Forums | MacLife

radarman · 2009-10-19 1:55 pm

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-t … ory?page=1

The 2009 Lexus ES 350 shot through suburban San Diego like a runaway missile, weaving at 120 miles an hour through rush hour freeway traffic as flames flashed from under the car.

At the wheel, veteran California Highway Patrol Officer Mark Saylor desperately tried to control the 272-horsepower engine that was roaring at full throttle as his wife, teenage daughter and brother-in-law were gripped by fear.

"We’re in trouble. . . . There’s no brakes," Saylor's brother-in-law Chris Lastrella told a police dispatcher over a cellphone. Moments later, frantic shrieks filled the car as it slammed into another vehicle and then careened into a dirt embankment, killing all four aboard.

The tragedy Aug. 28 was at least the fifth fatal crash in the U.S. over the last two years involving runaway Toyota and Lexus vehicles made by Toyota Motor Corp. It is also among hundreds of incidents of sudden acceleration involving the company's vehicles that have been reported to Toyota or the federal government, according to an examination of public records by The Times.

Toyota has blamed the incidents -- apart from those caused by driver error -- on its floor mats, asserting that if they are improperly installed they can jam open the accelerator pedal. A month after the Saylor crash, Toyota issued its biggest recall in company history, affecting 3.8 million vehicles in model years as far back as 2004. But auto safety experts believe there may be a bigger problem with Toyota vehicles than simply the floor mats.

I have experienced the feeling of being behind the wheel of a runaway vehicle. My '84 Oldsmobile Delta 88's cruise control system went haywire one day, as I was pulling away from a light. When I hit ~35, the system came on, and I started accelerating out of control.

Unfortunately, that car had a huge V8, and could generate a lot of torque. The previous owner hauled his boat with it. Fortunately, the Hydramatic transmission was not known for shifting quickly, and I only got to about 60 before I shut down the engine. I would have shifted into neutral, but this had the shifter on the column, and I was still a fairly new driver. The whole incident scared the crap out of me, especially when I realized how bad it could have been. I knew what system had malfunctioned, but not why, so I pulled the fuse on the cruise control box, and drove the car home. Turns out later, the cable in the steering column had worn, and the wires had shorted to the inside of the column.

I now have a '98 Toyota Camry, that has had a factory recall service done on, of all things, the cruise control system. The actuator cable can get "stuck", and will hold the throttle open - resulting in uncontrolled acceleration. Fortunately, it never happened in this car - I had it fixed after I got a letter from Toyota. Still, the idea that it could have happened was unsettling. The only saving grace is that the '98 has a standard throttle control, with cables - not a fly-by-wire computer control. Cutting power is as easy as cutting the ignition, or just throwing the transmission in neutral.

My first incident was in a car with a lame transmission, a physical ignition switch, and on a back road with light traffic. This guy was in an unfamiliar vehicle, with an absurdly oversized engine, computerized shifter, & push-button ignition switch with the equivalent of a PC power button. He was also on a busy interstate. I'm not sure I could have done any better.

If I ever buy a car with systems like this, I am going to demand a big, red button be placed on the dash that immediately cuts out the engine when pressed.

Bren · 2009-10-19 2:51 pm

So on this model of Lexus, you can't just turn the ignition off to kill the engine? What a stupid design!

Tallgeese · 2009-10-19 2:55 pm

Maybe he was trying to get away from a stalker.

Jokotai · 2009-10-19 7:49 pm

I haven't driven a car like this, but won't the engine cut if the key is removed? Not that I would be thinking about that at 120 MPH.

Booksley · 2009-10-19 8:11 pm

Jokotai wrote:
I haven't driven a car like this, but won't the engine cut if the key is removed? Not that I would be thinking about that at 120 MPH.

After some googling, it looks like it has a push button start.

My question is why not shift the car into neutral... the car would decelerate to controllable speeds pretty quickly without power. Better off blowing the engine than dying.

Jokotai · 2009-10-19 8:47 pm

Booksley wrote:
Jokotai wrote:
I haven't driven a car like this, but won't the engine cut if the key is removed? Not that I would be thinking about that at 120 MPH.
After some googling, it looks like it has a push button start.

My question is why not shift the car into neutral... the car would decelerate to controllable speeds pretty quickly without power. Better off blowing the engine than dying.

A push button start doesn't prevent the driver from physically removing the key, thereby taking away the thing that turns on the device that allows the operation of the engine. Pushbutton starters still require keys in most cases, because the alternatives are horribly theft-prone. You turn the key to enable the dash, and then hit the button to start the engine. I'm just wondering what will happen if you simply remove the key.

If the car is in drive and removing the key kills the engine (via shutting off the distributor), the car's speed will decrease rapidly as the turning of the wheels is also turning the engine. If it's not a diesel engine, combustion will be impossible as spark is no longer being provided, and the car will come to a stop much faster if left to physics in neutral. This is the same principle used in racing and truck driving when drivers downshift with the clutch fully engaged, allowing the high engine speed to "jake-break" the vehicle.

Additionally, most cars have a computerized "rev limiter" which prevents the engine from accelerating past its red-line. You can hear this for yourself with a relatively modern car, by sitting with the car in park or neutral and flooring the accelerator. When the engine reaches a certain RPM, the computer disengages the throttle until it has come back down to an acceptable level.

If the key cannot be removed while the car is in operation, then my question is entirely moot. The only thing I've driven with a pushbutton start was a 24-foot Mack OverCab featuring a whopping 96 HP. If you took the key out while it was heading down the road, the engine would refuse to climb to a higher RPM and eventually stall. Of course, it's top speed was somewhere around 63 MPH.

radarman · 2009-10-19 9:26 pm

Jokotai wrote:
Booksley wrote:
Jokotai wrote:
I haven't driven a car like this, but won't the engine cut if the key is removed? Not that I would be thinking about that at 120 MPH.
After some googling, it looks like it has a push button start.

My question is why not shift the car into neutral... the car would decelerate to controllable speeds pretty quickly without power. Better off blowing the engine than dying.
A push button start doesn't prevent the driver from physically removing the key, thereby taking away the thing that turns on the device that allows the operation of the engine. Pushbutton starters still require keys in most cases, because the alternatives are horribly theft-prone. You turn the key to enable the dash, and then hit the button to start the engine. I'm just wondering what will happen if you simply remove the key.

If the car is in drive and removing the key kills the engine (via shutting off the distributor), the car's speed will decrease rapidly as the turning of the wheels is also turning the engine. If it's not a diesel engine, combustion will be impossible as spark is no longer being provided, and the car will come to a stop much faster if left to physics in neutral. This is the same principle used in racing and truck driving when drivers downshift with the clutch fully engaged, allowing the high engine speed to "jake-break" the vehicle.

Additionally, most cars have a computerized "rev limiter" which prevents the engine from accelerating past its red-line. You can hear this for yourself with a relatively modern car, by sitting with the car in park or neutral and flooring the accelerator. When the engine reaches a certain RPM, the computer disengages the throttle until it has come back down to an acceptable level.

If the key cannot be removed while the car is in operation, then my question is entirely moot. The only thing I've driven with a pushbutton start was a 24-foot Mack OverCab featuring a whopping 96 HP. If you took the key out while it was heading down the road, the engine would refuse to climb to a higher RPM and eventually stall. Of course, it's top speed was somewhere around 63 MPH.

If you have ever test driven a Prius, you find that the key can actually be taken out once the car is started. In fact, you don't even have to fully insert it to start the car - it only has to be close enough for the RFID chip to be read. Also, as a "safety feature", you have to hold the button for three seconds to shut the car down unless it is in park. It's not as simple as turning the key - there is no physical key, at least not in the usual sense.

Now, that said, I haven't ever seen an automatic shifter that wouldn't allow you to shift into neutral by just pushing. You don't even have to press the shift lock. I can only assume he was afraid of blowing the engine.

Frankly, the safety of the engine wouldn't have been foremost on my mind - but then, I haven't driven a Lexus, either.

gd · 2009-10-19 11:14 pm

My dads car also has pushbutton and it is the same as the vehicle you have stated above. Remove the key while on and the car stays on. I didn't know that putting an automatic car in neutral can blow the engine. I have seen my parents do that sometimes when moving downhill.

confused

Tallgeese · 2009-10-19 11:22 pm

Putting any car in neutral at WOT will blow the engine.

Last edited by Tallgeese (2009-10-19 11:39 pm)

Jokotai · 2009-10-19 11:35 pm

What's WOT? And Neutral disengages the transmission, making engine activity irrelevant...

Tallgeese · 2009-10-19 11:38 pm

WOT = wide open throttle

Engine activity is very, very relevant to the engine destroying itself.

Try this at home: Put your car in neutral and put a brick on the gas pedal. See what happens.

Jokotai · 2009-10-19 11:45 pm

1) In a modern car, the rev limiter will prevent redline RPM's. You're right, I shouldn't have recommended standing on it though. A rev limiter will prevent it from blowing to pieces, but it won't keep an engine from shaking itself to ruin at continuously high RPM. In my delapidated Buick, it hits the limiter at about 5500 RPM. A higher end vehicle will limit around 8500 RPM. My brother in law's Lotus claims that it will limit around 9500 RPM, but he'd most likely kill anybody who would even rev it that high.

2) That's the engine. You had mentioned damage to the transmission if a person shifts to neutral while at full throttle... but now I see you've edited that.

3) That entirely depends on the weight of the brick vs the resistance of the accelerator tongue

resedit · 2009-10-19 11:51 pm

Jokotai wrote:
What's WOT? And Neutral disengages the transmission, making engine activity irrelevant...

Stepping on the clutch disengages the transmission.
In neutral, the transmission is still engaged with the engine.

I don't know if it still applies, but it use to be when towing a vehicle you either were suppose to put the tranny in gear and engage the clutch or lift the drive wheels. The reason was because the shaft where the tranny connects to the engine is what gave splash lubrication to the tranny. In neutral, the wheels are moving but the shaft isn't so they would burn up - but if it was in gear with the clutch engaged (so the engine doesn't turn as it it is disengaged via clutch) then the shaft would still spin providing lubrication to the moving parts.

resedit · 2009-10-19 11:52 pm

You could also disconnect the drive shaft on RWD cars to prevent the tranny from burning up when towing.

Jokotai · 2009-10-19 11:59 pm

Then there's obviously something (among many others) about the mechanics of vehicles that has escaped my understanding (and yes, I realize I'm about to be quoted and laughed at for that one).

If my car is in neutral, and I step on the gas, the engine revs but the car doesn't go anywhere. My logic makes me think that it is because the transmission gear selected, neutral, doesn't engage any gears within the transmission...

If I'm wrong, please correct me (and I know you will).

Bren · 2009-10-20 12:14 am

Res: Lift the drive wheels? How? Disconnect the drive shaft while towing? How are you going move, much less tow anything, if your drive shaft is disconnected?

Gd: Are your parents in the habit of engaging neutral when going down hill in order to save gas? If so, tell them to stop doing that. With any modern car, if you're in gear and coasting downhill, the engine management computer is smart enough to close the throttle, thus saving as much fuel as possible. On the other hand, if you're in neutral, the computer has no way of knowing what's going on, so it just keeps on feeding gas to the motor.

Also, being in gear is much safer, because engine-braking helps control the car's speed, and if something unexpected happens, the driver is able to immediately accelerate out of harm's way, should the need arise.

Similarly, during any type of emergency lane-change maneuver, a car that's in gear is likely to be much more controllable than one that's in neutral.

mrreet2001 · 2009-10-20 7:28 am

Bren wrote:
Res: Lift the drive wheels? How? Disconnect the drive shaft while towing? How are you going move, much less tow anything, if your drive shaft is disconnected?
.

When towing a vehicle ... not towing with a vehicle tongue

Bren wrote:
Gd: Are your parents in the habit of engaging neutral when going down hill in order to save gas? If so, tell them to stop doing that. With any modern car, if you're in gear and coasting downhill, the engine management computer is smart enough to close the throttle, thus saving as much fuel as possible. On the other hand, if you're in neutral, the computer has no way of knowing what's going on, so it just keeps on feeding gas to the motor.

I have a hard time believing that an engine at say 2500 rpm (my car 6th gear around highway speeds) is going to use less gas than the car at idle (ie neutral)

Bren wrote:
Also, being in gear is much safer, because engine-braking helps control the car's speed, and if something unexpected happens, the driver is able to immediately accelerate out of harm's way, should the need arise.

Similarly, during any type of emergency lane-change maneuver, a car that's in gear is likely to be much more controllable than one that's in neutral.

I do agree 100% on the safety aspect though.

mrreet2001 · 2009-10-20 7:31 am

Tallgeese wrote:
WOT = wide open throttle

Engine activity is very, very relevant to the engine destroying itself.

Try this at home: Put your car in neutral and put a brick on the gas pedal. See what happens.

It hits the rev limiter and it makes a pretty noise. What's your point.

radarman · 2009-10-20 9:27 am

mrreet2001 wrote:
Bren wrote:
Res: Lift the drive wheels? How? Disconnect the drive shaft while towing? How are you going move, much less tow anything, if your drive shaft is disconnected?
.
When towing a vehicle ... not towing with a vehicle

Bren wrote:
Gd: Are your parents in the habit of engaging neutral when going down hill in order to save gas? If so, tell them to stop doing that. With any modern car, if you're in gear and coasting downhill, the engine management computer is smart enough to close the throttle, thus saving as much fuel as possible. On the other hand, if you're in neutral, the computer has no way of knowing what's going on, so it just keeps on feeding gas to the motor.
I have a hard time believing that an engine at say 2500 rpm (my car 6th gear around highway speeds) is going to use less gas than the car at idle (ie neutral)

Bren wrote:
Also, being in gear is much safer, because engine-braking helps control the car's speed, and if something unexpected happens, the driver is able to immediately accelerate out of harm's way, should the need arise.

Similarly, during any type of emergency lane-change maneuver, a car that's in gear is likely to be much more controllable than one that's in neutral.
I do agree 100% on the safety aspect though.

The saving gas argument is stupid. Sure, you might save a little, but not enough to make up for the loss of control. Putting the car in neutral means you don't have ready access to power when you need it. There are times, even going downhill, when you might need to accelerate.

mrreet2001 · 2009-10-20 10:06 am

radarman wrote:
The saving gas argument is stupid. Sure, you might save a little, but not enough to make up for the loss of control. Putting the car in neutral means you don't have ready access to power when you need it. There are times, even going downhill, when you might need to accelerate.

confused I never said it was a good idea.

dv · 2009-10-20 11:57 am

My car will occasionally (once a month or so) decide to keep its engine running fast. It's "natural" speed in this condition is about 35 mph, so I have to spend most of the ride to work with my foot on the brake pedal.

Drop it into neutral and it (slowly) revs right up to 4500 rpm or so. Turn the car off, let it sit a while, turn it on again, and it's back to normal.

I'm not convinced the floor mat isn't snagging something, and if that's not it, it's probably just a sticky throttle cable. But still, kinda freaky.

Tallgeese · 2009-10-20 12:02 pm

Sounds like a problem with the fast idle/slow idle control.

Anonymous Delivers! · 2009-10-20 1:29 pm

I can't imagine that, being on a highway, they kept at it and went off the road into in an embankment.

Especially if there was a cop on the scene, I'd flip on the lights and start slowly grinding them into the median until it could be t'd in, and then extract them from the car.

I guess there's no telling based on the traffic congestion, but I'd hope that people in front would have enough sense to make their way right with a cop side-by-siding with a car in the median.

Nefarious · 2009-10-20 1:40 pm

I had an issue with the engine racing for a few seconds when at idle 2 weeks ago. Some STP fuel injector treatment cured that issue. I was glad that it was not an electrical or engine computer problem.

Bren · 2009-10-20 2:13 pm

DV, you should remove the floor mat and see if the problem persists.

Forums | MacLife

#1 2009-10-19 1:55 pm

New Toyota's a 'runaway' success

#2 2009-10-19 2:51 pm

Re: New Toyota's a 'runaway' success

#3 2009-10-19 2:55 pm

Re: New Toyota's a 'runaway' success

#4 2009-10-19 7:49 pm

Re: New Toyota's a 'runaway' success

#5 2009-10-19 8:11 pm

Re: New Toyota's a 'runaway' success

Jokotai wrote:

#6 2009-10-19 8:47 pm

Re: New Toyota's a 'runaway' success

Booksley wrote:

Jokotai wrote:

#7 2009-10-19 9:26 pm

Re: New Toyota's a 'runaway' success

Jokotai wrote:

Booksley wrote:

Jokotai wrote:

#8 2009-10-19 11:14 pm

Re: New Toyota's a 'runaway' success

#9 2009-10-19 11:22 pm

Re: New Toyota's a 'runaway' success

#10 2009-10-19 11:35 pm

Re: New Toyota's a 'runaway' success

#11 2009-10-19 11:38 pm

Re: New Toyota's a 'runaway' success

#12 2009-10-19 11:45 pm

Re: New Toyota's a 'runaway' success

#13 2009-10-19 11:51 pm

Re: New Toyota's a 'runaway' success

Jokotai wrote:

#14 2009-10-19 11:52 pm

Re: New Toyota's a 'runaway' success

#15 2009-10-19 11:59 pm

Re: New Toyota's a 'runaway' success

#16 2009-10-20 12:14 am

Re: New Toyota's a 'runaway' success

#17 2009-10-20 7:28 am

Re: New Toyota's a 'runaway' success

Bren wrote:

Bren wrote:

Bren wrote:

#18 2009-10-20 7:31 am

Re: New Toyota's a 'runaway' success

Tallgeese wrote:

#19 2009-10-20 9:27 am

Re: New Toyota's a 'runaway' success

mrreet2001 wrote:

Bren wrote:

Bren wrote:

Bren wrote:

#20 2009-10-20 10:06 am

Re: New Toyota's a 'runaway' success

radarman wrote:

#21 2009-10-20 11:57 am

Re: New Toyota's a 'runaway' success

#22 2009-10-20 12:02 pm

Re: New Toyota's a 'runaway' success

#23 2009-10-20 1:29 pm

Re: New Toyota's a 'runaway' success

#24 2009-10-20 1:40 pm

Re: New Toyota's a 'runaway' success

#25 2009-10-20 2:13 pm

Re: New Toyota's a 'runaway' success

Board footer