electronic throttle

Your tampon string?

There might be a market for that one ;-)

David

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

 

The real issue is giving sensors, computers, servos, etc, control over
throttle opening, instead of a direct and simple mechanical link to the
human foot.
Cruise control, simple as it is, has had plenty of issues over the
years. And that is asked to handle only one parameter.
Fortunately, you have to turn it on, so most have no problem turning it
off if it goes haywire. Besides, on most cars it is little used.
Emissions and any other excuse for for removing direct throttle control
from the driver's foot is nonsense.
Because then you're saying the driver doesn't control the throttle.
Simple as that.
A throttle position sensor works fines.
Drive by wire in a car is caused either by beancounting or letting the
wrong engineers run the show.
It is an abomination.
Ask Toyota. That's all the proof you need.
Case closed.
Prediction: Toyota and others who have tossed out throttle cables will
be putting them back.

 

dude, you're utterly clueless. this is about control systems. diesels
have had control systems from day one. have you any idea /why/ they're
always used? what would you have us do to them?

 

no it's not. there is not a single diesel ever used that gives an
operator direct link to fuel injection - it's all done via a control
module. should we get rid of control on all diesels? of course not.

there is absolutely nothing wrong with the principle of using a control
system. oh, and mechanical systems are much more unreliable than
electrical.

no it's not. but, that apparently won't stop info-tards bleating about
stuff for which they have not the slightest clue on usenet.

before or after we've smashed the looms ned ludd?

 

None that I've seen have the cable you mention.

 

I very much doubt that.

 

dude, you're utterly clueless. this is about control systems.
diesels have had control systems from day one.
have you any idea /why/ they're always used?
what would you have us do to them?
______________________________________________________________

Please ask an experienced diesel mechanic that question.
Surely he/she will tell you that diesels have no throttle
plate to control, therefore no use for a throttle plate cable.

As you gain experience as a devil's advocate, please try
to keep your demurrals related to the subject at hand,
lest your sincere postings be mistaken for trolling.

Rodan.

 

Dance around with semantics all you want.
Sensible people know the difference between a direct mechanical link to
engine speed control and a sensor in the footwell sending signals to an
ECU, blah, blah.

For somebody calling others "info-tards" and Luddites, you sure don't
present any convincing arguments for your position.
Hard to do though, given the reality facing Toyota.
That's just how it is. I don't intend to slam Toyota.
Others will take care of that.
I read the tech group.
I want to hear the justification - in concrete technical language - of
why pedal/sensor/ecu/servo motor throttle control is in any way better
or safer than pedal/cable/spring throttle control with TPS feedback to
the ECU. And I dumbed up throttle-by-wire there - it's worse.
Eliminate a cable and spring for mass confusion?
That's what happens when you let computer geeks design control systems
overriding the normal seat of the pants, hand/eye coordination and foot
control which is the essence of car driving.
I'll bet there was a big fight at Toyota between the geeks and the
drivers about that one. And not just at Toyota.
Anything separating physical feedback is bad enough, but taking over
control of the basic driving actions is a re-incarnation of HAL 9000.
You go ahead with your pseudo-technical and thoroughly unconvincing
arguments.
If it wasn't Toyota, you'd be singing a different song.
You call somebody here a pimp for Ford when they make reasonable
comments.
I suspect you are the one with goldfish in your platform shoes.

 

Huh? Have you lost your mind? Electronic controls on diesel engines
are relatively new, within the last 15-20 years. Prior to that *ALL*
diesels had direct control of fuel, and even today many still do. Me
thinks you have been sampling too much of your name sake.

Any properly designed system is capable of being reliable.

 

Consider issues of time lag, fuel mix coordination, etc.

worse than what?

Seems only a few are confused, certainly not the masses. And 'fly by
wire' has been around for a very long time, and worked very well in
most cases.

So now computer engineers are incompentent? OK...

Bet there wasn't...

Bwa-ha-ha-ha... Now that's funny. Noting beats a confusion between
(old) science FICTION and reality. Nothing at all.

 

Where the **** did you get that swill from? You are absolutely a
complete idiot.

 

Beam is an idiot, best ignored for his ignorance about diesel engines.

 

Nothing the TPS can't signal a microsecond later.
Haven't seen anything that shows a difference, and I doubt it exists.
Face it, they just want to replace the cable/hardware and the hole.
Cables can be greasy and icky.
The biggest actual measurable "benefit" is to eliminate cruise control
hardware.
BTW, speaking of lag, a friend notices a lag when punching down the gas
pedal up his '06 F-150 with throttle-by-wire. Hasn't caused him
problems, but he likes to befuddle the computer now and then, even if
it's only between half a second and a second. Cheap thrills.
I've read that lag is noticed by many drivers.
Maybe the ECU is "considering" other issues than what the driver wants.

Than the pedal/sensor/ecu/servo motor elements I mentioned.
A schematic of the electron flow through wires, sensors, resistors, etc,
and the lines of code contolling actions taken by demand from a foot,
compared to a throttle cable schematic has to make you scatch your head
and say "Why did they do this?"

Didn't say that. What I said is what I said. I'm sure Toyota is happy
with the competence of those who designed a throttle system that is now
costing them billions. That was a great collaboration of computer,
electrical and mechanical engineers brought together to overthrow the
humble cable and spring.

You may be right. But I hope I'm not the only one who wants direct
throttle control.

Does that mean you believe an ECU is always obedient?
Not my experience.
But I do like the ECU that that adjusts fuel/air ratio on my FI car, and
it's nice enough to toss a code now and then to tell me what to fix.
I'm all in with most recent car innovations that aren't fluff.
I like to control throttle all by my lonsesome.
Like manual windows too. Just because there's no electrics to fail.

 

Really? SO you're saying there is some position sensor (potentiometer
or whatever) built right into the accelerator pedal (shaft, pivot,
whatever)?

 

I'll take a wild guess.

MOST deisels have a governor - you say how fast you want the engine to
run and the governor opens the fuel rack (on a Roosa or inline type
pump) to provide the amount of fuel required to provide that RPM. You
do not have control over the fuel delivery in this instance. The
governor, or controller, does.

Is that what was meant???

 

Absolutely. on the VAST majority.. I've seen an aftermarket unit
that connected to a standard throttle-body years ago, but I've not
seen an OEM system done that way.

 

OK - you just schooled me. Thanks.

 

The pedal position sensor on a GM comes with the pedal and hanger.

 

Yeah - that's what I'm hearing.

 

I can think of two exceptions: Cruise control and idle control (for
engine loads like air conditioning). In addition, mechanical throttles
are often equipped with dash pots or other overrides to keep them from
slamming shut too fast.

The idea behind electronic throttles is that with one actuator, all of
these functions can be implemented in software.