 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / January 2005Sebring---- SUDDEN ACCELERATION
Our 2002 Sebring Coupe with 6cyl- 3.0 engine suddenly accelerated while backing up in a parking lot causing a wreck. It lurched backward at top speed. Has anyone heard of this happening? > Our 2002 Sebring Coupe with 6cyl- 3.0 engine suddenly accelerated while > backing up in a parking lot causing a wreck. It lurched backward at top > speed. Has anyone heard of this happening? Yes, it happened with several Audi's many years ago. The cause then was likely the same as the cause with your Sebring ... the driving mistakenly mashing the throttle thinking they are hitting the brake. Matt Nope i didn't happen that way. My wife was backing up with her foot on the brake. She must not have been braking that hard.. but she says she had her foot on the brake pedal and when shifting forward on the shift lever into drive & past neutral is when it SUDDENLY jumped backward and fast. She then smashed on the brake pedal at the same time she crunched into another car. > Nope i didn't happen that way. My wife was backing up with her foot on > the brake. She must not have been braking that hard.. but she says she > had her foot on the brake pedal and when shifting forward on the shift > lever into drive & past neutral is when it SUDDENLY jumped backward and > fast. She then smashed on the brake pedal at the same time she crunched > into another car. I haven't driven a Sebring, but all floor mounted automatics that I've driven have P-R-N-D-2-1 with Park at the front (towards the dash). So, if your wife was backing up, that suggests she was in reverse. If she moved the parking lever forward from there, she would have engaged park not drive or neutral. If the shifter is column mounted, then it is moving left/right or up/down, not forward/back. Something isn't jiving with this story. Matt > Nope i didn't happen that way. My wife was backing up with her foot on > the brake. She must not have been braking that hard.. but she says she > had her foot on the brake pedal and when shifting forward on the shift > lever into drive & past neutral is when it SUDDENLY jumped backward and > fast. Nope, it didn't happen that way. Your wife hit the gas without knowing it, period. I know it's less embarrassing and less expensive for her to blame it on the car, but cars do not behave so much as they are behaved upon. > Nope i didn't happen that way. My wife was backing up with her foot on > the brake. She must not have been braking that hard.. but she says she > had her foot on the brake pedal and when shifting forward on the shift > lever into drive & past neutral is when it SUDDENLY jumped backward and > fast. She then smashed on the brake pedal at the same time she crunched > into another car. If you want to make any kind of a legal case, you will have a major uphill battle. As others have stated, the AVN ("Audi Victims Network") legal campaign went down in flames when multiple and overwhelming sources of evidence showed to everyone (including consumer organizations) that driver error was at fault. Drivers inevitably swore they did not commit pedal error, even when it was conclusively demonstrated they had. Additionally, a high proportion of the drivers involved were either menopause-age women or seniors of both sexes. Please don't take this as a challenge to your (or your wife's) honesty, merely a "heads-up" about the historical background. >>Nope i didn't happen that way. My wife was backing up with her foot on >>the brake. She must not have been braking that hard.. but she says she [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Please don't take this as a challenge to your (or your wife's) honesty, > merely a "heads-up" about the historical background. Yes, I don't think it is an honesty issue. I believe that many, if not all, of the Audi drivers really believed that they were mashing the brake, when they were, unfortunately, mashing the throttle. And this gentleman's wife very likely also believed that as well. However, that still doesn't change the fact that it is about 99.44% certain that she hit the throttle by mistake, especially if she was twisted around looking backwards when backing up. Matt Back in the good old days, sometimes the gas pedal linkage would bind or the return spring pop off. Get a good independent mechanic to inspect the mechanical control to the throttle body. Big air leaks will also cause this effect. Possible a large diameter vacuum hose popped loose. You have no idea how dangerous today's cars are. If the vacuum hose to the brake booster pops off, you will crash before you realize what happened. If a fuel line pops off at the fuel injector rail, the fire resulting will cremate your entire car. That is why cars need FAA certification; not because they cannot fly. In the meantime, pay $50,000 for a car full of things that can pop off. >Our 2002 Sebring Coupe with 6cyl- 3.0 engine suddenly accelerated while >backing up in a parking lot causing a wreck. It lurched backward at top >speed. Has anyone heard of this happening? Yes. This happened to Audi's a while back. The government did a lot of reasearch. In all instances the brake system was still functioning properly. In all instances the drivers states they were stepping on the brakes as hard as they could and the car kept going. The government came to the conclusion that this was a case of pedal mis-application. That means that driver was stepping on the wrong pedal. I don't think that is what you wanted to hear. -------------- Alex >>Our 2002 Sebring Coupe with 6cyl- 3.0 engine suddenly accelerated while >>backing up in a parking lot causing a wreck. It lurched backward at top [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > means that driver was stepping on the wrong pedal. I don't think that > is what you wanted to hear. Nobody wants to hear that, but that is the fact. Also, there are very few cars that have an engine that can overpower the brakes. And you'd likely need AWD as in FWD or RWD, two wheels locked will keep the other two wheels from moving the car at any rate of speed in any event. When I first heard the Audi stories years ago, I knew they were bogus without even doing an investigation. Simple physics showed that you couldn't possibly have a car that couldn't be controlled using the brakes at full application. Of course, if there had been a defect in the brakes, then the claims would have been plausible, but that was never found to be the case in any of the cars. Nobody wants to hear that the problem was them, but that is usually the case in these sudden acceleration cases. I'm not saying there isn't the potential for this to happen, as anything is certainly possible. It is possible that the brakes could fail at the exact same time that a software bug in the ECU commanded full throttle, but that is a long shot beyond long shots. Matt 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. > 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. > 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'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 >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Matt Man, is my stomach sore from laughing at the posts to this topic. You two (maxpower & aarcuda69062) have made my day. :-) > 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 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. > I would also be curious as to how many instances of the above > mentioned condition were automatics vs. manuals. IIRC, all the Audi cases were automatic. > > I would also be curious as to how many instances of the above > > mentioned condition were automatics vs. manuals. > > 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". I have read the majority of the responses you received and tend to agree that the simplest explanation is application of the wrong pedal. That said, I had an experience that I do not believe anyone else has related and this could also have been a cause for the accident so I'll describe what happened to me here in a completely different vehicle. I was accelerating down an on ramp to an expressway and merging with the flow in a 1991 Mitsubishi 3000GT. I pushed the pedal to the floor and quickly found myself at 65MPH and accelerating even though I had taken my foot off the pedal. IN another couple seconds I was over 90MPH and still climbing! I thought about my options: shut down the ignition, apply the brakes, reduce gears, etc. but all had possible undesirable results. I decided to reach down and check the accelerator and found that my carpet floor mat had managed to get up under the accelerator so was holding it down. I pulled it free and the vehicle came back under control. It was a harrowing experience and the split instant when I realized that the vehicle had a mind of its own is what I'm certain that your wife experienced. As I indicated above, the most likely cause was driver error, but a misplaced floormat is another possibility so thought I would share my story here. Bob > 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. > I have read the majority of the responses you received and tend to agree > that the simplest explanation is application of the wrong pedal. That said, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > floor mat had managed to get up under the accelerator so was holding it > down. I remember one of my high school teachers who had been a police officer grabbing a couple of us and chewing us out in the parking lot one day. He'd seen a friend of mine stuff his stack of books under the driver's seat, and he said "what do you think would happen if a book slid forward and got wedged under your brake pedal?" and then told a story of how a flashlight had come loose and gotten under the brake pedal of a squad car one time resulting in a nasty wreck. Ever since then (and that was 25 years ago), I've been REALLY careful about the kind of mats I use, and careful to never stow *anything* under the driver's seat. > I remember one of my high school teachers who had been a police officer > grabbing a couple of us and chewing us out in the parking lot one day. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 25 years ago), I've been REALLY careful about the kind of mats I use, > and careful to never stow *anything* under the driver's seat. Same goes for the very badly named "package shelf" behind the rear seat. I'm amazed at the bulky, heavy stuff people crap up the shelf with. Stop short, and everything on the shelf flies forward like a missile. > Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2005 10:57:29 -0600 > From: Steve <no@spam.thanks> > Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler > Subject: Re: Sebring---- SUDDEN ACCELERATION > > I was accelerating down an on ramp to an expressway and merging with the > > flow in a 1991 Mitsubishi 3000GT. I pushed the pedal to the floor and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > floor mat had managed to get up under the accelerator so was holding it > > down. Back in my days as a service writer I drove hundreds of customer's cars. Usually about once a week, something weird would happen. The throttle sticking open happened twice. The first time, I just cut the ignition, no sweat. The second time I stopped it with the brakes. That was a little unnerving, since you don't expect a car to start accelerating again when you modulate brake pressure as normal, but it worked fine. Both of these occasions were separate, in V8-powered cars. The brakes are easily more powerful than the engine in all but the most poorly maintained systems. Under no circumstances would I divert my eyes from the road with something like that going on. --Geoff >I have read the majority of the responses you received and tend to agree >that the simplest explanation is application of the wrong pedal. That said, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >but a misplaced floormat is another possibility so thought I would share my >story here. One of the first things you should always do is put your toe under the gas pedal and try to lift it back up. If that doesn't work, hit the brakes and wait for the car to stop. ------------- Alex Good point; I too have had the accelerator pedal become held down after flooring it due to a displaced/crumpled floormat. I bet many people have experienced this at one time or another. It is noteworthy, however, that the cause of the problem in this case is usually very obvious after it happened. > 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? When the government did their investigation they found that most of the people who had this problem were new to Audi ownership and have prviously owned an American made car. They also found that the space between the brake and the gas was smaller on Audi's than on your typical American car. ------------- Alex Not sure how relevant that is. I thought a case or two was/were reported in the UK. DAS  SignatureFor direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > When the government did their investigation they found that most of the > people who had this problem were new to Audi ownership and have prviously > owned an American made car. They also found that the space between the > brake and the gas was smaller on Audi's than on your typical American car. > ------------- > Alex Every model of every car has some incidence rate of "sudden acceleration". After all, we're all human. After Audi installed a brake/shifter interlock, that was the end of it for the 5000. Nobody ever really implicated the 5000's pedal arrangement. So it appears the only variable was the people who owned Audi 5000's were more likely to blame somebody else for their mistake. To believe that anything mechanical actually happened in that case is to ignore all the evidence. So, if sudden acceleration happens for real, and you're too ignorant of your car to understand what went wrong, then there's nothing you can do. You can't explain what happened to anybody. What I mean is, if your throttle sticks, you need to say "my throttle stuck" instead of "I suffered sudden acceleration due to the negligence of a large corporation" so everybody won't dismiss you as an idiot. Your throttle is pretty simple. If it moves, you'll have to figure out why. If you can't do that, just turn the switch off like you're supposed to and deal with the shame in private. > 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. >>> Our 2002 Sebring Coupe with 6cyl- 3.0 engine suddenly accelerated while >>> backing up in a parking lot causing a wreck. It lurched backward at top >>> speed. Has anyone heard of this happening? 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. >> Yes. This happened to Audi's a while back. The government did a lot >> of reasearch. In all instances the brake system was still functioning [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Matt > I firmly believe that virtually 100% of the cases of "unintended > acceleration" in cars made prior to about 2001 were because of driver [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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)? > > I firmly believe that virtually 100% of the cases of "unintended > > acceleration" in cars made prior to about 2001 were because of driver [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY, no cables, brackets, save on money and supposed to be a faster response for acceleration >> > I firmly believe that virtually 100% of the cases of "unintended >> > acceleration" in cars made prior to about 2001 were because of driver [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> be > a faster response for acceleration Seems like a "over-engineering" job to me. >>>I firmly believe that virtually 100% of the cases of "unintended >>>acceleration" in cars made prior to about 2001 were because of driver [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> >>ITS ALL ABOUT MONEY, no cables, brackets, save on money Yep- the throttle body location can be anywhere and you still use the same accelerator pedal and the same throttle servo. No custom cable lengths. >and supposed to be a faster response for acceleration And the sick and twisted irony is that "throttle by wire" engines are NOTORIOUS for having a sluggish throttle response compared to direct cables. The software always optimizes the throttle opening rate to minimize fuel consumption and emissions, rather than letting you bang the butterflies open instantly the way you can when your right foot is firmly cabled to the throttle blades. That is the NUMBER ONE gripe I hear from Ram truck owners who have compared the new 5.7 Hemi to the old 5.9 360. Yes, the Hemi has more horsepower and torque, but the old 5.9 slams you back harder and quicker when you first punch it because it responds instantly. I've also observed the same thing when comparing an older cable-throttle 3.5L v6 to the newest throttle-by-wire 3.5L v6. >>>> I firmly believe that virtually 100% of the cases of "unintended >>>> acceleration" in cars made prior to about 2001 were because of driver [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > responds instantly. I've also observed the same thing when comparing an > older cable-throttle 3.5L v6 to the newest throttle-by-wire 3.5L v6. The fuel injection on current mechanically operated throttle bodies is controlled by the computer. I don't see how controlling the butterfly is inherently any slower than controlling the fuel. And you need both fuel and air to get the engine to respond. Matt >>>>> I firmly believe that virtually 100% of the cases of "unintended >>>>> acceleration" in cars made prior to about 2001 were because of driver [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > is inherently any slower than controlling the fuel. And you need both > fuel and air to get the engine to respond. Not true at all. If you slam the throttle open, the computer HAS to respond with fuel at the same rate or the engine will backfire and stall. It cannot "slow down" fuel delivery if you force an increase in air delivery without leaning out the engine to the point that it would backfire, stall, or at least detonate badly. So as long as the foot connects directly to the butterfly valve, the operator can demand instant power and will get it. With full-up TBW on the other hand, the computer has complete authority to open the throttle no faster than the software design allows, and that "allowance" can include all sorts of factors to mitigate emissions and increase economy to bump the CAFE numbers up. Maybe your foot hits the floor in 250 milliseconds, but the computer can insist that the throttle not reach wide-open for 1.5 seconds if it wants to. And thats exactly what people are saying about the 5.7 Hemi versus the old 5.9. >>>>>> I firmly believe that virtually 100% of the cases of "unintended >>>>>> acceleration" in cars made prior to about 2001 were because of driver [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > And thats exactly what people are saying about the 5.7 Hemi versus the > old 5.9. Read again what I wrote. I didn't say that the current hemi implementation wasn't slower on throttle response, I simply said this doesn't have to be the case. That is, the design isn't INHERENTLY slower. The designers may choose to be slower, but that isn't an issue with the technology, that is an issue with the designers. Matt >>>>>>> I firmly believe that virtually 100% of the cases of "unintended >>>>>>> acceleration" in cars made prior to about 2001 were because of [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > Matt The way I read the comment was such that it implied that conventional throttling COULD be made to respond slower also. It can't. What threw me off was your statement "I don't see how controlling the butterfly is inherently any slower than controlling the fuel" since the driver *never* directly controls the fuel in anything except a diesel. Even with a carburetor, the driver controls the *air* and the fuel is added in response- same with EFI and a cable throttle. Only a (non computerized) diesel gives the driver direct control over fuel flow. So it seemed to me that you were saying that since the computer still controls fuel in a cable-throttle system, it can can slow the engine response independently of the driver's foot on the throttle. > >>>>>>> I firmly believe that virtually 100% of the cases of "unintended > >>>>>>> acceleration" in cars made prior to about 2001 were because of [quoted text clipped - 91 lines] > controls fuel in a cable-throttle system, it can can slow the engine > response independently of the driver's foot on the throttle. since the driver *never* directly controls the fuel in anything except a diesel. Even with a carburetor, the driver controls the *air* and the fuel is added in response- Wtih a carburetor the driver does control fuel on acceleration. > Read again what I wrote. I didn't say that the current hemi > implementation wasn't slower on throttle response, I simply said this [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Matt Of course, but you're missing the point that if they were going to open the throttle when you wanted to, they wouldn't need throttle by wire. That's what it's for, to allow the engine to respond in a more orderly (slower) way. >>Read again what I wrote. I didn't say that the current hemi >>implementation wasn't slower on throttle response, I simply said this [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > what it's for, to allow the engine to respond in a more orderly (slower) > way. That may well be one reason, but it is hardly the only reason. Matt > The fuel injection on current mechanically operated throttle bodies is > controlled by the computer. I don't see how controlling the butterfly is > inherently any slower than controlling the fuel. And you need both fuel > and air to get the engine to respond. > > Matt Drive one. >> > I firmly believe that virtually 100% of the cases of "unintended >> > acceleration" in cars made prior to about 2001 were because of driver [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> be > a faster response for acceleration I doubt that, I think it's for slower acceleration. If they put "throttle response" in the hands of the computer, it can respond whenever it wants to. At least that's the feeling I get when I drive one. If the computer decides to downshift, it can wait before it actually opens the throttle. This has got to be much easier for engine management. Cheaper? No. That's just stupid, to think a motor-driven throttle is cheaper than a cable. >>>>I firmly believe that virtually 100% of the cases of "unintended >>>>acceleration" in cars made prior to about 2001 were because of driver [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > This has got to be much easier for engine management. Cheaper? No. That's > just stupid, to think a motor-driven throttle is cheaper than a cable. One motor-driven throttle that can be used on EVERY engine in EVERY car made by the company is cheaper to produce than a different throttle cable for every engine/chassis combination. Not case-by-case, but in terms of mass production. As far as slowing down acceleration- that's mostly (my guess) to control emissions and boost fuel economy. The real software benefit of TBW is that the computer can cut the throttle whenever the automatic transmission shifts, which allows the transmissions to be built even lighter and cheaper than they already are because now the computer can guarantee that there's no such thing as a "wide open throttle upshift," which transmissions used to have to be able to handle. >>I firmly believe that virtually 100% of the cases of "unintended >>acceleration" in cars made prior to about 2001 were because of driver [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > complicated (with all the associated problems that more complicated systems > have)? Saves weight and can allow even more automatic control of the engine. Matt > Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 15:37:21 -0600 > From: Steve <no@spam.thanks> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > the systems and software go through tremendous testing, but I no longer > feel confident in saying that it "cannot happen" anymore. Amen. This is my only carp about the new Hemi. --Geoff >>>> Our 2002 Sebring Coupe with 6cyl- 3.0 engine suddenly accelerated while >>>> backing up in a parking lot causing a wreck. It lurched backward at top [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > the systems and software go through tremendous testing, but I no longer > feel confident in saying that it "cannot happen" anymore. Yes, that is true. Even cars with a mechanical POSSIBLY could do this if they have cruise control as it can also control the throttle. However, as has been pointed out already, it would take several simultaneously component failures for this to happen. Not impossible, but certainly highly improbable. I don't know anything about the design of drive-by-wire systems, but fly-by-wire airplanes have thus far proven as safe as their predecessors with mechanical controls. As a former software engineer, however, I admit to being more nervous on a fly-by-wire airplane than on a conventionally controlled one. :-) Matt > Yes. This happened to Audi's a while back. The government did a lot of > reasearch. In all instances the brake system was still functioning > properly. In all instances the drivers states they were stepping on the > brakes as hard as they could and the car kept going. The government came > to the conclusion that this was a case of pedal mis-application. That > means that driver was stepping on the wrong pedal. Yup. The hysterical media reports nearly ruined Audi, though. > > Yes. This happened to Audi's a while back. The government did a lot of > > reasearch. In all instances the brake system was still functioning [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yup. The hysterical media reports nearly ruined Audi, though. To Road&Track's credit, they took an Audi and tried it. The result was a driver that was convinced he'd experienced it (and was positive his foot was on the brake), and an observer that said, "no, it was on the gas...." SignatureJoseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer >>. The hysterical media reports nearly ruined Audi, though OR WAS IT POSSIBLE THERE WAS A PROBLEM >> Your wife stepped on the wrong pedal WERE YOU IN HER CAR DOWN BY HER FEET TO SEE THIS MR STERN?? HOW DO YOU BASE YOUR FINDINGS MR STERN? >>t below 30 mph with your foot on the brake and the trans in "Reverse", it wouldn't IS THIS REALLY TRUE< I WANT TO HEAR IT ONE MORE TIME PLEASE Ah, right, here we go with the "sudden, full, completely unintended activation of the cruise control despite the car being in reverse, below the threshhold speed AND the brakes allegedly applied" theory. THAT IS CORRECT Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? It's a scientific principle that says the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Now, which is simpler? A or B?AND WE WILL LET MR STERN ANSWER THIS ONE, PICK YOUR ANSWER PAL Believe it or don't, he actually "thinks" this. Above are his idiotic, stupid, ignorant and baseless claims on the topic: > > Yes. This happened to Audi's a while back. The government did a lot of > > reasearch. In all instances the brake system was still functioning [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Yup. The hysterical media reports nearly ruined Audi, though. > Our 2002 Sebring Coupe with 6cyl- 3.0 engine suddenly accelerated while > backing up in a parking lot causing a wreck. It lurched backward at top > speed. Has anyone heard of this happening? Yes. It happens when you aren't sitting as squarely in the seat as you think you are, and the pedal your foot was on was really the gas. SignatureJoseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer Does this vehicle have a cruise control servo? > Our 2002 Sebring Coupe with 6cyl- 3.0 engine suddenly accelerated while > backing up in a parking lot causing a wreck. It lurched backward at top > speed. Has anyone heard of this happening? Servo? Yes it has cruise We talked about this in a class one time where the cruise control servo soloniods could short out or malfunction and cause this. It was awhile ago and cant remember the details. It was not a particular model or make vehicle either. I believe it had something to do with the vent valve on the servo. Research it on the net. > Servo? Yes it has cruise > Servo? Yes it has cruise Ah, right, here we go with the "sudden, full, completely unintended activation of the cruise control despite the car being in reverse, below the threshhold speed AND the brakes allegedly applied" theory. Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? It's a scientific principle that says the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Now, which is simpler? A or B? A: Your wife stepped on the wrong pedal. B: The cruise control on/off switch, the cruise control "set" switch, the brake light and cruise-kill switch, and the SBEC "no cruise control under 30MPH, and only in the Forward direction" programming all failed at the same time, the cruise control engaged and pulled the throttle wide open. My 1991 Dodge Monaco used to do that. The cruise control would just all of a sudden make the car accelerate. I don't touch the cruise buttons anymore. However, I don't drive it much anymore either. Larry Behold Beware Believe | > Servo? Yes it has cruise | [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] | 30MPH, and only in the Forward direction" programming all failed at the | same time, the cruise control engaged and pulled the throttle wide open. > My 1991 Dodge Monaco used to do that. The cruise control would just all of a > sudden make the car accelerate. Not below 30 mph with your foot on the brake and the trans in "Reverse", it wouldn't. Not an engineer, But if the vent solonoid does not vent the vacuum when the PCM commands it to I would think there is a possiblity of cruise control under the desired limit > > My 1991 Dodge Monaco used to do that. The cruise control would just all of a > > sudden make the car accelerate. > > Not below 30 mph with your foot on the brake and the trans in "Reverse", > it wouldn't. Feb. 27 (Bloomberg) -- Ford Motor Co., the world's second- largest automaker, settled a sudden-acceleration lawsuit today brought by a Cleveland minister who was left in a coma after his 1987 Crown Victoria crashed into a neighbor's house. Attorneys for Leon Manigault, 77, said a defect in his car's electronic system caused it to speed up uncontrollably after he put it in gear. Ford and Manigault's family reached a confidential settlement today just before closing arguments were scheduled in the trial in state court in Cleveland. http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aor7ME4mr5Dc&refer=news_index Daniel man, just because you have never experienced problems mentioned on here such as cruise control sudden accel, 85 Turbo vehicle Timing changing due to improper plugs and all that does not mean it never happens or cant happen, have an open mind, because it is real pal > > My 1991 Dodge Monaco used to do that. The cruise control would just all of a > > sudden make the car accelerate. > > Not below 30 mph with your foot on the brake and the trans in "Reverse", > it wouldn't. > Daniel man, just because you have never experienced problems mentioned on > here such as cruise control sudden accel, 85 Turbo vehicle Timing changing > due to improper plugs and all that does not mean it never happens or cant > happen, have an open mind, because it is real pal Two things... 1) An out of court settlement in no way constitutes proof that what was claimed actually happened. 2) WRT spark plugs, you are actually claiming that if I install Autolite, NGK, AC Delco or some brand other than Champion spark plugs in a 1985 ChryCo vehicle with a turbo charger, start the engine, disconnect the coolant sensor and check the ignition timing with a stroboscopic timing light, I'll see different timing setting between the different brands of spark plugs? 1) An out of court settlement in no way constitutes proof that what was claimed actually happened. DONT NEED TO , http://www.antony-anderson.com/cruise/6-freq.htm read on a.. Oct 4, 1996 : Chrysler disclosed in a letter to the Office of Defects Investigation that it knew of 98 incidents of unintended acceleration between 1993 and 1996 involving Cherokees and another 241 involving Grand Cherokees ref: See Section 9-Links & References CHRYSLER a.. A group of independent engineering experts claims to have uncovered a defect specific in the 1993-96 5.2 litre V8 Grand Cherokee. If cruise control is left in the ON position a short to ground in the power control module connector can cause the vehicle's engine to race. The short is said to be caused by water, moisture etc. getting into the connector and causing corrosion. ref: See Section 9-Links & References CHRYSLER : Strategic Safety. Special investigation Chrysler Cherokee 1998 2) WRT spark plugs, you are actually claiming that if I install > Autolite, NGK, AC Delco or some brand other than Champion spark > plugs in a 1985 ChryCo vehicle with a turbo charger, start the > engine, disconnect the coolant sensor and check the ignition > timing with a stroboscopic timing light, I'll see different > timing setting between the different brands of spark plugs? I AM SAYING. and not sure of all the plugs that were affected but i dont see many of these vehicles in the shop. But a/c delco and Bosch plugs and some others would cause the timing to flucuate severly at idle, CUST COMPLAINT idles very rough, Naturally if you disconnect the coolant sensor it goes into limp , fan turns on and the timing is back to base timing and you would get a steady reading. Idle on those vehicles were controlled by timing, Stern is wrong.. Cuda, the next time you work on one. See it for your self. You may have already had them in the shop, put a timing lite on it and watch the mark, with thecoolant sensor connected, then install champion plugs and put the lite on it and see how stable the mark is, And then notice how smooth the idle is > > Daniel man, just because you have never experienced problems mentioned on > > here such as cruise control sudden accel, 85 Turbo vehicle Timing changing [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > timing with a stroboscopic timing light, I'll see different > timing setting between the different brands of spark plugs? > 1) An out of court settlement in no way constitutes proof that > what was claimed actually happened. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > corrosion. ref: See Section 9-Links & References CHRYSLER : Strategic > Safety. Special investigation Chrysler Cherokee 1998 Okay, now where is the connection between the Jeeps, Fords, Buicks and radar guns aimed under the hood cited in your link and the 2002 Chrysler Sebring? All you've managed to do Glen is point out that there have been failures associated with -some- cruise control systems, that does not mean that all cruise controls or even this cruise control will behave or -did- behave the same. Ever do a WOT test on an engine with it in gear with an engine analyzer connected? Ever check the stall speed of a torque convertor? I have, hundreds of times, and not once were the vehicles brakes incapable of holding the car back. > 2) WRT spark plugs, you are actually claiming that if I install > > Autolite, NGK, AC Delco or some brand other than Champion spark [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > into limp , fan turns on and the timing is back to base timing and you > would get a steady reading. Whoa, stop right there. Then the spark plugs per-se are not causing the timing change. If the plugs don't change the base timing (which you seem to agree to) then the only thing that can be changing the timing is a signal sent to the logic module (since disconnecting the coolant sensor takes the logic module out of the picture), that signal most likely being from the knock sensor, due to the wrong heat range spark plug being used, IOWs, the same result would happen if the wrong heat range Champion spark plug were to be used, so it is NOT the brand of spark plug that is causing the problem, it is the implementation of heat ranges, the practice of part number overlap that is the actual cause. Specifically; the vehicles in question had the capability to retard timing for individual cylinders. Specifically: you claimed that the power module "sees" something from the plugs in question, yet the power module (for the sake of this discussion) only switches the coil primary, and whether or not the coolant sensor connector is connected or not, the power modules function in this regard does not change. I can tell you specifically which AC Delco and which Bosch spark plugs caused the problems that you observed; Delco: it was the Rapid Fires Bosch: it was any of their gimmicky crappy platinum plugs. Why? because those two are the biggest offenders in the "one part number fits 5 heat ranges, the customer will never know and we couldn't give a damn--it's all about the bucks" game. I don't disbelieve what you saw Glen, but I do have issues with your explanation of why and how. Like i said, see it for yourself, im not going to make you believe it. The computer sees it and tries to maintian correct idle by controlling the timing All you've managed to do Glen is point out that there have been failures associated with -some- cruise control systems, that does not mean that all cruise controls or even this cruise control will behave or -did- behave the same. EXACTLY!!! thats all i was trying to do..TRY TO READ WHAT I SAID RATHER THEN TRY TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT OUT OF IT,,,,, for the lame I made it easier, read below It was awhile ago and cant remember the details. It was not a particular model or make vehicle either. I believe it had something to do with the vent valve on the servo. CAN YOU READ IT EASIER NOW IT SAYS NO A PARTICULAR MAKE??? YOUR BUTT BUDDY STERN SAID IT WASNT POSSIBLE< get you head out of his a.s > > 1) An out of court settlement in no way constitutes proof that > > what was claimed actually happened. [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > I don't disbelieve what you saw Glen, but I do have issues with > your explanation of why and how. > Like i said, see it for yourself, im not going to make you believe it. The > computer sees it and tries to maintian correct idle by controlling the > timing Whoa, now you're claiming that it's the *computer* that "sees" it. Before, you had claimed that it was the "Power Module." You DO realize that those are two distinct, different components, don't you Mr. Bigshotdealershiptechnician? > All you've managed to do Glen is point out that there have been > failures associated with -some- cruise control systems, that does [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > THEN TRY TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT OUT OF IT,,,,, for the lame I made it easier, > read below You don't get it, you probably never will. You are unprofessional and irresponsible. If Chrysler ever got wind of what you're posting in this thread, you'd be blacklisted from every dealership on the planet. Your comments are pure conjecture with NO basis in fact. You're probably a gun grabber. You are a buffoon, you can't keep two different components straight, hell, you can't tell a Ford from a Jeep from a Chrysler from a Buick, logic escapes you, odds are you work the wash rack and sneak an occasional peek over a real mechanics shoulder, because no person who repairs automobiles for a living could be as stone cold dense as you. That is so sad, Power module was the term used in 85. Im so sorry for saying it was a computer, I really didnt mean to confuse you.. Im glad you could figure out what I meant. Boy I sure hope Chrysler didnt see me write that.. I have no more comments to you on this > > Like i said, see it for yourself, im not going to make you believe it. The > > computer sees it and tries to maintian correct idle by controlling the [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > because no person who repairs automobiles for a living could be > as stone cold dense as you. > That is so sad, Power module was the term used in 85. Im so sorry for saying > it was a computer, I really didnt mean to confuse you.. Im glad you could > figure out what I meant. Boy I sure hope Chrysler didnt see me write that.. 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. > I have no more comments to you on this No more comments period would be better. As i said, i apoligize for confusing your lame a.s, 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 > codes were stored in the power module considering that it > possessed no such capability. AND WHEN DID I SAY THIS? I NEVER MENTIONED TROUBLE CODES?this is another one of your twist, Hey Gear head, did you get fired from a Chrysler Dealer or the Chrysler Corp?Why are you so threatened? > > That is so sad, Power module was the term used in 85. Im so sorry for saying > > it was a computer, I really didnt mean to confuse you.. Im glad you could [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > No more comments period would be better. > As i said, i apoligize for confusing your lame a.s, 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, 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. > Quite strange that a dealership mechanic would claim that trouble > > codes were stored in the power module considering that it > > possessed no such capability > . > AND WHEN DID I SAY THIS? 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. > I NEVER MENTIONED TROUBLE CODES?this is another > one of your twist, No Glen, it's you getting caught with your foot in your mouth again. > Hey Gear head, did you get fired from a Chrysler Dealer 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. > or the Chrysler Corp? 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 are you so threatened? 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 sh.t. 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. > 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, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > clueless newbie, your memory is a failure and you make statements > that have no basis in fact. Other than these few faults, Glen is an alright guy??????? Denny > > 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, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Other than these few faults, Glen is an alright guy??????? He's beginning to make Altovoz appear down right sane. > > Other than these few faults, Glen is an alright guy??????? > He's beginning to make Altovoz appear down right sane. And Altavoz was an Ele Emgineer! In article <Pine.GSO.4.58.0501231301220.4410@alumni.engin.umich.edu>, > > > Other than these few faults, Glen is an alright guy??????? > > > He's beginning to make Altovoz appear down right sane. > > And Altavoz was an Ele Emgineer! Slide rule smarts. >>1) An out of court settlement in no way constitutes proof that >>what was claimed actually happened. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > not mean that all cruise controls or even this cruise control > will behave or -did- behave the same. 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Matt 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." >WRT spark plugs, you are actually claiming that if I install > Autolite, NGK, AC Delco or some brand other than Champion spark > plugs in a 1985 ChryCo vehicle with a turbo charger, start the > engine, disconnect the coolant sensor and check the ignition > timing with a stroboscopic timing light, I'll see different > timing setting between the different brands of spark plugs? >Idle on those vehicles were controlled by >timing Well, that throws away my theory that the AIS actuator had anything to do with idle control... Toyota MDT n MO maxpower cut and pasted: >WRT spark plugs, you are actually claiming that if I install > Autolite, NGK, AC Delco or some brand other than Champion spark > plugs in a 1985 ChryCo vehicle with a turbo charger, start the > engine, disconnect the coolant sensor and check the ignition > timing with a stroboscopic timing light, I'll see different > timing setting between the different brands of spark plugs? maxpower replied: >Idle on those vehicles were controlled by >timing Well, that throws away my theory that the AIS actuator had anything to do with idle control... Toyota MDT in MO > WRT spark plugs, you are actually claiming that if I install Autolite, > NGK, AC Delco or some brand other than Champion spark plugs in a 1985 > ChryCo vehicle with a turbo charger, start the engine, disconnect the > coolant sensor and check the ignition timing with a stroboscopic timing > light, I'll see different timing setting between the different brands of > spark plugs? Believe it or don't, he actually "thinks" this. Below are his idiotic, stupid, ignorant and baseless claims on the topic: First this: Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler From: "damnnickname" <damnnickname@yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 07:04:13 -0500 Subject: Re: 85 turbo - coughs on heavy accel load DO NOT USE PLATINUM PLUGS OR BOSH PLUGS< USE ONLY CHAMPION< i belive they were rn12yc, some plugs will mess with the timing of the power module and cause all kinds of idle problems. Almost like it is searching because the timing is flucuating so bad === When called on his idiocy, he responded as followed: Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.chrysler From: "maxpower" <damnnickname@yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 13:05:13 -0500 Subject: Re: 85 turbo - coughs on heavy accel load Idle was controlled by the timing back then, With autolite/bosh and some other plugs.I say use Champion because I no that was the only one that I know didnt create a problem. The Power Module saw the resistors in them and caused the timing to jump all over, causing extreme idle problems hesitation problems and more I would bet you are one of those guys that put everypart on the car untill given up and told your cust to take it to the dealer... Is that so? The next time you get one of these vehicles, put a timing lite on it and see for youself, but then again I bet you dont know how to use one and here once again, you have no clue what you are talking about ==== So, to answer your question: Yes. In what passes for the brain between maxpower's ears, the 1985 Chrysler 2-module engine management system was so advanced that it actually knew the difference between Champion's 10kohm spark plug resistors and Autolite's 10kohm spark plug resistors and Bosch's 10kohm spark plug resistors, and if it saw anything other than Champion spark plugs, it went wild 'n' crazy and threw a timing disco party. Amazing feats o' magic, eh? -DS YOU GOT IT!!!! NOW FOR YOUR NEXT ISSURE MR STERN< DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT? Nope, it didn't happen that way. Your wife hit the gas without knowing it, period. I know it's less embarrassing and less expensive for her to blame it on the car, but cars do not behave so much as they are behaved upon. YOUR GOING TO TELL THIS OP THAT HIS WIFE IS CRAZY CAUSE THE CRUSIE SERVOR COUDLNT DO THIS?? Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? It's a scientific principle that says the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Now, which is simpler? A or B? A: Your wife stepped on the wrong pedal. B: The cruise control on/off switch, the cruise control "set" switch, the brake light and cruise-kill switch, and the SBEC "no cruise control under 30MPH, and only in the Forward direction" programming all failed at the same time, the cruise control engaged and pulled the throttle wide open. LETS HEAR ANOTHER LAME ANSWER, or is your head inside cudas now?? loose the ego problem and stop harping, stop shooting your mouth off > My 1991 Dodge Monaco used to do that. The cruise control would just all of a > sudden make the car accelerate. Not below 30 mph with your foot on the brake and the trans in "Reverse", it wouldn't....ANOTHER LAME STUPID REPLY BY THE BULLSHITTER HIMSELF< IN BLACK AND WHITE > > WRT spark plugs, you are actually claiming that if I install Autolite, > > NGK, AC Delco or some brand other than Champion spark plugs in a 1985 [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > -DS > From: "damnnickname" <damnnickname@yahoo.com> > > Idle was controlled by the timing back then, With autolite/bosh and some Idle was controlled by *what*? SignatureJoseph J. Pfeiffer, Jr., Ph.D. Phone -- (505) 646-1605 Department of Computer Science FAX -- (505) 646-1002 New Mexico State University http://www.cs.nmsu.edu/~pfeiffer > > From: "damnnickname" <damnnickname@yahoo.com> > > > > Idle was controlled by the timing back then, With autolite/bosh and some > > Idle was controlled by *what*? By the brand of spark plug. Weren't you listening? ;-) DS >Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? It's a scientific principle that >says the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Now, which is >simpler? A or B? >A: Your wife stepped on the wrong pedal. >B: The cruise control on/off switch, the cruise control "set" switch, the >brake light and cruise-kill switch, and the SBEC "no cruise control under >30MPH, and only in the Forward direction" programming all failed at the >same time, the cruise control engaged and pulled the throttle wide open. >The service department that you work in must have to give away an >awful lot of free service work if you can't tell the difference >between a 2002 Chrysler Sebring with a 3.0 liter engine and >1993-96 Jeep Cherokees and Grand Cherokees with 5.2 liter engines. HEY GEAR HEAD what does this have to do with what kind of car it is, are you really that stupid or do you just pretend to be? Lets talk gearhead.. give me a phone number or your yahoo id so i can im you. since obiviously you wish to speak more and more and become close friends. I was explaining this is possible that the accident could be related to the cruise control servo. Sorry if i left out the finer anal details. But that is why you are here to pick them up correct . > > Daniel man, just because you have never experienced problems mentioned on > > here such as cruise control sudden accel, 85 Turbo vehicle Timing changing [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > timing with a stroboscopic timing light, I'll see different > timing setting between the different brands of spark plugs? > >Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? It's a scientific principle that > >says the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Now, which is [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > HEY GEAR HEAD what does this have to do with what kind of car it is, are you > really that stupid or do you just pretend to be? Stupid would be you. What else would explain your lack of ability to operate a newsreader, YOUR newsreader. You have posts from multiple authors attributed to me, that makes you a king sized bozo and a person not to be taken seriously. Now, why do you suppose the problem with Jeep cruise controls stops at MY 1996? What makes you think that just because there was a problem with Jeep cruise controls in MY 1993, 94, 95 and 96, there is a problem with 2002 Chrysler Sebring cruise controls? > Lets talk gearhead.. give me a phone number or your yahoo id so i can im > you. since obiviously you wish to speak more and more and become close > friends. I have plenty of friends, even the more stupid ones are much smarter than you. > I was explaining this is possible that the accident could be > related to the cruise control servo. And it is possible that it isn't related to the cruise control, but citing incidences of ten year old Jeeps and 18 year old Fords as any way related is just plain ignorant. Camshaft failures were real common on 70s era Chevrolets and Oldsmobiles, maybe you should warn the OP about -that- also. Something like; ATTENTION jonz6@aol.com Certain Chevrolet and Oldsmobile engines produced in the 1970s suffered from premature camshaft wear, since you own a 2002 Chrysler Sebring, you should be aware that there is a possibility of premature camshaft wear based upon evidence obtained when reviewing failure records of the previously mentioned General Motors divisions. > Sorry if i left out the finer anal > details. But that is why you are here to pick them up correct . It's got nothing to do with the "details" it has a lot to do with what should be obvious, like the make and model year. Ok, back to how I use my newsgroup and how I Post. And my spelling!! I cant talk to a child as yourself > > >Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? It's a scientific principle that > > >says the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Now, which is [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > It's got nothing to do with the "details" it has a lot to do with > what should be obvious, like the make and model year. > Ok, back to how I use my newsgroup and how I Post. And my spelling!! I cant > talk to a child as yourself Your posts look like sh.t, if I reply, my newsreaders spell checker lights up like Las Vegas during a light bulb convention, your replies run into the text of the person that you're replying to, you fail at skills that are normally achieved by the age of ten, and your logic and reasoning skills mimic those of a Yorkshire Terrier, your stories change which makes them less than believable, you insist on things that you obviously don't even have a basic understanding of, hipcrime spam attacks are easier to read than one of your posts, one can only imagine how many hours per week your service manager has to waste trying to decipher what you've documented on your repair orders, you've shown evidence that you don't understand the basics of how an internal combustion engine operates, you're a parts changer, you embody every complaint ever lodged against Jiffy Lube, you mis-attribute posts, 78.6% of what you post makes no sense at all. I will keep all this in mind, Thx for pointing it out to me, In the mean time, dont read what I post if you have a problem with it > > Ok, back to how I use my newsgroup and how I Post. And my spelling!! I cant > > talk to a child as yourself [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > embody every complaint ever lodged against Jiffy Lube, you > mis-attribute posts, 78.6% of what you post makes no sense at all. > I will keep all this in mind, Thx for pointing it out to me, In the mean > time, dont read what I post if you have a problem with it 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. > Feb. 27 (Bloomberg) -- Ford Motor Co., the world's second- largest > automaker, settled a sudden-acceleration lawsuit today brought by a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and Manigault's family reached a confidential settlement today just before > closing arguments were scheduled in the trial in state court in Cleveland. Yes, I'd definitely think that an attorney would be an authority on electronic systems. Major corporations settle law suits all of the time whether they feel they are at fault or not. The decision is based on economics, not technical reality. The Crown Vic may well have a defect, but this hardly establishes that. Matt Oct 4, 1996 : Chrysler disclosed in a letter to the Office of Defects Investigation that it knew of 98 incidents of unintended acceleration between 1993 and 1996 involving Cherokees and another 241 involving Grand Cherokees ref: See Section 9-Links & References CHRYSLER a.. A group of independent engineering experts claims to have uncovered a defect specific in the 1993-96 5.2 litre V8 Grand Cherokee. If cruise control is left in the ON position a short to ground in the power control module connector can cause the vehicle's engine to race. The short is said to be caused by water, moisture etc. getting into the connector and causing corrosion. ref: See Section 9-Links & References CHRYSLER : Strategic Safety. Special investigation Chrysler Cherokee 1998 That was 1996, But it is possible that it can happen, as it is possible that more probl |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message