Unintended Acceleration: A note on what to do from some experts..

[Fumesucker]

Car and Driver is one of the top car enthusiast magazines in America today, they investigated and performed actual experiments and then addressed what to do if your car accelerates when you don't want it to do so.

If you have any doubts whatsoever that you don't know what to do if your car suddenly accelerates against your wishes I strongly urge you to read the entire article at the link, doing so might just save your life.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept

Our focus here is not to question the validity of the “floor-mat” claims (some investigators have suggested that a faulty drive-by-wire system is to blame) but to present methods for coping with this heart-stopping situation and to investigate a Toyota’s relative performance during such an event. For our tests, we rounded up a disparate bunch: a V-6 Camry (a recalled vehicle), an Infiniti G37 convertible, and a hugely powerful 540-hp Roush Stage 3 Mustang.

Our tests were conducted at highway speeds, as the incident with the Lexus ES350 happened on an expressway, and in the lowest possible gear, as that's the worst-case scenario. Here is how to deal with a runaway car:

Hit the Brakes

Certainly the most natural reaction to a stuck-throttle emergency is to stomp on the brake pedal, possibly with both feet. And despite dramatic horsepower increases since C/D’s 1987 unintended-acceleration test of an Audi 5000, brakes by and large can still overpower and rein in an engine roaring under full throttle. With the Camry’s throttle pinned while going 70 mph, the brakes easily overcame all 268 horsepower straining against them and stopped the car in 190 feet—that’s a foot shorter than the performance of a Ford Taurus without any gas-pedal problems and just 16 feet longer than with the Camry’s throttle closed. From 100 mph, the stopping-distance differential was 88 feet—noticeable to be sure, but the car still slowed enthusiastically enough to impart a feeling of confidence. We also tried one go-for-broke run at 120 mph, and, even then, the car quickly decelerated to about 10 mph before the brakes got excessively hot and the car refused to decelerate any further. So even in the most extreme case, it should be possible to get a car’s speed down to a point where a resulting accident should be a low-speed and relatively minor event.

<snip>

We included the powerful Roush Mustang to test—in the extreme—the theory that “brakes are stronger than the engine.” From 70 mph, the Roush’s brakes were still resolutely king even though a pinned throttle added 80 feet to its stopping distance. However, from 100 mph, it wasn’t clear from behind the wheel that the Mustang was going to stop. But after 903 feet—almost three times longer than normal—the 540-hp supercharged Roush finally did succumb, chugging to a stop in a puff of brake smoke.

[Atman]

1. Kinda puts Toyota's totally bullshit "floor mat" excuse to rest.

It's an electronic/software problem. If they can stop a Mustang from 100 mph, a stupid floor mat wasn't the cause of Toyota's problems.

.

[Demeter]

2. My 1994 Saturn Has The Opposite Problem

but it's not worth the money putting in a new transmission...with 213K on it now. It works really good when the temperatures are above freezing, and we are going into spring, so...

Driving with my fingers crossed!

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[av8rdave]

4. Can you kill the ignition in a late model car when it's moving?

Back in the early 80s, my ex had a temper tantrum while driving and announced she would kill us both. She was trying to scare me (it worked) but the way she started driving I figured the kill scenario was a real possibility.

I reached over, grabbed the key and switched it off.

That did the trick.

[Fumesucker]

8. Yes, but in the case of some Toyota models you have to push a button for several seconds..

Those Toyota models that have a button to start and stop the car don't have the normal key lock on the steering column like most cars.

[av8rdave]

23. Thanks...apparently not something easily done in the heat of the moment

[nykym]

5. Recommended to counteract the unrec

for its informative information. Don't you ever have anything positive or logical to say or do you just like to stir the pot?

[The River]

6. Same Here

Rec+1 to counter the unrec.
Someone needs to chill.

[Romulox]

9. See just above for the OP's view of Toyota sudden acceleration victims--"stupid", "ignorant". nt

[Fumesucker]

11. This article demonstrates that a car with well over five times the power of a Prius

Can be halted with just the brakes at full throttle..

By someone who knows what they are doing..

[Romulox]

12. 54 people are dead. Neither you nor I (nor all of Toyota's engineers) can say just WHY right now.

I find this thread itself to be crass and dishonest.

[Fumesucker]

14. A lot of those people would be alive today if they had known what to do..

In other words if their ignorance had been corrected..

I have a relative who has no business at all driving a car, she has run into rock walls, into ditches, rear ended a school bus, driven down the exit ramp onto the interstate and run head on into an 18 wheeler, after over thirty five years of driving she has never sold a car, they have all been totalled. And now she talks on the cell phone continuously while driving.

[Romulox]

17. And ALL of them would've been alive if they had bought a Ford.

:hi:

[Fumesucker]

20. Right, Ford is perfect...

Except for the Explorers that had faulty tires which killed a lot of people.

And the Pinto that Ford knew would explode in a common rear end accident but decided it was cheaper to pay damages than fix the car.

[Romulox]

21. Sudden acceleration deaths in Fords in 2009/2010? 0. Toyotas? 54.

Are you suggesting that Ford drivers are smarter? Nope? I think it's as simple as this: YOU drive a Toyota, and YOU consider yourself the opposite of "stupid", "ignorant", so this thread is, at least in part, about convincing yourself and other Toyota drivers that it "can't happen to us!"

:hi:

[Fumesucker]

24. I don't drive a Toyota..

Right now I'm driving a 97 Expedition with a 5.4 and the towing package with the self leveling air rear suspension, I haven't owned a Toyota in about fifteen years.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fumesucker]

37. Nope, no Toyotas at all..

I have an 87 F150 that sooner or later I have to put another 302 in but I'm old enough where crawling under the car to work on it is getting really hard so I keep putting it off.

The closest thing to a Toyota in the family is an Acura 3.2 and that belongs to my son in law.

I would be making the same points if it was Fords or BMWs or Yugo or a damn Tatra for that matter.

I used to be a Bowtie guy but I'm long past caring about individual manufacturers. In the family we have two restored 63 C10's and a 66 Chevelle with a strong Mouse motor..

[Romulox]

41. So you have no first hand experience on the subject, but start multiple threads about it?

Including an ad hoc assessment of the drivers/victims (some of whom were not drivers, it should be noted!) intelligence and level of knowledge.


Sometimes "whatever" really is the most appropriate response. :silly:

[Fumesucker]

44. Started multiple threads?

I posted on an unintended acceleration thread last night, other than that I've stayed out of the car wars for quite some time now, it's about as losing a proposition as talking about circumcision or Dennis Kucinich..

[pipi_k]

29. Must be their "fault" for buying Toyotas, then...

[Romulox]

30. That's the ineluctable conclusion if you follow the logic in the OP--

to whit: Toyota sudden acceleration victims are "stupid and ignorant".

[pipi_k]

33. Actually, that's not the conclusion

The conclusion in the OP is that people who find themselves in a vehicle that suddenly accelerates, whatever that vehicle is, have options.

The article is merely using the Toyota...the big news item these days...to illustrate what someone should do to avoid becoming a statistic.


It can happen in any vehicle. I had a Dodge Coronet station wagon back in 1972 that did the same thing.

[Romulox]

36. 54 people dead. I guess they were all stupid and inexperienced. Especially the CHPs guy! nt

[pipi_k]

43. I would say that they were merely ignorant

of how to shut off the engine or slow it down.


As I stated before...there is nothing wrong with being ignorant. It only means a person doesn't know what he doesn't know.

[Romulox]

45. Ignorant of how not to die in a defectively engineered automobile, you surely mean?

What point is it that you think you're making here, exactly? That Toyota isn't legally, morally, and logically to blame for its horribly defective designs?

It's ultimately a bizarre argument that rests entirely on itself--you can cite no legal, or engineering, or moral authority to buttress it. So the people who died are "stupid" because you say so.

[elehhhhna]

85. 54 is the lowest possible lowball number "they" have ...

you can bet it's more than that.

[PVnRT]

34. And your true motive for unreccing the post is laid bare

Anything that isn't completely anti-Japanese is just anathema to you, isn't it?

[Romulox]

54. I have an awesome Roland drum set. How does that fit into your worldview?

And how does any of this have anything to do with 54 dead motorists? :shrug:

[MH1]

78. Ever have your transmission go out while your in the fast lane of a highway?

happened in a Ford. Luckily traffic was light.

[Atman]

13. That's not what the article demonstrates at all.

What it proves is that Toyota is full of shit and LYING about "floor mats" and sticky accelerator pedals. It's a problem with their drive-by-wire system and its software, which will be MUCH MORE COSTLY for Toyota to fix -- thus the lying.

Can't people read anymore?

.

[Fumesucker]

18. The drive by wire operates the throttle..

Even with the throttle wide open the brakes can still bring the car to a halt, that is what the article demonstrates.

And it's not known for certain where the fault lies.

[pipi_k]

26. The word "ignorant" wouldn't necessarily be derogatory

since it only implies that someone doesn't know something until they know it.


As for calling victims of unintended acceleration "stupid and ignorant", I don't think that was what the OP intended to do. The fault lies solely with the manufacturer. Nobody is "blaming the victim".


Giving people the information they need to avoid becoming statistics is in no way "blaming" them.

[Romulox]

27. "If you are ignorant and stupid it's much easier to be a victim.."

OP's words, just up thread. Was he entrapped? :silly:

[pipi_k]

31. If you are ignorant and stupid...

And this is how I understood that...

If you are ignorant....i.e. do not know what to do to decelerate, then it's easier to be a victim.


If you are stupid.... i.e. refuse to listen to good advice, then it's easier to be a victim.


Some people just don't know what to do but want to....ignorance.

Some people don't know and don't want to know....stupid.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pipi_k]

39. Actually, dear...

You are wrong. You must have me confused with someone else. In fact, I wouldn't even OWN a Toyota. Never have, never will. I hate them.


This is the first time I have bothered to reply in a thread on Toyotas. I invite you to do a bit of searching and then eat some crow.



And I'm in no way defending Toyota. I'm merely refuting your ridiculous claim that the OP is somehow trying to "blame" victims.

[Romulox]

42. Really, hon? "If you are ignorant and stupid it's much easier to be a victim.."

Seems you can't explain the above verbage, toots! :hi:

[pipi_k]

46. You are claiming that my Pro-Toyota bias is showing up in

EVERY Toyota thread. I'm inviting you to prove that statement.


As for the OP's verbage, I thought I did explain it. I don't think it means quite what you think, or want it to, mean.


But apparently we all must be paid shills for Toyota because you think we are.



There's a squirrel outside my kitchen window. I have a feeling I'd get as much logic from him as I have from certain people here.


See ya!

:hi:

[Romulox]

55. So...can't defend the statement? I suggesat you ALERT and change the subject!

:hi:

[Romulox]

15. So...who is it that needs to "chill" now? Me, the OP, or "ignorant, stupid" drivers of Toyotas

(OP's words, not mine.) :silly: :hi:

[PJPhreak]

57. I'm one of those "Toyota Drivers"...

And I also drive a BIG Ford Truck (30.000 GVW Loaded with Glass) 600-700 miles a night on High Speed two lane Country Roads for a Living. Roads like U.S.50,U.S.54,U.S.160,K-99 and K-196. All two lane 65-70 Mph Kansas Roads.

It isn't just "Toyota Drivers" that are Stupid and Ignorant....Its 40% of ALL drivers in the US!

Anybody that drives for a living will agree with me,a good portion of folk should have their DL,S forceably removed from their person and their cars sold.This group should NEVER be allowed on US Roads.EVER!

I'm not defending Toyota on this...Just the opposite in fact,Toyota has acted like the Nixon Admin. during Watergate!
Its not the fact that Toyota has produced an Automobile with a serious flaw,Almost all Car Companies have at one time or another had a problem like this (Ford Exploder,Topsy-Turvy Chevy Covairs and VW Bugs,Flash-Point Pintos,Mustangs and Crown Vics for example).

Its how Toyota decided to Cover up its problems instead of trying to fix them.

And Don't Think for one minute that Detroit has not done the same thing,in all the recalls involving the Car Models above Ford,Chevy,GM,VW,and Chrysler all have a policy to "Pay Off" victims of defective products and have then sign what amounts to a gag order to get their settlement...Keeping these incidents out of the court system and the view of the press.

And I will stand by my Car!I've had this "Cheap Piece of Jap Crap" for almost 16 years,driven the crap out of it,not always maintained it well and it still is going down the road...Please tell me an 86 Chevy Citation or an 86 Ford Escort will put up with me and my driving style as well as my 86 Corolla has....I Think Not!

Fords are getting better,There isn't a Modern Chevy that will last as long as the Corolla and lets not even talk about "Chrysler and Quality" it just isn't there!

I will make exception for the Chrysler 225 C.I Slant Six,the Chevy Stovebolt Six (Both the 250 and 292 C.I.)and the Ford 240 and 300 C.I Straight Sixes.

[Romulox]

61. My only point is that the OP smacks of "It couldn't happen to me!"--

a variant of blame the victim which is more about assuaging our own fears than getting at the truth.

[Fumesucker]

69. Sure it could happen to me..

But I would know what to do..

Stand on the brakes..

Put it in neutral..

Turn off the engine..

And since I RTFM I'd know to hold the start/stop button in for long enough to shut the car off.

[Romulox]

70. 2 or 3 subthreads is enough. Walk it back a few steps... nt

[hlthe2b]

7. Mine added as well...

[Romulox]

10. Learn how the messageboard software works before asking if people "don't ever" do anything, k?

:hi:

[DainBramaged]

16. Just remember, Car & Driver accepts advertising from Toyota

and take this article with a grain of salt.

[Fumesucker]

19. Consumer Reports doesn't accept any advertising and you don't like them either..

No one who doesn't bash Toyota 24/7/365 is credible in your eyes..

[Romulox]

22. Consumer Reports has admitted to recommending Toyotas without testing them at all, however.

So... :shrug:

[NoGOPZone]

40. Still repeating that canard? nt

[Romulox]

48. Here's a link to a NYT story that references the practice. Discontinued as to Toyota's only in 2007

Which suggests that Consumer Reports gave "automatic recommendations" to some of these recalled vehicles! :wow:

November 3, 2007

The Dings and Dents of Toyota

By MICHELINE MAYNARD

DETROIT, Nov. 2 — It might seem odd to suggest that a 70-year-old company is going through growing pains, especially one with $183 billion in annual sales.

But 2007 has been a difficult year for Toyota.

Its reputation for building high-quality vehicles has been tarnished, most recently by the decision by Consumer Reports to stop automatically giving a “recommended” label to all its cars and trucks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/03/business/worldbusiness/03toyota.html?pagewanted=print

:hi:

[NoGOPZone]

49. As the Consumer Reports Buying guide for every year states

In order for a vehicle to be recommended, it must meet three criteria. It must have TESTED WELL, it must have performed acceptably in crash test, and it must have at least average reliability in the annual reliability survey. The 'automatic recommendation' simply excepted Toyota from the last criteria. It did not mean Toyotas were recommended without any testing as you have said. Furthermore, every year for at least the past decade there has been at least one Toyota model that was not recommended by CR, most often trucks, which wouldn't be the caee if all models were automatically reecommended.

On edit: In fact, the article you linked says:

Consumer reports will require a year's worth of RELIABILITY DATA, AS IT DOES FOR OTHER CAR MAKERS, before deciding whether it can recommend a Toyota car.

[Romulox]

50. I'm talking about RELIABILITY data, not road tests!

And you know it. You are simply and 100% wrong on this issue. CR "automatically recommended" Toyotas up until 2007 without access to reliability data.

That means that CR "automatically" recommended the 2006 Carrola that killed a local woman as "reliable" without ever having examined the issue! :wow:

[NoGOPZone]

51. Your post above states testing them AT ALL

[Romulox]

56. No it doesn't. Frankly, it never occurred to me that CR did ROAD tests. I want RELIABILITY data.

CR gave many of these recalled vehicles "automatic recommendations" as to reliability! :wow:

[NoGOPZone]

58. read the title of your post number 22

'without testing them at all'

Maybe it's not too late to edit it. ;-)

So it never occured to you that a company reviewing cars did road tests? I think I'm going to have to steal that jaw dropping icon you used. :rofl:

[Romulox]

62. Right.CR gave automatic recommendations as to RELIABILITY to the recalled Toyotas.

Without any RELIABILITY testing at all.

You hanging your hat on CR as a Road Test magazine is a losing argument. :hi:

[NoGOPZone]

63. Not as big a losing argument

as you saying you didn't say 'without testing them AT ALL'

But OK, now your argument is that you weren't aware they did road tests. What was that word you and another user were throwing around in another part of this thread? Ignorant? :rofl:

[Romulox]

64. I don't care about CR's road tests; they gave these recalled Toyotas "automatic recommendations"

as to RELIABILITY without any test data whatever.

Your focus on my knowledge of CR's road test practices is effectively a concession.

[NoGOPZone]

66. A concession to what?

The only issue I'm trying to defend is that they recommend without testing.

OK, now I've got it. Your definition of testing AT ALL only includes reliability data.

Obviously, they have a different definition. Maybe they can survey their readers to see which definition is better. ;-)

[Romulox]

71. A concession as to CR's massive misjudgment as to recommending Toyotas without testing them

(all of that refers to RELIABILITY testing!) :hi:

[NoGOPZone]

72. Of course all of that refers to RELIABILITY testing., and that only

Evidently that's the only kind of testing that matters. Of course, it's not really a test, it's a survey, but as long as were being really loose with our definitions, why not. ;-)

[Romulox]

73. RELIABILITY testing is all I'm interested in from CR. WIthout it, it's useless.

If I want road tests, I look to professional automobile journalists.

[NoGOPZone]

75. OK, but be wary of those 'professional automobile journalists' at Car and Driver

I hear they've got a reputation of hating American cars. ;-)

edit for spelling.

[Romulox]

76. Repeat: I want to know the RELIABILITY of the cars CR recommends,

not their perception of how tight the steering should be. The latter, I can readily perceive for myself with the help of professional journalists.

[NoGOPZone]

60. and by the way

if you in fact do want reliability data, Toyota was included in the survey every year.

[NoGOPZone]

53. dupe

[DainBramaged]

25. (Sigh) if you're in the mood to give me shit today, I'll just click the ignore X

I've got no quarrel with you but I'm not in the mood for bullshit either..

[PVnRT]

35. ...and from GM and Ford

Do you have a point, or not?

[Romulox]

38. If the CHIPS guy couldn't figure it out, what hope does my Granny have?

:shrug:

[Fumesucker]

47. Sexism *and* ageism..

A twofer..

[Romulox]

52. What's the "ism" where one reflexively takes the side of multinational corps

in their disputes with we regular folks?

Ah, yes! Corporatism! :hi:

[Fumesucker]

59. Hmm... I'm against mandated private insurance..

No one forces anyone to buy a car, let alone any specific make.

There was a huge uproar about unintended acceleration with the Audi 5000 in the 80's, after a great deal of investigation it turned out to be driver error, they were pushing the accelerator instead of the brake..

I remember back in the day when the throttle control on some American cars was a rod coming from the firewall that a broken motor mount could jam the throttle wide open, this is not a new phenomenon and people should be informed of how to deal with it.

[Romulox]

65. And I'm against defective vehicles sold amidst an apparent coverup

You'd think we'd find common ground here. But no... :shrug:

"There was a huge uproar about unintended acceleration with the Audi 5000 in the 80's, after a great deal of investigation it turned out to be driver error, they were pushing the accelerator instead of the brake.."

Right. But that's how product liability works. If a design is such that a normal user (let alone our dead CHIPS officer) cannot use it safely--and when alternative designs are on the market that cause no problems--the design is defective.

So to say "the design isn't defective--a super-duper expert (which I happen to style myself!) could've protected themselves from this horrible design defect!" isn't really an answer to any relevant question.

And when you buttress your argument will silly name calling--like I said, bottom of the barrel stuff.

[Fumesucker]

67. You started the name calling, not me..

And I never said I was against a thorough and impartial investigation of any defective products, including Toyota.

[Romulox]

68. Really? No. Anyhow, I don't care. nt

[Fumesucker]

74. Post #28 got deleted and it was yours.. I didn't alert on it, I never do..

[Romulox]

77. Post 28 wasn't directed at you. It was a classic reductio ad absurdum

type argument, anyhow--just pointed out that the weasel word "if" doesn't bail out a statement such as you made in the now deleted sub thread.

At any rate, 54 people are dead. How are you the victim in any of this? :silly:

[Fumesucker]

79. It was a reply to my post and yet it wasn't directed at me?

Ooohkay..

Where did I claim to be a victim?

About 40,000 people per year die in car crashes in the US, the majority of which could be avoided as I learned when I took a commercial driving safety course many years ago. Most crashes are due to driver error of one sort or another, it doesn't make them any less tragic but it does make them avoidable.

[Romulox]

80. I think I may have mistaken to which post you referred. I'm sick of this emotional crap

one way or the other.

"About 40,000 people per year die in car crashes in the US, the majority of which could be avoided as I learned when I took a commercial driving safety course many years ago. Most crashes are due to driver error of one sort or another, it doesn't make them any less tragic but it does make them avoidable."

Back in my education I learned something known as "the So What? test". Can you apply this test to your statistic? What conclusion shall we draw from the above information in the context of Toyota's present engineering problems?

Or, to put it more directly, how many people should Toyota be allowed to kill with their defective products in light of the fact that lots of other people die from some other (tangentially related) cause?

And what moral, legal, or logical basis can you cite for this sort of "but people die from LOTS of things!" sort of argument? :shrug:

[Fumesucker]

81. For the same reason Ford was "allowed to kill" with their defective products..

It's clear that you have a real hatred for Toyota specifically and foreign cars in general, I'm pretty much neutral on the subject, I've had a couple of Toyotas and they were reliable cars but that was 15 and over 30 years ago, I have no emotional attachment to the firm at all, in fact I drive a Ford right now.

One of us is emotionally invested in this argument and it isn't me.

[Romulox]

82. So...no moral, legal, or logical basis for the argument. Back to anylyzing my character!

It's juvenile at this point.

[Fumesucker]

83. I actually like you, I'm not analyzing your character, just pointing out your emotional investment..

I pretty much dislike all the big companies and most of the smaller ones, none of them give the slightest damn about any of us peons.

[Romulox]

84. I know we'd have more fun discussing this issue over some "med grade", for sure.

I'm a bit tired of it now, though.