On Mar 12, 11:03*am, wrote:
On Mar 12, 10:28*am, wrote:

But what I was responding to here was someone making a post saying
that they had scene reports that the transmissions were actually
designed so that they could not be shifted into neutral while
moving. * I have surely haven't seen that and would like to see a link
if the person has it.

There are several instances of this being stated on answers.yahoo.com:http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...1052352AAIFak7
...to name a few.

Yes, I know that's not exactly an authoratative source of information
but it's the best I can find. I tend to give some credence to
consistent intelligent-sounding responses. I take them with fewer
grains of salt.

Good grief. Not exactly an authoratative source? In yahoo answers
anyone can post anything. Those threads are nothing but pure
speculation without a single reference to any credible source of
info. And besides that, it simply makes no sense. Why the hell
would anyone purposefully design a tranny so that it could not be
shifted into neutral while driving? Engines today with electronic
controls have rev limiters that would prevent the engine from over
revving. Plus, I don't recall hearing reports about cars blowing up
all over the place because they can be put into neutral. What about
all the manual tranny cars?

On Mar 12, 11:19*am, wrote:
On Mar 12, 11:03*am, wrote:

On Mar 12, 10:28*am, wrote:

But what I was responding to here was someone making a post saying
that they had scene reports that the transmissions were actually
designed so that they could not be shifted into neutral while
moving. * I have surely haven't seen that and would like to see a link
if the person has it.

There are several instances of this being stated on answers.yahoo.com:http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...153AAXey3Phttp...
...to name a few.

Yes, I know that's not exactly an authoratative source of information
but it's the best I can find. I tend to give some credence to
consistent intelligent-sounding responses. I take them with fewer
grains of salt.

Good grief. *Not exactly an authoratative source? * *In yahoo answers
anyone can post anything. * Those threads are nothing but pure
speculation without a single reference to any credible source of
info. *And besides that, it simply makes no sense. * Why the hell
would anyone purposefully design a tranny so that it could not be
shifted into neutral while driving? * Engines today with electronic
controls have rev limiters that would prevent the engine from over
revving. * Plus, I don't recall hearing reports about cars blowing up
all over the place because they can be put into neutral. *What about
all the manual tranny cars?

Here's the latest news on the San Diego runaway Prius guy, from Fox:

On Monday, James Sikes called 911 to report that he was behind the
wheel of an out-of-control Toyota Prius going 94 mph on a freeway near
San Diego. Twenty-three minutes later, a California Highway Patrol
officer helped guide him to a stop, a rescue that was captured on
videotape.

Since then, it's been learned that:

— Sikes filed for bankruptcy in San Diego in 2008. According to
documents, he was more than $700,000 in debt and roughly five months
behind in payments on his Prius;

— In 2001, Sikes filed a police report with the Merced County
Sheriff's Department for $58,000 in stolen property, including
jewelry, a digital video camera and equipment and $24,000 in cash;

— Sikes has hired a law firm, though it has indicated he has no plans
to sue Toyota;


— Sikes won $55,000 on television's "The Big Spin" in 2006, Fox40.com
reports, and the real estate agent has boasted of celebrity clients
such as Constance Ramos of "Extreme Home Makeover.

On Mar 12, 12:34*pm, Harry K wrote:

But it oes happen . *I blew the clutch servo in my F150 20 miles
out in the boonies at a stop sign. *Got it going by starting in gear
and drove it back home over gravel/paved/major highway. * Of course I
know how to clutch-less shift...

Harry I agree. Having learned to drive on a vintage 1926 Daimler
hearse (used as an ambulance and hearse in the UK during WWII) which
had a 'crash box' (that's a manual with no synchromesh) back in the
1950s, have done the same thing you describe.

That vehicle had a handle sticking out front for starting the engine,
which had been changed during WWII to a 1938 model, Bedford (that was
the UK version of GMC) straight six. Years later we drove a 1963 GMC
pickup in North America and its engine looked identical to the 1938
engine!

With clutch inoperative starting on a slight down-slope if possible
(even the slope to the side of the road may help) and continuing in
gear all time, because of no clutch control, one can get home to then
work on the problem. Did that twice.

Also got a V.W 'bug' home one time with a broken throttle
cable .............. a piece of string from the driver's window run
around to the back of the vehicle actuated the carburetor. It was
about 8 miles home and just drove along with the traffic 'pulling the
string'.

Had a diesel VW Golf run away on me (in traffic) once; breathing it's
own crankcase fumes on a hot day. Knew instantly what had happened!
Declutched, engine raced like it was going to break apart, pulled into
side of the road and with all brakes hard on stalled the engine by
bringing in the clutch (hoping nothing would break!). It didn't and
when things cooled down drove to the dealership who had the part
(nothing more than a modified breather tube) to fix problem.

I think a lot of the problem is not knowing your vehicle; although
this fly by wire stuff is somewhat scary. Recall meeting a factory
manager one time with a broken down vehicle out in the country, we got
him going to the nearest town by using a junk war surplus radio
capacitor as a substitute for the one across the ignition distributor
points. Nowadays my son plugs in his laptop to 'tune' his engine!

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:56:20 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:43:31 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 11, 1:26Â*pm, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 11, 9:43Â*am, wrote:

On Mar 11, 11:59Â*am, "Bob F" wrote:

My '94 Caravan with an electronically controlled automatic does the same.

What, we don't have any readers here with a toyota prius?

I know a couple of prius owners and they're not willing to do a full-
throttle shift-to-neutral test on their cars.

I really want to see if the stuff I've been reading about the computer
not letting the transmission shift into neutral to protect the engine
are true.

Almosst certainly _not_ true but it would be nice to have an official
source.

Yes, I think we all would like to see a link to any credible source.
All I've seen is:

A - speculation from various individuals that it might be possible
that some of the Toyotas can't be shifted into neutral under runaway
conditions

B - some of the people driving the runaway cars have claimed they
could not shift them into neutral

C - Toyota has said at least on the Lexus that they can be shifted
into neutral at any time. They may have also said it about more cars
than the Lexus, not sure about that.

If there were an intentionally designed system to prevent shifting
into neutral while moving, I would think there is a 99% chance we
would have heard about it by now.



We are discussing cars that are malfunctioning. Perhaps not being able
to shift into neutral is connected to the malfunction in some way. Or,
perhaps not. You can't rule it out without correctly and completely
diagnosing what is causing the runaway problem.

I'm also not sure how many people, in the midst of a crisis, would be
quick to assume that turning off the key would NOT lock the steering
and make things worse.


Everone is looking for an electrical or electronic boogeyman to blame
- and I can tell you, absolutely and without any doubt, there is NO
electrical or electronic failure that could POSSIBLY make it
impossible to shift the vehicle to neutral, as the neutral control is
STRICTLY MECHANICAL. No need to diagnose what caused the runaway
problem, because there can be NO inter-related issues.

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:28:30 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 12, 8:56Â*am, wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:43:31 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Mar 11, 1:26Â*pm, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 11, 9:43Â*am, wrote:

On Mar 11, 11:59Â*am, "Bob F" wrote:

My '94 Caravan with an electronically controlled automatic does the same.

What, we don't have any readers here with a toyota prius?

I know a couple of prius owners and they're not willing to do a full-
throttle shift-to-neutral test on their cars.

I really want to see if the stuff I've been reading about the computer
not letting the transmission shift into neutral to protect the engine
are true.

Almosst certainly _not_ true but it would be nice to have an official
source.

Yes, I think we all would like to see a link to any credible source.
All I've seen is:

A - speculation from various individuals that it might be possible
that some of the Toyotas can't be shifted into neutral under runaway
conditions

B - some of the people driving the runaway cars have claimed they
could not shift them into neutral

C - Toyota has said at least on the Lexus that they can be shifted
into neutral at any time. Â* They may have also said it about more cars
than the Lexus, not sure about that.

If there were an intentionally designed system to prevent shifting
into neutral while moving, I would think there is a 99% chance we
would have heard about it by now.

We are discussing cars that are malfunctioning. Perhaps not being able
to shift into neutral is connected to the malfunction in some way. Or,
perhaps not. You can't rule it out without correctly and completely
diagnosing what is causing the runaway problem.

I agree 100%. I've said several times in the various threads here
that you need a thorough independent investigation of the cars
involved which includes looking at how the transmissions are designed
and also analyzing the actual transmissions. An investigation similar
to what the NTSB does for an airplane crash.

But what I was responding to here was someone making a post saying
that they had scene reports that the transmissions were actually
designed so that they could not be shifted into neutral while
moving. I have surely haven't seen that and would like to see a link
if the person has it.

On another note, I read an article yesterday that said attributed the
fatal Lexus crash with the CA partrol officer driving to a stuck
floormat. That's the first and only time I've seen a cause listed,
so not sure as to the accuracy.


That was given as the cause the day afeter the crash It had a winter
floormat from a fifferent model installed OVER TOP OF the original
equipment floor mat. It did not fit right, even if it had been
installed the way it was supposed to be (which is with no other
floor-mat underneath it)



I'm also not sure how many people, in the midst of a crisis, would be
quick to assume that turning off the key would NOT lock the steering
and make things worse.- Hide quoted text -



Yes, that could be a factor. BUT, the longer these drives go on, the
less likely you would think that would be. The latest guy drove 20
miles. Surely in that time, a few things would happen. One would
be that you'd very likely have a straight section of highway and/or a
section where you had some space off to the sides, etc. So, if you
shut it off and the steering wheel did lock, it would still seem to be
a far preferable choice to just continuing to ride along out of
control not knowing what was up ahead. Even if the wheel locked, by
applying the brakes, you'd very likely stop before having a fatal
crash. That choice sure looks good to me compared with just going
along out of control.

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 07:34:47 -0800 (PST), Harry K
wrote:

On Mar 11, 9:03Â*pm, Jim Yanik wrote:
willshak wrote innews:iMydnTiP48LsKwTWnZ2dnUVZ_oOdnZ2d@supernews. com:

Jack wrote the following:
"According to some replies I have seen, the car WILL NOT shift into
neutral, even though you put the shift lever there. The computer is
programmed to leave the car in gear to prevent damage to the engine!!!"

but many modern EFI motors have rev limiting programmed into the ECU.
it cuts off the fuel flow at a preset RPM limit.
You won't damage them that way.

still better to blow up a motor than to crash into a solid object at 100
MPH. you can always replace a motor.



This is what I was hopping someone could tell me. YOU CAN NOT PUT IT IN
NEUTRAL!!!

good reason to drive stick shift.
it's a really rare failure when you can't put in the clutch.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

But is does happen . I blew the clutch servo in my F150 20 miles
out in the boonies at a stop sign. Got it going by starting in gear
and drove it back home over gravel/paved/major highway. Of course I
know how to clutchless shift...

Harry K

And without a clutch it is still very easy to knock a standard
transmission into neutral.

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:03:14 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Mar 12, 10:28Â*am, wrote:
But what I was responding to here was someone making a post saying
that they had scene reports that the transmissions were actually
designed so that they could not be shifted into neutral while
moving. Â* I have surely haven't seen that and would like to see a link
if the person has it.

There are several instances of this being stated on answers.yahoo.com:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...8222153AAXey3P
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...9153458AA9gkGx
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...1052352AAIFak7
...to name a few.

Yes, I know that's not exactly an authoratative source of information
but it's the best I can find. I tend to give some credence to
consistent intelligent-sounding responses. I take them with fewer
grains of salt.
It's all "i've been told" that it "may be".

Absolutely no credibility at all.

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:18:06 -0800 (PST), terry
wrote:

On Mar 12, 12:34Â*pm, Harry K wrote:

But it oes happen . Â*I blew the clutch servo in my F150 20 miles
out in the boonies at a stop sign. Â*Got it going by starting in gear
and drove it back home over gravel/paved/major highway. Â* Of course I
know how to clutch-less shift...

Harry I agree. Having learned to drive on a vintage 1926 Daimler
hearse (used as an ambulance and hearse in the UK during WWII) which
had a 'crash box' (that's a manual with no synchromesh) back in the
1950s, have done the same thing you describe.

That vehicle had a handle sticking out front for starting the engine,
which had been changed during WWII to a 1938 model, Bedford (that was
the UK version of GMC) straight six. Years later we drove a 1963 GMC
pickup in North America and its engine looked identical to the 1938
engine!

Up to 1962, the engine WAS the same old stove-bolt 6. (235 and 261) In
1963 the new engines came on stream (194, and 230 - eventually also
250 inch)

With clutch inoperative starting on a slight down-slope if possible
(even the slope to the side of the road may help) and continuing in
gear all time, because of no clutch control, one can get home to then
work on the problem. Did that twice.

Also got a V.W 'bug' home one time with a broken throttle
cable .............. a piece of string from the driver's window run
around to the back of the vehicle actuated the carburetor. It was
about 8 miles home and just drove along with the traffic 'pulling the
string'.

Had a diesel VW Golf run away on me (in traffic) once; breathing it's
own crankcase fumes on a hot day. Knew instantly what had happened!
Declutched, engine raced like it was going to break apart, pulled into
side of the road and with all brakes hard on stalled the engine by
bringing in the clutch (hoping nothing would break!). It didn't and
when things cooled down drove to the dealership who had the part
(nothing more than a modified breather tube) to fix problem.

I think a lot of the problem is not knowing your vehicle; although
this fly by wire stuff is somewhat scary. Recall meeting a factory
manager one time with a broken down vehicle out in the country, we got
him going to the nearest town by using a junk war surplus radio
capacitor as a substitute for the one across the ignition distributor
points. Nowadays my son plugs in his laptop to 'tune' his engine!

On Mar 12, 5:08*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:56:20 -0500, wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:43:31 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 11, 1:26*pm, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 11, 9:43*am, wrote:

On Mar 11, 11:59*am, "Bob F" wrote:

My '94 Caravan with an electronically controlled automatic does the same.

What, we don't have any readers here with a toyota prius?

I know a couple of prius owners and they're not willing to do a full-
throttle shift-to-neutral test on their cars.

I really want to see if the stuff I've been reading about the computer
not letting the transmission shift into neutral to protect the engine
are true.

Almosst certainly _not_ true but it would be nice to have an official
source.

Yes, I think we all would like to see a link to any credible source.
All I've seen is:

A - speculation from various individuals that it might be possible
that some of the Toyotas can't be shifted into neutral under runaway
conditions

B - some of the people driving the runaway cars have claimed they
could not shift them into neutral

C - Toyota has said at least on the Lexus that they can be shifted
into neutral at any time. * They may have also said it about more cars
than the Lexus, not sure about that.

If there were an intentionally designed system to prevent shifting
into neutral while moving, I would think there is a 99% chance we
would have heard about it by now.

We are discussing cars that are malfunctioning. Perhaps not being able
to shift into neutral is connected to the malfunction in some way. Or,
perhaps not. You can't rule it out without correctly and completely
diagnosing what is causing the runaway problem.

I'm also not sure how many people, in the midst of a crisis, would be
quick to assume that turning off the key would NOT lock the steering
and make things worse.

Everone is looking for an electrical or electronic boogeyman to blame
- and I can tell you, absolutely and without any doubt, there is NO
electrical or electronic failure that could POSSIBLY make it
impossible to shift the vehicle to neutral, as the neutral control is
STRICTLY MECHANICAL.

Excuse me if I doubt that you have the personal experience with the
design of every model of Toyota made over the last 7 years to be able
to make that blanket statement. It may have a high probability of
being true, but clearly you are over reaching here and just discredit
yourself.

No need to diagnose what caused the runaway
problem, because there can be NO inter-related issues.-

Yes there is.. Because cars are not supposed to just randomly go to
full throttle by themselves. Whether it's because of sticking floor
mats, sticking throttles or an electronic problem, the root cause
needs to be found so that these cars can be fixed and the potentially
fatal problem avoided in future automobiles. Would you just sweep an
airline crash under the carpet too?

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"Jack" wrote

You do not like the color of my print ... Don't read it.


Two comments:
1. Newsgroups are supposed to be plain text as it eliminates a lot of
problems between news readers
2. You say "Don't read it" but in fact, many can't read it because of
the light color. You may think it look snazzy, but it hurts the eyes of
others.

OK, one ore comment.
We come hear to learn and to help. If you want to be treaded special,
it is not going to happen. You are very welcome to join the
discussions and start new ones but to have a combative attitude you'll
spoil your own fun. Learn how to do plain text on Web TV. It can be done.

I suppose he could be reported to web TV for using other than plain text
where it is not allowed, but it's much easier if the offender simply
complies with the rules.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:


"Jim Yanik" wrote

good reason to drive stick shift.
it's a really rare failure when you can't put in the clutch.

Happened on my '62 Corvair. Engine mount broke and slackened the clutch
cable. I still managed to shift gears and drive the car home, just
could not come to a stop. Yes, kiddies, it is possible to shift both
up and down and not use the clutch. It is one of those things you have
to practice, just like shifting into neutral in an emergency.

At a job with a brand new van, 3 on the floor, the clutch was a real
SOB. It was so bad that my knee started giving me pain. I tested
others and none of them were so difficult to disengage the clutch but
the dealer and my boss denied anything was wrong. OK, so I used the
clutch to stop and start only. From gear to gear did it without the
clutch. After some time something happened to first gear. Couldn't get
it into first until it came to a full stop, and then sometimes had to go
to another gear and back to first. It ended up going into the tranny
shop at least 5 times and they never could fix the problem. Everything
looked good, synchronizers looked like new but they changed it anyway.
Still never worked right... for the other employees that used the clutch
anyway. For me I could still go from 2nd to 1st without the clutch.

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:55:41 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 12, 5:08Â*pm, wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:56:20 -0500, wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:43:31 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 11, 1:26Â*pm, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 11, 9:43Â*am, wrote:

On Mar 11, 11:59Â*am, "Bob F" wrote:

My '94 Caravan with an electronically controlled automatic does the same.

What, we don't have any readers here with a toyota prius?

I know a couple of prius owners and they're not willing to do a full-
throttle shift-to-neutral test on their cars.

I really want to see if the stuff I've been reading about the computer
not letting the transmission shift into neutral to protect the engine
are true.

Almosst certainly _not_ true but it would be nice to have an official
source.

Yes, I think we all would like to see a link to any credible source.
All I've seen is:

A - speculation from various individuals that it might be possible
that some of the Toyotas can't be shifted into neutral under runaway
conditions

B - some of the people driving the runaway cars have claimed they
could not shift them into neutral

C - Toyota has said at least on the Lexus that they can be shifted
into neutral at any time. Â* They may have also said it about more cars
than the Lexus, not sure about that.

If there were an intentionally designed system to prevent shifting
into neutral while moving, I would think there is a 99% chance we
would have heard about it by now.

We are discussing cars that are malfunctioning. Perhaps not being able
to shift into neutral is connected to the malfunction in some way. Or,
perhaps not. You can't rule it out without correctly and completely
diagnosing what is causing the runaway problem.

I'm also not sure how many people, in the midst of a crisis, would be
quick to assume that turning off the key would NOT lock the steering
and make things worse.

Everone is looking for an electrical or electronic boogeyman to blame
- and I can tell you, absolutely and without any doubt, there is NO
electrical or electronic failure that could POSSIBLY make it
impossible to shift the vehicle to neutral, as the neutral control is
STRICTLY MECHANICAL.

Excuse me if I doubt that you have the personal experience with the
design of every model of Toyota made over the last 7 years to be able
to make that blanket statement. It may have a high probability of
being true, but clearly you are over reaching here and just discredit
yourself.



No need to diagnose what caused the runaway
problem, because there can be NO inter-related issues.-

Yes there is.. Because cars are not supposed to just randomly go to
full throttle by themselves. Whether it's because of sticking floor
mats, sticking throttles or an electronic problem, the root cause
needs to be found so that these cars can be fixed and the potentially
fatal problem avoided in future automobiles. Would you just sweep an
airline crash under the carpet too?


I didn't say there was no reason to diagnose the failure. I said there
is no reason to diagnose the failure to determine if any possible
electrical fault could keep the vehicle from being shifted to neutral.

There IS one transmission I am not 100% sure about - and that is the
CVT. This is only used on the Hybrids (on toyota it is still a
planetary system but has 2 motor-generator sets in it - the planetary
is a "power splitter". It may not have a mechanical linkage. However,
shutting off both motor-generators puts it in neutral. The electrical
circuit for dissabling the electric motor-generators is apparently not
controlled by the computer to meet the requirements of the law that
the motor can be disconnected from the drivetrain at any time, under
any conditions.

Since I don't know THAT system intimately I need to take the vidence
of an expert.

Jake Fisher, an automotive engineer for Consumer Reports, said the
Toyota hybrid has a pretty funny shifter.

Neutral can be hard to find for those who never use the gear.
Nonetheless, Fisher said the tests he has done on cars show that all
engines, be they hybrid or conventional, become disengaged from the
drive line when they are put into neutral.

"No matter what the situation or what the car was," he said, "if you
just put the car into neutral you can safely and easily stop the
vehicle."


ALSO SEE
http://sharing.theflip.com/session/9...video/11407344
for actual demonstration of a prius at speed.

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:39:37 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:08:07 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:56:20 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:43:31 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 11, 1:26Â*pm, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 11, 9:43Â*am, wrote:

On Mar 11, 11:59Â*am, "Bob F" wrote:

My '94 Caravan with an electronically controlled automatic does the same.

What, we don't have any readers here with a toyota prius?

I know a couple of prius owners and they're not willing to do a full-
throttle shift-to-neutral test on their cars.

I really want to see if the stuff I've been reading about the computer
not letting the transmission shift into neutral to protect the engine
are true.

Almosst certainly _not_ true but it would be nice to have an official
source.

Yes, I think we all would like to see a link to any credible source.
All I've seen is:

A - speculation from various individuals that it might be possible
that some of the Toyotas can't be shifted into neutral under runaway
conditions

B - some of the people driving the runaway cars have claimed they
could not shift them into neutral

C - Toyota has said at least on the Lexus that they can be shifted
into neutral at any time. They may have also said it about more cars
than the Lexus, not sure about that.

If there were an intentionally designed system to prevent shifting
into neutral while moving, I would think there is a 99% chance we
would have heard about it by now.



We are discussing cars that are malfunctioning. Perhaps not being able
to shift into neutral is connected to the malfunction in some way. Or,
perhaps not. You can't rule it out without correctly and completely
diagnosing what is causing the runaway problem.

I'm also not sure how many people, in the midst of a crisis, would be
quick to assume that turning off the key would NOT lock the steering
and make things worse.


Everone is looking for an electrical or electronic boogeyman to blame
- and I can tell you, absolutely and without any doubt, there is NO
electrical or electronic failure that could POSSIBLY make it
impossible to shift the vehicle to neutral, as the neutral control is
STRICTLY MECHANICAL. No need to diagnose what caused the runaway
problem, because there can be NO inter-related issues.

Sorry, but your opinion cannot be considered to be a fact, just
because you assert that it is.


OK I WAS WRONG. On Hybrid Synergy Drive there is no mechanical
lincage, but the shifter is a switch that controls power to the 2
motor-generator sets. Neutral dissables both , putting the car in
neutral, without intervention by the computer.
This meets the requirements of the law that the engine can be
completely disengaged from the drive at any time.

On 3/11/10 4:36 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:
On Mar 11, 7:27 am, Rick wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Racing engine, shift into reverse. Probably throw a rod, and
destroy the engine. Might not be a bad thing, compared to
slamming a tree.

While one is understandably hesitant to actually try it, multiple mechanics
have told me that modern cars will simply not engage reverse while the car
is moving forward past a minimal speed.

I did it accidentally once on an american product. The car jerked and
then freewheeled after that. There was no damage to the engine or
tranmission. I suspect they have started to build protection into
them.

Yes, its called drive by wire. My car does not have a throttle cable or
shifter cable/linkage both are controlled electronically. The car's
computer will not let you down shift into too low of a gear nor will it
allow you to grind the starter if the engine is already running.

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:48:37 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:20:06 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:18:06 -0800 (PST), terry
wrote:

On Mar 12, 12:34Â*pm, Harry K wrote:

But it oes happen . Â*I blew the clutch servo in my F150 20 miles
out in the boonies at a stop sign. Â*Got it going by starting in gear
and drove it back home over gravel/paved/major highway. Â* Of course I
know how to clutch-less shift...

Harry I agree. Having learned to drive on a vintage 1926 Daimler
hearse (used as an ambulance and hearse in the UK during WWII) which
had a 'crash box' (that's a manual with no synchromesh) back in the
1950s, have done the same thing you describe.

That vehicle had a handle sticking out front for starting the engine,
which had been changed during WWII to a 1938 model, Bedford (that was
the UK version of GMC) straight six. Years later we drove a 1963 GMC
pickup in North America and its engine looked identical to the 1938
engine!

Up to 1962, the engine WAS the same old stove-bolt 6. (235 and 261) In
1963 the new engines came on stream (194, and 230 - eventually also
250 inch)


My 1941 Chevy CK pickup and my 1946 Chevy CK pickup had a 216 inch
inline 6 cylinder with a splash oiling system. They had a socket in
the front of the engine, and a removable crank for emergency hand
starting. That was the engine used throughout WWII and for several
years after. The 235 was a later engine that had an oil pump.


You are correct. Sorta. The original Chevy 6 was 194 cubic inches
in 1929. In 1933 they went to 2 different engines - the 181 and the
207 (206.8) This was known as the "cast iron wonder"
In '37 they went to 216.5. inches. The "stove bolt" six.
ALL of these engines had an oil pump, however - but they were not full
pressure systems. The pump oiled the timing gears and rockers, and put
oil in a 'oil trough" that sprayed the connecting rods.
The actual oil pressure specification for '32 to '34 is 14 PSI at
30mph.
1935 and 36 is 12 psi at 50 mph, and 1937-39 is 13 psi at 50 MPH
The venerable 216 lasted until 1952, but the 235 became available in
1950 on automatic transmission (powerglide) cars and remained the
standard engine untill 1962, when the new 194 6 came out in the Chevy
2,m along with Chevy's first 4 cyl since 1928, the 153 "Deuce"
The early 235 (up to 1953) was still a semi-pressure splash lubed
engine. It became a full pressure engine in 1953.Automatic tranny cars
got hydraulic lifters , and in 1956 all 235 engines got them.
In Canada the enlarged "stove bolt" 261 was used in some trucks and
Canadian built Pontiacs.

The 235 was the first Chevy with full pressure oiling. It was built
under licence by Toyota from 1955 to 1974 as the "F" engine used in
the Land Cruiser. Vauxhaul/Bedford also used a smaller 168 cu inch
"stove bolt" design in some vehicles, but also had a smaller 138 cu
inch 6.(1950s Velox and Cresta?)

I owned a 1928 and a 1935 Chevy and still have some old manuals
around.

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:55:39 -0800, Ned Flanders
wrote:

On 3/11/10 4:36 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:
On Mar 11, 7:27 am, Rick wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Racing engine, shift into reverse. Probably throw a rod, and
destroy the engine. Might not be a bad thing, compared to
slamming a tree.

While one is understandably hesitant to actually try it, multiple mechanics
have told me that modern cars will simply not engage reverse while the car
is moving forward past a minimal speed.

I did it accidentally once on an american product. The car jerked and
then freewheeled after that. There was no damage to the engine or
tranmission. I suspect they have started to build protection into
them.

Yes, its called drive by wire. My car does not have a throttle cable or
shifter cable/linkage both are controlled electronically. The car's
computer will not let you down shift into too low of a gear nor will it
allow you to grind the starter if the engine is already running.

Just as a matter of interest, what do you drive?
And the "protection" was there before drive by wire.

On 3/12/10 3:00 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:


"Jim Yanik" wrote

good reason to drive stick shift.
it's a really rare failure when you can't put in the clutch.

Happened on my '62 Corvair. Engine mount broke and slackened the clutch
cable. I still managed to shift gears and drive the car home, just could
not come to a stop. Yes, kiddies, it is possible to shift both up and
down and not use the clutch. It is one of those things you have to
practice, just like shifting into neutral in an emergency.

I was pulling out of a oil lube joint and my car's throttle stuck open.
I hit the brakes and turn off the engine. Seems the high school grease
monkeys forgot to put the oil cap back on and had it sandwiched between
the throttle linkage and the hood. They were lucky I knew what I was
doing as I only had a few feet clearance before I would have hit a big wall.

On 3/11/10 9:43 AM, wrote:
On Mar 11, 11:59 am, "Bob wrote:
My '94 Caravan with an electronically controlled automatic does the same.

What, we don't have any readers here with a toyota prius?

I know a couple of prius owners and they're not willing to do a full-
throttle shift-to-neutral test on their cars.

I really want to see if the stuff I've been reading about the computer
not letting the transmission shift into neutral to protect the engine
are true.

My 2008 Saturn is drive by wire and the computer does not complain or
prevent me from putting it into neutral at any speed.

On 3/12/10 6:07 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:55:39 -0800, Ned
wrote:

On 3/11/10 4:36 AM, jamesgangnc wrote:
On Mar 11, 7:27 am, Rick wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Racing engine, shift into reverse. Probably throw a rod, and
destroy the engine. Might not be a bad thing, compared to
slamming a tree.

While one is understandably hesitant to actually try it, multiple mechanics
have told me that modern cars will simply not engage reverse while the car
is moving forward past a minimal speed.

I did it accidentally once on an american product. The car jerked and
then freewheeled after that. There was no damage to the engine or
tranmission. I suspect they have started to build protection into
them.

Yes, its called drive by wire. My car does not have a throttle cable or
shifter cable/linkage both are controlled electronically. The car's
computer will not let you down shift into too low of a gear nor will it
allow you to grind the starter if the engine is already running.

Just as a matter of interest, what do you drive?
And the "protection" was there before drive by wire.

2008 Saturn Vue

Tony wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
"Jack" wrote

You do not like the color of my print ... Don't read it.


Two comments:
1. Newsgroups are supposed to be plain text as it eliminates a lot of
problems between news readers
2. You say "Don't read it" but in fact, many can't read it because of
the light color. You may think it look snazzy, but it hurts the eyes
of others.

OK, one ore comment.
We come hear to learn and to help. If you want to be treaded special,
it is not going to happen. You are very welcome to join the
discussions and start new ones but to have a combative attitude you'll
spoil your own fun. Learn how to do plain text on Web TV. It can be done.

I suppose he could be reported to web TV for using other than plain text
where it is not allowed, but it's much easier if the offender simply
complies with the rules.

RULES?! WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING RULES!!

TDD

Ed Pawlowski wrote:


"Jim Yanik" wrote

good reason to drive stick shift.
it's a really rare failure when you can't put in the clutch.

Happened on my '62 Corvair. Engine mount broke and slackened the clutch
cable. I still managed to shift gears and drive the car home, just
could not come to a stop. Yes, kiddies, it is possible to shift both
up and down and not use the clutch. It is one of those things you have
to practice, just like shifting into neutral in an emergency.

I had a 63 Dodge pickup the type built on the van chassis with the
slant 6 between the seats. The clutch rod broke and I drove it all
over the place to get home. If I had to stop, I would start it in
first gear and drive away. That happened during the fun years when
I had all the time and ENERGY in the world to tinker with vehicles.
Sadly, no more, I would love to tinker but just don't feel like it.

TDD

wrote:
On Mar 12, 11:19 am, wrote:
On Mar 12, 11:03 am, wrote:

On Mar 12, 10:28 am, wrote:
But what I was responding to here was someone making a post saying
that they had scene reports that the transmissions were actually
designed so that they could not be shifted into neutral while
moving. I have surely haven't seen that and would like to see a link
if the person has it.
There are several instances of this being stated on answers.yahoo.com:http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...153AAXey3Phttp...
...to name a few.
Yes, I know that's not exactly an authoratative source of information
but it's the best I can find. I tend to give some credence to
consistent intelligent-sounding responses. I take them with fewer
grains of salt.
Good grief. Not exactly an authoratative source? In yahoo answers
anyone can post anything. Those threads are nothing but pure
speculation without a single reference to any credible source of
info. And besides that, it simply makes no sense. Why the hell
would anyone purposefully design a tranny so that it could not be
shifted into neutral while driving? Engines today with electronic
controls have rev limiters that would prevent the engine from over
revving. Plus, I don't recall hearing reports about cars blowing up
all over the place because they can be put into neutral. What about
all the manual tranny cars?

Here's the latest news on the San Diego runaway Prius guy, from Fox:

On Monday, James Sikes called 911 to report that he was behind the
wheel of an out-of-control Toyota Prius going 94 mph on a freeway near
San Diego. Twenty-three minutes later, a California Highway Patrol
officer helped guide him to a stop, a rescue that was captured on
videotape.

Since then, it's been learned that:

— Sikes filed for bankruptcy in San Diego in 2008. According to
documents, he was more than $700,000 in debt and roughly five months
behind in payments on his Prius;

— In 2001, Sikes filed a police report with the Merced County
Sheriff's Department for $58,000 in stolen property, including
jewelry, a digital video camera and equipment and $24,000 in cash;

— Sikes has hired a law firm, though it has indicated he has no plans
to sue Toyota;


— Sikes won $55,000 on television's "The Big Spin" in 2006, Fox40.com
reports, and the real estate agent has boasted of celebrity clients
such as Constance Ramos of "Extreme Home Makeover.

It's amazing that when anyone makes the news, people start digging up
anything that they can find on them. That's probably why a lot of heroes
remain unsung, they prefer it that way.

TDD

"The Daring Dufas" wrote

It's amazing that when anyone makes the news, people start digging up
anything that they can find on them. That's probably why a lot of heroes
remain unsung, they prefer it that way.

TDD

But this guy is no hero. He is stupid at best, a scam artist at worst.
I'd not be surprised if he ends up doing jail time along with Balloon Boy.

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:29:56 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:


"Jim Yanik" wrote

good reason to drive stick shift.
it's a really rare failure when you can't put in the clutch.

Happened on my '62 Corvair. Engine mount broke and slackened the clutch
cable. I still managed to shift gears and drive the car home, just
could not come to a stop. Yes, kiddies, it is possible to shift both
up and down and not use the clutch. It is one of those things you have
to practice, just like shifting into neutral in an emergency.

I had a 63 Dodge pickup the type built on the van chassis with the
slant 6 between the seats. The clutch rod broke and I drove it all
over the place to get home. If I had to stop, I would start it in
first gear and drive away. That happened during the fun years when
I had all the time and ENERGY in the world to tinker with vehicles.
Sadly, no more, I would love to tinker but just don't feel like it.

TDD
Ah, the old A100 !!!

wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:29:56 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

"Jim Yanik" wrote
good reason to drive stick shift.
it's a really rare failure when you can't put in the clutch.
Happened on my '62 Corvair. Engine mount broke and slackened the clutch
cable. I still managed to shift gears and drive the car home, just
could not come to a stop. Yes, kiddies, it is possible to shift both
up and down and not use the clutch. It is one of those things you have
to practice, just like shifting into neutral in an emergency.
I had a 63 Dodge pickup the type built on the van chassis with the
slant 6 between the seats. The clutch rod broke and I drove it all
over the place to get home. If I had to stop, I would start it in
first gear and drive away. That happened during the fun years when
I had all the time and ENERGY in the world to tinker with vehicles.
Sadly, no more, I would love to tinker but just don't feel like it.

TDD
Ah, the old A100 !!!

I loved that thing, I would use the crane off the plow hitch of the
49 Ferguson tractor to reach in through the passenger door to pull
the engine for tinkering. The worst problem was the little truck
was light in the rear but did it ever have character. FUNKY is the
word I was thinking of.

TDD

Ed Pawlowski wrote:


"The Daring Dufas" wrote

It's amazing that when anyone makes the news, people start digging up
anything that they can find on them. That's probably why a lot of heroes
remain unsung, they prefer it that way.

TDD

But this guy is no hero. He is stupid at best, a scam artist at worst.
I'd not be surprised if he ends up doing jail time along with Balloon Boy.

Didn't quite mean to imply that the guy is any kind of hero, it was
a general comment about anyone winding up in the news.

TDD

wrote:

OK I WAS WRONG. On Hybrid Synergy Drive there is no mechanical
lincage, but the shifter is a switch that controls power to the 2
motor-generator sets. Neutral dissables both , putting the car in
neutral, without intervention by the computer.
This meets the requirements of the law that the engine can be
completely disengaged from the drive at any time.

Motorcycles have a switch on the handlebars that can be tripped to
kill the bike in an emergency. It's convenient for a rider to flip it
if he has to. This is in addition to the ignition switch. I think the
one on my bike has the on position in the middle with an off position on
either side.
Are there any cars with an equivalent switch?

On Mar 12, 9:17*pm, Ned Flanders wrote:
On 3/11/10 9:43 AM, wrote:

On Mar 11, 11:59 am, "Bob *wrote:
My '94 Caravan with an electronically controlled automatic does the same.

What, we don't have any readers here with a toyota prius?

I know a couple of prius owners and they're not willing to do a full-
throttle shift-to-neutral test on their cars.

I really want to see if the stuff I've been reading about the computer
not letting the transmission shift into neutral to protect the engine
are true.

My 2008 Saturn is drive by wire and the computer does not complain or
prevent me from putting it into neutral at any speed.

Interesting, but the question is what would happen if the computer was
stuck in some non-normal mode and that was causing the throttle to be
open? It might then not respond to a command to shift the tranny
either. It's likely a moot point with the Toyotas because from all
indications so far, the tranny doesn't have anything electronic or not
that could prevent it from being shifted into neutral.

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:17:48 -0800, Ned Flanders
wrote:


My 2008 Saturn is drive by wire and the computer does not complain or
prevent me from putting it into neutral at any speed.

You forgot to add = "when it is working correctly"

Why would he? The computer is not at all attached to the mechanical linkage
of the transmission. It is built that way for a reason. I've never heard
of anyone that could not shift into neutral, have you?

On Mar 13, 10:25*am, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:17:48 -0800, Ned Flanders
wrote:

My 2008 Saturn is drive by wire and the computer does not complain or
prevent me from putting it into neutral at any speed.

You forgot to add = "when it is working correctly"

Why would he? *The computer is not at all attached to the mechanical linkage
of the transmission. * It is built that way for a reason.

You are assuming that his definition of "drive by wire" on his Saturn
excludes the operation of the transmission. Maybe it does, but he
didn't say one way or the other so we don't know.



* I've never heard
of anyone that could not shift into neutral, have you?


Surely you know there have been reports of exactly that by people
experiencing the Toyota runaway problem. Are they telling the
truth? Maybe not, but to just dismiss them outright without a
complete understanding of how the transmissions are designed, actually
work, perform under full throttle conditions, examining the
transmissions from the runaway cars, etc, I'd say is premature.

wrote

You are assuming that his definition of "drive by wire" on his Saturn
excludes the operation of the transmission. Maybe it does, but he
didn't say one way or the other so we don't know.

Yes, we do know. Linkage is mechanical.

On 3/13/10 7:57 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:


wrote

You are assuming that his definition of "drive by wire" on his Saturn
excludes the operation of the transmission. Maybe it does, but he
didn't say one way or the other so we don't know.

Yes, we do know. Linkage is mechanical.




I can't say either way for sure as I do not have the shop manual yet (no
need for at least another 2 years). When the shifter is put in "M"
manual while the transmission is in any gear other than 1st the
transmission drops down a gear. If the car speeds up or down the
transmission will continue to shift albeit a little more aggressively (a
more sportier feel). If the shifter is put into "M" while the
transmission is in 1st or stopped the car will not shift until you
manually shift it with a toggle switch on the side of the shifter (sort
of a clutch-less manual mode - where all 6 gears are available). It is
this mode that makes me wonder as this has to be a by wire shift mode as
there is no movement of linkage only the pressing (rocking up or down)
of a toggle switch).

I know the computer plays a roll in the shifting because the shift
patterns can be changed by reprogramming the computer. I believe there
was a service bulletin for the 4 cylinder model that fixed a shift
pattern problem on the smaller engine. The solution was uploading a
patch to the computer.

From what I have read in a Saturn news group I believe the shifting is
by wire from the shifter but can not say if it goes to the computer
before the transmission or if the computer only monitors the
transmission and has the ability to make adjustments to performance?

On Mar 13, 11:49*am, Ned Flanders wrote:
On 3/13/10 7:57 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:



wrote

You are assuming that his definition of "drive by wire" on his Saturn
excludes the operation of the transmission. Maybe it does, but he
didn't say one way or the other so we don't know.

Yes, we do know. Linkage is mechanical.

I can't say either way for sure as I do not have the shop manual yet (no
need for at least another 2 years).


Just as I thought. I don't know why some people want to rush to
judgement without having all the facts. Obvioulsy there are a LOT of
different cars out there and without factual data, no one here knows
what exactly is or isn't in any of them.




When the shifter is put in "M"
manual while the transmission is in any gear other than 1st the
transmission drops down a gear. If the car speeds up or down the
transmission will continue to shift albeit a little more aggressively (a
more sportier feel). If the shifter is put into "M" while the
transmission is in 1st or stopped the car will not shift until you
manually shift it with a toggle switch on the side of the shifter (sort
of a clutch-less manual mode - where all 6 gears are available). It is
this mode that makes me wonder as this has to be a by wire shift mode as
there is no movement of linkage only the pressing (rocking up or down)
of a toggle switch).

Excellent example that things may not always be as simple as some
people would have us believe. Clearly from what you describe, there
is at least some kind of electrical control over the transmission.



I know the computer plays a roll in the shifting because the shift
patterns can be changed by reprogramming the computer. I believe there
was a service bulletin for the 4 cylinder model that fixed a shift
pattern problem on the smaller engine. The solution was uploading a
patch to the computer.

Another excellent point.



*From what I have read in a Saturn news group I believe the shifting is
by wire from the shifter but can not say if it goes to the computer
before the transmission or if the computer only monitors the
transmission and has the ability to make adjustments to performance?

On Mar 12, 8:02*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
"The Daring Dufas" wrote



It's amazing that when anyone makes the news, people start digging up
anything that they can find on them. That's probably why a lot of heroes
remain unsung, they prefer it that way.

TDD

But this guy is no hero. He is stupid at best, a scam artist at worst.
I'd not be surprised if he ends up doing jail time along with Balloon Boy..

Unless I misheard it on the news, the Sheriff there said "I don't
_think_ it is a scam". Obviously it is being looked at closely.

Harry K

On Mar 13, 12:52*pm, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 12, 8:02*pm, "Ed Pawlowski" wrote:

"The Daring Dufas" wrote

It's amazing that when anyone makes the news, people start digging up
anything that they can find on them. That's probably why a lot of heroes
remain unsung, they prefer it that way.

TDD

But this guy is no hero. He is stupid at best, a scam artist at worst.
I'd not be surprised if he ends up doing jail time along with Balloon Boy.

Unless I misheard it on the news, the Sheriff there said "I don't
_think_ it is a scam". * Obviously it is being looked at closely.

Harry K

I heard that too. But of course that is what the sheriff in the
Balloon Boy case said at first too. The more I hear, the more
suspicious it sounds. Fox News did a good job investigating his
background. With a bankruptcy for $700K a year ago, no payments on
the Prius for several months, it looks more likely a hoax to me.

On Mar 13, 6:04*am, wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:03:21 -0500, wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:48:37 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:20:06 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:18:06 -0800 (PST), terry
wrote:

On Mar 12, 12:34*pm, Harry K wrote:

But it oes happen . *I blew the clutch servo in my F150 20 miles
out in the boonies at a stop sign. *Got it going by starting in gear
and drove it back home over gravel/paved/major highway. * Of course I
know how to clutch-less shift...

Harry I agree. Having learned to drive on a vintage 1926 Daimler
hearse (used as an ambulance and hearse in the UK during WWII) which
had a 'crash box' (that's a manual with no synchromesh) back in the
1950s, have done the same thing you describe.

That vehicle had a handle sticking out front for starting the engine,
which had been changed during WWII to a 1938 model, Bedford (that was
the UK version of GMC) straight six. Years later we drove a 1963 GMC
pickup in North America and its *engine looked identical to the 1938
engine!

Up to 1962, the engine WAS the same old stove-bolt 6. (235 and 261) In
1963 the new engines came on stream (194, and 230 - eventually also
250 inch)

My 1941 Chevy CK pickup and my 1946 Chevy CK pickup had a 216 inch
inline 6 cylinder with a splash oiling system. They had a socket in
the front of the engine, and a removable crank for emergency hand
starting. That was the engine used throughout WWII and for several
years after. The 235 was a later engine that had an oil pump.

You are correct. *Sorta. The original Chevy 6 was *194 cubic inches
in 1929. In 1933 they went to 2 different engines - the 181 and the
207 (206.8) This was known as the "cast iron wonder"
In '37 they went to 216.5. inches. The "stove bolt" six.
ALL of these engines had an oil pump, however - but they were not full
pressure systems. The pump oiled the timing gears and rockers, and put
oil in a 'oil trough" *that sprayed the connecting rods.
The actual oil pressure specification for '32 to '34 *is 14 PSI at
30mph.
1935 and 36 is 12 psi at 50 mph, and 1937-39 *is 13 psi at 50 MPH
The venerable 216 lasted until 1952, but the 235 became available in
1950 on automatic transmission (powerglide) cars and remained the
standard engine untill 1962, when the new 194 6 came out in the Chevy
2,m along with Chevy's first 4 cyl since 1928, the 153 "Deuce"
The early 235 (up to 1953) was still a semi-pressure splash lubed
engine. It became a full pressure engine in 1953.Automatic tranny cars
got hydraulic lifters , and in 1956 all 235 engines got them.
In Canada the enlarged "stove bolt" 261 was used in some trucks and
Canadian built Pontiacs.

The 235 was the first Chevy with full pressure oiling. It was built
under licence by Toyota from 1955 to 1974 as the "F" engine used in
the Land Cruiser. Vauxhaul/Bedford also used *a smaller 168 cu inch
"stove bolt" design in some vehicles, but also had a smaller 138 cu
inch *6.(1950s Velox and Cresta?)

I owned a 1928 and a 1935 Chevy and still have some old manuals
around.

What you said in many words, I said in few. The engine in 1938 was the
same 216 in my 1941 and 1946 pickup trucks with what was commonly
called "a splash oil system". I also correctly stated that the 235 was
a later engine with an oil pump (full pressure oiling system)

I said that after you incorrectly said that the same 235 was in use
from 1938 to 1962. It clearly was not.

Google can't save you.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Esoterica: This bit my BIL. You could not put a 37 engine into an
earlier chev without changing the motor mounts. The 37 was shorter.
I knew this as my dad had to do the conversion when he changed the
motor on his 34 1 1/2 truck. My BIL tried it on a ?36? PU back in the
70s

Harry K

wrote
Yes, we do know. Linkage is mechanical.

I can't say either way for sure as I do not have the shop manual yet (no
need for at least another 2 years).


Just as I thought. I don't know why some people want to rush to
judgement without having all the facts. Obvioulsy there are a LOT of
different cars out there and without factual data, no one here knows
what exactly is or isn't in any of them.

But you don't know what I know or what cars may be sitting in my driveway.






When the shifter is put in "M"
manual while the transmission is in any gear other than 1st the
transmission drops down a gear. If the car speeds up or down the
transmission will continue to shift albeit a little more aggressively (a
more sportier feel). If the shifter is put into "M" while the
transmission is in 1st or stopped the car will not shift until you
manually shift it with a toggle switch on the side of the shifter (sort
of a clutch-less manual mode - where all 6 gears are available). It is
this mode that makes me wonder as this has to be a by wire shift mode as
there is no movement of linkage only the pressing (rocking up or down)
of a toggle switch).

Excellent example that things may not always be as simple as some
people would have us believe. Clearly from what you describe, there
is at least some kind of electrical control over the transmission.



I know the computer plays a roll in the shifting because the shift
patterns can be changed by reprogramming the computer. I believe there
was a service bulletin for the 4 cylinder model that fixed a shift
pattern problem on the smaller engine. The solution was uploading a
patch to the computer.

Another excellent point.



From what I have read in a Saturn news group I believe the shifting is
by wire from the shifter but can not say if it goes to the computer
before the transmission or if the computer only monitors the
transmission and has the ability to make adjustments to performance?

wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 14:55:41 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 12, 5:08 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:56:20 -0500, wrote:
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:43:31 -0800 (PST), wrote:
On Mar 11, 1:26 pm, Harry K wrote:
On Mar 11, 9:43 am, wrote:
On Mar 11, 11:59 am, "Bob F" wrote:
My '94 Caravan with an electronically controlled automatic does the same.
What, we don't have any readers here with a toyota prius?
I know a couple of prius owners and they're not willing to do a full-
throttle shift-to-neutral test on their cars.
I really want to see if the stuff I've been reading about the computer
not letting the transmission shift into neutral to protect the engine
are true.
Almosst certainly _not_ true but it would be nice to have an official
source.
Yes, I think we all would like to see a link to any credible source.
All I've seen is:
A - speculation from various individuals that it might be possible
that some of the Toyotas can't be shifted into neutral under runaway
conditions
B - some of the people driving the runaway cars have claimed they
could not shift them into neutral
C - Toyota has said at least on the Lexus that they can be shifted
into neutral at any time. They may have also said it about more cars
than the Lexus, not sure about that.
If there were an intentionally designed system to prevent shifting
into neutral while moving, I would think there is a 99% chance we
would have heard about it by now.
We are discussing cars that are malfunctioning. Perhaps not being able
to shift into neutral is connected to the malfunction in some way. Or,
perhaps not. You can't rule it out without correctly and completely
diagnosing what is causing the runaway problem.
I'm also not sure how many people, in the midst of a crisis, would be
quick to assume that turning off the key would NOT lock the steering
and make things worse.
Everone is looking for an electrical or electronic boogeyman to blame
- and I can tell you, absolutely and without any doubt, there is NO
electrical or electronic failure that could POSSIBLY make it
impossible to shift the vehicle to neutral, as the neutral control is
STRICTLY MECHANICAL.
Excuse me if I doubt that you have the personal experience with the
design of every model of Toyota made over the last 7 years to be able
to make that blanket statement. It may have a high probability of
being true, but clearly you are over reaching here and just discredit
yourself.



No need to diagnose what caused the runaway
problem, because there can be NO inter-related issues.-
Yes there is.. Because cars are not supposed to just randomly go to
full throttle by themselves. Whether it's because of sticking floor
mats, sticking throttles or an electronic problem, the root cause
needs to be found so that these cars can be fixed and the potentially
fatal problem avoided in future automobiles. Would you just sweep an
airline crash under the carpet too?


I didn't say there was no reason to diagnose the failure. I said there
is no reason to diagnose the failure to determine if any possible
electrical fault could keep the vehicle from being shifted to neutral.

There IS one transmission I am not 100% sure about - and that is the
CVT. This is only used on the Hybrids (on toyota it is still a
planetary system but has 2 motor-generator sets in it - the planetary
is a "power splitter".

Actually more vehicles use the CVT. My daughters Saturn Vue has a CVT,
not sure if they all do? I think some other american made cars have
them, but not sure. A lot of "maybes" here but I think the CVT has been
used for some time now in sub compact foriegn cars not available for
import to the US.

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 09:04:09 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:03:21 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:48:37 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:20:06 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:18:06 -0800 (PST), terry
wrote:

On Mar 12, 12:34Â*pm, Harry K wrote:

But it oes happen . Â*I blew the clutch servo in my F150 20 miles
out in the boonies at a stop sign. Â*Got it going by starting in gear
and drove it back home over gravel/paved/major highway. Â* Of course I
know how to clutch-less shift...

Harry I agree. Having learned to drive on a vintage 1926 Daimler
hearse (used as an ambulance and hearse in the UK during WWII) which
had a 'crash box' (that's a manual with no synchromesh) back in the
1950s, have done the same thing you describe.

That vehicle had a handle sticking out front for starting the engine,
which had been changed during WWII to a 1938 model, Bedford (that was
the UK version of GMC) straight six. Years later we drove a 1963 GMC
pickup in North America and its engine looked identical to the 1938
engine!

Up to 1962, the engine WAS the same old stove-bolt 6. (235 and 261) In
1963 the new engines came on stream (194, and 230 - eventually also
250 inch)


My 1941 Chevy CK pickup and my 1946 Chevy CK pickup had a 216 inch
inline 6 cylinder with a splash oiling system. They had a socket in
the front of the engine, and a removable crank for emergency hand
starting. That was the engine used throughout WWII and for several
years after. The 235 was a later engine that had an oil pump.


You are correct. Sorta. The original Chevy 6 was 194 cubic inches
in 1929. In 1933 they went to 2 different engines - the 181 and the
207 (206.8) This was known as the "cast iron wonder"
In '37 they went to 216.5. inches. The "stove bolt" six.
ALL of these engines had an oil pump, however - but they were not full
pressure systems. The pump oiled the timing gears and rockers, and put
oil in a 'oil trough" that sprayed the connecting rods.
The actual oil pressure specification for '32 to '34 is 14 PSI at
30mph.
1935 and 36 is 12 psi at 50 mph, and 1937-39 is 13 psi at 50 MPH
The venerable 216 lasted until 1952, but the 235 became available in
1950 on automatic transmission (powerglide) cars and remained the
standard engine untill 1962, when the new 194 6 came out in the Chevy
2,m along with Chevy's first 4 cyl since 1928, the 153 "Deuce"
The early 235 (up to 1953) was still a semi-pressure splash lubed
engine. It became a full pressure engine in 1953.Automatic tranny cars
got hydraulic lifters , and in 1956 all 235 engines got them.
In Canada the enlarged "stove bolt" 261 was used in some trucks and
Canadian built Pontiacs.

The 235 was the first Chevy with full pressure oiling. It was built
under licence by Toyota from 1955 to 1974 as the "F" engine used in
the Land Cruiser. Vauxhaul/Bedford also used a smaller 168 cu inch
"stove bolt" design in some vehicles, but also had a smaller 138 cu
inch 6.(1950s Velox and Cresta?)

I owned a 1928 and a 1935 Chevy and still have some old manuals
around.

What you said in many words, I said in few. The engine in 1938 was the
same 216 in my 1941 and 1946 pickup trucks with what was commonly
called "a splash oil system". I also correctly stated that the 235 was
a later engine with an oil pump (full pressure oiling system)

I said that after you incorrectly said that the same 235 was in use
from 1938 to 1962. It clearly was not.

Google can't save you.


Except the castr iron wonder and the early stovebolt ALSO had an oil
pump. (as did the earlier 4 cyl Chevies)

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 06:06:15 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Mar 12, 9:17Â*pm, Ned Flanders wrote:
On 3/11/10 9:43 AM, wrote:

On Mar 11, 11:59 am, "Bob Â*wrote:
My '94 Caravan with an electronically controlled automatic does the same.

What, we don't have any readers here with a toyota prius?

I know a couple of prius owners and they're not willing to do a full-
throttle shift-to-neutral test on their cars.

I really want to see if the stuff I've been reading about the computer
not letting the transmission shift into neutral to protect the engine
are true.

My 2008 Saturn is drive by wire and the computer does not complain or
prevent me from putting it into neutral at any speed.

Interesting, but the question is what would happen if the computer was
stuck in some non-normal mode and that was causing the throttle to be
open? It might then not respond to a command to shift the tranny
either. It's likely a moot point with the Toyotas because from all
indications so far, the tranny doesn't have anything electronic or not
that could prevent it from being shifted into neutral.