On Jun 18, 11:47 am, Dave LaCourse <dplacou...@pirateaol.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 05:57:46 -0700, 377 <boeing...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Your first instinct with a runaway throttle is to hit
> >the brakes and that is what I did first. It did stop the car with a
> >lot of effort.
>
> That is plain horse pucky. I had a 67 GTO with a stuck throttle (gas
> pedal to the floor) and I applied the brakes and the car eventually
> slowed to a safe speed where I could turn off the ignition and coast
> to the break down lane. AND, those were drum brakes, not nearly as
> good as any Audi's disc brakes.

You probably didnt read the part where it seemed like brake boost
vacuum was lost or reduced before it accelerated. That does increase
pedal effort needed. I am NOT claiming that brakes failed to stop the
car, they DID stop it. I think the vacuum loss or decrease is somehow
related to the uncommanded rapid accel. I AGREE with you that the Audi
brakes can and do eventually stop the car even with a redlined motor.
All it takes is a strong and continuous application.

In the old Audi 5000 cases that got all the news the vast majority of
the cases were as follows (from a news article):
"The Audi story is by now, dismally familiar. "Sudden acceleration"
accidents occurred when the transmission was shifted out of "park."
The driver always insisted he was standing on the brake, but after the
crash the brakes always worked perfectly. A disproportionate number of
accidents involved drivers new to the vehicle. When an idiotproof
shift was installed so that a driver could not shift out of park if
his foot was on the accelerator, reports of sudden acceleration
plummeted."

My experience and the experience of several other 92 100S owners
reported on the NHSTA site was not like this. It was uncommanded
sudden acceleration while underway. I always thought the Audi 5000
claims were driver error, but believe me , my experience and the
experience of several other owners as reported to NHSTA is really
different and far less likely to involve a driver jamming hard on the
gas pedal thinking it is the brake pedal. No shifting from park to D.

I was a huge skeptic so I know where you are coming from. This is a
real problem and not lawyer driven or driver error. I am not claiming
that the brakes failed to stop the car.

 

On Jun 18, 11:47 am, Dave LaCourse <dplacou...@pirateaol.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 05:57:46 -0700, 377 <boeing...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Your first instinct with a runaway throttle is to hit
> >the brakes and that is what I did first. It did stop the car with a
> >lot of effort.
>
> That is plain horse pucky. I had a 67 GTO with a stuck throttle (gas
> pedal to the floor) and I applied the brakes and the car eventually
> slowed to a safe speed where I could turn off the ignition and coast
> to the break down lane. AND, those were drum brakes, not nearly as
> good as any Audi's disc brakes.

You probably didnt read the part where it seemed like brake boost
vacuum was lost or reduced before it accelerated. That does increase
pedal effort needed. I am NOT claiming that brakes failed to stop the
car, they DID stop it. I think the vacuum loss or decrease is somehow
related to the uncommanded rapid accel. I AGREE with you that the Audi
brakes can and do eventually stop the car even with a redlined motor.
All it takes is a strong and continuous application.

In the old Audi 5000 cases that got all the news the vast majority of
the cases were as follows (from a news article):
"The Audi story is by now, dismally familiar. "Sudden acceleration"
accidents occurred when the transmission was shifted out of "park."
The driver always insisted he was standing on the brake, but after the
crash the brakes always worked perfectly. A disproportionate number of
accidents involved drivers new to the vehicle. When an idiotproof
shift was installed so that a driver could not shift out of park if
his foot was on the accelerator, reports of sudden acceleration
plummeted."

My experience and the experience of several other 92 100S owners
reported on the NHSTA site was not like this. It was uncommanded
sudden acceleration while underway. I always thought the Audi 5000
claims were driver error, but believe me , my experience and the
experience of several other owners as reported to NHSTA is really
different and far less likely to involve a driver jamming hard on the
gas pedal thinking it is the brake pedal. No shifting from park to D.

I was a huge skeptic so I know where you are coming from. This is a
real problem and not lawyer driven or driver error. I am not claiming
that the brakes failed to stop the car.

 

On Jun 18, 11:47 am, Dave LaCourse <dplacou...@pirateaol.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 05:57:46 -0700, 377 <boeing...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Your first instinct with a runaway throttle is to hit
> >the brakes and that is what I did first. It did stop the car with a
> >lot of effort.
>
> That is plain horse pucky. I had a 67 GTO with a stuck throttle (gas
> pedal to the floor) and I applied the brakes and the car eventually
> slowed to a safe speed where I could turn off the ignition and coast
> to the break down lane. AND, those were drum brakes, not nearly as
> good as any Audi's disc brakes.

You probably didnt read the part where it seemed like brake boost
vacuum was lost or reduced before it accelerated. That does increase
pedal effort needed. I am NOT claiming that brakes failed to stop the
car, they DID stop it. I think the vacuum loss or decrease is somehow
related to the uncommanded rapid accel. I AGREE with you that the Audi
brakes can and do eventually stop the car even with a redlined motor.
All it takes is a strong and continuous application.

In the old Audi 5000 cases that got all the news the vast majority of
the cases were as follows (from a news article):
"The Audi story is by now, dismally familiar. "Sudden acceleration"
accidents occurred when the transmission was shifted out of "park."
The driver always insisted he was standing on the brake, but after the
crash the brakes always worked perfectly. A disproportionate number of
accidents involved drivers new to the vehicle. When an idiotproof
shift was installed so that a driver could not shift out of park if
his foot was on the accelerator, reports of sudden acceleration
plummeted."

My experience and the experience of several other 92 100S owners
reported on the NHSTA site was not like this. It was uncommanded
sudden acceleration while underway. I always thought the Audi 5000
claims were driver error, but believe me , my experience and the
experience of several other owners as reported to NHSTA is really
different and far less likely to involve a driver jamming hard on the
gas pedal thinking it is the brake pedal. No shifting from park to D.

I was a huge skeptic so I know where you are coming from. This is a
real problem and not lawyer driven or driver error. I am not claiming
that the brakes failed to stop the car.

 

That sounds like very good news and good loyalty from Audi. At least they
seem concerned with the situation.

Please let us know what happens!

good luck,
dave
(One out of many daves)

"377" <boeing377@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182171466.458730.60180@z28g2000prd.googlegro ups.com...

>
> By the way, Audi US is interested. They are paying to have it
> inspected at a dealer. They have assured me that there has not been
> one single case where unintended acceleration was proven. I told them
> this isn't a "case". I am not suing anyone. It is a safety issue. Look
> at the NHTSA complaint records online. There are two nearly identical
> incidents reported for 92 Audi 100S. I think what distinguishes these
> incidents from most of the ones widely reported many years ago with
> Audi 5000s is that they (the reported Audi 100 cases including mine)
> occurred underway, not during parking or startup.
>
> See this handwritten letter, below the stock reply:
> http://nhthqnwws111.odi.nhtsa.dot.go...-503613-YN.PDF
>

 

That sounds like very good news and good loyalty from Audi. At least they
seem concerned with the situation.

Please let us know what happens!

good luck,
dave
(One out of many daves)

"377" <boeing377@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182171466.458730.60180@z28g2000prd.googlegro ups.com...

>
> By the way, Audi US is interested. They are paying to have it
> inspected at a dealer. They have assured me that there has not been
> one single case where unintended acceleration was proven. I told them
> this isn't a "case". I am not suing anyone. It is a safety issue. Look
> at the NHTSA complaint records online. There are two nearly identical
> incidents reported for 92 Audi 100S. I think what distinguishes these
> incidents from most of the ones widely reported many years ago with
> Audi 5000s is that they (the reported Audi 100 cases including mine)
> occurred underway, not during parking or startup.
>
> See this handwritten letter, below the stock reply:
> http://nhthqnwws111.odi.nhtsa.dot.go...-503613-YN.PDF
>

 

That sounds like very good news and good loyalty from Audi. At least they
seem concerned with the situation.

Please let us know what happens!

good luck,
dave
(One out of many daves)

"377" <boeing377@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182171466.458730.60180@z28g2000prd.googlegro ups.com...

>
> By the way, Audi US is interested. They are paying to have it
> inspected at a dealer. They have assured me that there has not been
> one single case where unintended acceleration was proven. I told them
> this isn't a "case". I am not suing anyone. It is a safety issue. Look
> at the NHTSA complaint records online. There are two nearly identical
> incidents reported for 92 Audi 100S. I think what distinguishes these
> incidents from most of the ones widely reported many years ago with
> Audi 5000s is that they (the reported Audi 100 cases including mine)
> occurred underway, not during parking or startup.
>
> See this handwritten letter, below the stock reply:
> http://nhthqnwws111.odi.nhtsa.dot.go...-503613-YN.PDF
>

 

That sounds like very good news and good loyalty from Audi. At least they
seem concerned with the situation.

Please let us know what happens!

good luck,
dave
(One out of many daves)

"377" <boeing377@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182171466.458730.60180@z28g2000prd.googlegro ups.com...

>
> By the way, Audi US is interested. They are paying to have it
> inspected at a dealer. They have assured me that there has not been
> one single case where unintended acceleration was proven. I told them
> this isn't a "case". I am not suing anyone. It is a safety issue. Look
> at the NHTSA complaint records online. There are two nearly identical
> incidents reported for 92 Audi 100S. I think what distinguishes these
> incidents from most of the ones widely reported many years ago with
> Audi 5000s is that they (the reported Audi 100 cases including mine)
> occurred underway, not during parking or startup.
>
> See this handwritten letter, below the stock reply:
> http://nhthqnwws111.odi.nhtsa.dot.go...-503613-YN.PDF
>

 

The cruise control system in your vehicle is completely separate from
any sources of engine vacuum and is controlled by a separate control
unit. The entire system is completely isolated from any other and
only uses inputs from other systems such as speed, etc.

All quite irrelevant since you have effectively removed the cruise
control system from the scenario by completely disabling it.

Leaving very little to possibly suspect. There is no other mechanical
control of throttle.

The components of the throttle body system are: the throttle body, a
potentiometer that senses throttle position and movement, the idle
stabilizer valve which meters air in order to keep a steady idle, an
EGR valve for emmissions control, and a temperature sensor. None of
the latter items mechanically manipulates the throttle body.

Without mechanical actuation of the throttle body and in order to
achieve the power output you describe, the engine will require
accurately metered air and fuel. I have no idea if the ISV or EGR,
either together or separately, could introduce a volume of air
equivalent to a fully opened throttle plate.

Nevertheless, air and fuel and accurate management of both must be
present to achieve anything remotely resembling full engine power.

Do you recall noticing the position of the throttle pedal? Was it on
the floor?
What was the nature of your most recent throttle application?

The engine vacuum system on this model seems rather tortuous. There
is a "damper", the function of which I have no idea, a solenoid valve
of some sort, a "vacuum unit for intake manifold" which I believe is
merely an tap into engine vacuum, and some check valves here and
there. Then there's an entire subsystem built around a "suction
pump" (p/n 078 133 753) which also taps into the intake manifold. By
it's name it does not seem to be something that would introduce air
into the system, but in your case, something is clearly malfunctioning
so who's to say.

Finally, have you run the diagnostic output from the ECU to see if
there are any error codes stored? This may give you some add'l
insight.

I hope some of the above helps get closer to the cause. Give the age
of the vehicle, I'm very doubtful Audi or the NHTSA will do anything
whatsoever.

Ed

 

The cruise control system in your vehicle is completely separate from
any sources of engine vacuum and is controlled by a separate control
unit. The entire system is completely isolated from any other and
only uses inputs from other systems such as speed, etc.

All quite irrelevant since you have effectively removed the cruise
control system from the scenario by completely disabling it.

Leaving very little to possibly suspect. There is no other mechanical
control of throttle.

The components of the throttle body system are: the throttle body, a
potentiometer that senses throttle position and movement, the idle
stabilizer valve which meters air in order to keep a steady idle, an
EGR valve for emmissions control, and a temperature sensor. None of
the latter items mechanically manipulates the throttle body.

Without mechanical actuation of the throttle body and in order to
achieve the power output you describe, the engine will require
accurately metered air and fuel. I have no idea if the ISV or EGR,
either together or separately, could introduce a volume of air
equivalent to a fully opened throttle plate.

Nevertheless, air and fuel and accurate management of both must be
present to achieve anything remotely resembling full engine power.

Do you recall noticing the position of the throttle pedal? Was it on
the floor?
What was the nature of your most recent throttle application?

The engine vacuum system on this model seems rather tortuous. There
is a "damper", the function of which I have no idea, a solenoid valve
of some sort, a "vacuum unit for intake manifold" which I believe is
merely an tap into engine vacuum, and some check valves here and
there. Then there's an entire subsystem built around a "suction
pump" (p/n 078 133 753) which also taps into the intake manifold. By
it's name it does not seem to be something that would introduce air
into the system, but in your case, something is clearly malfunctioning
so who's to say.

Finally, have you run the diagnostic output from the ECU to see if
there are any error codes stored? This may give you some add'l
insight.

I hope some of the above helps get closer to the cause. Give the age
of the vehicle, I'm very doubtful Audi or the NHTSA will do anything
whatsoever.

Ed

 

The cruise control system in your vehicle is completely separate from
any sources of engine vacuum and is controlled by a separate control
unit. The entire system is completely isolated from any other and
only uses inputs from other systems such as speed, etc.

All quite irrelevant since you have effectively removed the cruise
control system from the scenario by completely disabling it.

Leaving very little to possibly suspect. There is no other mechanical
control of throttle.

The components of the throttle body system are: the throttle body, a
potentiometer that senses throttle position and movement, the idle
stabilizer valve which meters air in order to keep a steady idle, an
EGR valve for emmissions control, and a temperature sensor. None of
the latter items mechanically manipulates the throttle body.

Without mechanical actuation of the throttle body and in order to
achieve the power output you describe, the engine will require
accurately metered air and fuel. I have no idea if the ISV or EGR,
either together or separately, could introduce a volume of air
equivalent to a fully opened throttle plate.

Nevertheless, air and fuel and accurate management of both must be
present to achieve anything remotely resembling full engine power.

Do you recall noticing the position of the throttle pedal? Was it on
the floor?
What was the nature of your most recent throttle application?

The engine vacuum system on this model seems rather tortuous. There
is a "damper", the function of which I have no idea, a solenoid valve
of some sort, a "vacuum unit for intake manifold" which I believe is
merely an tap into engine vacuum, and some check valves here and
there. Then there's an entire subsystem built around a "suction
pump" (p/n 078 133 753) which also taps into the intake manifold. By
it's name it does not seem to be something that would introduce air
into the system, but in your case, something is clearly malfunctioning
so who's to say.

Finally, have you run the diagnostic output from the ECU to see if
there are any error codes stored? This may give you some add'l
insight.

I hope some of the above helps get closer to the cause. Give the age
of the vehicle, I'm very doubtful Audi or the NHTSA will do anything
whatsoever.

Ed