On Mar 3, 11:38 am, email@example.com wrote:
Have a problem with pointing out the truth. The FACT is that the
lexus can be shifted to neutrral under runaway conditions. It has
been proven TWICE and both were cited in this thread.
To explain it in simple terms for simple people:
The cause of the runaway was Toyota's fault. The deaths were due to
Show us where what you claim above has been proven. I've seen people
saying that a NORMAL functioning Lexus can be shifted into neutral.
I've seen people report that Toyota has said that the shift linkage is
only mechanical and it can be shifted into neutral while being
driven. Neither of those proves that it's true under runaway
conditions. As I've said before, unless you know the design of the
car and what is linked to what, you are making assumptions unsupported
by the facts.
If you have a link supporting that Toyota has tested shifting a Lexus
into neutral on a track going at topspeed with full throttle, I'd be
very happy to see it.
That would be a start. But then the other component would be that
you would also have to know by design that nothing in the tranny could
prevent it from being shifted, even if not designed to do so
intentionally. I'd want to see exactly what prevents the shift lever
from moving into ANY position under any circumstances. For example,
is there a lock that keeps it from moving into park when the car is
moving? And what determines that, how the mechanism works, etc.
You would need to take apart the trannys from the wrecked cars and do
a complete forensic investigation of the components.
I'm not saying it's likely all the cars could not be shifted, just
that if we jumped to conclusions without ALL the facts, a lot more
people would be dead today. Why do you think it takes so long for
the NTSB to carefully analyze plane crashes instead of saying the
pilot was stupid, he should have been able to land the plane?
Also note that I'm not saying how the cars are or are not designed or
what caused anything. All I'm saying is that until more
investigations are done and more facts are established, it's premature
to be calling a dead CHP officer, among others, stupid for not being
able to shift the car.
Actually, your whole approach to the problem is remarkably similar to
Toyota's. For years they dismissed reports of both runaway
acceleration and wrecks as driver stupidity instead of doing a
complete investigation before jumping to conclusions.
On Mar 4, 4:58 am, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Take it from the top again and making it simple for you.
Thne cause of the cop/family death:
Runaway - Toyota
Deaths - incompetent driver.
Proof of shifting under runaway: You must never watch the news or
read this thread very carefully.
1. Guy gets runaway, does the correct thing (short of shutting it
off) - repeatedly goes from drive to neutral and back, pulls into
dealers lot with it still happening. All over the news and cited in
2. Guy shows how he can induce runaway. Aslo shifts to neutral prior
to making a stop. Aslo all over the news and cited in this thread.
Feel free to continue distorting what I have said.
Never claimed that I did but nice try.
Now you are just being totally unreasonable. How about proposing
somehow picking up a rock that blocks the shifter.
Really stretching there now.
I repeat. Since it has been proven it can be shifted and noone has
come up with even one example of a car that cannot be shifted...'
Sorry if me pointing out reality to you doesn't suit you.
It's not up to me to watch the news to prove your claims. You
claimed specifically that a Lexus had been brought to a stop by
shifting into neutral during runaway conditions. First, on the face
of it, this is actually impossible to do, because no one has been able
to duplicate the "runaway" condition. So, the best you could be
referring to was that it's been proven that a Lexus identical to the
one driven by the CA highway patrol officer can be shifted into
neutral when traveling 120mph under full throttle. That would be a
good start. Link please.
Please point me to where this is in this long thread. I've seen where
someone posted about an electronics guy causing full throttle by
fooling with some wires and that it did not set any fault code in the
computer. I have not seen where he did that while driving and
shifted to neutral while going 120mph at full throttle. Maybe I
missed something and you can show me where this was stated.
I never claimed that you had said so. But YOU keep insisting that
there is loads of evidence that a Lexus can be shifted into neutral
under runaway conditions. All I'm asking for is a link to Toyota or
anyone else that has done a test that your believe at least closely
duplicates the runaway conditions.
Note: That isn't an anecdotal report here that someone shifted their
car into neutral going at 50mph, etc.
Why is it unreasonable to expect a forensic investigation of the key
components from key cars, like the CA highway patrol officers Lexus?
Just because you want to jump to conclusions, everyone else should
join you? Is that what the NTSB does with a plane crash?
How would you suggest to get to the bottom of it? Just rely on your
speculation as opposed to scientific investigation?
Just point us to a link where it has been proven that you can shift
that Lexus into neutral under runaway conditions, as you claim. Of
course you can't because no one can duplicate the runaway conditions
exactly. But I'll settle for a link to a test going at 100-120mph
under full throttle conditions.
| It's not up to me to watch the news to prove your claims. You
| claimed specifically that a Lexus had been brought to a stop by
| shifting into neutral during runaway conditions. First, on the face
| of it, this is actually impossible to do, because no one has been able
| to duplicate the "runaway" condition. So, the best you could be
| referring to was that it's been proven that a Lexus identical to the
| one driven by the CA highway patrol officer can be shifted into
| neutral when traveling 120mph under full throttle.
I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but I really don't know:
typically, does shifting an automatic transmission into neutral
actually disengage a gear or does it merely cause the torque
converter to stop transferring torque?
Let me explain why I ask. I have a 1997 Toyota Landcruiser with
automatic transmission. It also has a (totally mechanical) shift
on the transfer case to select low or (normal) high speed. The
manual says to put the automatic transmission in neutral when you
want to change the transfer ratio. If I follow those instructions
I hear/feel a nasty gear grinding when I try to shift the transfer
case, suggesting that somehow the output of the transmission is
still rotating with at least some force. If I put the automatic
transmission in park then transfer case shifting is smooth and
quiet, though as I pass through the neutral position of the
transfer case I get a warning light that the A/T parking break
is no longer effective. The manual says not to do this, but I'm
not sure why.
Incidentally, there are two solenoid interlocks that can prevent
certain shifts of the automatic transmission but nothing (well,
at least nothing electric) that can stop me from putting the transfer
case in neutral so I figure I'm safe no matter what any computer may
decide to do. :)
| >I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but I really don't know:
| >typically, does shifting an automatic transmission into neutral
| >actually disengage a gear or does it merely cause the torque
| >converter to stop transferring torque?
| Neither, actually. It disengages a clutch inside the transmission.
Interesting. Is disengaging that clutch used for anything else (except
perhaps park)? If that clutch on my vehicle were not fully disengaging
would I likely observe any other symptoms or would the torque converter
absorb the rotation in park and at idle in neutral with the transmission
loaded (i.e., with the transfer case not in neutral)?
A typical automatic transmission has several internal clutches that are
engaged, or disengaged, by hydraulic pressure. The gearing in an AT consists
of multiple sets of planetary gears, and the clutches lock or release various
parts of the various gearsets to control the gear ratios. The clutches are
disengaged in both neutral and park. In park, additionally, the transmission
output shaft is mechanically locked by a pin or bar which prevents it from
I would expect harsh shifts and unpleasant noises.
Given that the torque converter can absorb the engine's rotation with the
transmission in gear and the vehicle stopped with the brakes applied... I'd
have to say yes. :-)
| > Miller) writes:
| > wrote:
| >| >I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, but I really don't know:
| >| >typically, does shifting an automatic transmission into neutral
| >| >actually disengage a gear or does it merely cause the torque
| >| >converter to stop transferring torque?
| >| Neither, actually. It disengages a clutch inside the transmission.
| >Interesting. Is disengaging that clutch used for anything else (except
| >perhaps park)?
| A typical automatic transmission has several internal clutches that are
| engaged, or disengaged, by hydraulic pressure. The gearing in an AT consists
| of multiple sets of planetary gears, and the clutches lock or release various
| parts of the various gearsets to control the gear ratios. The clutches are
| disengaged in both neutral and park. In park, additionally, the transmission
| output shaft is mechanically locked by a pin or bar which prevents it from
| > If that clutch on my vehicle were not fully disengaging
| >would I likely observe any other symptoms
| I would expect harsh shifts and unpleasant noises.
There's nothing obvious like that. Of course, with the transfer case
I have my hand on the shift to feel the grinding. I did ask the
dealer service guy about this but he just stared at me blankly. I
had them change the transfer case fluid to see if I was causing any
major damage (either by following or by not following the directions)
and there wasn't any metal. I should note that for years I happily
shifted the transfer ratio while in park. It was only when I noticed
a blurb in the manual that I tried neutral. (The manual said not to
shift in park because "the transmission will damage." I'm not sure
if they meant "will be damaged" or will damage something.)
| >or would the torque converter
| >absorb the rotation in park and at idle in neutral with the transmission
| >loaded (i.e., with the transfer case not in neutral)?
| Given that the torque converter can absorb the engine's rotation with the
| transmission in gear and the vehicle stopped with the brakes applied... I'd
| have to say yes. :-)
Yeah, that was my thought as well. The system is too fault tolerant. :)
I think the vehicle is too old to have enough sensors for the computer(s)
to realize that the torque converter is absorbing rotation when it really
should not be. And for all I know maybe it is normal for it to absorb a
little in this case...
On 5 Mar 2010 22:22:59 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
There is more than one "clutch" involved - and in most transmisions
also at leat one "band" or "brake". They are applied in different
combinations for different gears.
Your tranny uses planetary gear sets, and by holding different
elements of the set, different ratios are produced. Locking the input
to the output with a clutch gives direct drive.
If any of the clutches do not release fully the fluid will quickly
overheat and stink.
Even fully released, with no load on the output shaft it will turn
when the engine is running in neutral because of viscous friction (oil
between the plates of the clutches etc)
| On 5 Mar 2010 07:20:52 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
| >Let me explain why I ask. I have a 1997 Toyota Landcruiser with
| >automatic transmission. It also has a (totally mechanical) shift
| >on the transfer case to select low or (normal) high speed. The
| >manual says to put the automatic transmission in neutral when you
| >want to change the transfer ratio. If I follow those instructions
| >I hear/feel a nasty gear grinding when I try to shift the transfer
| >case, suggesting that somehow the output of the transmission is
| >still rotating with at least some force.
| The planetarys are still spinning, with some friction dragging the
| output around. Much better to shift in park - or come to a full stop,
| THEN shift into neutral and shift the transfer case quickly
Shifting in park works fine, but I'm not sure why they claim it will
cause the "transmission to damage." But being at a full stop doesn't
help. The specific sequence:
Vehicle parked in garage. Start vehicle in park. Shift to neutral.
Shift transfer case from high to neutral; feel moderate resistance and
tolerable levels of grinding. Attempt to shift transfer case from
neutral to low; feel strong resistance and enough grinding to abandon
I've never tried to shift the transfer case with the vehicle in motion.
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 04:58:58 -0800 (PST), email@example.com wrote:
The FACT is the law requires there be a mechanical way to put a cat
out of gear, and ALL cars with automatic transmissions, to this day,
have a "manual valve" controled by a linkage to do this. The only
automatic car in history that I cannot say for 100% positive had this
feature was the electric shifted Edsel with the buttons in the
steering wheel (made for only 2 years) and the Packard Ultramatic,
which is the only car in history that could NOT be shifted into
neutral at speed.
Both of these had come and gone before automotive safety legislation
caught up with them.
Don't need a test if you understand how the car is built. There is NO
LOCKOUT that can prevent the shifter fom moving to neutral at speed
and yet allow the car to be put in neutral at a stop.
Any mechanical FAILURE that would prevent shifting to neutral at speed
would also prevent going to neutral at a stop. The brake/shifter
interlock only prevents shifting OUT OF PARK without the brake pedal
depressed - and even IF it could control the movement into neutral
fron either drive or reverse (the only options) stepping on the brake
would allow the shifter to be moved.
Having had many transmissions apart, including electrically shifted,
electronic controlled units, the only electical or electronic controls
in today's automatics are electrically operated solenoid valves that
control the flow of hydraulic fluid under pressure to the various
clutches and brakes that control the shifting of the planetary gear
sets. There are no electromechanical devices that interface with the
manual valve control which has ULTIMATE CONTROL of the transmission.
NO combination of sticky, faulty, or missapplied solenoids could cause
the transmission to transmit driving force to the wheels with the
manual valve in the neutral position.
That, when it exists, is in the shifter assembly itself - not the
tranny, and is called a brake/shifter interlock. Requires the brake to
be depressed to put the vehicle into or out of PARK ONLY.
Because there is a LOT more affecting an airplane's flight than there
is affecting the operation of a motor vehicle.
Aerodynamics are CRITICAL, as is structural strength and loading -
which can be affected by so MANY different parameters.
A little bit of ice can totally destroy the lifting capability of an
airfoil (particularly the now-common "laminar" airfoils) - and by the
time investigators get there, the ice is long gone.
By the way - I am also building an airplane.
I'd tell him to his face if he were still alive - even if he was
"carrying" There is NO EXCUSE for the death of the Chippy and his
family other than gross stupidity in the face of adversity.
On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 16:37:24 -0500, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Unless of course the runaway condition is being caused by a fault in
Maybe it will shut off the fuel, and maybe it won't. Toyota insisted
that the computer would have thrown up an error code after an alleged
runaway incident. It has been proven conclusively that that is not
correct. An engineer has demonstrated live on TV that he can cause the
computer to go into runaway acceleration, and it does not throw up any
trouble codes as a result.
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.