In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac:
2000'ish Saturn. Throttle hang like a bitch! Throttle cable.
That said: of course they don't do exactly what you tell them to. Arguing that DBW cars all have throttle plate movement directly related to throttle pedal movement with an absolute nonvarying linear relationship is silly.
MrJoshua wrote: In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac: 2000'ish Saturn. Throttle hang like a bitch! Throttle cable. That said: of course they don't do exactly what you tell them to. Arguing that DBW cars all have throttle plate movement directly related to throttle pedal movement with an absolute nonvarying linear relationship is silly.
Well... i haven't driven EVERYTHING ever made... just 99%. That one must have slipped through the cracks. 
alfadriver wrote: data? yes, I'm listening. are you?
Data? F the Fiesta. The damn 05-up Mustangs have so much lag in them they are almost undrivable to everyone but grandma. Proof? Go read the archives of the motorcity5pt0 mailing list on Yahoo from I think 2 or 3 years ago.
That car was a steaming pile of E36 M3 until the lag was gone via tuning. Then it was a night and day difference. It actually drove like how most Mustangs SHOULD be driven.
A few random thoughts. Well, not random, inspired by misc comments above.
For most people, most of the time, having the throttle try to eke out a little extra mileage represents the car working correctly according to the manufacturer. Multiply the gas savings across the millions of people who really don't care how the throttle responds, and I'm in favor of it being the default. A "sport mode" easter egg would be nice...
Regarding the DBW curve-adjusting black box: It would hardly be the first time anybody on this list bolted something onto the car to make it work like they wanted it to instead of how it left the factory.
My chipped, M52-powered E30 had terrible rev hang, due to the unnecessary lightened-flywheel code. The central point here is that it had a mechanical throttle, but like most cars for a long time now, was able to make significant adjustments to effective throttle via IAC valve. It was a matter of implementation, not the technology used.
With a big throttle body, it's hard to get enough progression into the linkage to make a mechanical throttle linear, especially from tip-in. Easy to fix via software.
Software is a fundamental part of the New-School Gearhead Toolkit.
When my 2002 was pre-Megasquirt and had a worn-out Weber DGV on it, I used to joke that fuel was metered by a tiny drunk with a stein of gas walking back and forth above the venturi, and whatever he spilled was what it got. That's a worn-out carb, not a condemnation of mechanical systems. I just think it's funny. (Though I hope my EX500 and CB160 are the last carbed vehicles I ever own).
Ranger50 wrote: but no. Chrysler said WE KNOW MORE THEN YOU.
just the other day i was going to buy a new car, and i went out looking for the new 2011 model year Ranger50. i couldn't find it anywhere.
Javelin wrote: Data hell, go DRIVE THE FREAKING CAR. Hell, watch a damn test drive on the internet. Hooking a computer to it only tells you what the sensors want to say, not that they are correlated in reality. The program is written for at hal-throttle in a certain RPM, only open 43%, but it's always going to show hunky-dory to you. You want real world data? Drive an 04 GTO and an 05 GTO back to back. The 50 extra HP in the 05 doesn't come out at all because the DBW sucks compared to the wired TB in the 04. In fact, the world record 1/4 mile time for a showroom stock GTO is in an 04's hands, because the driver could actually modulate the throttle the way he wanted, and not how the computer thought he wanted. But it doesn't matter, because you'll just ignore *everything* put in front of you and ask for more data. It's like arguing with a brick wall.
So we go from the Toyota in the example, to the F150, then to the Fiesta, and now to the GTO???? Some of the literally hundreds of cars you've driven?
Lets go though all of your assumptions:
1) ETC is ALL about fuel economy. All- no, some, perhaps. I'm sure you can find some cars that are hampered by the ETC. But you are extending that assumption to ALL ETC cars, and it's not. Backwards in some vehicles. Your start with the F150- for sure, ETC is not what you think. maybe for the Fiesta. GTO? uh- perhaps the traction control system??? And now lagging = fuel economy. Again, I'm refuting that all ETC is all about fuel economy, as you claimed in the first place, and therefore ETC sucks. Now you've changed your story to lagging- whatever.
Much of the lag that is called fuel economy lag is just lag. Over riding almost always over drives the throttle. None the less, does your experince with the Mustang, GTO, or Fiesta make the Ferrari ETC bad? That's exacly how many of your claims come across as. Just because Toyota had issues does not mean that the issues cover ALL of the OEMs.
On the other hand, I remember driving a manual Contour. It would hang the engine RPM on ever single shift. Cable throttle. Goes both ways,
2) Boosters are ok, ETC is bad since there isn't a real link. I asked rather meanly whether you've ever dealt with a booster that failed, and I was called an arrogrant prat since I'm betting that you have not. Either having the brake booster fail or steering booster fail will pretty much make the car undriveable, especially in an emergency situation.
3) OEM's don't pay attention to Government data. Just because there are issues with technology X does not mean there isn't oodles more data that you think. The data is familiar, and it is payed attention to.
4) there's not enough fail safes. Since 3) happens, obviously, no consideration is paid to it. Again, more thought is paid to failures than you seem to think, if you don't think there are not fail safes. Just because Company Y may have missed error X, that does not mean the entire industry doesn't think about it. So if Company Y does a poor job at implementing a Technology- that's not about the technology, but it's about the implementation.
If you think I'm coming across as an arrogant ass since I'm telling you I'm worng- well, sorry. But that does not make you right, and it does not make me wrong. Maybe it makes me an ass...
I'll leave this with my very arrogant response. If you really want a change, buy new cars.
Javelin wrote: If you *really* want to get an idea of the types of losses "drive by wire" control produce, look into the aircraft industry. Even with redundancy and seperate systems there have been more computer-error crashes than hydraulic failures in older aircraft. The NTSB has some really interesting reading on the subject.
Cite NTSB sources, please.
Javelin wrote: Go test drive a new MANUAL TRANS Fiesta. Guess what? THROTTLE LAG. How is that the transmissions fault? It's a stick shift!
No it is not the transmission's fault. Nor is it the fault of the DBW throttle. Many newer vehicles are just like that. In fact, my 2001 Focus has the same characteristics and it is a stick shift and has a throttle cable.
If you want to blame someone try the EPA. And make sure you don't buy any car newer than a 2000 MY.
alfadriver wrote: I'll leave this with my very arrogant response. If you really want a change, buy new cars.
No. Why do I want to spend $25k and up or less for a vehicle that I hate, am going to have 4-8yrs worth of payments on, and forced to buy, if I want "new"? Then to top it off, when that one dies a horrible death at my hands, I will be forced to buy yet another vehicle that I hate. And the cycle will continue because the OEM's don't change who "makes" those vehicles and say it's all for the "greater good".
So, please tell me why new cars are better then older ones. I really want to know why, truly I do. From my cheap seat of working on the latest and greatest, I am far from impressed.
Every car w/ drive-by wire has had way too soft a pedal and they all seem to lag badly. This is all observation. Then again I hate power steering.
Alfadriver. Maybe we would buy new cars if they didn't suck. Simply put I have yet to drive a new car which I liked half as much as my old 96 Civic DX or my 93 Civic EX. No I haven't driven every new car but the cars I have are mostly compacts and they don't compare to the old Civics.
A few comments here.
First, if you lose all electrical power so that your DBW fails, your engine will go to idle. Or at least it would if your engine was still running. Doesn't matter what's actuating your throttle, if you lose all electrical power the ignition goes with it. But if you did manage to fail in such a way that the DBW went down and the engine kept running such as a bad DBW connection, you'd probably see a failure very much like a broken throttle cable. I've seen it happen on the track. Car just went to idle. Somehow, the driver survived.
You can set up a cable-operated throttle to be non-linear. GM loves this trick - 20% pedal gives 50% throttle and makes the car feel super-powerful. It's just a matter of the shape of the cam. Nothing to do with DBW.
Interesting trick with that respect, though - I know someone who used to work doing factory PCM calibration. He worked on the Range Rover Sport. And that car would go to a 'softer" throttle response curve when you went into low range, so you had better precision over rocks. If you've done any wheeling, you know that this would be a nice touch.
One thing about DBW - the PCM can anticipate the fuel demands of the engine. Instead of reading how much air's coming in and reacting, it can anticipate. This means sharper throttle response, not softer. My E39 M5 has 8 drive-by-wire throttles. Nobody's ever accused it of having "lag" in the throttle, just the opposite. I suspect all M cars for the past decade have been the same. We all know how much those engines suck.
Most of the complaints I've read here have to do with imaginary failure scenarios (what if the battery goes dead? really?) or are gripes about the implementation. There's nothing about DBW that says it has to be a non-linear throttle, just as there's nothing about a cable-operated throttle that says it has to be linear. There's nothing about DBW that says the throttle pedal has to be light.
Osterkraut wrote:Javelin wrote: If you *really* want to get an idea of the types of losses "drive by wire" control produce, look into the aircraft industry. Even with redundancy and seperate systems there have been more computer-error crashes than hydraulic failures in older aircraft. The NTSB has some really interesting reading on the subject.Cite NTSB sources, please.
My father is a Professor at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and one of the heads of Safety at NASA for the Orbiter. I took in one of his classes for fun. A lot of it was above me as frankly I'm no Aerospace engineer, but the reading is out there. Buy a book on NTSB accident investigation and fly by wire controls. The point on failure rates of the FBW vs hydraulics was in the lecture and notes as that particular unit was on why everything has to be so redundant. I was trying to tie the discussion into sources other than OEM auto manufacturers to show the problem is not unique or unheard of.
alfadriver wrote: So we go from the Toyota in the example, to the F150, then to the Fiesta, and now to the GTO???? Some of the literally hundreds of cars you've driven? Lets go though all of your assumptions: 1) ETC is ALL about fuel economy. All- no, some, perhaps. I'm sure you can find some cars that are hampered by the ETC. But you are extending that assumption to ALL ETC cars, and it's not. Backwards in some vehicles. Your start with the F150- for sure, ETC is not what you think. *maybe* for the Fiesta. GTO? uh- perhaps the traction control system??? And now lagging = fuel economy. Again, I'm refuting that all ETC is all about fuel economy, as you claimed in the first place, and therefore ETC sucks. Now you've changed your story to lagging- whatever. Much of the lag that is called fuel economy lag is just lag. Over riding almost always over drives the throttle. None the less, does your experince with the Mustang, GTO, or Fiesta make the Ferrari ETC bad? That's exacly how many of your claims come across as. Just because Toyota had issues does not mean that the issues cover ALL of the OEMs. On the other hand, I remember driving a manual Contour. It would hang the engine RPM on ever single shift. Cable throttle. Goes both ways, 2) Boosters are ok, ETC is bad since there isn't a real link. I asked rather meanly whether you've ever dealt with a booster that failed, and I was called an arrogrant prat since I'm betting that you have not. Either having the brake booster fail or steering booster fail will pretty much make the car undriveable, especially in an emergency situation. 3) OEM's don't pay attention to Government data. Just because there are issues with technology X does not mean there isn't oodles more data that you think. The data is familiar, and it is payed attention to. 4) there's not enough fail safes. Since 3) happens, obviously, no consideration is paid to it. Again, more thought is paid to failures than you seem to think, if you don't think there are not fail safes. Just because Company Y may have missed error X, that does not mean the entire industry doesn't think about it. So if Company Y does a poor job at implementing a Technology- that's not about the technology, but it's about the implementation. If you think I'm coming across as an arrogant ass since I'm telling you I'm worng- well, sorry. But that does not make you right, and it does not make me wrong. Maybe it makes me an ass... I'll leave this with my very arrogant response. If you really want a change, buy new cars.
Sigh
You asked for data, and I was trying to give you multiple examples as "data", and from different manufacturers. I have never said that this was a Toyota-only issue or that DBW was 100% ECO. Please stop putting words in my mouth. DBW is bad because it takes out a direct connection from me, the operator, to the car, and gives that decision making to the computer. I know that IAC valves can create a throttle hang, I know that throttle cams can make a non-linear response, and I know that cables can stick or fail. Please stop pretending that I have only driven bicycles and have the IQ of a brick. Now then, I don't give a crap how DBW is implemented or tuned, my #1 issue with it is the deletion of the direct link of me to the car. Additional issues include horrific nanny-state programming for gas mileage, non-linear responses to my inputs, and a slow response time. I don't care if it's on a Ferrari or a gokart, it's stupid and should be regulated to the trash bin.
Actually, Mr. ASSumption, I most certainly have driven car that had a brake booster failure, and I was able to stop the car. Again, you ignore what I actually say (did you notice I've mentioned manually-actuated emergency brakes every time after hydraulic brakes, but go ahead and continue to ignore that). I've also owned and driven cars with manual only brakes, and drums at that. I know quite well that mechanical and hydraulic systems can fail. I've also had many steering booster "failures" (all were thrown belts or other such faults that had the same result), and again, it may be harder, but the car still stears where I point it. In the new Benz, that failure happens and I might as well be driving the karts at Disney World, cause it's going to go wherever the tires were last pointed.
Back to the GTO example for a little bit, the traction control is 100% defeated by flipping the button, it had nothing to do with anything on driving them. The IRS is notoriously difficult to launch under power on a drag strip, and the DBW simply does not respond fast enough or linearly enough to allow the driver the control that the wired one did, and thus the 04 is quicker.
Please do not use the implementation line crap again, because that is not my issue. My issue the loss of a direct linkage from the DRIVER to the car, and usually that results in single-point failures. Multiple ones at that (Voltage spike, battery dies, wire abrades, wire shorts, fuse blows, water contaminates the electronics, etc, etc, etc) none of which would stop a mechanical device.
BOT, Toyota's still blow.
92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Every DBW car i've driven has pissed me off massively. That said, i've only driven manual transmissioned cars with DBW. The rev hang is beyond infuriating and makes me feel like i'm driving the car wrong, when clearly.... i'm not.
My 96 Contour had a cabled throttle, and "throttle hang" was programmed into that car, as well, via vacuum.
Apparently you missed the fact that a lot of these cars A. Don't have an N on their shifters, and B. Are electronically locked out of neutral when the car is moving and under power.
http://www.toyotapriuspic.com/toyotaprius/car/pictures/2010/04/toyota-prius-hybrid-2010-live-at-detroit-2009-interior-img-111.jpg
http://sacramentoscoop.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/2010-Lexus-ES350-interior.jpg
http://www.toyota.com/recall/pedal.html
Notice that that video that says put it in neutral.. is at toyota.com?
The bottom line is that people who pump their brakes when there is NO reason to do so, stab their start/stop button repeatedly instead of doing the NORMAL thing they do when parking their cars, and cant figure out how to put their shifter into neutral, ARE ROLLING KILLERS-TO-BE who dont understand simple concepts about operating a vehicle and would probably die in ANY vehicle that got the gas pedal stuck behind the floormat.
Vigo,
I agree with you on the extreme need to re-educate our drivers in this country 100%. Absolutely every point you made is spot-on.
I also do know that some cars are locked out of N when moving, but again, that can be cured with education. Honestly I think your response is worthy of it's own post.
every car with an IAC motor and a PCM can (and most are) programmed to "rev hang" to some extent, as it helps smoothness on shifting for people who are less-than-GRM-board-member-skilled at rev-matching in a manual transmission vehicle. it also reduces engine-braking effectiveness on initial throttle lift.
Javelin-
I thought that by law all cars regardless of transmission are required to have no lockout into neutral under any circumstances, for exactly this reason. I'm not immediately disagreeing with you because I don't know as much in this area as I'm sure a lot of you folks here do, but that was always my impression. If anyone can confirm or deny this, I'd like to hear.
Wow.. An Irrational fight on this board and I'm not involved...
Is this a first?
Please note: I also did not say what was said I would say in the 1st post... Though, I still believe in their strengths in manufacturing... I got a friend in Miss now setting up another plant for them.
Ignorant wrote: Wow.. An Irrational fight on this board and I'm not involved... Is this a first? Please note: I also did not say what was said I would say in the 1st post... Though, I still believe in their strengths in manufacturing... I got a friend in Miss now setting up another plant for them.
that's OK, neither did Hess. 
Another Luddite here.
DBW irks me due to its 'nanniness'. If I could do something to make it work how I want, fine. But nope, the lawyers won't let me drive the way I want. Also, something I have run across a few times: overcharging. We just had a ML320 in the shop which had 17.7 volts from the alternator and all KINDS of spooky electrical stuff happened, at least the damn thing shut off before anything really freaky happened (it had to be towed). I can't help but wonder how that will affect DBW. I don't think I want to know first hand. 
I've driven cars when the engine has quit and lost power brakes and steering as a result. That is why I specifically built the Jensenator with neither. It had power brakes to begin with and I have a complete Miata P/S pump and rack in my shop so it would have been pretty simple but my choice was to not have them. I want complete control if something goes haywire.
Unfortunately, the DD doesn't give me any choice. 
Can't get anything without all that any more.
Curmudgeon wrote: We just had a ML320 in the shop which had 17.7 volts from the alternator and all KINDS of spooky electrical stuff happened, at least the damn thing shut off before anything really freaky happened (it had to be towed). I can't help but wonder how that will affect DBW. I don't think I want to know first hand.
will you sleep any better tonight if i tell you that every electronic control system i've ever worked on had functionality requirements well above and well below the nominal 12 volts? or that we test things from -40C to +125C (sometimes +150C) at the component level and to as wide a range as humanly tolerable at the vehicle level? i had to LOL at the radio dorks talking about how NASA even tested the toyotas by "bombarding them with electromagnetic radiation" as if it was something new and unusual. we bomb the E36 M3 out of our controllers as a routine part of our development and validation cycles.
The anti-DBW folks arguments seem very similar to those of the anti-EFI arguments in the 70's and 80's.
Jeepers, used to say "I hate EFI, cause if something breaks in the woods I can't fix it. If my carb breaks I can fix it with a screwdriver and bailing wire".. Then they realized those with EFI, fixed nothing on most trips and the folks with carbs were stuck under their hoods with the screw drivers and bailing wire..
I hate DBW.
Mainly for the fact that I believe that you should have control over things that could kill you, or cause huge safety problems.
My friends brother had a 02 civic SI. Or whatever had the K20 first. It would randomly accelerate and bang off the limiter. Thankfully it was one of those crazy manual normal cars. So it was an easy option to push in the clutch, turn the key and turn off the car. STRANGE!
IMO a solid connection between the driver and throttle body (or fuel injection pumps on diesels) and driver to front wheels should never be taken away. There are just too many ways to fail and cause more problems then they solve.
I really think there should never be a disconnection between the steering rack and driver. I bet its going to happen on a large scale, but I dread that. Some things just shouldn't be done when it comes to safety.
~Alex
You'll need to log in to post.
