Snow Cover On Roof Provides Wind Protection?

Page 9 of 16  

On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 17:55:24 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

Would need to be a compound fault, as the rev limiter has no connection to the throttle. It shuts off injectors. SO - even if the "unintended accelleration" problem IS a computer glitch, it would still not blow up if put in neutral.......

And how is he "throwing it into runaway accelleration"??????
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

My question too!!!!!! Is it on you tube? I saw the one where a professor basically shorted two wires and the car went into runaway mode. The brakes could not stop the car but putting it into neutral then using the brakes worked. I question the odds of that same short circuit happening, but I saw that on the code reader it showed no errors after its runaway test.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That was his big point. Gilbert is his name. that it didn't set a code, when Toyota insisted it would.
His other point was that shorting two wires made it accelerate. That might have been a lesser point, because I don't know if in practice those two particular wires could short. But he wasn't claiming to have found the actual problem, just showing that he could have runaway acc. with no code.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

results (output) are what the inputs are calling for, why WOULD it set a code? If the input he shorted resulted in an input voltage that WAS supposed to result in full throttle accelleration, it would not detect an error. IF however, some stray input (RF or whatever) got into the mix and caused the engine to rev higher than the inputs would indicate (which is what so many who know nothing about how digital full authority engine controls (aka FADEC) works are postulating) the computer WOULD trip a code in all likelihood.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

-snip-
I don't know. But it proves false Toyotas contention that there were no problems with the electronics- 'because if there was an electrical problem a code would be set.'

Stray input, short, open- all possible. Apparently one of those was able to cause the problem without leaving a code.
Toyota should have known that it was possible as at least one customer got his racing engine to the dealer where the service tech observed it-- and was not able to pull a code.
Jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Elbrecht wrote: ...

Interesting -- I thought from salty and some others everybody involved was stacked like cordwood...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's because, as we already know, you are an idiot.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

Simply because I happen to think (as, apparently, did at least _one_ driver) there might be an alternative to simply hanging on for the ride that one behind the wheel might take???
Interesting definition, that... :)
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If it was an "electronic problem" it would set a code. If it is a mechanical [problem it won't set a code (usually).
If someone gets inside the computer and starts fooling around, it is quite possible he could get tit to accellerate without showing a code because he is "faking" a legitimate signal - which is extremely unlikely to happen by itself in the real world.
I'm not saying it is impossible - but it would be extremely unlikely - and certainly not common ( occurring on many different vehicles under different conditions in different areas)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

I've never claimed to know anything about the computer under my hood. Are you saying that if a couple wires were abraded & shorted to the frame for a millisecond that wouldn't leave a code? And that is acceptable? [is that a mechanical or electronic problem? or do the mechanics say electronic and the electrical engineers say mechanical?]

Who knows what the professor actually did-- but on camera he completed a circuit and the car took off- pulled the wire & the engine went back to normal. no code.

No chance that the right 2 wires in that harness, when connected, could cause the fault?
I would say that whatever the cause- it *is* unlikely- because considering the number of those cars out there, a lot of them have had no problems. But I think there is a problem.
Jim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That's not what I said - but if, in fact, the wires that happened to short could LEGITIMATELY have a ground potential under normal operating conditions, a code may not be set. (actually, in all likelihood WOULD not be set).
And yes, that would be a "mechanical" problem - although in the electrical system. I would not call it an "electronic" problem.
However, there are very few input signals that would ever have a ground potential. Most inputs are variable voltage between roughly one and five volts. 5 volts is the reference voltage that the signals work from, and the "legitimate" signal is usually something between, say 1/2 and 4 1/2 volts. I do not have the ACTUAL accurate voltage ranges at hand - but that is the basic principal. If the input voltage to the computer is outside the normal range, a fault is recorded and a code can be set. The computer can also "predict" what a reading should be in some cases, and compare the actual reading to what it expects and cause a code if it is wrong.
O2 sensors are a different type of signal in that they are not resistance based, but are a voltage source. However the same basics still apply. An O2 sensor is supposed to "clock" from roughly 0 to 1.1 volts. The higher the voltage, the richer the exhaust(less oxygen) , with a chemically correct mixture being roughly 0.45 volts. A standard narrow band sensor has a steep "knee" to the signal so is not terribly accurate, but can tell if it is too rich, or too lean, and the computer bounces the mixture from rich to lean around that point. Just happens the catalytic converter likes that, as it alternately absorbs oxygen and oxydizes carbon (oxidation/reduction catalyst) This is one place the "prediction" comes in. The front O2 sensor sees a varying voltage, and the rear sensor is supposed to see less variation. If it sees the right reduction in swing it knows the catalyst is working. If it sees too much swing, it knows it is not working. The computer also knows how many "counts" or crossings to expect under given conditions, and knows there is a problem with the sensor when the number of counts per unit time is too low, or if the voltage swing is too small so it can set an O2 sensor failure code.

All this to say that the system of "fault codes" is NOT perfect and is not designed to cover every possible eventuality. It is really designed to predict emission control ineffectiveness more than anything else, and to give someone with some understanding of the system a place to start in troubleshooting what is a very complex control and feedback system.
And the computer can NOT, at this point, diagnose itself. 3 computers are required to do this, with all three having an even "vote". If two agree, and one dissagrees, it is assumed the dissagreeing computer is at fault.
A simple "dual redundant"ystem is not fail-safe.

VERY easy to do. Simply apply a "full throttle" signal to the fly-by-wire throttle input, or cause the cruise control "accellerate" input to be "active". Both could be legitimate inputs, with full throttle (or at least opening throttle) being a legitimate output.
Now, if that input were to be asserted with the transmission in neutral, the computer would attempt to limit the RPM to protect the engine. If the open throttle signal, in gear, did not create an increase in speed on the vehicle speed sensor (VSS) and DID create a difference in speed from the crankshaft and/or camshaft sensors (engine tach signal) he computer could also throw a code to say the transmission or torque converter had a problem. The computer reads both the crankshaft speed and the transmission input speed so it can tell if the lockup torque converter is working properly.

Extremely slim chance that any 2 wires in the harness, if connected together, would cause the problem without a code, and an even smaller chance that they would be next to each other in the harness, AND be subject to damage under "normal useage", if at all.

IF there is a problem electronically it is likely to be one of 3 things. A faulty sensor A faulty component in the computer or A "bug" in the code.
A "bug" would generally be universal - meaning it would occurr in virtually all of a given model/option because the firmware is "common" to all of a type.
A faulty component OR a faulty sensor would be more likely - but you would expect them to become "predictable" because failures usually get worse very quickly, like an avalanche, when they start - and are usually somewhat temperature related.
To this point there does not appear to be any kind of a pattern that would point towards anything with any degree of certainty.
I used to do a LOT of system troubleshooting during my years as an automotive technician - and now do a fair amount in the computer field. (as well as some more basic electronic repairs - fixed 2 GPS units last weekend, and 2 inoperative handheld aviation radios yesterday).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:01:21 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

If the computer is malfunctioning, then I think you can allow for the possiblity that it may not do what you expect on many fronts. We don't know the nature of what is causing the fault. Is it an unreliable oscillator? A bad ground? Leaky capacitor? Power fluctuations? Electrical noise? Any of those things could have widepread repercussions in the computer.

I don't know the specifics. He has equipment connected to points in the computer that allow him to manipulate it.
I guess by applying hi or low logic signals to various circuits.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:08:52 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

No logic signals afaik, no signals at all. He just connected them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

If he shorted something to ground, or applied a voltage to something in a logic circuit, that is applying a logic signal.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:08:52 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

Anything that stops the clock would, by necessity, stop the engine because the clock is required to fire the injectors and time the spark. Absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for the engine to run if the oscillator (clock) of the ECU was to fail. Pretty much the same with a bad ground - as the injectors are ALL powered externally and grounded through the ECU. Also, all the sensors go to higher voltage as the input increases. A ground (Other than the wired signal ground for each 3 wire resistance type sensor) is not required on the majority of sensors, and if that ground went bad the reference voltage would go out of spec, throwing a code or the sensor would be detected as an open circuit (also an out of range value), throwing a different code. About the only thing external that could be causing an accelleration problem would be digital noise entering the system as RFI that just happened to be exactly the right frequency and amplitude , at exactly the right place, to fool the computer into thinking it was a legitimate signal.
Extremely unlikely - not at all like the analogue type fuel injection computers used on the oldD-Jetronic system like the VW412. (and EFI SuperBeetle)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:27:34 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Nice try, but it's obvious you don't have an advanced degree in computer science.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 06:30:11 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

I am a computer tech by trade and training, as well as a licenced auto mechanic.
The explanation was not meant to be detailed and 100% accurate - but to cover the basics.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 23:30:55 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

yes
Everybody and their brother hangs up a sign and claims to be a "computer tech". Do you also do clairvoyant tea leaf readings? Screen door repair?

Well, you still failed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 06:09:17 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@dog.com wrote:

computer service and repair for over 20 years.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I would simply assure myself that I could tell the difference between the brake and accelerator pedals. This is the same fucking hysteria that struct audi ten years ago. The reports vanished when audi installed an interlock so that the driver had to have his boot on the brake pedal before putting the car in gear.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.