Sebring---- SUDDEN ACCELERATION

By the brand of spark plug. Weren't you listening? ;-)

DS

You buffoon, the power module was called the power module, the logic module (the computer processor) was called the logic module. Quite strange that a dealership mechanic would get them confused or forget that there were in fact two individual components. Quite strange that a dealership mechanic would claim that trouble codes were stored in the power module considering that it possessed no such capability. Quite strange that a dealership mechanic would claim that a power module could somehow react to a sensor that wasn't even connected to it.

No more comments period would be better.

All well and good but it doesn't address the problem that someone might actually follow something that you've posted, you know like change the cam and crank sensors when their timing belt has jumped.

As i said, i apoligize for confusing your lame ass, I no where the logic module is and the power module and when SMEC and SBEC came in and where they are located and all that, Just a lame person like yourself would twist this into one of your idiotic debates. I dont see you posting to any of the replys here gear head, you sit back and wait...and then harp on something that is mispelled or mispronouced,

Quite strange that a dealership mechanic would claim that trouble

I don't think he proved that there have been failures. It isn't clear if Chrysler agrees that these were unintended acceleration incidents or has just received reports of them. I'd be very surprised if Chrysler has proof of this. And the independent engineering report claims to have found a defect that MAY be caused by water, etc. It doesn't sound like proof yet to me.

I'd like to know who the "independent" engineering experts are and who they work for. I bet there is a pretty good chance that they work for the lawyers of people who claim there vehicle magically accelerated...

Matt

Of course you don't see me posting help, you subscribe to maybe two automotive newsgroups, both Chrysler related because that's all you've ever managed to understand in your minimal way. You're a one trick pony and a mediocre one at that. You'd probably be befuddled if you had to change the oil on a Pontiac. You have but one tool, a hammer, so every problem looks to you like a nail.

A few days ago. My reply was "pure slapstick." Can your feeble brain manage to remember that? You flub your lines on a regular basis.

No Glen, it's you getting caught with your foot in your mouth again.

Nope. Last job I was fired from was, never. If I wanted to work at a Chrysler dealership (or any other dealership) again, I'd have to somehow convince myself to take a $30 per hour cut in pay, a situation that would put me way to close to the likes of you, you know, shuffle in, sharpen my pencil, flag some bogus warranty ops, change some perfectly good parts, send the car out still broken. I prefer having customers come to me because I'm good at what I do, not because there won't be any charges because it's still under warranty or a recall.

No, but I did turn down a job with their training sub-contractor about 12 years ago. (not enough money which explains the level of training that you have)

Why do you assume that when someone calls you on your bullshit that they must somehow be threatened by you? You send people on wild goose chases, you lack analytical skills, you can't reason thru a problem, all you can do is parrot out answers based upon prior failures or TSBs you may have some vague knowledge of.

Oh, and since you've now replied after claiming that you were done doing so, your word isn't worth shit.

You're weak, you are not an asset to the industry, your posts are boring, your buddy Darryl is even more boring, you lack theory, you haven't an original thought in your head. You embarrass all mechanics alive or deceased. You are a scourge and a scoundrel, you do not know your trade, you are a fraud. The sweat on my wrenches has more intelligence than you, you top post like a clueless newbie, your memory is a failure and you make statements that have no basis in fact.

In 1995 when we went to the MoPar Nationals in Indianapolis, my then next door neighbor Pete Dorn decided to enter his 1969 GTX in the burn out contest. 440 4bbl automatic, drum brakes in the rear, don't remember what the fronts were, might have been drums also since the car was a cloned from a 318 Satellite, beautiful car non the less.

We did some trials in the pits before the contest started and determined that the brakes were just too powerful to effect a show stopping first place finish. So I clamped off his rear brake line with a needle nose vice grips. The rules said no line locks, but said nothing about using hand tools. Ol' Pete won the burn out contest and got himself a free set of tires from Tire America which he mounted on some cop car wheels (looked really good). I just find it hard to believe that if a set of vintage 1969 brakes can hold back a strong running 440 4 bbl, that the brakes cited in all these supposed 'events' of unintended acceleration

318 powered Jeeps can't hold back a late model smogger SUV much less a wheezing 3.0 in a Sebring.

IIRC, the term Patrick Bedard used back when all those Audi's were getting dunked in swimming pools all over suburbia USA was "cognitive dissonance."

Just curious, but if it was suspected to be merely a case of pedal mis-application, why was this situation peculiar only to Audi's and not all models? I would also be curious as to how many instances of the above mentioned condition were automatics vs. manuals.

It was not unique to Audi, a number of manufacturers were being accused of Sudden Acceleration, Audi was just the most notorious. Studies revealed that the position of the gas and brake pedals were closer together than the driver was used to and that the driver, in attempting to step on the brakes, was stepping on the gas instead. At that point denial set in, "Of course, I didn't step on the gas, the car just went out of control by itself."

And yes, the problem lay with cars with automatic transmissions. There was an organization that was able to "replicate" a case of unintended acceleration, I don't remember if it was a news agency or a victims advocacy group. It required overriding so many safety interchecks, including a number of valves in the transmission that it was realized that such an event was so highly improbable that it verged on impossible.

Other than these few faults, Glen is an alright guy???????

Denny

It's been a long time and I honestly don't remember the details, but I'll bet if you search around a while you might find something ... although I think much of this was pre internet. I believe the predominant theory was that the pedals in the Audi were closer together than in many other cars and offset farther to the right relative to the driver. This may have contributed to the pedal misapplication.

Matt

Man, is my stomach sore from laughing at the posts to this topic. You two (maxpower & aarcuda69062) have made my day. :-)

He's beginning to make Altovoz appear down right sane.

I did a number of investigations on Chevrolet Astro vans in the mid 80s when I worked in a Chevy dealership, the Astro and Safari have a fairly narrow drivers foot well and the throttle and brake pedals are quite close together. I remember one van was owned by a TV station but they never did a news segment on it claiming it was a defect.

IIRC, all the Audi cases were automatic.

Yep. The factory "fix" for stupid drivers was a brake/shift interlock and an insert plate for the shift quadrant that said "DEPRESS BRAKE TO SHIFT FROM PARK".

And Altavoz was an Ele Emgineer!

Slide rule smarts.

I firmly believe that virtually 100% of the cases of "unintended acceleration" in cars made prior to about 2001 were because of driver error. There's simply NO way that an engine with a mechanical throttle linkage can accelerate unless the return spring breaks, and it doesn't "go back to normal" immediately thereafter- it stays broken.

Howver, in recent years more cars are being built with "throttle by wire" in which a computer-controlled servo moves the throttle blades, not a direct mechanical linkage to the accelerator pedal. I know that the systems and software go through tremendous testing, but I no longer feel confident in saying that it "cannot happen" anymore.

Which begs the question...why make a very simple and reliable system more complicated (with all the associated problems that more complicated systems have)?