Misshifted need help!!

[LiL_sAlS_Celi]

Today while driving home from a local mall, a jetta pulled up along side and took off I dropped 3rd and reved out at 8200 then shiffted 4th i missed 4th and screwed something up my car shut off and would not start. I most likely blew my motor. I dropped off my car at the dealership and was just wondering if when i get my car fixed if they would butcher me with the new 7900 rpm cut out i really hope this wont happen i will be so sad :(. please tell me your thoughts or encounters with this problem

[GReddy Celica]

Yes, I am pretty sure you blew your motor. However, at this point I wouldnt worry about the 7900RPM fuel cutoff, because technically this is your fault not the cars, the engine did not fail you just overreved it, have fun trying to get it covered under warranty, I think Toyota is just about fed up with covering blown motors under warranty due to poor drivers. Good Luck.

[Kit99bar]

you deserve a 7400 rpm rev limiter
hehe

[scapamouche]

If you don't have a 02 Gt-S, then you don't have to worry about the cutout. They won't change the ECU on you. They WILL put the new 02 shift gate in, though.

As for being fed up with misshift repairs, they covered mine from last week....

I wouldn't try and BS them, though; be courteous and honest. You'll be better off.

[ToyoGT]

man there are a lot of peeps blowing their sh!t up, including me :) Got mine covered under warranty. I'd tell you what I told them but you'd probably laugh. It was a good excuse, absolutely brilliant if you ask me ;) Ahhh yes.....

[scapamouche]

I just told them the truth: I was trying to put the car in 4th, and found 2nd. At 70+mph. No race involved...

[LiL_sAlS_Celi]

hey scapamouch you said something about the 02 shift gate? is there any difference in that than the 00 gate that i have (had)

[infinitegts]

Listen to scap... Be honest. Toyota knows its too common to say its legally driver error. (trust me they wouldnt do shiat if they thought that. It would be violation of their duty to shareholders to give out fixes with no liability)

I have had a stick for about 8 years with integra, BMW none would allow such a shift from 3rd to 2nd at those rpms... anyways you should be fine.

Product Design error = Physical departure from intended use

The product may be found defective if it failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner.

I think that an ordinary consumer wouldnt expect the car to allow a shift from 3rd high rpm to 2nd. It should lock it out. If not there should at least be a warning. I have heard they now put a warning that the tranny is race bred. Implies that there is no lock out. Although that warning cannot be legally used to show they knew of a design defect at least we know they know its a problem.

Im not saying that shifting from 3rd to 2nd isnt really driver error but according to the LAW it probably would be considered a Design defect.
Factors
1) amount of misshifts
2) comparable cars with misshifts
3) alternative designs
4) ease/possibility of redesign...
5) forseeability of shifting from 3rd to 2nd from the design
6) benefits of designs versus risk of accident


I could argue each point but dont want to belabor the point too much..

[Humza]

Originally posted by scapamouche
If you don't have a 02 Gt-S, then you don't have to worry about the cutout. They won't change the ECU on you. They WILL put the new 02 shift gate in, though.

As for being fed up with misshift repairs, they covered mine from last week....

I wouldn't try and BS them, though; be courteous and honest. You'll be better off.
so you can get an 00-01 ecu on a 02 engine? ....just curious

[NoCones]

Originally posted by infinitegts
I have had a stick for about 8 years with integra, BMW none would allow such a shift from 3rd to 2nd at those rpms

Which BMW did you own? I guess not one of these...
http://www.shortshifter.com/e36m3fix.htm

And we've all heard on this board how RSX's are having a "mis-shift problem"...interesting how your Integra wouldn't allow that 3-2 shift, but it's replacement does!?!?

Originally posted by infinitegts
I think that an ordinary consumer wouldnt expect the car to allow a shift from 3rd high rpm to 2nd. It should lock it out

:bs:

Can you point me to any web page or other source describing such a lock out? I hear people on here talking all the time about how other transmissions prevent mis-shifts, but I've never seen a shred of evidence.

[infinitegts]

Skeptical..?

Ok.

I have a 92 Integra. Trust me it will not let you engage it in 2nd from 3rd a high rpms. YOu can try to force it in but it wont happen.

Not BS'ing just giving my opinion.

Oh and no didnt have one of those 2 Bimmers. I had an old 77 BMW. Same thing but even more of a biatch. If your in high rpms at all it wont let you down shift period...

Do you have an Integra or BMW???

remember im just telling you my opinion from experiences. Your argument seems just to say "youre wrong"

Please argue with your own experiences... You act like ive got something to prove. I dont just relaying my previous experience.
What other Stick shifts have you driven?

[infinitegts]

Quote from European Mag

"In this part, I will address the shift mechanism and the steering linkage, areas that had this VW going places it wasn't pointed. I knew the shifter was bad when I accidentally backed into a Ford Lightning belonging to a burly member of the Truckin' staff. The failure is common: In attempting to choose first gear, the worn shift-lever stop guide fails to keep the shifter from going into reverse, so instead of first, you get reverse. Moreover, the shifter exhibits a general sloppiness that makes precise gear selection impossible. Except for tires, no vehicle system is subjected more to repetitive movements than a shifter--subsequently, it's prone to wear and typically needs to be rebuilt every 100,000 miles or so. "

I know its a little different but that just shows that there is a mechanism to prevent misshifts. Shift lever stop guide was what it was called in this article but you get the point.

Finding that took all of 15 seconds on Yahoo.

http://www.europeancarweb.com/tech/tech2.shtml

Im no auto mechanic but i also think it has to do with the inability of the synchros to get to that speed

"To prevent gears from grinding or clashing during engagement, a constant-mesh, fully "synchronized" manual transmission is equipped with synchronizers. A synchronizer typically consists of an inner-splined hub, an outer sleeve, shifter plates, lock rings (or springs) and blocking rings. The hub is splined onto the mainshaft between a pair of main drive gears. Held in place by the lock rings, the shifter plates position the sleeve over the hub while also holding the floating blocking rings in proper alignment.

A synchro's inner hub and sleeve are made of steel, but the blocking ring -- the part of the synchro that rubs on the gear to change its speed -- is usually made of a softer material, such as brass. The blocking ring has teeth that match the teeth on the dog clutch. Most synchros perform double duty -- they push the synchro in one direction and lock one gear to the mainshaft. Push the synchro the other way and it disengages from the first gear, passes through a neutral position, and engages a gear on the other side. "

I think the idea is that the synchros keep the tranny from going into too high of an rpm

Anyone with more info?

[Kit99bar]

poor toyota for have such nice syncros and a tight gear box

[NoCones]

as for the article you quoted and linked to...not very convincing...sounds like a mechanism that makes reverse require extra effort...just like a GT-S takes a little extra force to the left to find reverse...and some VW's (I believe) require a push down on the shifter to engage reverse...not really a mechanism to avoid shifting to an inappropriate gear at high rpms...just something to make you exert extra effort to get into reverse.

I suspect you're right...it does have to do with the sychros. But synchros weren't invented to prevent mis-shifts or to "keep the tranny from going into too high of an rpm." They're actually there to make gears easier to engage...to avoid the ancient art of double-clutching, even. You happened to have owned 2 cars where the synchros didn't work as well as those in the Celica...they made it harder to shift into a low gear at high rpm. As you even admit with your BMW, if "your in high rpms at all it wont let you down shift period"...I take that to mean there were times when a downshift was viable/desired, but the car wouldn't let you...that's not a mis-shift prevention device, that's a synchro that doesn't work very well. Do you really believe that your 77 had mis-shift prevention and then BMW chose to leave it off the E36 328 and M3?

I don't have an Integra or a Bimmer. I have owned the following manual transmission cars:
00 Celica GT
00 Celica GT-S
99 Miata
92 Miata
93 Sentra
83 Pulsar

I (sort of) mis-shifted the 99 Miata. 3rd to 2nd at about 80mph...fortunately I realized it before the clutch was fully engaged (but it was engaged enough to chirp the tires :AF:)

As for acting like I have something to prove...maybe...I'm just tired of people making mistakes and blaming it on the car and its design. And, especially tire of the claims that other cars have some magic mis-shift prevention built in. I (still) haven't seen evidence.

And I'm not trying to say to those who have mis-shifted that they're crappy drivers (although I bet some are)...I've been close enough to doing it (with a transmission that was world-class), that I know sh!t can happen. However, if I would have destroyed the valvetrain of the Miata, I would have said, "Oh crap, now I have to fix my @$%#-up," not "Mazda designed a bad car/engine/transmission--I wanna sue/lemonlaw/peeandmoan."

Bryan

[infinitegts]

I truly believe your right, the synchros werent put in to prevent misshifts, but rather tend to do so by not allowing the clutch to engage cuase they cant reproduce that high rpm.
Remember though my whole argument was that legally he has a valid claim of Design Defect.

What i really think the situation is,

Celica like some higher performance trannys (aka M3, Acura RSX Type S) have very high quality synchros (as you mentioned) that allow what normally woulndt be allowed in other older less high perform cars like my old Bimmer and Integra.

That does not take the sitation out of the legal point of view i was making.

My Point was this

Design defect LEGALLY = Deviation in design from Intended or foreseeable use. The average consumer of a sub compact car (it isnt a race car) would not expect the transmission to allow a high rpm 3rd gear to 2nd shift. Mainly because similar cars dont have so well equipped trannys, also there is the close gear box that makes the sitation even more dangerous.

Yes i admit i was stretching the whole "shift prevention" argument a little too much, But my thing was that other cars for some reason dont allow such a shift. It doesnt matter that the reason is the other cars arent as race bred, its still a deviation that may lead to a catastrophe...

Dont get me wrong, I love the way my 01 Cel Tranny is and want it to stay that way, but I still can see a valid cause of action when the car is set up where it is somewhat easy to mishshift.. Im just trying to protect Lal from having to foot the bill. If I was a Toyota rep i would have a completely different argument im sure. But i am the consumer (like YOU)..

[NoCones]

Originally posted by infinitegts
Mainly because similar cars dont have so well equipped trannys, also there is the close gear box that makes the sitation even more dangerous.

hmmm...maybe they're not similar cars then.

Originally posted by infinitegts
But i am the consumer (like YOU)..

Indeed, we are consumers...consumers who enjoy performance-oriented cars. What do you think our future holds if Toyota has to pay for problems that are rooted in drivers mistakes, like:
1. I mis-shifted because your synchros are just too damn good.
2. I rear-ended that guy because the acceleration of the car was just so much better than "similar cars."
3. I side-swiped grandma over there because the car was too responsive...similar cars I've driven don't handle as well...had I been in an xxxx ("similar car"), I would have tucked in right behind her.

Answer: Would you like your Echo with 4-speed auto or CVT? :puke:

[infinitegts]

Woah.

The Celica GT is similar to the Celica GTS. That is a legal statement i can make with some certainty. Are they really, probably not. I would classify this car group with Integras, civics, Focuses, escorts, Sentras, blah blah.
Theyre marketed to same group of drivers, subcompact cars, same price range, similar performance (not exact same...)
But as ive driven many of these cars i dont remember any of them allowing this type of high speed misshifts. Others may have had different experiences, Im just one man but thats mine.


I agree with you that if we kept on making the company liable for everything we would end up with 83 pulsar engines but everyone has to look out for themselves. Im more worried about having to pay $5000 for an engine then i am about Toyota having to pay it...Besides if you already have a 2001 GTS 6-spd youd be more worried about paying for a new engine than if they change the gear box a little in 2002. Sorry buddies, should have bought it before the bandwagon...J/K

Im just arguing the Consumer side of the Legal argument.

Ultimately i believe the Toyota should space out the gearbox a little. You know when i got my GTS back from the misshift the stickshift was set a little to the right. The guys at WC Toyota told me they altered the Tranny slightly so that it wont downshift at high rpms from 3rd to 2nd. Result, when i pull down in a speed shift it from 3rd naturally goes into 4th, where before it was kinda in between 2nd and 4th.
(by the way have you driven a GTS?) just curious not f'ing with you..
I can still speed shift and all that car feels the exact same but now if i just pull down on the shifter it naturally goes into 4th. That is how it was in my Integra...Anyways that is all i really think Toyota needs to do if anything..

[scapamouche]

As for NoCones driving a GT-S, I used to watch him blow me away at the autox. He's one of theose weird types ( :) ) who like to be competitive, so he traded to the more cometitive version of the car he already knew.... I think?

The 02 shiftgate is a bit wider, and it's harder to put the shifter in 2nd by mistake. i haven't felt it yet, so I don't know how effective it is. I'll let you know.

As for the shift feel issue infinite brought up on theat VW: I thought the stock shifter was really vague on the Celica. I was MUCH happier after I got the Kumosport bushings, followed by the B&M shifter I have now. Much more positive feel, no sloppiness remaining. And I still managed to misshift the car and do damage to the engine.

Humza: I don't see Toyota putting the older ECU in a newer car, but I suppose it's possible. Go to a junkyard and pull one froma wrecked GT-S. Should be a simple plug in, but I really don't know. Since I do have warranty miles remaining, I've avoided going into the electronics on the car and risking that warranty.

[Willis5050]

Originally posted by infinitegts

My Point was this

Design defect LEGALLY = Deviation in design from Intended or foreseeable use. The average consumer of a sub compact car (it isnt a race car) would not expect the transmission to allow a high rpm 3rd gear to 2nd shift. Mainly because similar cars dont have so well equipped trannys, also there is the close gear box that makes the sitation even more dangerous.

Yes i admit i was stretching the whole "shift prevention" argument a little too much, But my thing was that other cars for some reason dont allow such a shift. It doesnt matter that the reason is the other cars arent as race bred, its still a deviation that may lead to a catastrophe...

Dont get me wrong, I love the way my 01 Cel Tranny is and want it to stay that way, but I still can see a valid cause of action when the car is set up where it is somewhat easy to mishshift.. Im just trying to protect Lal from having to foot the bill. If I was a Toyota rep i would have a completely different argument im sure. But i am the consumer (like YOU)..

I'm confused...you go out and try to misshift cars on a regular basis? The GTS isn't your ordinary sub-compact car. It is a lower production higher performace variant, with, in this case, a close ratio six-speed. It's funny that us Americans are the only ones who can't seem to handle it. I think that those who misshift are damn lucky that Toyota picks up the bill. One day they could just say, "no more coverage", and that's that. I don't think I have ever driven a car that locked you out from some certain gears besides reverse, but then again I haven't tried to misshift many.

Let's try another perspective: It is possible to take a highway offramp at 130 mph in a celica. Should I run to Toyota to cover peeling my car off of the guardrail and rebuilding it? If that was the case we would all be riding bicycles around because all of the car companies would be out of business. Those who have misshifted should count their blessings that Toyota picked up the tab, and if I ever happen to misshift I should pray that Toyota will do the same for me.

[NoCones]

Originally posted by infinitegts
But as ive driven many of these cars i dont remember any of them allowing this type of high speed misshifts.

Did you try to mis-shift them? I drove thousands upon thousands of manual transmission miles before I mis-shifted one...that doesn't mean the cars I had wouldn't mis-shift.

The original point of contention was over this "design flaw" where there's no "lock out" to prevent a mis-shift...I would just really like to see some evidence of such a device on similar cars. There seem to be a lot of people who think it exists, so surely someone could point me in the right direction.

Have I driven a GT-S? Yes, I owned one for a year-and-a-half. One (sort of) mis-shift...5th to 4th when I meant to get 6th...at an rpm level where it didn't matter.

Bryan

[autxr]

Thank goodness Bryan is starting to pick up on my crusades... (and doing a damn fine job, I must add).

Anyhow, lets also consider the fact that there have been no damageing misshifts with a GTS when the Celica was being driven legally.

As far as I have seen, all of them have involved red-line in 3rd or faster. Got news for ya... Redline in 3rd is speeding (with the exception of Montana).

Toyota could (rightfully) argue that they didn't design the Celica to operate out of normal (legal) conditions. We know that would be a line of crap, but as a legal argument is could hold up...

Even a 6th to 2nd or 5th to 2nd (intending 4th) at legal highway speeds would likely result in no damage. By the time the clutch was fully engaged the car would be below the redline of the engine.

Scott

[t2000gts]

autxr: i hear the '00 ECU won't work on '02 cars because the '02 cars have a new o2 sensor in the exhaust system or something...so if you got the cat from a '00 GTS along with the '00 ECU, you think it would then work on an '02?

[autxr]

Boy, that got off topic in a hurry...

Anyhow, my thought are this...

Get the early ECU, install it. See why it doesn't work (ods are if it is getting the wrong signal you will get a CEL). Then, fix the problem.

It will be some basic sensor parts, nothing major. Migt take an ECU and part of a wiring harness. Going fast costs money, how fast do you want to go?

If I swith to an autocross class (likely will happen this summer) that allows ECU changes, I will get a european ECU and see what I can do with it (even if I have to go to Europe to get it). Seems like easy power to me, and the $$$ is still valuable, so I might even get the ECU for cheap.

Scott

[NoCones]

Originally posted by autxr
Thank goodness Bryan is starting to pick up on my crusades... (and doing a damn fine job, I must add).

:thumbup: I've read the bs for a long time...finally had to speak up...happy to join the crusade against bs.

Bryan

[spwolf]

Originally posted by autxr

As far as I have seen, all of them have involved red-line in 3rd or faster. Got news for ya... Redline in 3rd is speeding (with the exception of Montana).

Toyota could (rightfully) argue that they didn't design the Celica to operate out of normal (legal) conditions. We know that would be a line of crap, but as a legal argument is could hold up...


lol... that is the single funniest thing I have heard in a while...

"sorry sir, but you were speeding anyway, and our sports car is not made to go over 80 miles an hour"

sorry for bringing it back up, but its just damn funny...

[kabal57]

[i]
As for acting like I have something to prove...maybe...I'm just tired of people making mistakes and blaming it on the car and its design. And, especially tire of the claims that other cars have some magic mis-shift prevention built in. I (still) haven't seen evidence.


Bryan [/B]

unfortunately this is a product of the irresponsible society we have created for ourselves. <b> <i> Nobody </b> </I> wants to take responsibility for their own screw ups anymore. People are always looking for someone or something else to blame for their own screwups. :( <br>
as for the misshift prevention thing, I have never ever seen or heard about anything like that. I'm sure if it was soo readily available every car manufacturer would have it installed already. (although im sure people would still find a way to misshift and blame it on a faulty lockout mechanism)
gawd.

[spwolf]

Originally posted by kabal57

as for the misshift prevention thing, I have never ever seen or heard about anything like that. I'm sure if it was soo readily available every car manufacturer would have it installed already.


Actually, every manual car I drove in Europe had some kind of misshift protection... Audi, BMW, Fiat, VW, Opel, etc.. from cheap to expensive... from new to old...

If Toyota decided to pay for some of it (if not all) then obviously they dont think it is customer error only...


we are not talking about race car, that drivers have to have years of experience to drive... we are talking about cheap sports car for every1... and I can assure you that Toyota wont tell customers not to drive it fast...

besides, isnt this a moot point? Toyota recognized the issue and fixed it in 2002 point... so they obviously thought something was not all right

[atehrani]

spwolf: Where the cars that you drove in Europe all close-ratio six-speeds with an 7000+rpm redline? I doubt that. 2002 didn't fix the problem, you can still mis-shift it, it is just more difficult.

Personally I don't see it as a design flaw, it is a user problem. I see this all the time in software (me being a software engineer and all).

"But it let me type format c:"

"I meant to type rm *.o not rm *>o!"

Be a man and take the blame, bleh....