Civic stuck in park - what's the deal with this problem?

Which is why the interlock was a good solution.

Reply to
Gordon McGrew
Loading thread data ...

Was the Audi 5000 a domestic product? I seem to recall that the interlock appeared on all cars - foreign and domestic - simultaneously.

So you favor a government mandate on lens colors to protect idiots who are easily confused by flashing lights?

Industry will always do what is cheapest, at least in the short run. The Interlock was the cheapest solution to the unintended acceleration problem. Lobbying against it would have been more expensive and would have done nothing to reduce the problem.

SUVs are (were?) a cash cow and the redesign is expensive and interferes with their intended use (i.e. looking macho and tough and sitting high above other traffic.) So industry went the lobby route on this one.

SUVs flipping over is a real problem. The media helped promote the idea that these vehicles were safer than cars while sweeping real safety concerns under the rug.

Are you talking about the Audi 5000 incident? SUVs were a niche market back then and the quattro was hardly a threat to the Bronco.

Reply to
Gordon McGrew

if the car has a problem, say with idle control, and starts accelerating, how does an interlock stop that happening???

Reply to
jim beam

wow!!! potm!!!

Reply to
jim beam

exactly how??? it doesn't affect throttle or idle control in any way. it doesn't over-ride the engine computer in any way. what is the mechanism for /how/ this is supposed to address a so-called "unwanted acceleration" problem???

Reply to
jim beam

I think you hit the nail on the head, Jim... The so-called "unwanted acceleration" problem with the Audi (et al) WASN'T. It occurred due to either driver error or, possibly, ergonomic design. Kinda like gun deaths. It ain't the gun that kills, it's the person in whose hands it lies that does the killing - intentional or otherwise.

Those "accidents" occurred when the vehicle was placed into gear and the drivers, thinking they were putting their foot on the brake, instead placed them on the accelerator. The interlock, requiring that the brake pedal is depressed before the transmission can be moved from Park to Drive or Reverse, at least insures that the "loose nut" behind the steering wheel has their foot on the brake rather than the gas. What happens after they get the car in gear and remove their foot from the brake pedal is on them.

Anyone ever hear of a documented case of a car running wild after the interlocks were made standard or, alternatively, somebody driving peacefully down the road at 45 m/h and have their car suddenly red line for no apparent reason?

Reply to
Say What?

yes, absolutely. and the interlock did damn-all to prevent it. my grandmother had an intersection crash with her lincoln continental. part of the dash panel in the footwell fell down and was bridging the gas and brake pedals. the motor is stronger than the brakes. inspection reveals this could easily happen on any of these vehicles. neither ford corporate nor the local dealer would return her calls or letters.

has anyone launched a smear campaign to stop them importing their filthy "market-dominating, profit competing innovations" from mexico? no, they're "domestic"! has there been a move for legislation to connect the gas pedal to the child safety locks to prevent recurrence [or something equally unrelated]? no. and both are totally unrelated to ford's prolific lobbying...

Reply to
jim beam

On 2/3/2008 9:55 AM jim beam spake these words of knowledge:

The interlock means you can't shift in to gear without holding down the brake.

The car can't surge forward from a standing start with the brake applied. It's just that simple.

I don't believe there was a problem with non-driver initiated acceleration. But there apparently was some problem with unintended acceleration. At the time, we Audi owners speculated it had to do with pedal placement, particularly on manual transmission vehicles.

However the acceleration occurred, it was made impossible by the interlock. Irrespective of the cause of the acceleration, the interlock worked, because the driver had his foot on the brake.

RFT!!! Dave Kelsen

Reply to
Dave Kelsen

eh??? on a stick??? now you're really losing all contact with reality.

you're not analyzing the facts. fact: the brake switch is activated before there is any serious braking starts to happen. unless there are two switches, one for the brake lights and one for the interlock that operates only when the brake is full on, there's no way an interlock can prevent the vehicle rolling. and interlocks work on the brake switch. this ignores, of course, the question of whether there is any throttle surge in the first place.

Reply to
jim beam

jim beam wrote in news:ErqdnfY67fXSkzvanZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@speakeasy.net:

"unintended accelleration"(UA) occurred when the driver started the car with their foot on or hovering over the GAS pedal instead of on/over the brake,and when the car lurched forward,they stomped on the GAS instead of the brake they -thought- they were stomping on,and the car accellerated instead of stopping. "left-foot" brakers are more susceptible to this UA problem.

Thus,even if their foot was not pressing enough to actvate the braking,the foot was still OVER/on the brake pedal if the car lurched,so they would stomp on the BRAKE instead of the gas.(right-foot brakers)

I've never heard of any manual shift cars in UA crashes.(because the car doesn't lurch when shifting into gear,the clutch has control.)

Reply to
Jim Yanik

Is there a problem with the idle control? If so, the interlock won't help. But if the problem is and always was idiots [and others] not operating the car correctly, the interlock reduces the problem.

Reply to
Gordon McGrew

Because, as we both agreed three posts ago, the engine computer isn't the problem. The problem is people accidentally hitting the gas instead of the brake. The first defense against this is good ergonomic design to minimize the chance of this happening. The second defense is the interlock which is cheaper, more quickly implemented and more easily mandated by law, if necessary.

Reply to
Gordon McGrew

I think the problem was pretty much confined to AT cars.

Reply to
Gordon McGrew

it would be more effective to put an i.q. interlock on the ignition.

Reply to
jim beam

How about that the interlock is only on US cars?

-SP

Reply to
speedy

MotorsForum website 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.