Sebring---- SUDDEN ACCELERATION

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

 

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

..
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?

 

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)?