The American Spectator : Who Throttled Toyota?

Text Size

Who Throttled Toyota?

By Eric Peters on 3.17.10 @ 6:06AM

Drive-by-wire will drive you crazy -- if you own a Prius.

It looks like the problem Toyota is having with "unwanted acceleration" is related to the drive-by-wire throttle control on models like the Prius.

If Toyota had used a cable, not only would the problem probably not have occurred, it would be simple to diagnose and easy to fix if it did.

A throttle cable physically connects the accelerator pedal to the engine's throttle. Pushing on the gas pedal increases tension on the cable, opening the throttle. Easing off the gas decreases tension, closing the throttle.

It's true a throttle cable can stick, causing the engine to race and the car to accelerate, if it happens to be in gear -- just as is apparently happening with the drive-by-wire system in some Toyotas. But the problem is infinitely easier to find and fix -- very much unlike the Toyota drive-by-wire system. Either the cable's sticking, or it's not. A quick physical inspection will determine this within minutes -- and the fix is as easy as greasing (or replacing) the cable.

In and out in 15 minutes.

Now, the thing with drive-by-wire is there may be nothing obviously wrong. You can't see a sticking drive-by-wire because there are no moving components to see. Just sensors and electronics. You're stuck chasing down the proverbial ghost in the machine -- who may not be cooperative. The problem may be intermittent or for all practical purposes, nonexistent. There are literally millions of "affected" Toyotas in circulation with the drive-by-wire system but only a small handful (a few dozen reported incidents -- at the time of this writing, at least) of actual "problem cars."

How do you deal with a problem buried deep in the software that manifests rarely and sporadically and for no apparent reason? Toyota engineers reportedly haven't been able to get the cars to do the Unwanted Acceleration Waltz under laboratory conditions that would enable them to nail down the source of the trouble.

It seems to "just happen" -- and the why is currently unknown.

But until the why is known, the problem can't be isolated, let alone fixed. Toyota engineers are left looking clueless while Toyota owners get to enjoy the relaxing sensation of driving around in a car with a possible mind of its own that may suddenly decide that more speed is needed -- perhaps at the worst possible moment, such as when a group of elementary school kids is walking across the road in front of you.

All because a simple, proven, effective means of controlling the engine -- the throttle cable -- was ditched in favor of a much more elaborate, computer-controlled means of doing exactly the same thing.

The question arises -- why? Why replace something that works perfectly well with something that (apparently) doesn't work nearly as well -- and which absolutely adds to the complexity (and thus, cost) of a new car?

No one seems to know. I've heard that it may have something to do with emissions control, because drive-by-wire is both more precise, as well as easier to tie into the computer brain that runs the whole car, than our old friend the throttle cable. It may also be easier to calibrate during assembly at the factory. With plug-in electronic components, it's easier to assure that every single car coming off the line is set up exactly the same way. With an old- school cable, there's more leeway and maybe a need for minor adjustments. One car's throttle "feel" may be slightly different than another's.

But we're talking "improvements" (with drive-by-wire) that are likely so minor that the average driver would never notice them. Back in the '90s or the '80s or even the '70s, complaints about throttle cables were rare and no one (that I recall) ever seemed to notice that (for instance) one '89 Mustang's throttle tip-in was just slightly different than the next one on the lot.

But we can't leave well enough alone, can we? We just have to have the latest gadget/technology, simply because it's possible. Nonexistent problems increasingly require elaborate -- and expensive -- "solutions" that no sane person would want, if given the choice.

This business may not kill Toyota but it's going to hurt it, badly. The automaker's main sales draw for years has been the safety and reliability of its vehicles and now that's out the window.

All because a perfectly functional component got tossed in favor of another bit of over-the-top technology that easily could have been done without.

topics:
Technology, Toyota Recall

About the Author

Eric Peters is an automotive columnist and author of Automotive Atrocities: The Cars You Love to Hate (Motor Books International) and a new book, Road Hogs.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (56) | Leave a comment

Alan Brooks| 3.17.10 @ 5:14PM

Dunno about the Prius, but the Lexus is still very popular.

Johnny Knuckles| 3.17.10 @ 10:08PM

The most shocking claim about the runaway Toyota story was that a Prius could go 95 mph.

Conservative in Michigan| 3.18.10 @ 2:41PM

Johnny, "The most shocking claim about the runaway Toyota story was that a Prius could go 95 mph. "
I find it hard to not notice he was $20K in the hole for the Prius and over $750K in dept at the same time! Maybe some payolla would help, eh?

USNpops| 3.18.10 @ 3:09PM

I own a Prius, and love it. They recommend not going over 85 in the manual. Did get mine up to 82 on the highway in nevada last year passing an 18 wheeler.
I have tried all the things that apparently the driver in San Diego was instructed to do. Shift to neutral - car slows down. Shift into the "B" position, decelerated fine. Actuate Cruise Control Lever, kicks out as planned. And the Power off button for 3 seconds, kills the engine, and braking and steering work, though very stiff as to be epected.

Rick V.| 3.17.10 @ 7:02AM

Mr. Peters,
I have worked for the federal government for over 25 years and my "customer" has always been principally the military servicemember, and of course the taxpayer in the broader sense. I read your review of Toyota's problems and saw the following parallel: The question arises -- why? Why replace something that works perfectly well with something that (apparently) doesn't work nearly as well -- and which absolutely adds to the complexity (and thus, cost) of customer service?
No one seems to know. Explanations abound. But we're talking "improvements" to programs and operating systems that are likely so minor that the average government employee and/or private citizen would never notice them. But we can't leave well enough alone, can we? We just have to have the latest gadget/technology, simply because it's possible. Nonexistent problems increasingly require elaborate -- and expensive -- "solutions" that no sane person would want, if given the choice.
This (fill in government program or proposal here) may not kill what little actual “service” the government presently provides the citizen, but it's going to hurt it, badly. The federal government’s claim that it is “here to help you” has been laughable for years, and now that's out the window.
All because a perfectly functional program or operating system got tossed in favor of another bit of over-the-top technology that easily could have been done without.

philhoey| 3.17.10 @ 8:42AM

Rick V.
I have a ham radio license. I have also built or re-built a lot of equipment. It took me a long time to 'learn' - if it ain't broke - don't fix it.' That is a very difficult lesson. There is always the desire to make it 'more better'. Sometimes it works, sometimes you blow up the circuit. But what I was doing does not cause loss of life and limb.
What you site has a long history: Remember the fiasco with the magnetic detonators on torpedos in WWII? It worked well in testing off of Groton, CT - there must be something wrong with the people on the subs in the Pacific! Come to find out the planet's magnetic field is weaker in that area than parts of the Pacific - which was causing pre-mature detonation or the internal navigation of go haywire.
Just blame it on the human desire to keep improving things.

Stuart Koehl| 3.17.10 @ 7:02AM

I am of the opinion that Toyota's sudden acceleration issues are really a DFO problem--and as every computer geek knows, DFO stands for Dumb F--king Operator. Yes, it isn't the brake pedal, it's the nut behind the wheel, the incompetent driver who should never have been licensed to operate a motor vehicle. Oh--and a rapacious plaintiff's bar scenting blood.

There have been numerous claims of "sudden acceleration" over the past couple of decades, involving many different brands of automobile using different throttle control systems. No common thread can be found in any of these, other than that the phenomenon disproportionately affects drivers over sixty, people in rented cars, and others unfamiliar with the car they were driving at the time.

Oh, and insurance frauds, too.

I personally don't like hybrids. I think they are a stupid idea that will never be economical. I don't particularly like Toyotas (Hondas are far better cars). But I loathe consumer advocates, lawyers and ignorant politicians meddling in things they don't understand.

Mike| 3.17.10 @ 9:46AM

DFOs, multi-brand "sudden acceleration" problems and insurance fraud. You have succinctly stated three problems I have long suspected are part of the froth we are now witnessing.

I personally like my Prius. The 2010 model is spacious, quiet, peppy and economical. Even though gas is still cheap, I am benefiting from 54.5 mile per gallon. I find myself driving the Prius more often than the BMW.

That being said, I am happy that you can choose a Honda instead of a Toyota. May it ever be so.

R. Dittmar| 3.17.10 @ 9:58AM

I'm with you on this 100%. I still remember the big Audi scare from when I was just a kid. The cause of "sudden acceleration" is obvious. A driver puts his foot on the gas when he thinks he's got his foot on the brake. The car takes off, the driver panics and in his panic floors the gas thinking it's the brake. Toyota will be chasing phantoms down for months and months at the cost of millions and no cause will ever be found.

Astoria Red| 3.18.10 @ 9:38AM

Eric: It would have been nice (not to mention professional) had you contacted someone at Toyota before going off on an uninformed rant about drive-by-wire. Every late model vehicle uses drive-by-wire (not just Toyota) because its precision is needed to meet fuel economy and emissions regulations. BTW: My Dad's '59 Pontiac had a bout of unintended acceleration when a motor mount broke, the engine torqued up on one side and reversed the carburetor's mechanical linkage. The mechanic said: "We see that a lot."

CB| 3.17.10 @ 7:33AM

Well, I still don't get it. I was waiting to hear from Mr. Peters on this issue, but I still haven't seen the good old common sense response. Just put the dad-gum thing in neutral! The ding dong in the Prius racing along the highway in San Diego said that he was afraid to do this because he might have hit reverse (!) And afraid to shut off the engine for fear of locking the wheel. So I guess he was content to just roar down the highway at 90 miles an hour and take his chances?
It's real simple....immediately put the car in neutral, turn the key off, coast to a stop. But heaven help us, we can't put the responsibilty on the driver when it is much easier to blame the car companies.....Good Grief!!

Henry22| 3.17.10 @ 7:50AM

Dear Eric,
Airbus and Boeing use complete "Fly by wire" technology in many of their new planes (777, 787, A380, et.al.) On these planes are several computers for redundancy. If fly by wire technology is good enough for commercial airliners, why not autos??
Your hysterical rant reminds me of those who probably cried when the horseless carriage was invented.

Nick| 3.17.10 @ 8:17AM

Henry,

Are you aware of how many suspected"fly-by-wire" Airbus crashes there have been?

I wouldn't fly on an Airbus if you payed me.

Nick| 3.17.10 @ 8:05AM

Mr. Peters,

The one reason I can think of why the Prius doesn't have a throttle cable is because it is a hybrid.

You would need to have the control for the electric motor connected to the same throttle cable for the internal combustion engine. And they would have to be calibrated in some way, so the pedal travel matched while you were driving.

It was probably easier, and cheaper, to just connect them to the drive-by-wire control.

Mr. Koehl and CB,

I agree.

I don't believe that guy in San Diego was "out of control." I didn't believe him the first time I saw him. I think he smelled LAWSUIT. I've heard he had financial troubles. I hope Toyota nails him, if he was ambulence chasing.

I guess it doesn't pay to be Green, huh?

philhoey| 3.17.10 @ 8:48AM

All the more reason to stay away from hybrids. I don't see where anything is gained. The cost of the hybrid, plus the cost of replacing the batteries every five years or so, is in no way 'being green'.
Nothing but hype.

KRT| 3.18.10 @ 8:54AM

1) Hybrid batteries last longer than 5 years. Priuses have been sold 13 years, about 11 years in the US.
2) Toyota hybrids are not burning coal to recharge the batteries - they are not plug-ins - yet.

Stick to the real facts please.

USN Pops| 3.18.10 @ 3:19PM

Toyota warranties the battery for 100,000 miles - period.
My prius has saved me $300 dollars in gas this year versus the same 3 months last year.
There are Prius' being used in the Taxi Cab industry that have over 200,000 miles on them without a battery change. The batteries used are among the longest lasting Battery technology invented to date, and the cost of replacing them now is half what it would have cost a few years ago.
I think that hybrids are going to be around for a long time, as does Ford, Nissan, Honda etc. who are now jumping on the hybrid bandwagon.

Paul D| 3.17.10 @ 9:02AM

From my discussions with executives in the Car business, I gather most of these engineering changes that don't seem to make sense are based on cost. Its probable that it's cheaper to mass produce Toyotas with a drive by wire throttle than it is to use a cable. The cost difference might be only about 50 cents per car but when you're looking at producing hundreds of thousands of cars, that adds up.

Spike| 3.17.10 @ 8:11AM

American consumers equate cost with quality, thus a most expensive machine is of the highest quality and should last the longest. It is hard for me to unwind this with my major appliance service customers who buy the most highly electronic machines designed to eek out the smallest in energy and water savings while increasing the complexity of the units so that only the most deep-pocketed company will be able to fix it, at significant expense to the customer. Sometimes I try to explain that there are better machines out there that cost much less, but consumers will have nothing of it.

jWarrior| 3.17.10 @ 8:24AM

Popular Science recently tested 4 or 5 different cars to see if brakes -alone- would stop a car with the gas pedal mashed to the floor. The brakes stopped all the cars, including a 500 hp super-charged Mustang.

So even if there is a problem, which I doubt, stomping the brakes, turning off the engine, or putting the car in neutral will stop the car.

Adam| 3.17.10 @ 10:42AM

Good point jWarrior-no modern car I know of can outrun its braking, which should have deflated the whole Audi sudden acceleration scare of the 1980s. As every kid who ever did some stop-light drag racing in his old man's '78 Olds Cutlass knows, the technique is to stand on the brake pedal with your left foot, hold down the accelerator with your right foot, and lift off the brake as soon as the light turns green. It is possible if the throttle sticks and you try to slow the car down with braking you can burn out the breaks. But guess what? no car that has had a "stuck throttle" or "sudden acceleration" has been found to have burnt out brakes afterwards.

CB| 3.17.10 @ 8:25AM

Nick
Yes, I also think the guy in San Diego was a con job. But I still don't see anybody from any car company explaining how to safely stop your car IF you have "uncontrolled acceleration". Put it in neutral! Is that so hard? We need to exhume common sense from the graveyard....

Dan Hirsch| 3.17.10 @ 8:59AM

Eric;

If you presume to write articles about automobiles, shouldn't you have at least a passing interest in the "works?" If you as a 'journalist' can't be bothered to take the time to inquire as to what the technical advantages of drive by wire, then you shouldn't waste our time simply re-stating the obvious question.

The answer to the question 'why not throttle cables' is be related to the fact that we now use microprocessors to monitor and control the engine and the transmission on modern cars. The engine in my car develops 425 HP at full throttle, yet I achieve 21 mpg on the highway and 15 mpg in town. In 1969, this same model car had the same power output, yet it got about 11 mpg on the highway. The pollution emissions of the 1969 version were significantly higher, maintenance intervals significantly shorter, and engine life was significantly shorter.

If you want to go back to a throttle cable, you can either go back to the world of carburetors with chokes, 11 mpg and smoggier skies.

You probably do not recall the Audi 5000 problems of "unintended acceleration" from the early 1980's. Those were throttle cable equipped cars. The NHTSA investigation of some 30 incidents revealed that all were operator error.
Eventually, I'm sure that the same result will be found in this instance.

This is not about "ghosts;" this is about the 'nut holding the wheel' as Mr. Sikes in San Diego has demonstrated quite clearly. It's about people refusing to accept responsibility for their own mistakes, i.e. if you push the gas pedal instead of the brake it's nobodies fault but yours!

We ought to avoid the luddite notion that cables and carburetors are better than computer control.

And you should do your homework!

Dan Hirsch

Doorgunner| 3.17.10 @ 11:45AM

Amen, brother.

KRT| 3.18.10 @ 9:08AM

Mr Hirsh:

Well said.

Mr Peter:

Do your homework before writing your opinions and report the whole story, not just a part of it. Most manufacturers use throttle by wire technology.

Nick| 3.17.10 @ 9:03AM

CB,

Well stated!

They must believe what they see in movies and on TV, when a car goes out of control.

The loss of common sense, and the ability to do things for oneself, are two of the reasons this country is in the mess it is in.

Dave| 3.17.10 @ 9:56AM

*If* there really is a problem with the drive-by-wire system, you can be pretty confident that the Toyota design engineers either did not validate the design properly(using a Design Validation Plan) or did not verify the design(using a Design Validation Plan).

Dave| 3.17.10 @ 9:56AM

Oops; second parenthetical should have read "Design Verification Plan".

Aquanomics| 3.17.10 @ 10:22AM

My 2005, Ford F-150 has a drive-by-wire throttle. It has never been a problem. Blaming technology for technology's sake is just silly.

Perhaps the Prius problem is related to the Audi throttle problems of the 1980s (as diagnosed by NHTSA): pedal misapplication.

!!!

Galen| 3.17.10 @ 10:28AM

Airliner type redundancy would make cars unaffordable. It's probably a slipped foot anyway. Toyota has a fix now.Each car will be equipped with a Tiger Woods' 9 Iron.

Dixie Pixie| 3.17.10 @ 5:11PM

Why not require the same Martin-Baker US16La ejection seats used in training aircraft. Certainly it would make traffic accidents more interesting to see ejected passengers floating down around the site.

John Navratil| 3.17.10 @ 10:29AM

Mr. Peters,

Not your best work! Engineers everywhere make design decisions in pursuit of the best solutions subject to the constraints presented (cost is but one). Not all decisions work out which is why products are tested and reviewed. Still failures appear which is why no one feels the least bit afraid to jump to hysterical conclusions. After all, if we have to reboot out PCs because they lock up, isn't it possible that Toyotas "lock up" too?

Previous comments have addressed reasons for "by wire" throttles and posited proper operator responses.

Before we blame the complexity of the modern automobile for these problems, we might want to know how these problems appear to be so related to the age of the driver. This seems like Audi 1986 redux to me.

L. Ross| 3.17.10 @ 10:41AM

It's simple. Buy a stickshift. Don't even have to "find" neutral. Just press down on your left foot. Get better mileage too, and the transmission doesn't downshift just as you are cresting a grade.

Raoul Bloodworth| 3.17.10 @ 10:51AM

I've been driving a drive-by-wire car since 1991. In this car (BMW 850i) there are two ECUs and two throttles which must be accurately synchronized. It does the job reliably. In one of my other cars there are 4 carburetors which are mechanically synchronized. It takes many hours of minute adjustments to get the synchronization right.

Drive-by-wire throttles are an outgrowth of the emissions control regulations, which forced automakers to go to fuel injection and electronic engine controls. You can do it on the cheap with a cable-controlled throttle and a throttle position sensor back to the ECU, or you can take a systems approach and use an electronic throttle pedal. With a car like the Prius, with both a gas engine and an electric engine you must use electronic controls for seamless operation between the two modes. The Prius also uses regenerative braking, adding another dimension to the problem.

As an Automotive Editor I would expect Mr. Peters to know these facts, and not resort to some populist claptrap to explain what is clearly pedal mis-identification syndrome and Trial Lawyer greed.

John W.| 3.17.10 @ 12:24PM

Mr. Peters,

In addition to the many points of objection already raised, let me point out that computers don't have "ghosts." They have bits and bytes, at 2.5 or 5 Volts, that represent executable code and storage.

"How do you deal with a problem buried deep in the software that manifests rarely and sporadically and for no apparent reason? "

By testing the the software, a process known to those of us who have worked in the trade, and actually know what we're talking about, as IV&V. In that process, "buried deep in the software" is meaningless drivel, much like your article.

Richard Baker| 3.17.10 @ 12:28PM

Henry22:
Used to be an A&P and fly-by-wire IS utilized throughout the Big Heavy world. The F-16 IS called the Electric Jet, had a buddy who worked on them in the USAF and he informed me of it's capabilities, and that aircraft has been around since 1974-75. Amazing that Toyota can't develop a system as reliable for a much simpler vehicle. If they can't figure this out then returning to a cable system would be in order and what in the world does a small economy car need with fly-by-wire?

Richard Baker| 3.17.10 @ 12:40PM

John W.
The authors use of "ghosts" is not a figment of his imagination. This term has been used for years to describe these intermittent problems that exist in computer operated systems. I've heard it used by avionics techs when I worked in the airline industry. I hate computers, to be frank, but a term used in various publications and forums may not suit you but the problem is acknowledged to exist publicly. Why and how is anyone's guess. Just because you profess a contempt for this idea doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Intellectual honesty, if you please.

Rick Z| 3.18.10 @ 9:08AM

....
Military aircraft do not have ghosts.

However, they do have mechanical gremlins, structural gremlins, electronic gremlins .....

The engine control problem exists. It MIGHT be 'the nut behind the wheel' or it might be under the hood. In the later case, it might well be a COMBINATION of conditions : Electrical fluctuations resulting from .... closing the sunroof, the power window and heater operated simultaneously, while the radio is turned off, and the left turn signal is blinking .... ....

Testing real time systems is exceedingly difficult.

All that said, I'd put real money that the next versions of Toyota's electronic throttle will have the capability to have the engine slow down when the brakes are applied. Akin to the Cruise Control disengaging when the car is braked.

Rick Z| 3.18.10 @ 9:08AM

....
Military aircraft do not have ghosts.

However, they do have mechanical gremlins, structural gremlins, electronic gremlins .....

Testing real time systems is exceedingly difficult.

John W.| 3.18.10 @ 10:34AM

Intellectual honesty: I object to the term "ghosts" because it is used by the technically illiterate to give an illusion of knowledge when they refer to problems they don't comprehend. Such as in this article.

The common term that "has been used for years to describe these intermittent problems that exist in" computer systems (not " computer operated systems") is: bug.

Pat| 3.17.10 @ 1:07PM

One of the few times Peters is dead on in his criticism. As we build more and more complexity into our machines we increase the failure rate due solely to unnecessary complexity and gizmos basically unneeded in order to fulfill the machine's basic purpose. A runaway "smart" phone is irritating at worst, not dangerous but a problme in a commerical aircraft's fuel control system can kill you. Aerospace engineers combat mechanical failure with elaborate redundancy, extensive testing to establish the reliability of the design and then strictly controlling changes in the basic design to reduce the risk of introducing new variables which could lead to failure.

But a plane flight can still kill you and the decision has been made to sacrifice additional safety for cost and marketing considerations. The military demands helicopters that can withstand crashes that would turn a commercial jet liner into flaming rubble. Simply requiring the seats to face the rear could save lives and injuries, planes seldom crash tail first. But passengers don't like facing backward, it's a marketing thing related to customer satisfaction. And ultra-strong passenger compartments would require more costly planes than the airlines want and the govt. requires.

And, no, you weren't personally consulted when decisions regarding your possible untimely death were made, that's just how it is. So, an automobile , much less complex than a Boeing 777, should be safer, but the reality is just the opposite, we like frequent design changes in our products to relieve boredom, the manufacturers comply and we die by the numbers - oh well.

Faffnir| 3.17.10 @ 1:49PM

There is a considerable body of literature both on the 'net and elsewhere that rather conclusively points to variations on the IFO error, DFO error, SFO error, ID10T error theme of DRIVER error. This problem occurs across many makes and models, the only constant is the age of the driver. The older the driver, the more prevalent the problem.
The problem more often occurs at low speed, when people think their foot is on the brake but it is in reality on the accelerator. They keep mashing on the throttle, thinking they are on the brake and then blame the car for the resulting crunch. If this problem should occur on the highway the fix is simple: shift to neutral, put on the four-way flashers and steer to the curb/shoulder. You use the flashers because, hey, you've got an emergency!
And, as to why most manufacturers use drive-by-wire or similiar control systems: they use them in pursuit of the government mandated Holy Grail of Fuel Economy and Safety. The Prius and hybrids in particular need the computer to manage the two very different propulsion systems.
I drive manuals, exclusively. I have a Miata, an old Alfa Spyder Veloce and I have close to two million safe miles on my "company car": a Volvo VN tractor.

Kevin Yang| 3.17.10 @ 3:40PM

Yes, why change it when it still works. Hmmm... I wonder why everyone driving a car... so many problems. If everyone just rides bike, we will never have any accidents, let alone any fatal ones... Anybody with me?

Mike VE7PNL| 3.17.10 @ 3:40PM

It took me a month to get accustomed to the the throttle by wire used in my 2009 Honda Accord. I understand that this helped Honda meet the emission standards. The most annoying feature is that when the throttle is released and the clutch is pressed at the same time - the RPMs go up quite a lot. The reason is that the release of the gas pedal does not immediately close the throttle. And the reason is that this assures more complete combustion of the fuel-air mixture and thus reduces pollution. So I have learned to release the gas pedal slightly early to give time for engine to drop in RPM.
One possible cause of non-driver-caused acceleration could be electromagnetic interference. Some vehicles do have electronic controller problems with a relatively low power radio transmitter nearby. I believe that some car warranties are void if a transmitter of more than 20 watts is installed. There are a lot of 50 to 250 watt transmitters in vehicles driving by...

jr| 3.17.10 @ 5:53PM

Hook a throttle and a brake pedal to a computer and what do you get? No one knows for sure but as the article demonstrates, a common (isn't that old?) as long as nothing goes wrong with the pedal, wire, computer and person, works okay. On a European car that is 5 years old - foot barely touching the accelerator and other foot barely touching the brake pedal -- neither will do anything. Both connected to a foot bone and a computer. NO REASON for either to be controlled by a computer. Big bucks too!

phantom6294| 3.17.10 @ 9:02PM

The author should spend a little more time research the MANY benefits of drive-by-wire (DBW).
Here’s one reason: traction control. If the drive wheels break free (due to too much power for the available traction), the easiest way to regain traction is reduce power to those wheels. The easiest way to reduce power is to close (or modulate) the throttle.

Want another reason? For cars with turbos, DBW allows for FAR MORE precise control of turbo boost and thus engine output (both the amount and at what RPM).

Want another reason? DBW can help prevent engine damage due to over-revving an engine – though admittedly the same can accomplished by simply cutting spark to the engine.

Want another reason? DBW allows for a far more simple mechanism for controlling the idle speed of an engine. With a mechanical throttle, a separate system must be devised to provide adequate air when idling. With DBW, no such system is necessary as the car's computer can just modulate the throttle plate.

Steve C| 3.17.10 @ 10:29PM

Electronic throttle control has been the exclusive engine speed control for heavy duty truck engines since 1988. And by 1999 all on-highway truck engines including the diesel engine options for the Ford and Dodge pickups use FBW throttles. You don't get run-away trucks unless heading downhill or the driver goes postal. As for ghosts or EMI automotive electronics are exhaustively tested. Should the ECM see input and/or output states it's not programmed for it will behave the same as a PC does. You get the equivalent of the Blue Screen of Death. For an engine with an ECM it will stop both fuel injection and spark; so, the engine behaves the same as turning the ignition switch to off. If you will do a Google search you will find many links to articles in both the automotive and electronics press. Other than driver error and floor mats the throttle is the most likely cause. The throttle has designed in friction to limit the rate of position change when driver's foot is removed from peddle. It's possible that the friction surfaces are corroding increasing the friction to the point where it sticks.
P.S. The BWM I-6 gasoline engine hasn't had a throttle plate for several years now. It uses variable valve timing and lift to control air flow. Until this year it has made the Ward Automotive 10 Best Engine list for 10 years.

srae| 3.18.10 @ 4:14AM

A beautiful woman's shoes can not travel hurry, neatly put on good. The pair of Christian Laboutin shoes, like the masters,Pale and tired. High-heeled shoes is another woman's face, mood, temper, character and are meant to be exhaustive in the above.

Richard Baker| 3.18.10 @ 12:51PM

Wonderful benefits of Fly-by-wire in cars. High tech and phantom accelerations. Ain't computers just grand?

Tim Mojonnier| 3.18.10 @ 4:03PM

Toyota's problems are partly the result of government mandates for increased fuel economy. As a result, automobiles in general have become increasingly complex, and, ultimately, less reliable. For a complete discussion of the troubles at Toyota, check the latest post at

http://www.philosophiesofbusiness.com/blog/

George Kimball| 3.19.10 @ 4:47AM

The whole Toyota thing is STUPID. There is no problem, never was. Cables probably fail at a higher rate than DBW. This whole d*mn country is innumerate (unable to use numbers).

The LA Times has now run something like 6-7 articles - top of the front page - bashing Toyota. The innumeracy story of the decade. 19-cum-52 deaths in a decade, which at the high end is 1/10000 of total vehicle deaths.

There are 22 million Toyotas on the road. Est.: 15K miles/yr (normal mileage) at say 35mph average = 430 hrs/yr of driving. If a sudden accel. incident is ~5 sec long, for each driver there are 720 possible per hr, or 310,000/yr, 3.1 million over ten years. So, 22 million Toyotas, or 68.2 TRILLION possible incidents. 52 incidents out of 68 trillion chances? Bayesian probability would be smaller still.

For this Toyota has so far committed to torching $1.1B, expects to lose that again in lost sales (connect the dots: it's the UAW). And that is before the trial lawyers get their fangs in; the numerate engineers get layoffs; the lawyers get yachts.

At the heart of that story is good ol' yellow journalism - a lurid voice recording of some moron in a Lexus talking to dispatch instead of shutting off his engine or shifting to neutral - and this is someone who is trained in high-performance pursuit driving.

Toyota| 3.20.10 @ 3:25AM

Who throttled Toyota? Himself, come on, Cherish your life and refuse Toyota.

YouTube Video Converter- Automatically download YouTube Video and convert to more 30 video/audio formats

VOB to FLV- Your best choice to convert DVD (.vob) files to FLV, AVI, MP4, MPEG, DivX, Xvid, WMV, HD MOV, MP3, AAC, AC3 and so on

JRW| 3.21.10 @ 11:11PM

I think GM is diverting attentions away from their "whining for a bailout", and trying to sabotage their greatest rival or competitor.
Notice back when the gas prices were climbing out of control and the auto industry began "crying"? That's what messed America up,,,,Corporate Management that got too greedy.
How many American auto makers use American steel today? Not many, because autos are becoming big hunks of over-priced, gadget-filled plastic. That's why they NEED all the safety devices to start with. Drivers are being too distracted by gadgetries. We need to slow down on some detrimental technologies and get back to basics again.

Phil| 5.20.11 @ 12:54PM

It still amazes me about Toyota's instant fall from grace. You wonder if the same thing would happen if GM or Ford had the same problems. Great read

swivel tv stand| 1.12.12 @ 5:40AM

It is hard for me to relax this together with my major appliance services customers which buy the the majority of highly electronic digital machines made to eek out the littlest in vitality and h2o savings even though increasing the intricacy of the products so that merely the most deep-pocketed firm will be able to repair it, at significant expense to the customer. Occasionally I try to clarify that there are much better machines around that price much less, but consumers will have nothing of computer.