Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
its takes quite a bit of time to reach 100 mph. AND the throttle was not all the way on the floor. Pretty unlikely the floor mat can do that.. Partially, maybe, full, no. AND the guy had enough time to CALL 911 and wait for the operator and have a discussion but he did not have enough time to put it in neutral and apply the brakes? Theres more to this story
Quote:
Originally Posted by revelated
The problem is reaction time, and in a V6 it's multiplied.
In the case of what happened in Santee, it's a downhill grade, it ends at a T intersection, facing the flat. If you slam the brakes at high speed they will lock up and you will skid directly into the intersection - trust me, I know...I've done it in my mother's car on one occasion (a Camry). Also, 100MPH on a city street or offramp is faster than you think it is. Your reaction time might not be up to snuff. In that accident they were elderly. Someone who is elderly is not going to be fast enough on the trigger to apply the brakes.
A better question to ask would have been why they were not in the process of trying to slow the car down well before the offramp. That the pedal was on the floor in the first place screams of cruise control...a common thing to do on long stretches.
In any case, I still do not understand how this was not caught in either QA or road tests. They had to have benchmarked the speed rating, so either it didn't happen then or they ignored it as a fluke. But to affect that many vehicles? Something stinks.
While that may be, I suspect the actual difference was that the accelerator pedal was hinged to the floor instead of the more common "floating" pedal seen in the vast majority of cars these days. The hinged accelerator was fairly common on German cars until recently, and I think BMW still does it; same with Audi.
Reduced Emissions are apparently part of the shift to more Drive by Wire applications in the Automotive Realm.
Screw that... I won't allow the government to force me into driving a computer controlled vehicle. I want the machine I operate to have as much human signal input as possible. If I want electronic features I will implement them myself.
Screw that... I won't allow the government to force me into driving a computer controlled vehicle. I want the machine I operate to have as much human signal input as possible. If I want electronic features I will implement them myself.
You're probably limited to driving something from the early 70's or older... at least on vehicles with California Emissions.
OnStar equipped vehicles have the ability to be disabled remotely and tracked in addition to fuel management
I've restored lots of antique cars over the years and it is a marvel at how simple they are in design and function...
Don't expect there will be lots of newer cars being restored or lasting more than a 100 years like my 1905 Oldsmobile... it's already a problem to obtain emission parts for many cars made in the 80's... like BMW and Mercedes...
Check the newer list, where even CR has said that the 2007/8 V6 Camry is unreliable as they specifically have stated that the 6-cylinder is not recommended, though the 4-cylinder engine is still recommended. That's pretty telling if CR is segmenting recommendations by engine, that something is not quite right with the Camry.
As for the accidents, that push button start is a contributing factor as others have mentioned. At least with a key, one can turn off the vehicle, as opposed to holding a button with the same pressure for four or five seconds in a panicked state to get the computer to recognize that one is attempting to turn off the engine.
Toyota kept ABS optional on Camrys, save for the XLE, well into this decade, which is appalling, considering the proven safety benefit for the majority of drivers. Similarly, the side airbags have been optional on Corollas for too long, which in a vehicle that size, supposedly a class leader, is unacceptable. Cadillac had rear wheel ABS in the 1970s on some models and Boch/Mercedes heralded the modern era of ABS in the 1980s, yet well into the new century Toyota still thought it should be optional? That's a class leader? It should have been standard across the board after the 1997 redesign of the Camry, sine IIRC it was introduced on the second generation Camry, so I can understand a couple of years to implement it in the life cycle of the vehicle.
The 2007 Camry was the first year of the redesign. The problems with this Camry forced CR to re-evaluate its "predicted reliability" opinion for redesigned vehicles. CR predicted above average for the 07 Camry based on previous models - and ended up with egg on its face. So now CR will not provide a predicted reliability rating for redesigned vehicles until they have data.
In the April 2009 issue - they show the 07 and 08 as average reliability overall and the predicted reliability for NEW Camrys is average - well below the past.
I think the Camry is not the automatically solid pick it used to be. However many other Toyotas seem to have excellent reliability still. The 4Runner, Highlander, RAV4, etc. are all very reliable.
As for lack of ABS - no company has been worse about ABS as an option as Nissan. Try to find a used Altima 4 cylinder with ABS. When I shopped for a Maxima ten years ago it was an option where it was standard with many Mazdas and Hondas (usually on a LX or EX model).
You're probably limited to driving something from the early 70's or older... at least on vehicles with California Emissions.
OnStar equipped vehicles have the ability to be disabled remotely and tracked in addition to fuel management
I've restored lots of antique cars over the years and it is a marvel at how simple they are in design and function...
Don't expect there will be lots of newer cars being restored or lasting more than a 100 years like my 1905 Oldsmobile... it's already a problem to obtain emission parts for many cars made in the 80's... like BMW and Mercedes...
Not necessarily... I guess I should have clarified a bit more as to what I meant. For example... I absolutely love fuel injection, mechanical and electronic. However when I press down on the pedal I want that to physically allow more air down the intake via throttle valve or to let the injector pump suck in more fuel.... I, the operator, ALWAYS have control over their function. Without my command they do nothing. These drive by wire systems don't guarantee that... with those systems, you pressing the pedal is more like a request than a command. Your request is sent to the computer which then interprets your data, approximates it, and then sends signals to the throttle or injector pump.... the computer is what really has full control, not the operator. Electronics/computers should be there to assist the driver, not to take over their job.
I had a loaner vehicle from the dealership a few months ago... I was horrified when I started it, it actually paused between turning the key and then engine cranking! Thats ridiculous! A computer control starting system is completely unnecessary, even it its a drive by wire car.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
