I am trying to be optimistic about this because I know it has great potential to unleash even more performance and allow radical designs that were heretofore unattainable.. Kind of like computerized engine management unlocked a lot of horsepower and performance that was always there in theory, but impossible to get at...

But, I have to say that I think it may also be used for "nannyism" (Which I hate) and to outfit vehicles with inferior components that only survive because they are protected by the PCM/NannyState Mothership Module.

So far, the former has mostly been the case.. We've got some rockin' cars out there! 700 hp. 900 hp.. It's insane.

We will see what happens..

 

Electronics degrade over time and are subject to manufacturing issues. As I have previously said, I built some computers for people with motherboards from a main line company. Unfortunately that company (as well as others) were hugely affected. It cost Dell $420 MILLION

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_plague

The problem did not show up until a period of time had passed. Fast forward to today, there is nothing to prevent a similar occurrence from happening again. The more the cars are dependent on the electronics, the more chances for failure and then failure to control the car.

Also do a bit of research on global espionage from the Chinese and what they have been building into electronic components.

Unless the the car manufacturers are willing (and consumers to bear the expense of) sourcing their components from domestic companies that have passed stringent checks, there is no guarantee that corrupted electronic components won't find their way into automobiles.

use this as a search argument and do some reading

computer electronic chip espionage issue

the results might open some eyes

 

I don't have verifiable proof of this, but I believe the driveline lash being discussed is less to do with weak components and more to do with certain aspects of designs that are made for less drag and better economy. Along those lines, auto transmissions use lower pump pressures these days because pumps sap power, sprags are looser, and so on. I do notice more lash in modern automatics. There's no obvious reason the TB lag should be programmed into a manual, though. AFAIK they have the same amount of lash as they ever did, which is to say very little. Maybe that's not true, though? In general, in this case we're talking about a poorly calibrated throttle control from what I can tell, rather than anything inherently bad with the technology. Being opposed to the technology because some GM engineering team did a bad just with throttle response is like saying, "All cars are bad and we should go back to horses, and the Pacer and Yugo are proof of that."


That's just not accurate. Stats on vehicle breakdowns and longevity today vs 30-40 years ago make it obvious that mechanical systems are far, far more likely to fail in vehicles than are solid-state electronics. That's not to say they can't ever fail, but they are much more robust than their mechanical and vacuum-powered fore-bearers. That's not even debatable. I would also say that your example of a motherboard capacitor failure is both atypical and due to a defective part, rather than to any inherent issue with electronic controls. Most motherboards never fail at all, even though they are usually built to some of the cheapest out there (since they are usually not mission-critical equipment). OTOH, OE auto parts are spec'd and tested to a vastly higher standard of durability than the common motherboard. I mean night-and-day differences in what they have to withstand in testing. Again, DBW systems as a group will work far longer without any failure than any old-school throttle cable. And whereas most cables can be replaced when they start responding poorly, it can be much worse at times. I've personally witnessed a Fox Mustang drive into a hay bale and a late-70s 911 Targa drive into a berm, both due to stuck throttles. Those repairs were a lot more costly.

 

Subject:Driver Commands Rapid Acceleration - "Having Fun" keywords 4L60E 4L65E 4L70E 6L80 6L90 #PIP4112E - (12/06/2007)

Models:All GM Models 2006 and Newer Equipped With a Gasoline Engine and Automatic Transmission


The following diagnosis might be helpful if the vehicle exhibits the symptom(s) described in this PI.

Condition/Concern:

Some customers may suddenly command rapid acceleration in an attempt to "Have Fun" or "Enjoy their Sports Car":

When coasting with a closed throttle and then aggressively applying the throttle. Examples of this maneuver include a rolling stop or a lane change maneuver. It may be accompanied by shouts of "Yeeee-Ha!" or the sounds of screeching rubber. It may also occur when Sammy Hagar is playing on the radio.

When the PCM detects this maneuver, even though the accelerator is applied aggressively, the throttle blade is opened slowly for up to 17 minutes to help in taking up driveline lash, minimize clunk, and prevent "Fun" being had in any GM vehicle. Particularly sports models.

** The reduction in throttle movement will be accompanied by loud "Ptttt! PTTTT-PTTTT!!" noises from the radio for approximately half an hour.

Recommendation/Instructions:

This condition is normal and amusing to GM engineers and the executive leadership team. No repairs should be attempted.

NOTES:

**Applies to standard radio package only. Bose equipped vehicles will alternately make "Ptttt! PTTTT-PTTTT!!" noises and also swear at the driver as throttle angle is reduced. Sports models may add a "Waaamp-Waaaa" tone at random intervals.

 

No.. As I said, I'm actually optimistic about it. It allows radical designs and could be great.

But, that will end when it is used to limp out inferior designs. So, it's really something that will be decided at the design stage by the manufacturer.

 

While we're counting on more and more electronics to "improve" our cars and keep us safe, let's not forget the Boeing 737 Max disasters! How much money will it take to get the reliability we'll accept? Even the Space Shuttle program ended up being a disaster! $$$$$$$

 

1. electronic failures are based on my experiences in the IT world and the numerous computers I have repaired, thrown in the trash all due to electronic failures, cold soldered joints that eventually let go, other components that are affected by the repetitive hot and cold cycles, etc. The greatest threat to electronics is heat. Ever been in a server farm or the room where mainframes were kept along with disk drives ? They are cooled to keep the electronics alive.

2. also my experiences with electronics and maybe I am just a calamity magnet, but I have way to many personal examples starting with my 2500HD (2004.5) the POS Ford Ranger (2007) the 2005 Taurus we had, ad nauseum. All experienced failures in the electronics and or electro-mechanical components or software.

3. The motherboard failure's root cause was industrial espionage. The company that made the capacitors only got half the formula. There is nothing currently in place, with companies sourcing to the lowest bidder, to prevent it from happening again.

In a perfect world, and statistically, I agree that modern autos/trucks etc are more reliable, safer for the general public, etc

BUT when you are the one percent that experiences the statistical failure that is going to happen, it just sucks and doesn't matter that it hasn't happened to the rest of the people. And knowing human nature, companies are always going to go to the lowest bidder.

Keep in mind, every time you get on an airplane, the components were supplied by the lowest bidder.

 

The Max8 debacle is not a failure of technology. It's a three-part failure involving: 1) the use of software and active control (MCAS) to bandaid a fundamental airframe stability flaw caused by the larger engines, 2) negligence on the part of their engineering team in at least a couple aspects of the MCAS implementation, and 3) failure to properly document the existence of the system and train pilots on how to disable it if it ***** the bed. Here is a pretty good article that gets into all this in lay terms. Yes, it's true that an angle-of-attack sensor failed to set the whole thing in motion, but those have been around since forever and no design should ever depend on a single part like that to stay in the air. So the Max8 isn't an example of why technology is bad, but mostly how engineering hubris combined with a desire to cheap out on training requirements combined with under-resourced regulation led to a serious design flaw. It has a lot in common with both Shuttle disasters.

BTW, in terms of either their two crashes or the impracticality of quick-turnarounds with the Shuttle (which is what I assume you are referring to with the "$$$$$" comment), the vast majority of problems were mechanical issues such as seals, tiles, foam, transfer pumps, etc. They weren't breaking any ground in terms of electronic sophistication. In fact, they used old-n-busted computers and sensors precisely because they could be built to uber-robust, mil-spec standards. In the meantime I'll remind everyone that the airline industry has become by far the safest mode of travel, and their safety record has improved dramatically with all the modern technology. Even more than cars, this is an example of technology being responsible for many, many saved lives.

Well that's the bottom line, isn't it? Either they are more reliable than cars were in the good old days or they aren't. But they are, and not by just a little bit either. It doesn't mean there will never be a failure, but it does mean that all this new technology is inherently not inferior (in fact it's vastly superior).

Of course it sucks when a problem happens to your vehicle. But the chances of that are much less frequent now than they used to be, precisely because of new technology. Also, it is not even close to true that the parts on a car or especially a plane come from the lowest bidder. Auto companies require extremely rigorous testing, because it will cost a ton to recall parts or extend warranties on lemons. Aviation manufacturers? Fuggedaboutit - they're holding their parts suppliers to standards we can't even fathom. And again, their reliability and safety records show that. I mean sure, if two companies legimitately meet the all the standards and one is significantly cheaper, they might go with the cheaper one. But they aren't fudging the standards to get cheap parts.

 

Technology is great. I love technology, but only to the extent it helps me..

Needless hassle, expense or irritation is something I don't need any more of. Tech for the sake of it leaves me cold.

It's all about how they use it.. A car is a product and if you make it less enjoyable for me in some way, I will eschew your tech and your product.

 

I think we can all agree to that! And there are certainly example of tech for tech's sake in the automotive world.

 

Yeah, and we've become a very gadget oriented society generally.. Some of it is great. I love my phone! It replaces all kinds of things. Maps, cameras, radio.. All kinds of stuff.

But needless or irritating gagetry for the sake of it is a turnoff. At least for me.

 

I'm opposed to the tech because it's totally unnecessary, add complexity, takes tuning away from the owner, and in the end....it doesn't work as well. The dip stick worked FANtastic for at least 100 years. So did a mechanical throttle linkage. IDK how you can argue a simpler, system that does the job, better. (?). IDK how you can argue a far more complex system, that does the job worse.

Note too, that I commented (above) on a Jeep CompASS that featured (straight from the factory!) a nice throttle delay. A buddy's '03 Ram Hemi, too. It ain't just GM. Complexity for complexity's sake is DUMB. And e-throttles...they're DUMB.


DBW systems as a group will work far longer without any failure than any old-school throttle cable. And whereas most cables can be replaced when they start responding poorly, it can be much worse at times. [/QUOTE]Not sure how you can make that claim. I just sold a truck ('96 Silverado) with 300k miles and the original throttle cable. How long, is "long enough"? How many 300k + e-throttled cars are you aware of? Given the choice?
*I'd prefer to replace a $40 cable to having the unnecessary complexity of an e-throttle (though I never had to replace it)
*I'd prefer to have driven that truck for those 300k miles with a snappy throttle response, and an honest relationship, than to be irritated for 300k miles with a goofy floppy pedal, fake spring and friction added, and a fake, delayed feeling action.

I don't get it Matthew. You're a smart guy. Smart people look for the simplest most elegant solution to solve a problem. The cable is that. e-throttle isn't and I think enough evidence had been provided in this thread (links and all) to show that in practice, the e-throttle actually IS inferior. IT DON'T WORK AS GOOD. Theory aside, that makes it....inferior. :yeanod:

 

^THIS^


Simple, elegant solutions are always the best solutions. The Dip Stick...it worked. The e-throttle? It don't work. It ruins the relationship w/the car.

 

**** ya don't need on a huntin' rig!

C&D's Giulia

"At around 31,000 miles, the car flashed a low engine oil warning, despite a check of the dipstick showing the oil level was indeed fine. They took the car to dealer about the inaccurate warning light, where it spent a week and a half out of their hands for troubleshooting:
A week and a half at the shop. A dip stick worked fine.

 

I think a major reason manufacturers are going with the e-throttle is to reduce air pollution. Rapid acceleration of the engine RPM requires a richer A/F ratio, which they are trying to avoid, by taking that option away from the driver.

 

DBW doesn't take tuning ability away from the owner - it adds tuning ability! In fact, some cars have options from the factory that allow you to change the throttle mapping just by changing "modes," with no tuning equipment at all. DBW also has the ability to greatly simplify the mechanical system under the hood. They can do the duty of an IAC (another electro-mechanical device that we all know can require cleaning or replacing), and they eliminate the need for additional cruise control servos and cables (man, it would be nice to not have all that crap under the hood of my C4!). It also makes engine placement and cable routing much easier, because there are no cables to route!

A DBW also allows driver aids (like TC, which absolutely can make you launch faster on modern performance implementations - as compared to the kludgey TC on cable-operated cars like our C4s) to work much better. I just think you're out in left field re DBW. Certainly on the dipstick thing I agree with you, as previously stated.

Isn't every LS-engined car and truck on the road a DBW design? There have to be a ton of trucks still on the road from the last 23 years that have racked up that kind of mileage and still run fine. Hell, I own a 2007 VW Passat with DBW and ~210k miles on the odo. It's had zero issues with that system, and among the numerous issues that car is known to have I am not aware of anybody having to replace the DBW components.

It's not even close, Tom: DBW is vastly superior to a cable-operated throttle. Again, I'll point you to the top echelons of professional racing, where teams can choose whatever throttle system they want. Without fail, they all use DBW in every class where it's allowed. Why? Because it's way more tunable and more reliable.

There will always be examples of companies that do a poor job of implementing technology. The Alfa appears to be a rolling basket case in all manner of ways. But that doesn't mean the tech is bad. Hell, the massive campaign on Honda transmissions doesn't mean all automatics are bad, the Firestone debacle doesn't mean all tires are bad, the head gasket problems on GM's 60* V6 doesn't mean all 60* V6 engines are bad, the Optispark issues don't mean that all optical position-sensing systems are bad, etc. Don't overgeneralize poor quality or bad engineering to mean that an entire concept is garbage.

 

In response to no one post in particular.

The early (24X) LS vehicles were wire or cable.. The later vehicles are wire only.

It isn't optional, either. The new designs were engineered for wire throttle and rely on interrupts (which essentially shut the engine off for a moment) to operate correctly.

If you attempt to mate one of these components to an engine or management system which doesn't honor interrupts? You'll probably break parts.

Their torque ratings are impressive, but they assume wire management to survive.

 

So, if you want the new stuff you take the wire throttle by default.. Because they aren't possible without it.

 

Correction: has the potential, to add tuning ability. That isn't at all what I was talking about. Yeah, some cars give you two or three preprogramed "maps". Basically, all of them suck except for the "racing mode" and even that one leaves a lot to be desired. Tuning (to me) means infinite tailoring of the throttle curve/speed etc....which you most definitely can not do. 2 or 3 fixed "modes" that all perform worse than a cable ain't what I call "adds tuning". It's just different video game settings...none of which do what they should.


Matt, we already covered this in another thread:
1. I sufficiently proved that a human can out drive a TC system....and they can. That a NEW TC system beats an OLD TC system is of zero interest to me or any good drag track driver, b/c they aren't going to use EITHER system. Why? B/c they're slower. Ranger, Dennis, Jamie and all the fastest driver's on the "fast lists" don't use TC b/c they can drive the car faster w/o it. Do you know who Ranger is? Do a search on him on these forums...then read about his drag track techniques and experiences.
2. I take offense to your comment about my being out to lunch. I (and others) have sufficiently proven that e-throttled cars have delayed response and that it's FAR from an isolated issue. I've owned two of them that did this very thing -both were GM's highest performing cars of their era...and still, massive delayed throttle response, artificial feel and irregular pedal travel to tq output ratio. -All unconfigurable by the user, no matter how much you're willing to pay a tuner (you read my thread, linked...right?). I've owned/experienced precisely what I'm talking about. I posted a thread where the issue is discussed as it affects the C7; so that's three gens/20 years that the 'Vette -GM's highest performing "funnest" car has garnered this reputation, b/c of the e-throttle. So Matt, which of use is "out to lunch", here? I know what's wrong with a car when I drive it. No lunches, here.

I respect many of your posts...but on this topic, it's as if you're regurgitating from a tech book, the virtues of an e-throttle....with out having actually experienced or more likely, really spent time and scrutinized the behavior of one. You say you've driven some... it's hard to believe. Maybe you're just not that perceptive a driver? I don't believe that either. My guess is that you drove a Mustang for a few minutes, though it was 'fine". Live with one for 3-4 years. In the real world, the things suck. I agree they offer the potential for a myriad of advantages. In practice, so far...that hasn't come to fruition. A cable still works faster/better/simpler.


No. Truck didn't get e-throttle until '03. '98-'02...F-bodies didn't get it either. I am not aware of anybody having to replace the cable or pedal components in those vehicles, or having issues with poor throttle response. FYI, My friends '03 Ram need a pedal assy while under warranty. The Jeep CompASS that I rented a couple months ago de-rated on me about 5 times while I had it and threw an e-throttle code each time. I didn't find out what the problem was as it got towed away on a flat bed. Not one of my cable throttled cars has ever beed towed away, or left me for dead on the side of the road, due to a throttle cable, a throttle arm, or a throttle pedal -these very simple devices have worked fine for the past...100 years or so?



I don't GAF about the "top echelons of racing", Matt. We've already discussed this in another thread too! The **** race teams use is:
1. NOTHING like the junk they put in Corvettes (that has delayed response)
2. TOTALLY CONFIGURABLE BY THE USER! That would be the racing team. They can tune that **** any which why they want...and they DO. Get in a new 'Vette. Show me how to fix the throttle delay. CAN'T DO IT. That means, Matt...that in practice, it's inferior.
It's incredible that a smart guy like you continues to extol the "superiority" of a system that has been thoroughly demonstrated (in this thread) to suck! To not perform correctly. To not provide the experience that a sports car owner wants.


Don't worry...I'm not. This problem of fake throttle feel and delayed response is FAR from being limited to one car model.

Also, I'm not talking about a "Concept". I'm talking about the systems that are already in service that we enthusiasts have to deal with, if we get a newer e-throttled car. Perhaps you shouldn't glamorize a concept that has great theoretical potential...but has been "garbage" (to re-use your term) in practice.



.

 

If you're going to try to build a case for a slow acting, unrealistic feeling, expensive way to actuate a butterfly valve....^THIS^ is the case; "We wouldn't have our 755hp engines of today w/o e-throttle to help meet emissions regs". Bam. I can't argue that point, and I won't b/c that is precisely the reason why e-throttles were introduced -to meet upcoming (back in the mid '90's) emissions regs.