electronic throttle?

The December issue of Road & Track has a great review on the '05 Mustang GT.

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=1662


In it, the reviewer says,

"Response for the first few hundred rpm off idle is soft, the result of only
281 cubic inches, two tons of all-up weight and what must be conservative
engine management. And while we're griping, electronic throttles are the
work of the financial devil, although we'll admit the Mustang's is the best
yet. Tuners will have a field day providing crisper off-idle and
snap-throttle operations via computer reflashes and 3.73 gear sets. The
burnout crowd will not see any progress in losing the throttle cable either.
For the rest of us, the smooth 3-valve makes more power, fewer emissions,
gets the same mileage and lives on 87-octane gasoline."

So, what is electronic throttle? There's no cable from the gas pedal to the
engine? Does it really result in softer response at low rpms?


-Bill J.
95 GT

Bill Jones opined in
news:3aUnd.26690$5b1

>
> So, what is electronic throttle? There's no cable from the gas pedal to
> the engine? Does it really result in softer response at low rpms?
>

Dunno... but you can pretty well bet it's not a simple potentiometer system
like the TPS... would have to be something that automatically fail-safed.

Imagine the law suits..

Yep... no cable. Similar to the system installed on the '04 and up three
valve 5.4 pick ups (and other models, too). It is triple redundant.... most
problems will give limited throttle response and turn on the "wrench light"
on the cluster. There were some problems with a few of the early 5.4s but
they seem to have been ironed out. The ones I have driven took some getting
used to but seem natural, now. The big problem is "tip in" but, as I said,
it is easy to get used to.

First one I drove was in last years Santa Claus parade here in town........
I learned about the tip in response real quick.....


"Bill Jones" > wrote in message
. com...
> The December issue of Road & Track has a great review on the '05 Mustang
> GT.
>
> http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=1662
>
>
> In it, the reviewer says,
>
> "Response for the first few hundred rpm off idle is soft, the result of
> only 281 cubic inches, two tons of all-up weight and what must be
> conservative engine management. And while we're griping, electronic
> throttles are the work of the financial devil, although we'll admit the
> Mustang's is the best yet. Tuners will have a field day providing crisper
> off-idle and snap-throttle operations via computer reflashes and 3.73 gear
> sets. The burnout crowd will not see any progress in losing the throttle
> cable either. For the rest of us, the smooth 3-valve makes more power,
> fewer emissions, gets the same mileage and lives on 87-octane gasoline."
>
> So, what is electronic throttle? There's no cable from the gas pedal to
> the engine? Does it really result in softer response at low rpms?
>
>
> -Bill J.
> 95 GT
>

Bill Jones wrote:


> So, what is electronic throttle? There's no cable from the gas pedal to the
> engine? Does it really result in softer response at low rpms?
>

Yes, drive by wire, or at least partially. No, not in my case.
My Nissan will slam you into the seat and send groceries flying if
you aren't careful leaving a light. It's a little strange getting
used to. Now my mom has an RX330 which I think is electronic also and
it doesn't do that, infact it's too light. I'd like to find a happy
medium.

--
YOU are the real piece of work in this post. I think you are
a couple of drumsticks short of a picnic there bud. - SVTKate

Jim Warman wrote:

> Yep... no cable. Similar to the system installed on the '04 and up three
> valve 5.4 pick ups (and other models, too). It is triple redundant.... most
> problems will give limited throttle response and turn on the "wrench light"
> on the cluster. There were some problems with a few of the early 5.4s but
> they seem to have been ironed out. The ones I have driven took some getting
> used to but seem natural, now. The big problem is "tip in" but, as I said,
> it is easy to get used to.
>
> First one I drove was in last years Santa Claus parade here in town........
> I learned about the tip in response real quick.....
>

Tip in? Maybe that's what I am talking about where if you are
stopped or barely moving and you jab the pedal a little too much and
a little too fast you get a holy crap kind of lurch. Now, this is on
a small SUV (XUV) with 280 HP. It seems it would be more than "holy
crap" on a Mustnag with say, 340 RWHP.

--
YOU are the real piece of work in this post. I think you are
a couple of drumsticks short of a picnic there bud. - SVTKate

That's where the problem lies.... from closed throttle to small throttle
openings. This is that area that is much easier to do with a cable than a
wiring harness. Don't forget that we are now at the mercy of computer
dweebs...... these are the guys that can't find the hood release let alone
do what anyone tells them....


"WindsorFox[SS]" > wrote in message
news:sAVnd.2905$wa1.2664@lakeread04...
> Jim Warman wrote:
>
>> Yep... no cable. Similar to the system installed on the '04 and up three
>> valve 5.4 pick ups (and other models, too). It is triple redundant....
>> most problems will give limited throttle response and turn on the "wrench
>> light" on the cluster. There were some problems with a few of the early
>> 5.4s but they seem to have been ironed out. The ones I have driven took
>> some getting used to but seem natural, now. The big problem is "tip in"
>> but, as I said, it is easy to get used to.
>>
>> First one I drove was in last years Santa Claus parade here in
>> town........ I learned about the tip in response real quick.....
>>
>
> Tip in? Maybe that's what I am talking about where if you are stopped
> or barely moving and you jab the pedal a little too much and a little too
> fast you get a holy crap kind of lurch. Now, this is on a small SUV (XUV)
> with 280 HP. It seems it would be more than "holy crap" on a Mustnag with
> say, 340 RWHP.
>
> --
> YOU are the real piece of work in this post. I think you are
> a couple of drumsticks short of a picnic there bud. - SVTKate

Jim Warman wrote:
> That's where the problem lies.... from closed throttle to small throttle
> openings. This is that area that is much easier to do with a cable than a
> wiring harness. Don't forget that we are now at the mercy of computer


Imagine the owners of the early FX35 models with the defective
TCM. They would go out and once it does you get NOTHING but idle. The
lucky person had it happen in their driveway / garage, I suppose the
less fortunate had it happen while somewhere on the Interstate....

--
YOU are the real piece of work in this post. I think you are
a couple of drumsticks short of a picnic there bud. - SVTKate

Same here... Spent 20 years in the trade but the IMPORTANT part is that I
ended up doing User interface / integration and this reminds me of the new
systems a few years ago that replaced terminal emulation with java and HTML
GUI's ...

I did two call center installations and after spending days building the
screens, was told to pack up before we got tab flow done because the agents
needed to learn to use the mouse... "We'll do tab-flow later, maybe"

For you that say WTF? heads down people should NEVER use a mouse except for
rare occasions!

Same thing applies here... the thing is done for ease of assembly, PERIOD!!!!
.... it doesnt do ANYTHING that couldnt have been done with sidereal sensing
while giving primary control through the cable.

The crap about:
"Because the stiff metal cable between a traditional accelerator pedal and
the engine is eliminated, so is a traditional pathway into the cabin for
noise and vibration."

ranks right up there with

"Magnesium cam covers suppress valve train noise and reduce weight. Taking
weight out at the top of the engine helps lower the car’s center of gravity
and its roll-center axis, improving handling."

as a mistatement of the talking points the Ford engineering group gave the PR
idiots.

Lighter valve covers = better handling on curves... yep! Was MEANT to refer
to the lighter heads.


JS opined in news:m2Xnd.2223$Gw.1389@trndny09:

> Hey!
>
> I'm a computer dweeb and turn my own wrench too. Sadly, as much as I
> love computers, I think I might rather just have a cable. The only
> benefit I can see is custom programming for drag racers with automatic
> transmissions to just hit the throttle on by a push button. All the
> computer trickery to adapt to its surroundings sound nice, but I might
> rather be able to control it. I realize it could do a better job, but
> the same can be said about automatics vs. 5-speeds.
>
> I say "might" a lot because I haven't driven a drive-by-wire system
> yet...
>
> JS
>

"Bill Jones" > wrote in message
. com...
>
> So, what is electronic throttle? There's no cable from the gas pedal to
> the engine? Does it really result in softer response at low rpms?
>

It sounds like a computer conditioned servo-mechanical circuit. The airline
industry has used these for years for many reasons like lower weight than
all those cables, facilitate autopilot, record flight commands, and
maintenance is concentrated in just several places (the sender, the
computer, and the receiver) and not the entire length of the cable. Some
folks think it'll eventually lead to eliminating the co-pilot and later
possibly the pilot. I have a friend that pilots the big ones on the
Europe/US routes, and he says there is *not* a single, traditional
mechanical cable in it now. Everything goes thru the computer.

You have to admit it consolidates components for the cruise control real
nice.

I wonder how long throttle commands are stored in the computer and if the
police will ever use it?

--
John
ThunderSnake #59
If you Reply, be sure and remove the " (DELETE_THIS) " from the email
address.

"John" > wrote in message
...
>
> It sounds like a computer conditioned servo-mechanical circuit. The
> airline industry has used these for years for many reasons like lower
> weight than all those cables, facilitate autopilot, record flight
> commands, and maintenance is concentrated in just several places (the
> sender, the computer, and the receiver) and not the entire length of the
> cable. Some folks think it'll eventually lead to eliminating the co-pilot
> and later possibly the pilot. I have a friend that pilots the big ones on
> the Europe/US routes, and he says there is *not* a single, traditional
> mechanical cable in it now. Everything goes thru the computer.

I can see on an airplane or something where there are probably miles of hard
cable, but we're talking a couple foot piece of low-tension cable. On the
plane, it would be lower weight, easier to assemble, and perhaps cheaper on
the plane, depending on how much it costs to wire it and if it's a bussed
system or single wire per servo. On the car, it adds ease of assembly and
the possibility to locate the throttle body anywhere on the car (helps the
ram-air systems I guess) without the unsightly cable, but I doubt it'd be
much cheaper. Yes, the cruise control already operates under the same idea,
but the CC servo can't be remotely capable of what the throttle servo would
need to do - a nearly instantaneous opening of the throttle just isn't in
the typical CC servo's operation capability. When was the last time your
cruise baked the tires off? (note that this isn't a shot against you, just
a general rant about the system)

> You have to admit it consolidates components for the cruise control real
> nice.

That it does....

> I wonder how long throttle commands are stored in the computer and if the
> police will ever use it?

Throttle commands are most likely stored to allow the computer to better
respond to the driver and anticipate the next move. I don't know if the
police will use it... speed logging would be more beneficial than throttle.
There's times you need to floor it... highway onramps, etc. I'm sure they
could already pull a speed log if they really wanted to.

JS