by Vic Smith
Never had an issue with port injection beyond replacing a few
injectors.
Never had a carb I didn't have to tinker with or rebuild. Mostly
Carters. That's all I know,

dsi1

2009-12-08 01:04:05 UTC

My 84 Cavalier was a pretty good car too. I could never understand
how it could get 27 MPG. All of my other cars since never get
anything above 21. Weird. The cost of parts for that Chevy a
mind-blower too. I could get repair parts so cheaply, you'd think
they were stolen. How often does that happen? :-)

It happens every day. People take the cars and take them apart for
the parts.

The parts I'm talking about weren't used - just the usual stuff you
get at NAPA. I did buy a front bumper and the those energy absorbing
bumper thingies from a junkyard though. My wife crashed into a car and
pushed it into another car. The Cavalier sustained minor damage. I was
a bit shocked to find that the G forces were enough to bent the
filament backwards on the bumper mounted lights. That was a pretty
good bumper.

Yeah, I know. I just left off the sarcasm marks. Couldn't resist. ;-)

Well, that's my fault - I tend to take things literally. That's the
breaks. :-)

Post by dr_jeff
With my car, I get around 35 mpg on the highway, depending on the
weather. And how fast I drive.

Most anybody would get better MPG than me - I don't take long trips.

Post by dr_jeff
Jeff

Post by Vic Smith
Never had an issue with port injection beyond replacing a few
injectors.
Never had a carb I didn't have to tinker with or rebuild. Mostly
Carters. That's all I know,

Tegger

2009-12-07 22:41:54 UTC

The primary problem with carburetors was that they reacted far too slowly
for feedback emissions control that would satisfy the law. They were OK
when emissions regs were laxer, but in North America after 1990, the laws
were so strict that it was near impossible to make a carb-fed engine
emissions-compliant.

Some manufacturers were able to get away with throttle-body injection for a
while, but inevitable fuel-dropout in the intake runners (and subsequent
mixture-control problems) put paid to those systems. And throttle-body
still had far slower reaction time than port-injection.

Areas of the world without strict emissions controls continued to use carbs
for a long time. Some might /still/ be using carbs, I don't know.

Post by Don Stauffer
Essentially the carbs of the seventies and eighties DID have computers.
The amount of measurement of their environment and the amount of
control was remarkable.

Their complexity and propensity for getting out-of-order was also
remarkable. Good riddance to them.

--
Tegger

dr_jeff

2009-12-07 23:32:09 UTC

Why did carbs "waste" fuel? They used enrichment at high manifold
pressure, but so do FI systems. The last generation of carburetors were
quite good. What really is the difference between a carb and a throttle
body electronic injection system? One is controlled by a pneumatic
computer, the other by an electronic one. Admittedly electronic
computers can be miniaturized, and add more computation.
Essentially the carbs of the seventies and eighties DID have computers.
The amount of measurement of their environment and the amount of
control was remarkable. There were even the deceleration controls that
got rid of richness during trailing throttle. They were marvels of
fluidic computing.

They used more fuel than was needed.

hls

2009-12-08 01:23:25 UTC

Post by dr_jeff
They used more fuel than was needed.

The question was "why".

And the answer is complicated.
You can do a lot with carburetors, but you cant get the instantaneous
corrections
on many levels that you can get with computerized fuel injection.

In addition, the engine, transmission, etc all have to be working together
to get
the best mileage, a feat that was not normally common to simple carbureted
systems.

Jeff Strickland

2009-12-07 16:46:26 UTC

The problem is that Toyota (and others) are using what is termed, fly by
wire.

In fly by wire, the gas pedal is not mechanically connected to the throttle
body. The gas pedal has a servo that tells the computer what the angle is,
and the computer then sets the throttle body with a stepper motor to match
the angle of the gas pedal.

Surely you can see the pitfalls of such a system.

Fly by wire is used in lots of applications and when it works properly, it
is lighter and more precise than the mechanical linkage(s) it replaces. The
military has employed fly by wire for the flight control systems on
airplanes for quite some time now. I'm not aware of any failures in aircraft
that have resulted from the fly by wire systems they use but I'm not saying
there are no failures, just that I don't recall any.

In any case, there is a very strong suspicion that the implementation that
Toyota is using has problems.

I read a report this past weekend (maybe it was last Friday) that the car in
San Diego that crashed while the throttle was stuck on full had been
reported to have done the same thing a week or two before the car was given
to the people that died in it. (The car was a loaner that the dealership
gave to people that had their car in for service.) A previous customer had
returned the car and told the dealership that the car took off on its own,
but the dealership found no fault with it. The customer is reported to have
driven the car into the dealership, so whatever happened to it was transient
in nature, which is a trait of fly by wire failures -- the system will
forget what the proper settings are supposed to be, and have to be reset. A
driver that had the capacity to shut the car off or shift out of D could
perform the reset that caused the system to work again, and unless somebody
was able to read a history file (if there was one) then the circumstances
that caused the error might never be found -- until the next person flies
the car off of an embankment at 120mph.

Post by john
Yeah, I think all the recent problems are likely computer related.
These ECUs just aren't up to their tasks.

Really. The ECUs definitely have problems, but please show us a better way
that doesn't involve electronics. Carbs worked well, but wasted fuel.
Without electronics, are air would be dirtier, we would use more fuel.
Please suggest a better way.
Jeff

m6onz5a

2009-12-07 20:24:53 UTC

Post by Jeff Strickland
The problem is that Toyota (and others) are using what is termed, fly by
wire.
In fly by wire, the gas pedal is not mechanically connected to the throttle
body. The gas pedal has a servo that tells the computer what the angle is,
and the computer then sets the throttle body with a stepper motor to match
the angle of the gas pedal.

This is where I feel the problems started.. A cable has worked great
for 100 years and now they change it.. I feel they've gone too far
with the "drive by wire" systems. What's next? Driving by brain waves??

hls

2009-12-07 21:35:52 UTC

The throttle position sensor has been used for years in different
embodiments,
some essentially drive by wire. I know there are differences, but the
technology
is not totally new nor very experimental.

I remember when total drive by wire came up in rec.autos.tech, a lot of us
really didnt like where that was leading. I still dont.

Tegger

2009-12-07 22:15:12 UTC

Post by Jeff Strickland
The problem is that Toyota (and others) are using what is termed, fly
by wire.
In fly by wire, the gas pedal is not mechanically connected to the throttle
body. The gas pedal has a servo that tells the computer what the
angle is, and the computer then sets the throttle body with a stepper
motor to match the angle of the gas pedal.

The throttle position sensor has been used for years in different
embodiments,
some essentially drive by wire. I know there are differences, but the
technology
is not totally new nor very experimental.
I remember when total drive by wire came up in rec.autos.tech, a lot
of us really didnt like where that was leading. I still dont.

You can thank emissions and CAFE regulations for throttle-by-wire.

With all the easy gains long accomplished, it takes some serious trickery
to get the last little bit of blood out of that particular stone.

And, I learned today, it appears there is a liability-regulation issue
behind the "start button".

My understanding is that the "start button" originally had a half-second
delay before it would shut off the engine. The problem was that people were
hitting it accidentally and causing unexpected shutdowns in traffic,
leading to a potential liability situation. Therefore, the button was given
a THREE SECOND delay. Apparently the drivers of at least some of these
"runaways" HAD pushed the "start button", but panicked when the button did
not shut the engine down immediately (three seconds must seem like an
eternity in such a situation).

Source for above: Letter to the Editor in the Wall Street Journal, Sat/Sun
Dec5/6, page A20. Title of the letter: "Lawyers Shouldn't Be Designing
Cars".
The letter also mentions a previous article in the WSJ of Dec2 ("Bring Back
the 'Off' Switch"), which I missed reading.

--
Tegger

sctvguy1

2009-12-07 22:34:11 UTC

Post by Tegger

Post by Jeff Strickland
The problem is that Toyota (and others) are using what is termed, fly
by wire.
In fly by wire, the gas pedal is not mechanically connected to the throttle
body. The gas pedal has a servo that tells the computer what the angle
is, and the computer then sets the throttle body with a stepper motor
to match the angle of the gas pedal.

The throttle position sensor has been used for years in different
embodiments,
some essentially drive by wire. I know there are differences, but the
technology
is not totally new nor very experimental.
I remember when total drive by wire came up in rec.autos.tech, a lot of
us really didnt like where that was leading. I still dont.

You can thank emissions and CAFE regulations for throttle-by-wire.
With all the easy gains long accomplished, it takes some serious
trickery to get the last little bit of blood out of that particular
stone.
And, I learned today, it appears there is a liability-regulation issue
behind the "start button".
My understanding is that the "start button" originally had a half-second
delay before it would shut off the engine. The problem was that people
were hitting it accidentally and causing unexpected shutdowns in
traffic, leading to a potential liability situation. Therefore, the
button was given a THREE SECOND delay. Apparently the drivers of at
least some of these "runaways" HAD pushed the "start button", but
panicked when the button did not shut the engine down immediately (three
seconds must seem like an eternity in such a situation).
Source for above: Letter to the Editor in the Wall Street Journal,
Sat/Sun Dec5/6, page A20. Title of the letter: "Lawyers Shouldn't Be
Designing Cars".
The letter also mentions a previous article in the WSJ of Dec2 ("Bring
Back the 'Off' Switch"), which I missed reading.

I like my 1941 Chrysler "starter button", it does exactly what is says it
is supposed to do, start the damn engine. The key turns it off.

Vic Smith

2009-12-07 23:10:06 UTC

Post by sctvguy1

Post by Tegger

Post by Jeff Strickland
The problem is that Toyota (and others) are using what is termed, fly
by wire.
In fly by wire, the gas pedal is not mechanically connected to the throttle
body. The gas pedal has a servo that tells the computer what the angle
is, and the computer then sets the throttle body with a stepper motor
to match the angle of the gas pedal.

The throttle position sensor has been used for years in different
embodiments,
some essentially drive by wire. I know there are differences, but the
technology
is not totally new nor very experimental.
I remember when total drive by wire came up in rec.autos.tech, a lot of
us really didnt like where that was leading. I still dont.

You can thank emissions and CAFE regulations for throttle-by-wire.
With all the easy gains long accomplished, it takes some serious
trickery to get the last little bit of blood out of that particular
stone.
And, I learned today, it appears there is a liability-regulation issue
behind the "start button".
My understanding is that the "start button" originally had a half-second
delay before it would shut off the engine. The problem was that people
were hitting it accidentally and causing unexpected shutdowns in
traffic, leading to a potential liability situation. Therefore, the
button was given a THREE SECOND delay. Apparently the drivers of at
least some of these "runaways" HAD pushed the "start button", but
panicked when the button did not shut the engine down immediately (three
seconds must seem like an eternity in such a situation).
Source for above: Letter to the Editor in the Wall Street Journal,
Sat/Sun Dec5/6, page A20. Title of the letter: "Lawyers Shouldn't Be
Designing Cars".
The letter also mentions a previous article in the WSJ of Dec2 ("Bring
Back the 'Off' Switch"), which I missed reading.

I like my 1941 Chrysler "starter button", it does exactly what is says it
is supposed to do, start the damn engine. The key turns it off.

My uncle had an early '50's Buicks. First time I was in it with him
he turned the key, looked at me, and started talking to me about how
good the fishing was going to be where we were going.
While he was talking the engine started. Surprised me, just like he
intended. Floor starter.

--Vic

dr_jeff

2009-12-07 23:29:02 UTC

Post by m6onz5a

Yet, while the pedal traditionally operates the throttle, for many
years, the engines have still be controlled by a computer. So,
controlling one other thing is not such a big deal.

Tegger

2009-12-08 01:38:22 UTC

Post by dr_jeff
Yet, while the pedal traditionally operates the throttle, for many
years, the engines have still be controlled by a computer. So,
controlling one other thing is not such a big deal.

The throttle chokes off the air to the engine. If there is no air, the
engine can't make power, no matter what else happens.

If you entrust air delivery to the computer and something goes wrong and
excessive air is admitted, all the other inputs will adjust to suit so that
the mixture remains correct. That means more power when power is not
wanted.

A simple cable connection is the safest and most reliable way to control
the power of any road-going automobile engine. Don't want power? Take your
foot off the gas.

And I don't care if airplanes have had wire-everything for the last 50-
years or whatever. Road-going passenger cars are given none of the sort of
scrutiny and highly-competent maintenance and inspection that airplanes are
given regularly.

--
Tegger

Vic Smith

2009-12-06 21:56:56 UTC