4-Runner Sudden Acceleration
- Thread starter Spaceman
- Start date
No idea, but I really hope that is not the case. I can't see how anyone in their right mind would think it was good design to not have the bluetooth capability wholly independent of the vehicle's critical sub-systems.
The main problem I have with all of this is it should be close to a non-issue. Most definitely a vehicle from any manufacturer, Toyota or otherwise, should not do something that the operator did not tell it to (ABS and traction control type things aside).
This situation is completely different, than say, the Ford/Firestone recall back when the tires were literally disintegrating at speed. That is a situation where you can lose total control of the car -- steering included. But the fact also remains that these are machines and machines do malfunction. In this case the solution to stop the malfunction is very easy and safe, the problems have arisen because people are ignorant or under-informed when it comes to handling the situation.
I just take issue when the blame is being put solely on Toyota's shoulders. Yes they are definitely culpable for whatever the defect is, but driver ignorance is also to blame -- no one will ever say that though.
Here is what Jed said verbatim, and I'll leave out all the name calling and "moron" references.
"So when I did my own tests, I did it in a very large parking lot, not on public roads. I was only able to get up to about 40 MPH BEFORE going to wide open throttle. The cars both accelerated to about 50 MPH before I had to start applying the brake pedal, otherwise I would have run out of room. So at 50 MPH with the throttle held wide open and the car still acclerating, the brakes were still able to stop the vehicle without any problem at all. So yes, this supports Car and Driver's own results, in which they had no problem stopping their Camry with the throttle wide open."
So we have someone driving only 40 MPH, then pushing the accelerator to wide open for a few brief seconds to gain just an additional 10 MPH. At the speed of only 50 the brakes are applied ONCE, in an empty parking lot until the vehicle stops. No burning brakes, no dodging through traffic, and no 90 MPH plus speeds. In other words nothing in common with people who were driving in the real world when their accelerator pedal went wide open.
By the way the Car and Driver reference was also a closed course thing, using professional drivers who were briefed on what they were expected to do. Leaving an equally misleading impression of relevance to regular folks on regular roads.
Last edited:
I don't know if this has any relation to the original question. However as soon as vehicles were manufactured with blue tooth built into the electronics, there were reports of drivers in nearby vehicles traveling along side picking up conversations in their car's system too. I don't recall the exact cars this involved, but do remember BMW's being mentioned.
You don't have to tell me what I said.....I obviously already know that. And again, you FAILED when you claimed that I said that my test "proved" that "any" car can be stopped...blah blah blah.
Just give it up already. Instead of continually trying to poke holes in MY OWN tests, why don't you get off your ass and do some of your own. That would be a lot more useful than the theoretical BS that continually regurgitate on the forum.
And again you fail to understand the purpose of Car and Driver's test. Of course the drivers were aware of the fact that the car was rigged for WOT. No shit there, Sherlock. It is not practical to even attempt that type of test in any other manner. The human element was not under test here....it was a performance test of the machinery. After all this time, you still just don't understand that. Very sad.....
I unsterstand the purpose of the Car and Driver test just fine thank you, in fact we all do. They took four cars including a Camry that wasn't under recall or reported as having any mechanical problem. Then they hired 4 professional drivers and briefed them throughly before putting them on a closed course. The drivers stopped the cars with one foot on the brake and the other on the accelerator pedal. Just as you claim you did the same thing with two cars in a parking lot at the whopping speed of 50 MPH. Again neither car was recalled or had been reported to have a problem with uncontrolled acceleration.
Supposedly this all proved any car could be stopped when sudden accleration would occur. However in making that claim neither Car and Driver nor our friend Jed tried to simulate, things like dodging traffic, repeated use of the brakes, or brake fade. Consequently the conclusions offered had only a faint resemblence to the real world situations we've been discussing. In fact these comparisons were so far off target that Jed's new pet phrase would fit perfectly. It was all "theoretical BS."
Actually, you're wrong on several counts. First of all, they didn't hire professional drivers. Why would they have to hire professional drivers when they are car testers themselves? Don't look now, but most of the columnists are already professional drivers. That's what they do....get it? Good.
They didn't drive with one foot on the gas and one foot on the brake either. The cars were rigged to run WOT without stepping on the gas pedal. They also made a simple statement that you can't seem to comprehend. I'll quote it here:
"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."
What that means is that they were not testing driver reactions, driver distractions, or any of the other nonsense you continue to cry about on the forum. Of course there are variables that happen out on the road, but anyone with half a brain knows that Car and Driver was testing the performance of the machine, not how the drivers are going to react. Stop being so ignorant and try to understand that simple concept. Car and Driver goes on to say:
...we found no major deficiencies with the Camry’s ability to defuse an unintended-acceleration situation...
See the part about the "Camry's ability"??? They didn't say anything about a DRIVER'S ABILITY, they simply said the car is still capable of being stopped. And what does that mean? That's right..it means that the vehicle can still be stopped, nothing less, nothing more. You can leave your driver's distractions for another discussion because they are not part of this one.
The article can be found here:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept
There you go making false assumptions again. Not only did I never say that (or even imply that), but Car and Driver didn't either. That's all in your head apparently.
Why simulate those things? We're not testing driver reaction, we're testing the capability of the machine. Stop your incessant silliness already.
If ignorance were Cheerios, you'd be General Mills.
Newsflash for you-- I'm not an engineer. It's funny how almost everything you say here is wrong. Next thing you know, you'll be telling me that I said I was an engineer. When in fact, it was YOU who said that, not me.
And "computer challenged"? Seriously? Because I used more than one post to reply to your nonsense? Grow up, kiddy. You're way outta your league right now.
Lets keep score, shall we? Just on this one thread along, m'kay?
Maz claims: Jed said he had "proven" that "any" car can be stopped with its brakes under wide open throttle.
Jed claims: Nope, never said that.
Score: Jed 1, Maz 0
_________________
Maz claims: Jed's an engineer
Jed claims: Nope,never said that.
Score: Jed 2, Maz 0
_________________
Care to go another round? 3-0 is a nice, round score.
BTW, do you still believe that crazy old man and his Prius tall tale? His story is crumbling almost as much as your credibility on the forum. Even the media is starting to report that he's full of crap. Oh, I forgot--the cop witnessed him standing on the brakes to the point that he lifted himself up off his seat. Yeah, he saw that right through the transparent doors on the Prius. LOL:reddance::jump:
You should do yourself a favor and put me on ignore. Oh wait, didn't you claim to do that already? Hmmm.....maybe I should go dig up that old post. Nah, why bother? It's already too easy making you look foolish.
charlier180
New member
Thanks for the entertaining thread guys.
All I can say is that I am very glad all the actual engineers I know use much more through testing procedures than Car and Driver, the person in the ABC News Story that claims to be able to reproduce the UA problem and some forum members here.
BTW, when I told these engineers about some of these testing procedures (ie testing so few vehicles) they all laughed VERY HARD. They found the testing procedures utilized in these tests to be particularly funny and entertaining from an engineering point of view.
Interesting take on this subject from some REAL enginners who also happen to be car enthusiasts as well.
All I can say is that I am very glad all the actual engineers I know use much more through testing procedures than Car and Driver, the person in the ABC News Story that claims to be able to reproduce the UA problem and some forum members here.
BTW, when I told these engineers about some of these testing procedures (ie testing so few vehicles) they all laughed VERY HARD. They found the testing procedures utilized in these tests to be particularly funny and entertaining from an engineering point of view.
Interesting take on this subject from some REAL enginners who also happen to be car enthusiasts as well.
Exactly. Just like the engineers who tested the Audi's in the 80's were laughing too. But what's really funny about that was the way they used such a small sample size in the beginning because it wasn't practical (or possible) to test every single vehicle in question. Then again, this type of testing isn't about statistics, so sample size is basically irrelevant. Ironically, after every individual car was tested, not a single defect was found for any of them. So I guess the small sample size turned out to be accurate after all.
None of this matters anyway, because the tide is starting to turn in favor of Toyota. Thanks to this Sikes guy, even the media is starting to see that there's far more hype here than actual truth. His actions will only lead to more questions being asked about other people who claim to have had similar experiences.
2004TR4-SR5
New member
Completely agreed...just read that the guy from cali with the prius...the brakes show no wear of being applied constantly and the mechanics could not get the prius to take off like the guy said it did and they test drove the car for two hours...heres is the best part...in the prius, when the brake is applied with the gas at the same time...the car shuts off....i knew there had to be something behind this bulls**t...heres the article http://cbs3.com/topstories/Probe.runaway.Prius.2.1560096.html..in my honesty...its all driver ignorance...you put any car into N at no matter what speed also..if you are used to driving older cars that had no power steering and no power brakes...then shut it off and apply the E-brake...in my eyes, Toyota only has a little bit of blame in this...its mostly the driver being dumb.
Last edited:
I have no idea what you're talking about and haven't put anyone on ignore. However you've never let the facts get in your way before, so don't let me stop you from looking up whatever you think you think you're talking about. By they way since your big on this laughable score bit, make sure to include a couple of you're greatest hits.
Jed brags; ""I have a strong mechanical and engineering background on vehicles and their subsystems."
Then our self proclaimed expert proceeds to tell 4Runner owners even if you turn your ignition key to start on a 4Runner, nothing happens if you're engine is already running. He also swears you have to compress your springs in order to install a spacer lift, no matter what manufacturer you choose. Of course 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Generation owners know their starter grinds away they they pull that stunt. And there must be thousands of vehicles out there who never touched a spring compresser to install their lift, since the major manufacterers changed their designs to avoid that some years ago.
Good job on that expert advice.........:bravo::bravo::bravo:
Of course you haven't put anyone on ignore. You just said that you were going to do that. Again, another lie from the forum BS artist Maz.
Self proclaimed expert? Show me where I said that. You lose again, Captain BS.
Oh, and BTW, I was replying to a 4th gen owner, which means I was absolutely correct. I never said anything about earlier generation 4Runners being able to crank the key to start with the engine running.
As for the lift, I was explaining how to install a simple 1/2" spacer lift, which requires a spring compressor to install. You lose on every count. I think the score is now 6-0, a complete and total shutout.
I don't know whether to admire the way you keep coming back for another smack in the face from me, or just to pity the fact that you're a glutton for punishment. Either way, keep it up because it's amusing to me.
So where is this proof you claimed you were going to offer Jed??? First you said I "you should do yourself a favor and put me on ignore. Oh wait, didn't you claim to do that already?" Then when challenged on that lie you quickly tried to switch horses to a different lie "of course you haven't put anyone on ignore. You just said you were going to do that."
No I didn't say that, or anything even remotely close. In fact I've never mentioned putting you or anyone else on ignore, nor do I know anything about that feature. Fact is I wouldn't miss your rambling nonsense for anything Jed.....it's so entertaining to see you caught in mistatement after lie after mistatement.
Come on Ted fess' up, you've been caught lying TWICE. Or......you can provide a link to this statement you keep repeating I've made, but just can't seem to ever come up with. The ball is in your court liar.
