Software Glitches Stall Toyota Prius 560
t35t0r writes "CNN/Money/Tech reports that 2004 and early 2005 Toyota Prius models have software bugs that cause them to stall while traveling at highway speeds. While no accidents were reported to have been caused by the software glitch, could we be heading into an era where our automobiles will require software updates and fixes to keep them from literally 'crashing'?"
Shouldn't have stolen that code... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Shouldn't have stolen that code... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually in this case Ford is paying Toyota royalties to use their Synergy Drive System (the gas/electric hybrid technology at the core of the Escape Hybrid)
Re:Shouldn't have stolen that code... (Score:5, Informative)
Mostly these technologies have to do with the transmission and, I believe, some of the control mechanisms and algorithms. But, despite what you have read in most media outlets, Ford is not buying parts or designs from Toyota (at this time).
Re:Shouldn't have stolen that code... (Score:4, Informative)
While there are only a limited number of economical solutions, it's noteworthy that Honda shipped a completely different CVT design for the Civic hybrid.
Re:Shouldn't have stolen that code... (Score:5, Informative)
That's not "Ford's" problem so much as any number of cars that have experienced accelerator sticks.
BTW - if you're still on speaking terms with your ex, you should let her know that if that happens in the future she should have
Re:Shouldn't have stolen that code... (Score:5, Funny)
I've actually had this happen once with an older Ford - Punched it around a corner and the throttle stuck wide open with a new SUV parked crossways 40 feet away. Didn't touch Nuetral. Went from drive to 1st, 1st to park and stopped about 3 feet from the truck. The kid standing beside it nearly died of fright.
I expect doing this with any car made in the last 20 years would leave your transmission in little itty bits...
Re:Shouldn't have stolen that code... (Score:5, Funny)
I've done it some 20 times at least, and never got even so much scared, except for one time when the stupid throttle got stuck just as I was racing an 18-wheeler after flipping a birdie at him. Which was, of course, somewhat dangerous even without the throttle problems.
Re:Shouldn't have stolen that code... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Shouldn't have stolen that code... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know why so many moderators thought this was funny, but you likely have it exactly right.
It happened to me once on an icy road when my car started drifting. I thought I had my foot off the accelerator and on the brakes, but didn't realize why the anti-lock system wasn't working and the engine was making so much noise until I was sliding into a ditch. There was no damage and I was able to drive out, but at that moment I knew exactly how people can believe they had their foot on the brake.
Unfortunately, my mother wasn't so lucky. She got the pedals mixed up while manuvering in the driveway behind the house and ended up parking in the neighbor's bedroom (fortunately, no one was home). When my father ran outside and shut down the ignition, she was dazed from the impact, but her foot was still jammed on the accelerator.
Re:Shouldn't have stolen that code... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Shouldn't have stolen that code not informative (Score:3, Informative)
Power for PB(Power Brakes)is USUALY provited by vacum assist. This is created by the "sucking" power of an engine as it pu
Re:Shouldn't have stolen that code not informative (Score:5, Insightful)
Whenever I get a 'new' car, I run down to the nearby college at night and find an empty lot and slide around a bit, and see what happens when I turn the engine off and if I can turn the key back and have it start magically, aka, a push start, which is incredibly useful if your car stalls while you're driving down the highway. (The other option being a normal start in neutral, but that takes much longer. And wouldn't work if your battery was dead, but that's a rather worse-case scenerio.)
Then I come back and do it again when it's raining, solely for seeing how it skids.
And if I have a car I've never tried it on, and I'm on a completely empty and straight stretch of highway, I kill the engine there, too, to see if it does something different at high speeds. (That's probably a traffic violation, but if a cop appeared out of the blue, I'd just say I stalled for some reason.)
I will admit I've never tried to solve a hypothetical 'stuck pedal', but, OTOH, the parking lots aren't really big enough for that. It's a good idea, though. I know I can shift into neutral at any speed, but I agree that cutting the engine is better...for one thing, it should let the engine slow down the car. I'll have to figure out some way to test that.
Do people really drive around in a ton of metal and not know in advance how it operates when bad things happen to it? When, exactly, are they planning on learning? The time to learn what happens when you slam on the brakes on a puddle of water is not in the middle of traffic. I once had an early antilock system that pulsed the brakes really oddly...there was a lag between losing traction and the unlocking of the brake, or something, I never really figured it out.
I mean, there are somethings you can't learn until they happen, for example, if you really need to stop the car, you can switch into park when you're going 20 mph, but you'd obviously never want to do that unless you had to. But what happens when your engine cuts off, or if you hit a patch of water while turning? Everyone should test that.
Re:Shouldn't have stolen that code not informative (Score:3, Informative)
you must either be living outside the USA, or are very young and has very little experience with your fellow driver on the roads
Yes, 99.997% of all drivers do not know ANYTHING about their car. Hell a large subset of that group can barely drive.
Examples? Ok. offramp, semi and a line of cars taking it. Semi merges onto highway as does 40% of the cars, the other 60% try to speed past t
Re:Shouldn't have stolen that code... (Score:3, Informative)
You know, I don't even know why I'm bothering to keep adding to this thread. It's not like anyone gives a crap.
Re:Shouldn't have stolen that code... (Score:3, Funny)
I know your wife SAID it was an "accident" when she rammed her Ford Explorer into you, but I've watched enough Court TV to know better. <:)
Failover (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Failover (Score:3, Insightful)
IIRC, some of the stealth bombers will fall apart in less than a second if the computers go.
If the fuel injection is gone because of the computer crash, what do you fail over to?
Re:Failover (Score:2)
Reminds me of the old clip in Fallout of the car advertisement: All analog! No electronics!
(Or some such thing, been years since I played it.
Re:Failover (Score:2)
Re:Failover (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Failover (Score:3, Insightful)
How is this a big problem? Have you never had a car stall and these things fail on you before? It's no big deal. You push the pedal a little harder and you put a little more effort into steering.
Re:Failover (Score:3, Informative)
I would have occasional power steering failures, generally caused by the fluid leaking out of the pump. When this happened, there was no problem controlling the car at speed, but it was an absolute beast to get out of parking spaces.
So in short, a power steering failure is actually no big deal
It Finally came true..... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It Finally came true..... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Failover (Score:5, Insightful)
It did. At least based on the anecdotes posted at edmunds.com by the drivers. The engine shut off, the dashboard lit up like a Christmas tree and the battery continued to power the car. Not surprising that you might conclude total failure from the
Guess what folks; you are expected to be capable of coping with vehicle problems while traveling at the phenomenal rate of "highway speed". Tires blow, people fuck up, things fly off randomly; deal with it.
Re:Failover (Score:5, Funny)
#include <obYouMustBeNewHere.h>
Re:Failover (Score:5, Funny)
LOL. Note the user id, Mr. 151611.
See, it's that 'should' (Score:2)
Going down the road, using only a change of the accelerator position: the lawn-mower-esque throttle comes apart.
It accelerates to about 90 mph (fortunately, this is a straight country road starting to climb a hill).
I'm a little agitated. Mother reminds me that, ultimately, turning the key to off within the ignition will stop any car.
Sort of a three-finger salute[1], if you will.
[1]ctrl-alt-del
Re:Failover (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, that's not the problem. The problem is that we're now starting to see more and more cars using "drive-by-wire" technologies. The gas pedal is no longer a lever controlling an engine aperture directly; it's a rheostat feeding a variable voltage to a computer, which then decides how to adjust the aperture.
If that computer gets into an irrecoverable state
Re:Failover (Score:3, Interesting)
But officer..... (Score:5, Funny)
There will be no crashing (Score:4, Funny)
I can see it now... (Score:2, Funny)
Yes officer, I was trying to figure out how fast I was going but the speedometer was not refreshing and when I looked up "WHAM!"
If Microsoft designed cars... (Score:5, Funny)
Blue screen of death... (Score:2)
Re:Blue screen of death... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Blue screen of death... (Score:2)
After all, the color PURPLE is a trademark of 3M.
(I kid you not.)
BMW?? (Score:5, Informative)
More to the point. How does everyone feel giving up full control of thier car? What about the Mercedes digital brakes? There is no physical link between the pedal and the wheels.
We were promised self driving cars, and we're on the way to it.
Re:BMW?? (Score:5, Interesting)
My car (2004 Mazda 3) has a fully electronic throttle body. It's all servo-driven, no linkage between the throttle and the gas pedal at all. If I had thought to check stuff like that I wouldn't have bought it.
It hasn't given me any trouble yet (it's a 2004, it had better not), but just wait until the sensor shorts out and tells the engine that I want to floor it, or vice versa.
Re:BMW?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Simple and functional, and after a while you'll even look forward to spending a weekend maintaining it.
I drive a 40 year old vehicle, and wouldn't give it up for anything. As vehicles become more and more drive-by-wire, I only see it as validating my decision.
Re:BMW?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:BMW?? (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, there's nothing worse than your engine shorting out and telling the sensor that you want to floor it.
Re:BMW?? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:BMW?? (Score:5, Funny)
It's all servo-driven, no linkage between the throttle and the gas pedal at all. If I had thought to check stuff like that I wouldn't have bought it.
And a cable is any better? I've been a car where the accelerator cable broke and left the throttle wide open. I suspect a servo might well be more robust than a cable.
Luckily it was a 70's era VM Vanagon camper. I think we went from 62 to 63 in the 5 minutes or so we spent playing with the accelerator pedal to see what the problem was.
Re:BMW?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:BMW?? (Score:3, Insightful)
But most of us assume that part of the extremely large cost of those planes is in both more reliable technology and increased redundancy. I think the systems of a Boeing 777 are probably held to a higher standard than a Mazda or even a BMW...mostly due to the more catastrophic nature of a failure.
Doesn't mean we're right...maybe the systems on a BMW are every bit as reliable as on a plane. But it would still explain this reaction.
Re:BMW?? (Score:5, Interesting)
Imagine if in 10 years, when there's a minor fender-bender, once the accident is off to the shoulder, traffic picks back up at a regular pace. Now, everyone gawks and traffic stays backed up for miles thanks to that.
Or even better, when someone misses an exit, they don't slam on the brakes in the middle of the expressway and back up to the exit.
There was an 8 car pileup with numerous fatalities last year on the Baltimore beltway thanks to someone in the middle lane cutting across 2 lanes of traffic at top speed to turn into those "Emergency turnaround" digouts between expressway lanes. If he literally was prevented from doing something that stupid thanks to his car, those people would still be alive. Sure, he'd be 5 minutes later to where he was going...
Bring on cars that don't let people be idiots. The rest of us who do a good job of obeying traffic laws will be that much safer thanks to it.
As far as software controlling much of our cars, we're already mostly there. Power locks lock you out of your car if they fail. Power steering makes your car nearly unturnable if that fails. Power breaks provide so much extra breaking power that if they fail, your car is basically going to be nearly brake-less anyway.
Re:BMW?? (Score:3, Insightful)
It can also be the other way around. Take an example where someone is driving the speed limit in the left lane of a major urban expressway. On most of these roads, when traffic permits, the left lane moves at least 10 mph faster than the speed limit. Someone driving the speed limit, obeying the law, will cause drivers behind them to back up and try and go
Re:BMW?? (Score:2)
Bleh... Ford invented that years ago: it's called a "brake fluid leak".
software updates and fixes? (Score:2)
Yes.
I can just imagine it... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I can just imagine it... (Score:2)
Re:I can just imagine it... (Score:2, Informative)
It's called a Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) [com.sapo.pt] and is the same technology as used in your friendly, every-day snowmobile.
In a nutshell, it's a chain-driven set of pulleys that resemble a pair of cones that move together and apart to give you a near infinite number of ratio combinations
Re:I can just imagine it... (Score:5, Informative)
The Prius does not use any belt or cone system. That is the older CVT used in other cars many years ago.
The Prius uses a planetary gear set to transfer power around between its various inputs/outputs.
See this article for more details:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hybrid-car16.htm [howstuffworks.com]
"Crashing" (Score:2)
More on-topic, Slashdot recently ran an article about some guys trying to infect a Prius via Bluetooth, and were able to accomplish a system crash repeatedly. Turned out to be low on battery power.
Software fixes are already part of auto recalls (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Software fixes are already part of auto recalls (Score:2, Interesting)
Among us for some time indeed. A friend of mine had a similar problem two or three years ago with a Peugeot. I do not rememember the model, but it was one of the first batches out of the factory.
She had problems with the engine shutting down sporadically while driving (at any speed). This happened one or twice. She went with her car to the garage, and the mechanic told her, blank face, "Known problem. Needs a software upgrade. Come back in two weeks time, we have place in our schedule by then".
Of course s
Isn't the engine designed to turn off? (Score:5, Funny)
what i'm waiting for (Score:4, Interesting)
you would watch it move like a wave through traffic: on one end, normal moving traffic, on the other, fender benders and honking horns and frozen cars
it would move under overpasses and propagate upward and spread in either direction, like dominoes
awesome and frightening and completely plausible in the next 10-20 years
Re:what i'm waiting for (Score:4, Informative)
hour long software upgrade (Score:5, Funny)
They meant:
It's a five minute software upgrade, but if we told you that, you'd be upset when the service dept made you wait for an hour.
There is a reason VW Beetle (Score:2, Insightful)
is still the world most reliable car
it has nothing to do with electronics
Re:There is a reason VW Beetle (Score:2)
Car Firmware Upgrades and Rebooting on the Road (Score:3, Insightful)
Back in the 80s, I had an old beater 1971 Chevy Van with the usual Weird Chevy Electrical Problems. Every once in a while the engine would stop running while I was driving down the road (which is a problem for power steering...), so I'd put it in neutral and reboot, which would usually work. My current van is a 1987 Chevy, with a new engine installed about 5 years ago. The engine's not quite identical to the original, and every once in a while the monitoring system decides something's wrong and turns on the "Service Engine Soon" light, typically when I accelerate to pass somebody while going uphill on a freeway. There's no harm done, as long as that's the cause (as opposed to something actually being wrong with it), but to turn the light off you also have to reboot the car.
Re:Car Firmware Upgrades and Rebooting on the Road (Score:2, Informative)
Uh, that's a classic sign of an air leak and one of the sensors is picking up either too much or too little pressure.
Could also be the knock sensor, O2 sensor, etc.
Read the code from the computer and see why it turned on the light, duh...
Updating software (Score:5, Insightful)
Without putting too fine a point on it, yes! But there is no reason to go all chicken little. Standards of reliability for automotive software are generally much higher than for desktop PC software. No EULAs and auto manufacturers generally can not disclaim warranties. If a car breaks down due to crappy software, Consumer Reports will put out a report and people won't buy it. Additionally there are Lemon Laws and lots of eager lawyers to protect consumers. Unlike PCs where we have been trained to expect crashing software, people don't put up with that in cars, especially since there is the potential for physical harm when hurtling down the road at 80mph.
That "era" started long ago (Score:2)
It's been well known for a long time that parking a computer-equipped car (that is, one with at least electronic ignition and/or electronic fuel injection) under a high-voltage powerline can very well "crash" the computer or scramble the computer's memory to the point that it's impossible to start.
I first heard of that problem when I was a kid, and I'm not all that young
Aren't We Already There??? (Score:2)
Do a search for "software" on this page [internetautoguide.com]
If its software driven. (Score:2)
"...could we be heading into an era where our automobiles will require software updates and fixes to keep them from literally 'crashing'?"
Yes.
Figures (Score:2, Funny)
"Please insert your Prius into the original location from which the software was installed."
Slashdot reporting (Score:2, Informative)
From the actual article: The report said no injuries or fatalities have been linked to the problem, but it did not say whether there had been accidents due to the problem.
Close enough for government work, eh?
Nothing new (Score:2)
My friend has a Merc S500, and he mentions havi
Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
What OS are they running? (Score:2)
I know that Steve "Woz" has several of them. Maybe he can talk to Steve J about putting OS X in it.
BSOD (Score:2)
Hah (Score:2)
Of course when a old-style mechanical car has a problem at least you can just connect it to a modem and get a redesigned fuel system dropped in without and cost or hassle!
Yet one more reason (Score:2)
Wouldn't have it any other way.
If Microsoft made cars... (Score:2, Funny)
(From Here [vbrad.com]
At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly compared the computer industry with the auto industry and stated "If GM had kept up with technology like the computer industry has, we would all be driving twenty-five dollar cars that got 1000 miles to the gallon.
In response to Mr. Gates' comments, General Motors issued the following press release (by Mr. Welch himself, the GM CEO).
If GM had developed technology like Micr
Re:If Microsoft made cars... (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, there are still a few wandering nomads in equitorial New Guinea who haven't seen the "if cars were as unreliable as computers" joke yet. Good job!
Missing the point (Score:2)
Cars... (Score:2)
The Volkswagon Bug (Score:2)
Engineering philosophy (Score:3, Insightful)
Regular devourers of world news will recall that a few years ago, Bridgestone/Firestone got sued for producing tires with a propensity for exploding. A few years before then, there were horror stories of malfunctioning cruise control that would activate itself due to a short-circuit, with no way to switch it off.
Actually, a similar fault to that last one even appeared on the Space Shuttle - the last launch window was scrubbed when it was realized that the attitude rockets could fire themselves, even when the power was switched off.
Engineering to build fault-tolerent systems (ie: systems that will still behave sensibly, even when something goes wrong) is expensive, difficult, time-consuming and requires enormous resources to cover every possible aspect.
Even when faced with the prospect of multi-million dollar lawsuits for death/injury, it is often cheaper to simply let people die a torturous, firey death in agony than to prevent such incidents from arising. Because we live in a competitive world, where success is measured in dollars, there is simply no incentive to get things right. Getting things affordably wrong is a far more profitable approach.
It would be possible to build a car that can do 100 miles to the gallon, be able to keep the occupants intact after a 150 mph head-on collision (F1 monocoques can handles 240 mph collisions) and have software driving every aspect of the system that is not only 100% free of bugs but is able to adapt to handle the natural degredation of the hardware. Such a car would cost about as much as a NASA Space Shuttle and don't expect the insurance to be any less, simply because of the theft value.
A company producing such a car might sell as many as one. The McLaren F1 road car would be much more affordable but is wtill somewhere in the low double-digit sales, and was reportedly still in single-figure sales at the end of the first year.
Having said that, I think that it should be mandatory that car companies produce the very best they can. Failure is not only an option, it's often so cheap that it's the best option. That should not be the case, ever. Bugs in software and failures of hardware are going to happen in the Real World, but they should not be encouraged. Good practices, good designs and thorough design reviews should be the norm.
When too much tech is a bad thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Growing up we did most of our own car repairs, changed the oil, etc. But with our newer car we cannot do a lot if something goes wrong, especially with electronics which is what fails 90% of the time.
The day my push mower won't start because of a faulty sensor is probably the day I really get mad. Why? Because with all this technology, I think many, especially engineers, might have forgotten that true genisus is making something complex simple. Too often I think we are making simple things way too complex.
Larger picture (Score:5, Insightful)
Electronic systems are, in general, more reliable, with lower failure rates, than the mechanical systems they replace. They are also easier to service. (Though the repair bill may very well be higher, and specialized equipment may be necessary.)
This "software", as others have said, are not the same as the software we run on our PCs. The software quality standards are higher, and the testing is far more intense.
People lament the loss of simpler mechanical systems that can be fixed with know-how and a socket set. We publicize every example of a system failure we hear of. But the numbers don't lie: a 2005 model with a half-dozen embedded computers has a far lower incidence of problems than a corresponding 1970 model when it was new. You are far less likely to ever have to call a tow truck in your lifetime than your father/grandfather was.
Sensationalism is so much more fun than fact, though.
Re:Larger picture (Score:4, Insightful)
I've spent a lot of time looking Consumer Reports' car reviews, and frankly, their reviews have no basis in reality. Cars that were rated as extremely noisy, may be quieter than cars rated as quiet. I know this from experience. Go read their reviews of a few cars you have owned, and see if they match reality.
Now, you can certainly attribute that to different reviewers having different standards, or to individuals' biases, but it seems to be very widespread, and seems obvious to me that it's always in favor of one brand or another. I can't prove it, but it looks very much like certain companies (eg. Toyota) are getting far more favorable reviews than the best cars of other makes, even on their poorest offerings.
I've come to this conclusion long before I came to this thread, so the fact that the car in this case happens to be a Toyota is coincidence.
That's really not true. I've never had a mechnical cooling fan fail on me, while I've had a few electric fans fail. Which would you will find in trucks? Not electric.
Now that's just blatantly wrong. The only problems that are easy to fix on computers are the problems introduced by the computer. For instance when the warning light comes on, sensors go crazy, etc. You may also have heard of cases where certain models of cars will drive fine for 80,000 miles, then like clockwork, start running too rich/lean/etc. It's debatable whether car manufacturers are intentionally inducing these faults, but it is not debatable that these faults are there, and tricking the computer can commonly fix problems the computer has caused.
The numbers don't lie, but you sure do. Those numbers are certainly due to improvments in engineering vehicles, (manufacturing/design) improvements to mechanical parts, improvements in fluids, materials, etc. It's only common-sense that those numbers would improve.
Also, the
Those numbers are also deceptive, because people don't complain much about computer problems with new cars. Give me numbers when those cars are 5 years old, the we'll see.
I'm tired, so I'll say the one thing that will end this arguement instantly: New BMWs
I hope this gets duped... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh wait, this is slashdot, even the dupe is going to have tired jokes.
New Microsoft Slogan (Score:3, Funny)
My Prius has done this thrice... (Score:4, Funny)
It seems to me that the problem occurs when the computer tries to restart the engine, and it doesn't catch immediately. It does seem that the car will continue to run as an electric car, and it does seem to come its senses within a few seconds.
My blindingly white Prius is nicknamed "Snowcrash" for exactly this reason -- if the computer goes down, it's just a car shaped hunk of metal.
Thad Beier
Eerie coincidence (or maybe not!) (Score:3, Funny)
The driver was wandering around the hood looking like he wanted to open it, but had no idea what to do when he did
Re:old school (Score:2)
Re:old school (Score:2)
(Disclaimer: I work for a major automotive electronics supplier. That said, all of the above is true.)
Re:Crashing? I can see it now. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Crashing? I can see it now. (Score:2)
I'd be more happy to see more work being done on the prius, and alternative fuel vehicles like it.
Re:Crashing? I can see it now. (Score:3, Funny)
Well no, Minardi cars can start without an activation key.
Re:Cars already need this.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I call BS on this one.
Re:Cars already need this.. (Score:3, Informative)
>> The steering is even drive by wire.
I think this is only partially correct. That car, like all other cars to date, has a direct mechanical connection between the steering wheel and the angle of the front wheels. That connection is the primary means of changing the car's direction. You should be able to observe this by turning the ignition to the unlocked (but off) position and observing that the front wheels still budge when you turn the wheel.
Volvo does
Re:Cars already need this.. (Score:3, Informative)
No car in production today has drive by wire steering. Mercedes has drive by wire brakes, but even those have a mechanical backup in case something goes wrong.
And no auto manufacturer in their right mind would design a car to operate using a client/server architecture. What would be the point? You could sit in your car and control a Volvo on the other side of the parking lot?
I think you're just throwing out buzzwords and hoping for a mod up.
Irresponsible post (RTFA)! (Score:3)
Re:Irresponsible article! (Score:3, Interesting)