Toyota's runaway-car worries may not stop at floor
- Thread starter tenderloin
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
I'm thinking this is PCM related as was previously surmised. This makes this a concern for owners of other Toyota vehicles with the same system.
Originally Posted By: Vizzy
It does sound like a software issue or issues, so wouldn't this be a snap to fix? All Toyota has to do is debug that specific trouble spot and then offer a reflash to affected units, right?
problem is fixing one bug may cause another one to creep up. So if it is a computer bug it may take as long or longer than a mechanical bug to fix.
It does sound like a software issue or issues, so wouldn't this be a snap to fix? All Toyota has to do is debug that specific trouble spot and then offer a reflash to affected units, right?
problem is fixing one bug may cause another one to creep up. So if it is a computer bug it may take as long or longer than a mechanical bug to fix.
But perhaps if they need a stop gap why not just program the throttle to decelerate if the brake pedal is depressed like on most other cars today? I would bet that it wouldn't be all that involved to implement this. I have to think that Toyota may have this feature in at least one model somewhere in the world and the Toyota software for these models OBD II CAN BUS are very similar even from MFR to MFR.
Originally Posted By: wapacz
problem is fixing one bug may cause another one to creep up. So if it is a computer bug it may take as long or longer than a mechanical bug to fix.
Only if the software is written by morons. Software CAN be built that has no bugs, it's just that doing that costs money and hiring a bunch of slackers to make it "good enough" is way cheaper.
BTW, my money is on the throttle assembly servo getting stuck.
problem is fixing one bug may cause another one to creep up. So if it is a computer bug it may take as long or longer than a mechanical bug to fix.
Only if the software is written by morons. Software CAN be built that has no bugs, it's just that doing that costs money and hiring a bunch of slackers to make it "good enough" is way cheaper.
BTW, my money is on the throttle assembly servo getting stuck.
Programming changes will not address the root cause of the problem, which is the stuck gas pedal, and because the programmers can't account for every possible scenario, they may inadvertently introduce something else.
I think the gas pedal should be redesigned, I saw a picture of it and it is really low, so raising it up would make the most sense. Introducing electronic nannies to solve this problem may cause some other erratic behaviour in other situations.
I think the gas pedal should be redesigned, I saw a picture of it and it is really low, so raising it up would make the most sense. Introducing electronic nannies to solve this problem may cause some other erratic behaviour in other situations.
Originally Posted By: Vizzy
But perhaps if they need a stop gap why not just program the throttle to decelerate if the brake pedal is depressed like on most other cars today? I would bet that it wouldn't be all that involved to implement this. I have to think that Toyota may have this feature in at least one model somewhere in the world and the Toyota software for these models OBD II CAN BUS are very similar even from MFR to MFR.
The stop gap measure is to teach people how to drive & how to stop.
But perhaps if they need a stop gap why not just program the throttle to decelerate if the brake pedal is depressed like on most other cars today? I would bet that it wouldn't be all that involved to implement this. I have to think that Toyota may have this feature in at least one model somewhere in the world and the Toyota software for these models OBD II CAN BUS are very similar even from MFR to MFR.
The stop gap measure is to teach people how to drive & how to stop.
Originally Posted By: ksJoe
They could put dual sensors in the pedal, and require they report the same.
My Saab 93 has dual sensors, but it does not require them to report the same. In fact, it requires them to report two different voltages, one being exactly half of the other.
It also has a good 2 inches between the pedal and the floor.
They could put dual sensors in the pedal, and require they report the same.
My Saab 93 has dual sensors, but it does not require them to report the same. In fact, it requires them to report two different voltages, one being exactly half of the other.
It also has a good 2 inches between the pedal and the floor.
Gas pedals used to pivot on the bottoms until the 70s when women with high heels complained.
At least that is how it was explained to me. It's probably also when rod linkages and solidly mounted RWD V8s went out of fashion. But DBW just uses potentiometers and wiring and could easily have bottom hinges again.
Bottom pivot pedals are also liked for heel/toe maneuvers.
At least that is how it was explained to me. It's probably also when rod linkages and solidly mounted RWD V8s went out of fashion. But DBW just uses potentiometers and wiring and could easily have bottom hinges again.
Bottom pivot pedals are also liked for heel/toe maneuvers.
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT
Can you not put the transmission in neutral in a modern Toyota when the vehicle is traveling?
That would have to be pure panic and a lack of coordination to not be able to have the presence of mind to put the trans in neutral at a minimum, or to try and turn the engine off.
No kidding! Even the gated shifters need only a straight little shove to neutral. It reads like TV news drama. How does an experienced driver lose their wits for so long?
Can you not put the transmission in neutral in a modern Toyota when the vehicle is traveling?
That would have to be pure panic and a lack of coordination to not be able to have the presence of mind to put the trans in neutral at a minimum, or to try and turn the engine off.
No kidding! Even the gated shifters need only a straight little shove to neutral. It reads like TV news drama. How does an experienced driver lose their wits for so long?
Originally Posted By: brianl703
My Saab 93 has dual sensors, but it does not require them to report the same. In fact, it requires them to report two different voltages, one being exactly half of the other.
Perhaps someone who has one of the affected Toyotas could describe how their accelerator pedal position sensor works?
My Saab 93 has dual sensors, but it does not require them to report the same. In fact, it requires them to report two different voltages, one being exactly half of the other.
Perhaps someone who has one of the affected Toyotas could describe how their accelerator pedal position sensor works?
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Programming changes will not address the root cause of the problem, which is the stuck gas pedal, and because the programmers can't account for every possible scenario, they may inadvertently introduce something else.
Exactly.
Where does one draw the line in this situation? Should WOT not be allowed at all? Should WOT be cut off at, say 5 seconds (and then the estate of someone who gets killed when they were in a situation where 7 seconds of WOT would have gotten them to safety sues)? Should the system recognize multiple stabs at the on/off switch and act accordingly? And then pay for burned out starters?
If the Lexus system works as written, i.e., holding down the switch for 3 seconds cuts off engine power, seems to me like the fail-safe is there -- unless someone can prove the system didn't work. This is similar to how PC's work, many's the time when my machine freezes up, the "three finger salute" doesn't break whatever abyss the OS is in, and I wind up holding the on-off button down for several seconds until the machine shuts down.
I may be stereotyping here, but I would think that someone driving a Lexus has had this sort of experience with a computer, no?
I know, "easy for you to say, Opus, let's see how smart you are when you're in a vehicle accelerating out of control." But I'm really at a loss on what exactly can be done here if it turns out that there isn't a software bug behind all of this.
Programming changes will not address the root cause of the problem, which is the stuck gas pedal, and because the programmers can't account for every possible scenario, they may inadvertently introduce something else.
Exactly.
Where does one draw the line in this situation? Should WOT not be allowed at all? Should WOT be cut off at, say 5 seconds (and then the estate of someone who gets killed when they were in a situation where 7 seconds of WOT would have gotten them to safety sues)? Should the system recognize multiple stabs at the on/off switch and act accordingly? And then pay for burned out starters?
If the Lexus system works as written, i.e., holding down the switch for 3 seconds cuts off engine power, seems to me like the fail-safe is there -- unless someone can prove the system didn't work. This is similar to how PC's work, many's the time when my machine freezes up, the "three finger salute" doesn't break whatever abyss the OS is in, and I wind up holding the on-off button down for several seconds until the machine shuts down.
I may be stereotyping here, but I would think that someone driving a Lexus has had this sort of experience with a computer, no?
I know, "easy for you to say, Opus, let's see how smart you are when you're in a vehicle accelerating out of control." But I'm really at a loss on what exactly can be done here if it turns out that there isn't a software bug behind all of this.
Off should mean off, now. The deadman on my lawnmower did this, my motorcycle bright red kill switch does this. No 3 second wait.
If they had a fuel pump kill, I'm thinking, that's seperate from the computer, there may be some EPA penalty. You'll note your owners manual says never ever run out of gas or push start your car; it's because they're worried about misfires and unburnt gas fouling the cat. So it would have to kill ignition too, fwiw.
If they had a fuel pump kill, I'm thinking, that's seperate from the computer, there may be some EPA penalty. You'll note your owners manual says never ever run out of gas or push start your car; it's because they're worried about misfires and unburnt gas fouling the cat. So it would have to kill ignition too, fwiw.
eljefino,
A kill switch would accidentally be depressed causing a wreck on the interstate followed by lawsuits. I tend to agree that they have a fail safe in place now as is. Their failure was in not teaching people about it.
A kill switch would accidentally be depressed causing a wreck on the interstate followed by lawsuits. I tend to agree that they have a fail safe in place now as is. Their failure was in not teaching people about it.
Originally Posted By: Samilcar
They could put in some sort of kill switch that turns instead of a push button. Maybe make this switch a keyed switch. Perhaps mount it on the steering column.
Aren't we then coming back to the regular "key in ignition barrel" concept?
They could put in some sort of kill switch that turns instead of a push button. Maybe make this switch a keyed switch. Perhaps mount it on the steering column.
Aren't we then coming back to the regular "key in ignition barrel" concept?
What was wrong with that concept, anyhow?
- Status
