Toyota Runaway Cause: Electronic Throttle/Cruise Control?
john
accelerated out of control.
C. E. White
"john" <john...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6a6c3377-a2ad-4b0d...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
I would bet that this is mostly crap. The guy driving the Lexus that got all
the attention was an idiot. How could he not put the car in neutral? Even my
82 year old Mother knows to do that. I tried it on her Higlander today ...
works no problem (well except the engine wasn't racing out of control since
her floor mats are properly secured).
Ever since the Audi 5000 faux unintended acceleration problem, it seems that
every few year a different manufacturer is accused of building cars that
mysteriously accelerate as if they were demon possesed. I suspect in most
cases the problem is pedal confusion, or pressing on both pedals at once.
Ask yourself who benefits from spreading these stories around (think
ambulance chasings scum suckers...).
Now when I was young, we had a car that had true intentional unintended
acceleration. My Father bought it used and it had been wrecked and abused.
The motor mounts were weak and it had the old style throttle rod setup (not
a cable, but hard rods and bellcranks) If you backed out of the garage and
yanked it from reverse to drive without stopping, the motor would flex on
the mounts enough to open the throttle and the car would peel out. The
efffect didn't last past a short distance but as a sixteen year old I
thought it was very cool.
Ed
Hachiroku ハチロク
>
>
> "john" <john...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6a6c3377-a2ad-4b0d...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>A Prius owner tried to resume her cruise control, and then the car
>> accelerated out of control.
>>
>> http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=8982147
>>
>> http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/RunawayToyotas/
>
> I would bet that this is mostly crap. The guy driving the Lexus that got
> all the attention was an idiot. How could he not put the car in neutral?
> Even my 82 year old Mother knows to do that. I tried it on her Higlander
> today ... works no problem (well except the engine wasn't racing out of
> control since her floor mats are properly secured).
IIRC, it was a rented car. I bet he said "Let's see what this baby will
do!" and pressed the accelerator to the floor, it got out of hand and then
he freaked out.
C. E. White
"Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11.05....@e86.GTS...
The guy was supposedly a highway patrol officer....I just find it hard
to believe they had time to make a 911 call and not time to put the
car in neutral. I can understand the confusion with the start/stop
button if it was a rental, but not the shift level.
Ed
ransley
> "Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2009.11.05....@e86.GTS...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 22:52:56 -0500, C. E. White wrote:
>
> >>news:6a6c3377-a2ad-4b0d...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> >>>A Prius owner tried to resume her cruise control, and then the car
> >>> accelerated out of control.
>
> >>>http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=8982147
>
> >>>http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/RunawayToyotas/
>
> >> I would bet that this is mostly crap. The guy driving the Lexus
> >> that got
> >> all the attention was an idiot. How could he not put the car in
> >> neutral?
> >> Even my 82 year old Mother knows to do that. I tried it on her
> >> Higlander
> >> today ... works no problem (well except the engine wasn't racing
> >> out of
> >> control since her floor mats are properly secured).
>
> > IIRC, it was a rented car. I bet he said "Let's see what this baby
> > will
> > do!" and pressed the accelerator to the floor, it got out of hand
> > and then
> > he freaked out.
>
> The guy was supposedly a highway patrol officer....I just find it hard
> to believe they had time to make a 911 call and not time to put the
> car in neutral. I can understand the confusion with the start/stop
> button if it was a rental, but not the shift level.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Or turn off the key and put on the parking brake
C. E. White
"ransley" <Mark_R...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:0b6605b2-aac9-44d2...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> > The guy was supposedly a highway patrol officer....I just find it
> > hard
> > to believe they had time to make a 911 call and not time to put
> > the
> > car in neutral. I can understand the confusion with the start/stop
> > button if it was a rental, but not the shift level.
> >
> > Ed
>Or turn off the key and put on the parking brake
Supposedly the car was a Lexus with the Start/Stop button. With the
car in gear just pushing this button does nothing - you have to press
and hold it for three seconds for it to kill the engine if the car is
in gear. Since it was reportedly a rental, I can understand the driver
not knowing this fact. However, I still cannot imagine him not putting
the car into neutral.
And why call 911? Did they figure Scotty was going to beam them out of
the car?
Ed
E. Meyer
On 11/5/09 6:54 AM, in article hcui2i$94p$1...@news.eternal-september.org, "C.
E. White" <cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote:
"The guy was supposedly..."; "Supposedly the car was a Lexus..."; "Since it
was reportedly a rental..."
I feel like I'm reading a court transcript or a CYA newscast. Are you guys
all lawyers?
hls
"C. E. White" <cewhite...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:C8idnW5A-
> Now when I was young, we had a car that had true intentional unintended
> acceleration. My Father bought it used and it had been wrecked and abused.
> The motor mounts were weak and it had the old style throttle rod setup
> (not a cable, but hard rods and bellcranks) If you backed out of the
> garage and yanked it from reverse to drive without stopping, the motor
> would flex on the mounts enough to open the throttle and the car would
> peel out. The efffect didn't last past a short distance but as a sixteen
> year old I thought it was very cool.
>
> Ed
>
you
turned the steering wheel to the left it would accelerate wildly on its own.
It was
a broken motor mount.
C. E. White
"E. Meyer" <epme...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:C7182AB3.13675%epme...@gmail.com...
No. I just resist stating information as facts known to me when I am
repeating things reported by the press. If you review a bunch of web
sites you can get a pretty good picture of what happened in this one
particualr case.
http://www.10news.com/news/20831532/detail.html
That report refers to the car as a loaner, not a rental. It mentions
all weather floor mats as a potential cause. It also implies the 911
call lasted at a relatively long time.
http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?tid=6395
This one mentions that the car had all weather loor mats that were
longer than the correct ones for the car.
http://www.ennislaw.com/toyota_floor_mat_recall_news_10262009.html
This one mentions that the mats in the car were actually mats intended
for a Lexus SUV and that they were not properly secured. My Mom's
Toyota Highlander has two clips that very securely locate the floor
mats. As long as the mats are proplerly installed I can't see haw they
could cause a problem.
This site also mentions that the car would lose braking power with the
throttle wide open. This is true for any vehicle that uses engine
vacuum to provide brake boost, not just a Lexus or Toyota. The booster
only stores enough enough vaccum for a few stops. An engine at WOT
doesn't provide any additional vacuum. So if your throttle is stuck
wide open, and you repeatedly press on the brakes, you will loose
boost.
However, I still say if the guy had moved the shifter into neutral, he
could have stopped the car. But that is jsut my opinion.
Ed
hls
"C. E. White" <cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:hcum2j$bn1
>
> However, I still say if the guy had moved the shifter into neutral, he
> could have stopped the car. But that is jsut my opinion.
>
> Ed
I tried this technique and there is nothing to stop you from flipping the
shifter up to
neutral. You might over-rev an engine (especially if the electronics have
rebelled)
but you will be able to slow and stop. The brakes dont stop working if the
vacuum is lost...you just have to depend upon your leg muscles. You may
THINK
you have lost all brakes, but they are still there.
Don Stauffer
>
> I would bet that this is mostly crap. The guy driving the Lexus that got
> all the attention was an idiot. How could he not put the car in neutral?
> Even my 82 year old Mother knows to do that. I tried it on her Higlander
> today ... works no problem (well except the engine wasn't racing out of
> control since her floor mats are properly secured).
>
Consider the Prius is drive by wire and shift by wire. Also, the car
has ABS. Theoretically a signal could hold the brake bypass open. A
computer malfunction could cause a lot of havoc.
I have owned two cars that had a sticking throttle problem, but they
were both stick shift and my first impulse was always to depress the
clutch. Since my new Prius is automatic (and computer controlled at
that) I am a bit worried. I am thinking of engaging parking brake and
testing full throttle. The parking brake does seem to be a purely
mechanical deal.
Before my retirement I worked in the aerospace industry, and have seen
products (not from my employer but from another company) that made me
feel uncomfortable in their fly-by-wire implementations. And those were
quad redundant. I suspect my Prius control computer has NO redundancy.
Don Stauffer
Ah, but some of the Toyotas are shift by wire. That is, there is no
physical linkage, merely a switch that sends a signal to the computer.
And, keyless ignition. The ON-OFF switch sends the shutdown signal to
the computer. I have a Prius, and I'm a bit worried.
dsi1
> "E. Meyer" <epme...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> "The guy was supposedly..."; "Supposedly the car was a Lexus...";
Supposedly these cars use hydraulic pressure supplied by the power
steering pump for braking assist not engine vacuum. Well, that's what I
hear anyway.
>
> However, I still say if the guy had moved the shifter into neutral, he
> could have stopped the car. But that is jsut my opinion.
Odd, ain't it?
>
> Ed
>
>
Scott Dorsey
>C. E. White wrote:
>
>Supposedly these cars use hydraulic pressure supplied by the power
>steering pump for braking assist not engine vacuum. Well, that's what I
>hear anyway.
It makes good sense, if the engine isn't going to be running most of the
time anyway.
The old BMW E28 did something similar. It worked very well, and it included
a pressure reservoir that provided considerable braking for a good while after
the engine was shut off. It was substantially more complicated than it needed
to be and had dozens of seals that all went bad at the same time, mind you.
But that has more to do with the implementation than the concept.
>> However, I still say if the guy had moved the shifter into neutral, he
>> could have stopped the car. But that is jsut my opinion.
>
>Odd, ain't it?
Dunno, I have never driven one of the hybrids. I'm still commuting to work
in a car with a manual choke. It's paid for.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
dsi1
> In article <P6CIm.3404$gg6...@newsfe25.iad>, dsi1 <ds...@spamnet.com> wrote:
>> C. E. White wrote:
>>
>> Supposedly these cars use hydraulic pressure supplied by the power
>> steering pump for braking assist not engine vacuum. Well, that's what I
>> hear anyway.
>
> It makes good sense, if the engine isn't going to be running most of the
> time anyway.
>
> The old BMW E28 did something similar. It worked very well, and it included
> a pressure reservoir that provided considerable braking for a good while after
> the engine was shut off. It was substantially more complicated than it needed
> to be and had dozens of seals that all went bad at the same time, mind you.
> But that has more to do with the implementation than the concept.
The advantage of a vac boost system is simplicity. OTOH, there's cars
where fitting that big booster thingie just ain't practical. OTOH, even
though your old BMW had it, the system still seems high-tech and exotic
these days and my guess is that it's a selling point on high-end cars.
>
>>> However, I still say if the guy had moved the shifter into neutral, he
>>> could have stopped the car. But that is jsut my opinion.
>> Odd, ain't it?
>
> Dunno, I have never driven one of the hybrids. I'm still commuting to work
> in a car with a manual choke. It's paid for.
I sure hope that it's paid off. Those things disappeared with carburettors!
The cars I had with chokes were set by pressing the accelerator to the
floor once. I had one Brit car with a real dash operated choke - just
don't forget to push that sucker back in! :-)
> --scott
Al Falfa
in neutral under such unusual circumstances is not a conditioned response.
The 911 call from the back seat was a futile attempt to clear traffic.
C. E. White
"dsi1" <ds...@spamnet.com> wrote in message
news:P6CIm.3404$gg6...@newsfe25.iad...
> Supposedly these cars use hydraulic pressure supplied by the power
> steering pump for braking assist not engine vacuum. Well, that's
> what I hear anyway.
For sure some cars use hydraulic brake assit instead of vacuum assit
for the brakes (my 2001 Mustang GT did for instance). However, the
reports I read indicated that the Lexus in the California wreck used a
vaccum booster (and the Lexus parts catalog supports this).
Hydralic type boosters depend on the engine running to provide
hydraulic pressure. You can include an accumulator in the circuit to
provide back up boost for sutuations where the engine dies, but this
is still limited.
I am not sure what the hybrid vehicles use. A hybrid you can't depend
on either engine vacuum or an engine driven hydualic pump to provide
brake boost, so I assume they have an electrically driven hydraulic
pump to provide the boost but I don't know for sure. Maybe they use
the ABS pump....
>> However, I still say if the guy had moved the shifter into neutral,
>> he could have stopped the car. But that is jsut my opinion.
>
> Odd, ain't it?
Yes. I guess even trained professionals can panic.
Ed
dsi1
> "dsi1" <ds...@spamnet.com> wrote in message
> news:P6CIm.3404$gg6...@newsfe25.iad...
>
>> Supposedly these cars use hydraulic pressure supplied by the power
>> steering pump for braking assist not engine vacuum. Well, that's
>> what I hear anyway.
>
> For sure some cars use hydraulic brake assit instead of vacuum assit
> for the brakes (my 2001 Mustang GT did for instance). However, the
> reports I read indicated that the Lexus in the California wreck used a
> vaccum booster (and the Lexus parts catalog supports this).
Thanks for that info.
>
> Hydralic type boosters depend on the engine running to provide
> hydraulic pressure. You can include an accumulator in the circuit to
> provide back up boost for sutuations where the engine dies, but this
> is still limited.
>
> I am not sure what the hybrid vehicles use. A hybrid you can't depend
> on either engine vacuum or an engine driven hydualic pump to provide
> brake boost, so I assume they have an electrically driven hydraulic
> pump to provide the boost but I don't know for sure. Maybe they use
> the ABS pump....
That's a good question. I would suppose you could even use the drive
motors to slow the car down. Hybrid cars are such a complicated animal.
>
>>> However, I still say if the guy had moved the shifter into neutral,
>>> he could have stopped the car. But that is jsut my opinion.
>> Odd, ain't it?
>
> Yes. I guess even trained professionals can panic.
My guess is that you don't really know how you'd act in such a situation
until it happens. Good thing this is such a rare event.
>
> Ed
>
>
Ray O
"C. E. White" <cewh...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:hcutqj$ijj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Good question on hybrid brake assist. The power steering system uses an
electric motor to provide assist, and so there is no electrically driven
hydraulic pump for the power steering system. I would imagine that hybrids
use some kind of electric assist for the brakes. The ABS system on a Toyota
does not have a pump, just valves that open and close rapidly to modulate
brake force to individual wheels.
--
Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)
Jules
> The brakes dont stop working if the
> vacuum is lost...you just have to depend upon your leg muscles. You may
> THINK you have lost all brakes, but they are still there.
Yes - only had it happen to me once (coil lost power and so the engine
died) but I was running at around 80 at the time and it was something of a
surreal experience. I think the split second before I realised what was
going on was perhaps stranger, as the car began to slow due to the rear
wheels turning the dead engine.
Our truck's old enough to have no engine assist for the brakes at all, so
the leg gets a good work-out :-)
cheers
Jules
Hachiroku ハチロク
>> And why call 911? Did they figure Scotty was going to beam them out of
>> the car?
>>
>> Ed
> Under the circumstances, panic was very likely a factor. Putting one's
> car in neutral under such unusual circumstances is not a conditioned
> response.
Last time something like this happened to me, I was 19. I also am not a
CHiP. I knew enough to put the car in neutral and kill the motor.
Hachiroku ハチロク
>> And why call 911? Did they figure Scotty was going to beam them out of
>> the car?
>>
>> Ed
>>
>>
>>
> "The guy was supposedly..."; "Supposedly the car was a Lexus..."; "Since
> it was reportedly a rental..."
>
> I feel like I'm reading a court transcript or a CYA newscast. Are you
> guys all lawyers?
Pre law.
Al Falfa
"Hachiroku ハチロク" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11.05....@e86.GTS...
about shifting from a Prius from Drive to Neutral. The shift lever is
always resting in the neutral position. After playing with this for a while
it seems the fastest way to get from drive to neutral is to pull it into the
drive slot and then move back to the neutral slot. Is this what you did
when you were 19?
Daniel Who Wants to Know
"Don Stauffer" <stau...@usfamily.net> wrote in message
news:4af2ed31$0$87070$815e...@news.qwest.net...
>
> Consider the Prius is drive by wire and shift by wire. Also, the car has
> ABS. Theoretically a signal could hold the brake bypass open. A computer
> malfunction could cause a lot of havoc.
>
> I have owned two cars that had a sticking throttle problem, but they were
> both stick shift and my first impulse was always to depress the clutch.
> Since my new Prius is automatic (and computer controlled at that) I am a
> bit worried. I am thinking of engaging parking brake and testing full
> throttle. The parking brake does seem to be a purely mechanical deal.
>
> Before my retirement I worked in the aerospace industry, and have seen
> products (not from my employer but from another company) that made me feel
> uncomfortable in their fly-by-wire implementations. And those were quad
> redundant. I suspect my Prius control computer has NO redundancy.
See
http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu256/jayman_photo/Prius%20Stuff/brakemap.jpg
or http://tinyurl.com/yjr2b3l which is the hydraulic diagram from the NHW20
Prius. During normal operation (no faults, HV batt less than 82% SOC) SMC
1&2 are both closed and SCSS is open. When you brake the pressure sensors
(PMC 1&2) and the stroke sensor tell the brake ECU how hard you want to
brake and the HV (hybrid vehicle) ECU applies regenerative braking
accordingly. The stroke simulator is there merely to give you a normal pedal
"feel". If you brake too hard for regeneration to soak it all up or the HV
batt is at 82% the brake ECU modulates SLAFR (Solenoid Linear Apply Front
Left), SLRFL (Solenoid Linear Release Front Left), ETC. to allow fluid from
the accumulator and thus the assist pump motor to flow to the wheel
cylinders to apply them. The rears are applied first to help maintain
proper brake balance.
If a fault occurs or all electrical power is lost SCSS closes and SMC 1&2
open and the brake system functions exactly like any other unassisted
hydraulic braking system would, except the rears are not applied.
Hachiroku ハチロク
Nah. I pushed in the clutch and shifted into neutral.
Don Stauffer
> See
> http://i653.photobucket.com/albums/uu256/jayman_photo/Prius%20Stuff/brakemap.jpg
> or http://tinyurl.com/yjr2b3l which is the hydraulic diagram from the NHW20
> Prius. During normal operation (no faults, HV batt less than 82% SOC) SMC
> 1&2 are both closed and SCSS is open. When you brake the pressure sensors
> (PMC 1&2) and the stroke sensor tell the brake ECU how hard you want to
> brake and the HV (hybrid vehicle) ECU applies regenerative braking
> accordingly. The stroke simulator is there merely to give you a normal pedal
> "feel". If you brake too hard for regeneration to soak it all up or the HV
> batt is at 82% the brake ECU modulates SLAFR (Solenoid Linear Apply Front
> Left), SLRFL (Solenoid Linear Release Front Left), ETC. to allow fluid from
> the accumulator and thus the assist pump motor to flow to the wheel
> cylinders to apply them. The rears are applied first to help maintain
> proper brake balance.
>
> If a fault occurs or all electrical power is lost SCSS closes and SMC 1&2
> open and the brake system functions exactly like any other unassisted
> hydraulic braking system would, except the rears are not applied.
>
>
Thanks, Daniel.
Hachiroku ハチロク
> A Prius owner tried to resume her cruise control, and then the car
> accelerated out of control.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=8982147
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/RunawayToyotas/
The new cruise controls do not cancel below 30 MPH like the old ones did.
It's in the Owner's Manual.
Mike Hunter
swift by agreeing to pay us so much more to buy one of our Toyotas, rather
than one of the domestics we also sold. However, I would expect they would
be savvy enough to place the tranny in neutral and apply the brakes, rather
than lose control of their car and run off a cliff, but apparently some of
them are not very savvy. LOL
"Hachiroku ????" <Tru...@e86.GTS> wrote in message
news:pan.2009.11.07....@e86.GTS...
jr92
> A Prius owner tried to resume her cruise control, and then the car
> accelerated out of control.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=8982147
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/RunawayToyotas/
I had the same problem happen to me many years ago. My '76 Pinto had
the throttle stick wide open. After about 8 minutes, and a top end
speed of about 67mph, I found a cotton field and ran it into it,
slowing me down enough that I could jump out of the car before it hit
a fence post. I wasnt hurt, but it cost me 94 bucks to replace the
bumper that was busted,
Point being, how the hell does a Toyota PRUIS "ACCELERATE OUT OF
CONTROL" under ANY conditions?????????????
Hachiroku ハチロク
> On Nov 4, 10:26 pm, john <johngd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> A Prius owner tried to resume her cruise control, and then the car
>> accelerated out of control.
>>
>> http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=8982147
>>
>> http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/RunawayToyotas/
>
>
>
> I had the same problem happen to me many years ago. My '76 Pinto had the
> throttle stick wide open. After about 8 minutes, and a top end speed of
> about 67mph, I found a cotton field and ran it into it, slowing me down
> enough that I could jump out of the car before it hit a fence post. I
> wasnt hurt, but it cost me 94 bucks to replace the bumper that was busted,
Could have definitely put that car into neutral, shut off the engine and
coasted to a stop...>
>
>
> Point being, how the hell does a Toyota PRUIS "ACCELERATE OUT OF
> CONTROL" under ANY conditions?????????????
I think the correct term is "Operator Error".
jr92
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think one could fall asleep, let his right foot fully accerlate the
gas pedel, and drive five miles before the auto would reach dangerous
levels, speed-wise, in a Prius.
Mike Hunter
clutch or place the tranny in neutral and step on the brake? LOL
"jr92" <coach...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b87fdba3-3e14-46ed...@37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Mike Hunter
"jr92" <coach...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:baf91ca7-6bf9-44fb...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Not Me
> I had the same problem happen to me many years ago. My '76 Pinto had
> the throttle stick wide open. After about 8 minutes, and a top end
> speed of about 67mph, I found a cotton field and ran it into it,
> slowing me down enough that I could jump out of the car before it hit
> a fence post. I wasnt hurt, but it cost me 94 bucks to replace the
> bumper that was busted
Lucky you didn't burn to death in the fuel fire Pintos were famous for.
C. E. White
"Not Me" <Not...@Home.Base> wrote in message
news:neWdnXKt3Y2WbGvX...@speakeasy.net...
While Pinto's may have been famous for this, it was not a justifiable
accusation. The facts are much different that the perception. Pintos were no
more likely to catch on fire that other small cars from the same era. Pintos
were the victim of a viscous smear campaign sort of like what is building
over this Toyota floor mat / cruise control / unintended acceleration issue.
Ed
Daniel Who Wants to Know
news:elmop-D91696....@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article
> <baf91ca7-6bf9-44fb...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> jr92 <coach...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think one could fall asleep, let his right foot fully accerlate the
>> gas pedel, and drive five miles before the auto would reach dangerous
>> levels, speed-wise, in a Prius.
>
Correct. The car is electronically limited (not power limited) to roughly
105 MPH. If you floor it the car will accelerate to 105 and then hold there
at that speed as if you had set the cruise control.
Hachiroku ハチロク
LOL! Not quite. They're actually pretty quick, because the DC motor
produces all its torque from 0RPM.
Mr Ed
shortened his Pinto by 4 inches. We wrapped a chain around the bumper to a
tree, floored it and got 3 inches back. We looked at his gas tank and it
had the drain plug indentation in the gas tank metal. He was one of the
lucky ones. It didn't pierce it and explode. The drain plug should have
been placed elsewhere out of dangers way. Then if it exploded it would be a
normal accident.
Mr Ed
http://www.ed-camin.com
http://home.earthlink.net/~bcamin/betty.htm
http://www.mountairykiwanis.org
http://www.ma-artleague.org
http://home.earthlink.net/~j3dogs/index.htm
http://home.earthlink.net/~donnahayes/index.htm
E. Meyer
hJadnXIdqY48qGXX...@earthlink.com, "Mr Ed"
<eca...@earthlink.net> wrote:
And that was the essence of it. It was a very small car (by 1970's
standards) and because of the placement & design of the gas tank, if they
were rear-ended, they could & did blow up. To call it a "fuel fire" really
doesn't connote the actual problem.
Paranoia at the time smeared across all Fords and for a while, all you could
find in the used car lots were used Fords as people dumped them for anything
else. I got a really nice '70 Torino wagon for $150 at the height of the
craziness. Drove it for 6 months until things settled down & sold it for
$500.
Al Falfa
"E. Meyer" <epme...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:C71DA903.1376D%epme...@gmail.com...
> Paranoia at the time smeared across all Fords and for a while, all you
> could
> find in the used car lots were used Fords as people dumped them for
> anything
> else. I got a really nice '70 Torino wagon for $150 at the height of the
> craziness. Drove it for 6 months until things settled down & sold it for
> $500.
>
when it jumped from park into reverse. Then, of course, there were the
exploding gas tanks on those Chevrolet and GMC pickups. Tort reform.
That's the answer.
Sharx35
"Al Falfa" <cr...@eastforty.fld> wrote in message
news:4af876a7$1...@newsgate.x-privat.org...
What kind of idiot would unload the trunk with the engine running and the
Parking Brake not engaged?
hls
"Sharx35" <sha...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:md1Km.52154
>
> What kind of idiot would unload the trunk with the engine running and the
> Parking Brake not engaged?
I had the same thoughts, but decided not to post them. People can
shortcircuit even a foolproof system
Al Falfa
Sharx35
"Al Falfa" <cr...@eastforty.fld> wrote in message
Ah, but a FORD parking brake. Fix Or Repair Daily
Vic Smith
wrote:
If it was the car wouldn't have moved.
But anyway, I never knew a driver that would thing twice about opening
the trunk with a car running in park.
Anybody who says they've never done it is probably lying.
Might be some anal types who use a parking break in flatlands.
I never do, and often get in the trunk or check trans fluid level with
the engine running and the parking brake not set.
Just put it in park.
Oh, I'm a real daredevil, ain't I? Evic Ksmith I am.
Might be more careful with a strange car, and use the e-brake,
but maybe not. Park is park.
Fords have had a number of these supposed incidents.
There was a supervisor who had his legs broken by a Ford sedan in the
steel mills where I worked in 1968.
I'm not convinced they weren't "user error."
Was it ever proved they could slip from park?
Has that ever been determine for ANY car?
Most likely the cars were left in gear. Many autos can sit still in
gear waiting for a slight engine surge to get them rolling.
--Vic
jim
Vic Smith wrote:
>
> If it was the car wouldn't have moved.
> But anyway, I never knew a driver that would thing twice about opening
> the trunk with a car running in park.
What so different about opening the trunk from opening the hood.
Probably millions of people have opened the hood with the engine
running.
-jim
Al Falfa
"Vic Smith" <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:o5ghf55evnloee9me...@4ax.com...
Start here:
http://www.autosafety.org/srr/FP-R.pdf
Much of this stuff predates the 'net. My friend was killed in the early
80s. Ford settled that one.
E. Meyer
On 11/9/09 8:42 PM, in article 4af8d31f$1...@newsgate.x-privat.org, "Al Falfa"
<cr...@eastforty.fld> wrote:
Most of this also predates auto recalls. Actually, this is the sort of
stuff that led to the recall system.
Vic Smith
wrote:
>
>
>
>On 11/9/09 8:42 PM, in article 4af8d31f$1...@newsgate.x-privat.org, "Al Falfa"
><cr...@eastforty.fld> wrote:
>
\
>>
>> Start here:
>>
>> http://www.autosafety.org/srr/FP-R.pdf
>>
>> Much of this stuff predates the 'net. My friend was killed in the early
>> 80s. Ford settled that one.
>>
>>
>
>Most of this also predates auto recalls. Actually, this is the sort of
>stuff that led to the recall system.
Good article about it
http://www.fordification.com/tech/auto-trans_recall.htm
Never found a defect on the Fords.
Driver error.
And lawsuit mass hysteria.
I've done some stupid things myself, but never got run over by my car.
Just lucky I guess.
But I never drove an auto Ford.
Seems with my Chevys once you bring the shift lever all the way up
until it stops you're in park. And it stays there. Every time.
So far.
--Vic
hls
> But I never drove an auto Ford.
> Seems with my Chevys once you bring the shift lever all the way up
> until it stops you're in park. And it stays there. Every time.
> So far.
>
> --Vic
With the Fords I had, they also stopped in Park. Once that parking pawl was
set, they were not going anywhere, but there is plenty of documentation that
mine were perhaps lucky experiences.
With certain models of GM with rear disc brakes, you could have problems
with those parking brakes. These brakes had mechanical adjusters, and
applied the rear caliper pistons manually when the brake was set. The
problem
was that the adjusters often didnt adjust, and the parking brakes wouldnt
hold
for sour apples.
dsi1
The truth is that the parking brake that actuate on disk brakes are not
very good. Drums require less of a load on the friction material -
possibly because there's more surface area making contact on the drum
and also because the brake shoes have a self-locking action on the brake
drum. Some cars with four wheel disks will also have mini-brake drums
used exclusively for the parking brake function.
It would be great if someone came up with a positive disk brake locking
system. As it is, the disk brake parking brakes I've seen are based on
those used on 60s Fiats - ha ha ha.
Al Falfa
Take another look at that link. Recalls are mentioned.
C. E. White
"Al Falfa" <cr...@eastforty.fld> wrote in message
I remember that whole era. People were not careful about making sure
the transmission was in park. Ford sent my parents stickers for the
dash to remind the driver to put the car securely in park and apply
the parking brake before exiting the car with the engine running.
This was another trial lawyer driven frenzy. No one every wants to
admit their incompetence/stupiditiy was the actual cause of an
accident. Much more fun to hire a trial lawyer and sue a company with
deep pockets.
The only car I ever had "jump out of park" was the POS Cressida we
owned. And I didn't think it was the cars fault then. But since nobody
was injured, there was no point in trying to blame Toyota....too bad,
I suppose if I had run over my foot, I might have been able to sue
Toyota for big bucks...isn't that the American way?. Interestingly, in
the late 80's/early 90's the house next to mine at the time had
multiple cars crash through their side yard. The house across the
street was up a significant hill from the heighbors house. Three
different times they had cars roll down their driveway, across the
street, and into the neighbors side yard. None of the cars were same
(a Ford, a Toyota, and a Buick as I recall). Evey time the across the
street neighboor swore the cars were in park. Of course when the cars
were pulled out of the neighbors yard, they never were (lever near
park, key still in the ignition)....so obviously they mysteriously
jumped out of park. The problems stopped when the nighbors up the hill
moved (hope they moved to some place flat).
Ed
E. Meyer
<cr...@eastforty.fld> wrote:
I did say "most", not "all". Much of this discussion has been set in the
'60s & '70s.
I see the word "recall" in the list of stuff at that link. The interesting
title is "Why no Recall", which sort of implies the whole thing was
groundless.
Mike Hunter
"Al Falfa" <cr...@eastforty.fld> wrote in message
news:4af8b8ed$1...@newsgate.x-privat.org...
Al Falfa
> I remember that whole era. People were not careful about making sure the
> transmission was in park. Ford sent my parents stickers for the dash to
> remind the driver to put the car securely in park and apply the parking
> brake before exiting the car with the engine running. This was another
> trial lawyer driven frenzy. No one every wants to admit their
> incompetence/stupiditiy was the actual cause of an accident. Much more fun
> to hire a trial lawyer and sue a company with deep pockets.
>
> The only car I ever had "jump out of park" was the POS Cressida we owned.
> And I didn't think it was the cars fault then. But since nobody was
> injured, there was no point in trying to blame Toyota....too bad, I
> suppose if I had run over my foot, I might have been able to sue Toyota
> for big bucks...isn't that the American way?. Interestingly, in the late
> 80's/early 90's the house next to mine at the time had multiple cars crash
> through their side yard. The house across the street was up a significant
> hill from the heighbors house. Three different times they had cars roll
> down their driveway, across the street, and into the neighbors side yard.
> None of the cars were same (a Ford, a Toyota, and a Buick as I recall).
> Evey time the across the street neighboor swore the cars were in park. Of
> course when the cars were pulled out of the neighbors yard, they never
> were (lever near park, key still in the ignition)....so obviously they
> mysteriously jumped out of park. The problems stopped when the nighbors up
> the hill moved (hope they moved to some place flat).
>
poorly designed. In some cased the pointer would break loose and we had to
shift by feel. In other cases the pointer would move with the lever but
point at the wrong gear. Then there were cases where the linkage was so
sloppy we had to bump the lever at one end or the other to get the damn
thing into that gear. I think it was the latter case that led to my
friend's death. FWIW, she was a poor gal, unloading her laundry in front of
a Laundromat. Her two small children watched her die. I suppose her 70's
vintage Ford wasn't maintained very will and she probably set the brake
because it was hard to force it into park. Nobody will ever know what she
was thinking.
Al Falfa
smaller recalls? In fact, latent defects in manufacture have been corrected
since the automobile first hit the road.
Mike Hunter
loaded pointer. The leaver was what was connected to the transmission.
It was never a problem with the tranny.
One should be able to tell what position their tranny is in with their eyes
closed. The problem was with the operator who does not have enough sense
to apply the parking brake. The first automatics did not even have a park
position. The arrangement was neutral, drive, low, reverse. That worked
great to rock ones car out of mud and snow. Why in the world would anybody
want to trust their expensive vehicle to a small $3 pall in the gear back?
When ever I was demonstrating the features of the one of the new car we had
sold. I would always ask the buyer that question and remind them to always
use the parking brake instead, if for no other reason than to be sure it was
WORKING properly, in the event of brake failure.
A major problem we have in this country is we allow people, who do not know
how to drive, to teach others how to drive ;)
"Al Falfa" <cr...@eastforty.fld> wrote in message
news:4af9c04a$1...@newsgate.x-privat.org...
E. Meyer
On 11/10/09 1:40 PM, in article 4af9...@newsgate.x-privat.org, "Al Falfa"
<cr...@eastforty.fld> wrote:
Yes, I saw "Ford faces ...". What I didn't see was anything that said they
actually had to do it (not to say they didn't, or that they shouldn't have).
Steve
>> I think one could fall asleep, let his right foot fully accerlate the gas
>> pedel, and drive five miles before the auto would reach dangerous levels,
>> speed-wise, in a Prius.
>
>
> LOL! Not quite. They're actually pretty quick, because the DC motor
> produces all its torque from 0RPM.
>
>
One thing I have wondered.... how would a heavily loaded hybrid with a
very small ICE like a Prius do at sustaining speed up a very long, steep
grade, especially if you started out at the bottom with the battery pack
significantly discharged? I guess the ICE has enough (barely)
horsepower all by itself to maintain a minimum safe speed in most cases,
but it sure seems like it would be a close thing with a heavy load.
Steve
>>
>> What kind of idiot would unload the trunk with the engine running and
>> the Parking Brake not engaged?
> The parking brake was engaged.
>
Not if the car moved, it wasn't. "Engaged" doesn't mean "one click," it
means ENGAGED enough to hold. Still operator error.
Steve
>
> If it was the car wouldn't have moved.
> But anyway, I never knew a driver that would thing twice about opening
> the trunk with a car running in park.
> Anybody who says they've never done it is probably lying.
> Might be some anal types who use a parking break in flatlands.
> I never do, and often get in the trunk or check trans fluid level with
> the engine running and the parking brake not set.
> Just put it in park.
> Oh, I'm a real daredevil, ain't I? Evic Ksmith I am.
> Might be more careful with a strange car, and use the e-brake,
> but maybe not. Park is park.
Park is park, but Park was NEVER intended to actually hold the car.
Especially not back in the early days.
Yes, I sometimes use it the "wrong" way too on flat land, and in most
cases it DOES hold the car. But it warns ya right there in the owners
manual! And if you've ever had a transmission on most any brand open and
seen the spring *DESIGNED* to let the detent pop out if too much force
is exerted, you'd never trust it with your life (or the car when parking
on an incline) either.
My first car was a '68 Ford Ranchero, and I knew damn well that it would
drop into gear if you looked at it cross-eyed. The shifter detent
mechanism was so sloppy that you also had to hold the gear selector in
park with your left hand wrapped over the top of the steering column
while turning your key with the right hand... took me a while to lose
that habit after getting my '73 Plymouth. The really funny thing is that
if you watch some old TV shows with Ford cars, you can see the actors
doing exactly the same thing to start the car occasionally. It was
standard Ford starting procedure in those days. MOST people knew better
than to trust the shifter and used their parking brake.
Al Falfa
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
news:6_qdnVUeDo8Xd2fX...@texas.net...
C. E. White
"Mr Ed" <eca...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:hJadnXIdqY48qGXX...@earthlink.com...
What drain plug indentation. Neither the gas tank nor the rear end had a
drain plug. For Ford Pintos of that era you had to remove the differential
cover to drain the lube.
The facts are clear - Pinto were no more likely to catch on fire than other
vehicles from that era of the same size. Many cars of that era had gas tank
mounted in the same location in the same manner (for instance my 280Z had a
similar tank location). Even more modern vehicles have gas tanks mounted in
this manner. Late 90's Jeeps are now being investigated becasue the Ditlow
gang is fishing for new clients.
Ed
C. E. White
"C. E. White" <cewhite...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:krOdnQ_SwdHqwmbX...@earthlink.com...
Sorry, I got that wrong. The Pintos did have a drain plug, on the
front side. I knew they didn't have one on the rear, but a Pinto
expert told me they did have one on the front.
Ed
Steve
I know that a properly engaged parking brake will hold a vehicle against
the force of the engine at idle with an automatic transmission in gear.
Kinda like the (perhaps apocryphal) story of the railroad engineer
testifying at a trial. "The locomotive then struck the illegally parked
car...." The lawyer said, "AHA, you can't possibly KNOW the car was
illegaly parked!" "Of course I can," the engineer said, "because the
locomotive hit it."
Gary L. Burnore
>Al Falfa wrote:
>>
>> "Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
>> news:6_qdnVUeDo8Xd2fX...@texas.net...
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What kind of idiot would unload the trunk with the engine running
>>>>> and the Parking Brake not engaged?
>>>> The parking brake was engaged.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not if the car moved, it wasn't. "Engaged" doesn't mean "one click,"
>>> it means ENGAGED enough to hold. Still operator error.
>>>
>> What do you know about this? Nothing.
>>
>
>I know that a properly engaged parking brake will hold a vehicle against
>the force of the engine at idle with an automatic transmission in gear.
In fact, a properly engaged and adjusted brake will hold the engine
when a load is applied FROM idle.
>
>Kinda like the (perhaps apocryphal) story of the railroad engineer
>testifying at a trial. "The locomotive then struck the illegally parked
>car...." The lawyer said, "AHA, you can't possibly KNOW the car was
>illegaly parked!" "Of course I can," the engineer said, "because the
>locomotive hit it."
:)
jim
"C. E. White" wrote:
> >
> > The facts are clear - Pinto were no more likely to catch on fire
> > than other vehicles from that era of the same size. Many cars of
> > that era had gas tank mounted in the same location in the same
> > manner (for instance my 280Z had a similar tank location). Even more
> > modern vehicles have gas tanks mounted in this manner. Late 90's
> > Jeeps are now being investigated becasue the Ditlow gang is fishing
> > for new clients.
That's all true, but mis-leading. Lots of cars rupture gas tanks on rear
end collisions and some of them catch fire. The thing that made a
relatively minor rear end collision bad with the Pinto was that the
ruptured gas tank broke through the floor and spilled gas into the
passenger compartment. Plus the rear end impact had a tendency to jam
the doors so the passengers were trapped inside with the burning fuel.
It also didn't help that it came out in court that Ford had discovered
all of this in crash tests and had made a cost benefit calculation that
predicted that 100's of people would be burned alive and 1000's of cars
would burned but the calculated cost of settling those lawsuits that
this would produce would be less than the cost of fixing the problem. Of
course this turned out to be a huge miscalculation on their part
because that bit of information sent the jury awards through the roof
and if I recall there even were homicide charges filed.
-jim
hls
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
>
> the force of the engine at idle with an automatic transmission in gear.
A properly functioning and engaged parking brake has reasonable
restraining force. (My old 428 Cobrajet would, however, laugh
at parking brakes).
A transmission in Park will probably hold more. I have never had a Ford
slip out of Park, but I have darn sure broken a parking pawl in some of
the early trannies.
Al Falfa
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
The engine wasn't running. You know nothing of this accident. Why pretend
that you do?
hls
"Al Falfa" <cr...@eastforty.fld> wrote in message
>
>
> The engine wasn't running. You know nothing of this accident. Why
> pretend that you do?
How did the car back over the guy if the engine were not running? Please
enlighten
us.
Steve W.
Most of todays vehicles have "parking brakes" that are a JOKE. Many of
them will NOT hold a vehicle against the engine. I have seen more than
one that wouldn't even hold the vehicle on an incline!!!
As for trying to use park. Most modern transmissions will NOT go into
park while at any speed above a couple MPH. The pawl will just rip off
anyway.
However the parking pawl has a HUGE mechanical advantage over the
brakes. It can hold much better than the brakes ever could.
--
Steve W.
Al Falfa
"hls" <h...@nospam.nix> wrote in message
news:Z86dnVJONdcOMmHX...@giganews.com...
She parallel parked on a hill in front of a Laundromat. As she was
unloading her laundry from the trunk the car rolled back, crushing her into
another parked car. A broken bone pierced an artery and she bleed to
death. The indicator pointed at Park but the car was not in Park. It was a
70's vintage Ford sedan, probably seven to ten years old at the time.
hls
"Al Falfa" <cr...@eastforty.fld> wrote in message
news:4afc...@newsgate.x-privat.org...
> She parallel parked on a hill in front of a Laundromat. As she was
> unloading her laundry from the trunk the car rolled back, crushing her
> into another parked car. A broken bone pierced an artery and she bleed
> to death. The indicator pointed at Park but the car was not in Park. It
> was a 70's vintage Ford sedan, probably seven to ten years old at the
> time.
>
That is a real shame, and I am sorry that this happened to your friend.
It is hard to guess exactly what may have happened.
I was taught to park with the wheels oriented so that the curb (if any)
would provide secondary restraint for the car, to use Park, and to set
the parking brake as well.
The parking brake is really not much of a restraint on some cars. The
transmission Park should be a lot stronger, but the indicator could have
been off, the pawl could have snapped, or maybe the transmission
jumped out of park as you say.
Did her survivors sue Ford?
Al Falfa
"hls" <h...@nospam.nix> wrote in message
Steve
>
> "Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
>>
>> I know that a properly engaged parking brake will hold a vehicle
>> against the force of the engine at idle with an automatic transmission
>> in gear.
> **********
> A properly functioning and engaged parking brake has reasonable
> restraining force. (My old 428 Cobrajet would, however, laugh
> at parking brakes).
>
> A transmission in Park will probably hold more.
Actually the ultimate holding force of a parking pawl is relatively low.
At least on all the automatic transmissions I've had apart. Generally,
the pawl is constructed in such a way (usually with a spring on the
wedge that presses into gaps between a rotating cog and the case) that
it will momentarily disengage when a certain force is exceeded-
presumably to prevent damage from someone accidentally engaging park
while moving.
> I have never had a Ford
> slip out of Park,
I have. The stories aren't fabrications- some Ford shift detents on some
models of a certain era were very sloppy and wouldn't hold well. The
weight of the column shift lever could drop them into gear when you
slammed the door, for example.
Steve
>
> Most of todays vehicles have "parking brakes" that are a JOKE. Many of
> them will NOT hold a vehicle against the engine. I have seen more than
> one that wouldn't even hold the vehicle on an incline!!!
I've never had that, but I have had FWD cars that could drag the locked
rear wheels around....
>
> The pawl will just rip off
> anyway.
I've never seen one that didn't have a release spring to prevent just
that....
>
> However the parking pawl has a HUGE mechanical advantage over the
> brakes. It can hold much better than the brakes ever could.
I disagree. The pawls are MADE to pop free instead of break.
>
Steve
I'm certainly not trying to minimize a horrible loss. But if the brake
had been properly set, and a front wheel had been properly cramped
against the curb (as is REQUIRED by law in some cities - San Diego comes
to mind) this might not have happened even without the vehicle being in
"park." When parking on a steep hill, I personally don't trust any ONE
mechanism ("park," the parking brake, or cramping the wheel, leaving a
manual trans in 1st or reverse, etc) to protect me. I use all of them
combined.
hls
"Steve" <n...@spam.thanks> wrote in message
Well, the one I had in a 57 Tbird broke, it did not pop free.
Steve W.
>
>>
>> Most of todays vehicles have "parking brakes" that are a JOKE. Many of
>> them will NOT hold a vehicle against the engine. I have seen more than
>> one that wouldn't even hold the vehicle on an incline!!!
>
> I've never had that, but I have had FWD cars that could drag the locked
> rear wheels around....
See it a lot on trucks. GM, Ford and Dodge all have P-Brakes that are a
joke. Also seen the same problems on many of the 4 wheel disc systems,
>
>>
>> The pawl will just rip off
>> anyway.
>
> I've never seen one that didn't have a release spring to prevent just
> that....
I have seen more than one that had destroyed the pawl when the owner
managed to jam then into park while the vehicle was still moving a bit.
For the most part the newer units with electronic controls won't even
allow the vehicle to shift out of gear if the trans is under load and
the vehicle is in motion.
>>
>> However the parking pawl has a HUGE mechanical advantage over the
>> brakes. It can hold much better than the brakes ever could.
>
> I disagree. The pawls are MADE to pop free instead of break.
Once they are in they will stay in. I have never seen one "pop free" if
they are under load. It would be a real treat to go into court and
defend a design that was intended to fail under load.
The design is such that the parking pawl is engaged before the gear
reduction in the final drive. This alone gives it a mechanical leverage
advantage over a parking brake located at the wheel.
I have seen ones that were worn/damaged fail.
>>
--
Steve W.
Kevin
news:TqednQ_uQfByO2DX...@texas.net:
the shift from park problem was ONLY a problem when the driver did not
make sure the shift lever was down into the park position on the coloum
shift quadrent. every instance that I saw that was a problem was mostly
driver error. they threw the lever into park and often it didn`t drop
into the notch. so the driver said it was in park, but they didn`t fully
engauge the quadrent and so any jar could let it slip out of place. It
might not have been the absoult best design but I contend every one was
driver error. We never had a second complaint when shown and explained
to the customer. problem solved. KB
--
THUNDERSNAKE #9
Protect your rights or "Lose" them
The 2nd Admendment guarantees the others
C. E. White
"jim" <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net> wrote in message
news:6NudnZTIGeMZ3GHX...@bright.net...
>
>
> "C. E. White" wrote:
>
>> >
>> > The facts are clear - Pinto were no more likely to catch on fire
>> > than other vehicles from that era of the same size. Many cars of
>> > that era had gas tank mounted in the same location in the same
>> > manner (for instance my 280Z had a similar tank location). Even
>> > more
>> > modern vehicles have gas tanks mounted in this manner. Late 90's
>> > Jeeps are now being investigated becasue the Ditlow gang is
>> > fishing
>> > for new clients.
>
> That's all true, but mis-leading. Lots of cars rupture gas tanks on
> rear
> end collisions and some of them catch fire. The thing that made a
> relatively minor rear end collision bad with the Pinto was that the
> ruptured gas tank broke through the floor and spilled gas into the
> passenger compartment.
This is not true. Pinto's had a separate rear compartment floor. I
have never seen a claim that the rear floor ruputred. This claim is
associated with some other Fords from the 60's and 70's (Falcon,
Mustang, Fairlane) that used the top of the gas tank as the floor of
the trunk (the so called drop in gas tank design). Pintos did nto use
this design.
> Plus the rear end impact had a tendency to jam
> the doors so the passengers were trapped inside with the burning
> fuel.
Also not true - at least in the sense that this was more likely to
happen to Pinto's than other samll cars from that era. I have seenthis
claim associated with Mustangs Convertibles from the 90's, but never
for Pintos.
> It also didn't help that it came out in court that Ford had
> discovered
> all of this in crash tests and had made a cost benefit calculation
> that
> predicted that 100's of people would be burned alive and 1000's of
> cars
> would burned but the calculated cost of settling those lawsuits that
> this would produce would be less than the cost of fixing the
> problem. Of
> course this turned out to be a huge miscalculation on their part
> because that bit of information sent the jury awards through the
> roof
> and if I recall there even were homicide charges filed.
Also not true. From http://www.car-forums.com/s10/t2240.html :
"More startling, Schwartz shows that everyone's received ideas about
the fabled "smoking gun" memo are false (the one supposedly dealing
with how it was cheaper to save money on a small part and pay off
later lawsuits... and immortalized in the movie "Fight Club"). The
actual memo did not pertain to Pintos, or even Ford products, but to
American cars in general; it dealt with rollovers, not rear-end
collisions; it did not contemplate the matter of tort liability at
all, let alone accept it as cheaper than a design change; it assigned
a value to human life because federal regulators, for whose eyes it
was meant, themselves employed that concept in their deliberations;
and the value it used was one that they, the regulators, had set forth
in documents."
You have combined several alleged problems from multiple vehicles and
attriuted them all to the Pinto. How typical. I owned a Pinto at the
time of the horror stories, as did my Sister. Ours were recalled to
install extra protection for the fuel system Three things were done:
1) A polyethelyne shield was installed that wrapped under the bottom
of the gas tank. This was supposed to reduce the possibility that the
gas tank might rupture in a severe rear collision. It was claimed that
in some cases the Pinto fuel tank had ruptured when the rear end was
so severely crushed that the fuel tank was forced into contact with
the rear axle. Ford tests showed that this was no more likely with a
Pinto than was the case for many other small cars with similar gas
tank locations, but in the end they were forced to add this extra
protection.
2) A longer filler pipe. On a Pinto, the filler pipe fitted into the
gas tank from the side through a rubber grommet. It was alleged that
in the case of a severe rear impact the gas tank and rear fender could
be deformed in such a way that filler pipe would be pulled free of the
tank. The original pipe already extended into the tank by around 8
inches (I know, I removed the tank from my Pinto to get water out of
the tank). I have no idea how much longer the replacement pipe was.
3) The area where the filler pipe was attached to the rear fender was
beefed up. The recall added an extra metal flange to enusre that the
filler pipe would not be torn from the rear fender.
Instead of repeating old, bad, and misleading information, read this -
http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pinto_Case.pdf
.
Here is the main conclusion from that article:
"It is now time to sum up. The strong claim that the Pinto was a
firetrap entails a misconception. To be sure, the Pinto did contain a
design problem that was non-trivial and to some extent distinctive.
Even so, the number of fatalities that resulted from that design
problem is a minor fraction of the fatality estimates relied on by
those who present the "firetrap" characterization.Moreover, when all
vehicle fire fatalities are considered, the Pinto turns out to have
been less dangerous than the average subcompact and only slightly more
dangerous than the average car. Indeed, when occupant fatalities from
all highway causes are considered, the Pinto performed respectably.
Yet even if the general portrayal of the Pinto as a firetrap. should
be rejected as false, a limited core of the firetrap myth seems fair
enough: the Pinto's record in rear-end fire fatalities was not only
much worse than the all-car average but was apparently somewhat worse
than the record of most (though not all) of its subcompact
competitors."
Ed
jim
"C. E. White" wrote:
> You have combined several alleged problems from multiple vehicles and
> attriuted them all to the Pinto. How typical. I owned a Pinto at the
> time of the horror stories, as did my Sister. Ours were recalled to
> install extra protection for the fuel system Three things were done:
>
> 1) A polyethelyne shield was installed that wrapped under the bottom
> of the gas tank. This was supposed to reduce the possibility that the
> gas tank might rupture in a severe rear collision. It was claimed that
> in some cases the Pinto fuel tank had ruptured when the rear end was
> so severely crushed that the fuel tank was forced into contact with
> the rear axle. Ford tests showed that this was no more likely with a
> Pinto than was the case for many other small cars with similar gas
> tank locations, but in the end they were forced to add this extra
> protection.
Those are all part of the facts that came out in court or should have
come out in court (you may be a better lawyer in hindsight than Ford
could find at the time). Nevertheless the cost/benefit analysis was
seriously off the mark since Ford ended up paying out a lot more by
ignoring a problem than they would have by addressing the problems. I
personally liked the pinto and had no problem driving one myself.
>
> 2) A longer filler pipe. On a Pinto, the filler pipe fitted into the
> gas tank from the side through a rubber grommet. It was alleged that
> in the case of a severe rear impact the gas tank and rear fender could
> be deformed in such a way that filler pipe would be pulled free of the
> tank. The original pipe already extended into the tank by around 8
> inches (I know, I removed the tank from my Pinto to get water out of
> the tank). I have no idea how much longer the replacement pipe was.
>
> 3) The area where the filler pipe was attached to the rear fender was
> beefed up. The recall added an extra metal flange to enusre that the
> filler pipe would not be torn from the rear fender.
>
> Instead of repeating old, bad, and misleading information, read this -
> http://www.pointoflaw.com/articles/The_Myth_of_the_Ford_Pinto_Case.pdf
The juries heard what they heard and decided based on what they heard
not based on what is published 30 years later. Trying the case again
now on Usenet is pointless.
The thing i find interesting is that it is always been my observation
the big 3 automakers in the 60's and 70's had a serious flaw with
respect to defending the image of the smallest and most fuel efficient
cars in their line. Whenever there was a quality or safety issue it
always seemed to become bigger than life for this class of cars.
Whether this was intentional sabotage or just the natural result of the
existing Detroit culture, the automakers failed to comprehend the extent
to which this was undermining their entire future.
The big 3 wanted the public to have the perception that if you bought
an econ-box you should not expect to feel as safe or as comfortable and
you should also expect a certain lack of reliability. Obviously they
would much preferred to have everybody buying the big cars that they
made and to have the public infer that absolutely everything else had to
be junk. After you have spent a lot of advertising dollars to hammer
that idea home, it definitely made it more difficult to sway a jury in
the opposite direction.
As far as Ford and GM were concerned the idea of building a pinto or a
vega was so the salesman on the lot could say to the customer, "you
don't want to buy one of those, if you want to buy something that is
really reliable and safe you want to buy one of these". That was the
pitch and it was a really piss poor marketing strategy. The customer
didn't go to the Honda or Toyota lots and think to themselves these are
just Pintos and Vegas like Detroit wanted them to.
-jim
grom...@live.com
> A Prius owner tried to resume her cruise control, and then the car
> accelerated out of control.
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=8982147
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/RunawayToyotas/
I just recently purchased a 2004 Toyota Camry and with my foot off the gas and going approx. 20 to 25 mph the engine just went full out acceleration. It did this twice within 5 minutes of driving. No floor mats involved. I love the car but this is too scary.
The Real Bev
changed to something less malevolent (cured by shifting to neutral and
tapping the throttle back to low idle), but the cause is looseness where
the throttle piston (?) goes into the housing -- the bearings are shot.
Maybe this is the cause of your problem.
--
Cheers, Bev
---------------------------------------------
"The primary purpose of any government entity
is to employ the unemployable."
Ashton Crusher
<bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 06/07/2015 11:18 AM, grom...@live.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 9:26:39 PM UTC-6, john wrote:
>>> A Prius owner tried to resume her cruise control, and then the car
>>> accelerated out of control.
>>>
>>> http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=8982147
>>>
>>> http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/RunawayToyotas/
>>
>> I just recently purchased a 2004 Toyota Camry and with my foot off
>> the gas and going approx. 20 to 25 mph the engine just went full out
>> acceleration. It did this twice within 5 minutes of driving. No floor
>> mats involved. I love the car but this is too scary.
>
>My 1988 Caddy does/did something like that; the mode seems to have
>changed to something less malevolent (cured by shifting to neutral and
>tapping the throttle back to low idle), but the cause is looseness where
>the throttle piston (?) goes into the housing -- the bearings are shot.
> Maybe this is the cause of your problem.
need to put gas in the tank.
The Real Bev
--
Cheers, Bev
===================================================================
"If your mechanic claims that he stands behind his brake jobs, keep
looking. You want to find one willing to stand in front of them."
-- B. Ward
Scott Dorsey
>On 06/07/2015 06:15 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
>> On Sun, 07 Jun 2015 12:06:56 -0700, The Real Bev
>> <bashl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 06/07/2015 11:18 AM, grom...@live.com wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at 9:26:39 PM UTC-6, john wrote:
>>>>> A Prius owner tried to resume her cruise control, and then the car
>>>>> accelerated out of control.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=8982147
>>>>>
>>>>> http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/RunawayToyotas/
>>>>
>>>> I just recently purchased a 2004 Toyota Camry and with my foot off
>>>> the gas and going approx. 20 to 25 mph the engine just went full out
>>>> acceleration. It did this twice within 5 minutes of driving. No floor
>>>> mats involved. I love the car but this is too scary.
>>>
>>>My 1988 Caddy does/did something like that; the mode seems to have
>>>changed to something less malevolent (cured by shifting to neutral and
>>>tapping the throttle back to low idle), but the cause is looseness where
>>>the throttle piston (?) goes into the housing -- the bearings are shot.
>>> Maybe this is the cause of your problem.
>>
>> Don't you know, Toyotas NEVER have problems. Many owner never even
>> need to put gas in the tank.
>
>Fool, that's Volkswagen!
filled the crankcase a couple times a day and it ran mostly on motor oil.
You could always tell when he was coming down the road, and you could tell
when he'd been there too.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."