We’ve got to talk about the Dodge Charger Unintended Acceleration story that we and a number of other car publications ran yesterday. Namely, we have to talk about the term “drive-by-brake,” which sounds made up, partly because I cannot find a single reference to this term on the vast internet, and partly because its function sounds truly absurd: It accelerates your car when the “gas” pedal is broken. But is this “drive-by-brake” thing as ridiculous as it sounds? Yes and no.
I’ve been running around trying to talk with safety regulators and accelerator pedal module suppliers to see what the rules are on accelerator pedal failsafes, and I’ll be honest: I haven’t gotten too far. But I have found a NHTSA study and chatted with a number of engineers, many of whom all concluded roughly the same thing: “I get what Dodge is trying to do, and if it’s like a creep mode that’s fine. But it shouldn’t go that fast.”
That’s where I landed on this whole thing, but let’s step back for a second to recap. Edmunds recently published this article and the below video showing a Charger Daytona EV test car accelerating without any pedal input:
The article describes what happened:
I was pulling out onto a thoroughfare street from a strip mall parking lot when warning lights appeared on the Charger’s instrument panel for the stability control, frontal collision warning system, regenerative braking and more. There was also a short-lived message — it might have been something about the forward collision warning system — and that the car would be in low power mode. This wasn’t good.
I could tell something was wrong because the car accelerated sluggishly. I got the Charger up to the speed of traffic OK, but then I noticed something was very wrong when I slightly lifted off the accelerator. First, the Charger wasn’t using any regenerative braking to slow itself down like it should. (In an EV, you typically lift off the accelerator and the car decelerates without using the regular friction brakes.) It wasn’t coasting, either. It was, in fact, accelerating.
I watched the speedometer and could tell the Charger was gaining speed at approximately 1 mph per second, even though I did not have a foot on the pedal.
This wasn’t the only complaint of unintended acceleration in a Dodge Charger EV, and that’s damning because there aren’t many Charger EVs on the road. Here’s a complaint on the NHTSA database:
And here are a few Dodge Charger Daytona Forum posts, with the latter claiming a 20% pedal input even with the driver’s foot completely off the accelerator:
I cannot corroborate all of these claims, and there’s always a potential that the drivers actually had their foot on the “gas” or that something got trapped under the pedal, but the Edmunds video speaks for itself, and then there’s this: Dodge itself admitted that this unintended acceleration was actually intended.
Intended by Stellantis, that is, and in fact branded as “drive-by-brake,” the term that sounds fake and has pretty much no trace on the internet. Here was Dodge’s statement:
In the rare event of an accelerator pedal fault, Stellantis has implemented a ‘drive-by-brake’ safety feature, which allows the driver to control speed through the brake pedal. In this instance, the feature worked as intended, and the driver was able to safely maneuver the vehicle off the road. This feature has been in Stellantis internal combustion engine vehicles for many years and has been carried over to battery electric vehicles.
Many People Are Skeptical
Edmunds’ brief discussion of the above quote was simply “It’s interesting to hear the company describe this acceleration override as a “feature” rather than a bug. Nevertheless, we’ll keep you posted about what happens when the Charger Daytona comes back from the dealer.”
Our friends at Carscoops car-scooped us with the exact headline we were planning on using — “Dodge Says Charger Daytona’s Unintended Acceleration Is A Feature Not A Bug” — and that story’s comments definitely include some skeptics; here’s one:
Wut. That response seems completely insane, and if it’s really been a “feature” for years in a range of stellantis products I think it needs a lot more coverage.
Here’s another:
And another:
‘Working as intended’ isn’t the answer I expected, that’s nuts.
For The Most Part, Folks Get The Concept But Think The Execution/Communication Is Terrible
Given all the screens and how everything is pointlessly now interconnected, it’s annoying that they can’t just pop up a message saying something like “Lost communication with throttle sensor, entering 20% limp home mode” to both make fixing the issue far easier and to calm down the driver as to why the car’s behaving unexpectedly.
Here’s another good one by Keith Tanner acknowledging that he understands the intent:
I was wondering if the 20% throttle signal was an intentional design choice when I read the article before the update. It would allow the vehicle to be moved to safety. This isn’t a terrible failure mode. I agree that maybe the driver should be alerted, it’s not like there’s a lack of screens.
I know that there’s a limp mode in GM PCMs that will allow the engine to idle but ignores pedal input when it thinks something is awry. I’ve triggered it a few times myself when running a rowdier cam that gulps excessive air on shifts, leading to a plausibility error in the MAF that make the car think the throttle was stuck open. I idled to a stop in the Laguna Seca runoff area a few times. I could reset it by power cycling the PCM with my kill switch, which also had the side effect of erasing the codes. The fun part was that the lower air density at my home in Colorado wasn’t enough to trigger it, so the failure only happened at sea level. That made it really fun to try to figure out.
This mode absolutely should be speed limited, as The Mark notes:
What a very strange failsafe mode. As others have mentioned, it should be speed limited and there should be a message center warning (“Accelerator Error: Vehicle Speed Limited to 15 MPH”) or whatnot. Just enough to get your car safely off the road. I wonder what other OEMs have implemented in the event of this failure, which WILL happen, assuming they all share between a few pedal assembly suppliers.
Superflouis agrees:
Regarding the update – I’m kind of surprised the “drive by brake” emergency feature doesn’t have a speed limiter of 30 mph or so? I wonder if they put this in the owners manual…seems like an important detail idk
User Bob Boxbody asks a great question about the owner’s manual:
Is that drive-by-brake feature in the user manual? I’ve never heard of such a thing, but I’ve never owned a Dodge. I feel like Edmunds probably reads the manuals for their long-term tests (and if not, shame on them).
I looked at the owner’s manual (screenshot of two pages above; here it is in full) and found nothing, and neither did Charger EV owner named Hartley, who writes:
Owner here: It is NOT in the owner’s manual. I just checked a few minutes ago.
And to end on a funny note, we have this gem by Who Knows:
So are there any other secret drive modes that stellantis uses, say, if the steering fails you can control the steering rack with the window switches? Or if the parking brake fails, the power seat buttons can be used instead? If the vehicle won’t shift into drive, just toggle the door locks? Everything by wire could open up some interesting ways to control the vehicle.
The ‘Drive By Brake’ Concept Actually Appears To Be A Real Thing
There are a number of skeptics wondering whether “drive-by-brake” is real; I’m not sure if that term was recently made up, but I can tell you that my friend and Autopian contributor Steve Balistreri helped me find a 2020 NHTSA study that seems to confirm that such a feature is not unheard of. The title is “Functional Safety Assessment of a Generic Accelerator Control System With Electronic Throttle Control in Electric Vehicles,” and here’s its abstract:
This report describes the research effort to assess the functional safety of accelerator control systems with electronic faults, such as
errant electronic throttle control signals, following an industry process standard. This study focuses specifically on errant signals in
motor vehicles powered by gasoline internal combustion engines. This study follows the concept phase process in the ISO 26262
standard and applies a hazard and operability study, functional failure modes and effects analysis, and systems theoretic process
analysis methods. In total, this study identifies 5 vehicle-level safety goals and 179 ACS/ETC system safety requirements (an
output of the ISO 26262 and STPA processes). This study uses the results of the analysis to identify potential opportunities to
improve the risk assessment approach in ISO 26262.
The relevant part of the document is the one about “Safe States,” which are defined thusly: “The safe states for the [accelerator control system]/[electronic throttle control] are either full operation (full torque availability), degraded operation (0 < Torque < Full), or switched off mode (zero torque). The degraded operation may include different levels depending on the potential failure mode.”
The Safe State section of the report — and the one that relates most to the Charger situation — is here:
In case the [accelerator pedal position sensor] (APPS) signal is completely non- reliable, or if the [Engine Control Module] faults, but the vehicle can still be controlled by the brakes and the throttle actuator controller, the vehicle may be allowed a torque level higher than creep torque. In case of APPS and [Brake Pedal Position Sensor] malfunctions, no more than creep torque may be allowed. If the failure mode may result in uncontrolled torque production, then the system torque should be disabled.
- Safe states may include, but not limited to, the following states commonly used in the automotive industry:
- Safe State 1: Disable input from other vehicle systems, such as ACC and AEB.
- Safe State 2: Limit the maximum allowable propulsion torque to the propulsion torque level that was computed at the instant immediately prior to when the fault occurred.
- Safe State 3: Slow torque ramp rate in response to [accelerator pedal] input (e.g., single [accelerator pedal position sensor] fault)
- Safe State 4: Torque produced without AP input; speed limited to TBD (> creep) mph(e.g., two APPS faults; an ECM fault with throttle actuator controller still able to control throttle)
- Safe State 5: Torque produced at zero AP input value of the torque map (e.g., two APPS faults plus BPPS fault)
- Safe State 6: Zero torque output (e.g., vehicle disabled; system is unable to mitigate the hazards or ensure Safe States 1-5).
It’s worth noting that, the report admits that these “safe states” actually cause the vehicles to behave in a way that the report itself identified as the key hazards of a failed Accelerator Control System. Those hazards, which include the driver not commanding acceleration and the vehicle accelerating anyway, can be seen in this table:
The report makes a clear distinction about why these Safe States technically aren’t the same as the hazards defined above. From the report:
The safe states listed above describe propulsion reduction (Safe States 2, and 4-6) or deviations
from the specified speed decrease or increase profiles (Safe State 3). While these vehicle
responses may be similar to the identified hazards H2 through H4, there are key differences.• The propulsion reduction or modified speed decrease/increase profiles are controlled
when entering a safe state, while the hazards describe uncontrolled changes in propulsion
(e.g., changes are not smooth or consistent).• When entering a safe state, the driver is informed that the vehicle is in a degraded
operating state and can take appropriate action. The driver may not be notified of the
degraded operating state when hazards H2 through H4 manifest.
This second point is key, and leads the report into the section titled “Example Driver Warning Strategies.” From that section:
“• Amber Light: Potential violation of a safety goal is detected, but probability is moderate
(e.g., single APPS fault, BTO algorithm fault regardless of the need to execute the BTO
algorithm)
• Red Light: Potential violation of a safety goal is detected; probability is high (e.g., AP
Torque Map corruption, AP or BP communication/data transfer fault), or Potential violation of a safety goal is detectedChime: Audible notification of the driver is implemented whenever the conditions for the red-light driver warning are identified. The chime may continue until the fault is
removed.
• Messages: Messages are displayed to the driver at least with the red-light driver warning.
The messages include instructions to the driver in case exiting or staying away from the
vehicle is required.
• Haptic warning: Haptic warning may be an additional driver warning strategy. Dashboard
lights and audible chimes are commonly used in conjunction with haptic warning. It may
be beneficial to assess the drivers’ reactions to haptic warning when the system is at the
same time attempting to reach safe state and degraded operation
In short, the document mentions that not only is too much acceleration a bad thing, but too little is, as well. And I assume that’s what Stellantis is getting at with its strategy, which appears to employ Safe State 4, which is, again:
- Safe State 4: Torque produced without AP input; speed limited to TBD (> creep) mph(e.g., two APPS faults; an ECM fault with throttle actuator controller still able to control throttle)
Note that “Safe State 3: Slow torque ramp rate in response to [accelerator pedal] input (e.g., single [accelerator pedal position sensor] fault)” just slows the throttle ramp-up, but it is still responding to the pedal, whereas the Edmunds case involved no pedal input, hence why it appears to have been similar to Safe State 4.
The document says the safe state should be “speed limited,” to “TBD mph,” so it’s unclear what the rule is, if any, or what Dodge’s limit is. Plus, as far as “Driver Warning Strategies,” one could argue that the lights on the dash were just that, though I agree with most commenters who believe that a message would be prudent in this case.
If you’re Stellantis, “the feature worked as intended” in response to a video of a car accelerating past 40 mph is a bit odd; add to that the fact that the term “drive-by-brake” is a brand new one not seen in the owner’s manual, and the lack of a clear message on the vehicle’s screen, and I’d argue that Stellantis would have been smart to dive in a bit deeper into what “drive-by-brake” means — in fact, it could have been spun into a positive. But right now, many think it’s BS — not the fact that a feature exists, but the claim that everything was working “as intended.” It seems hard to believe that a car accelerating itself past 40 without the driver knowing what’s going on is “a feature.”
To be sure, the NHTSA study that Steve helped me dig up seems to imply that this strategy is not entirely unheard of, but again, the bigger issue in my view is the lack of communication with drivers about what is happening, and I think the speed should be limited to maybe a few MPH (it’s hard to believe that 40 MPH is the system working “as intended”). You don’t need to be driving a car on the freeway with no functioning accelerator pedal.
Also, these new cars shouldn’t have pedal failures in the first place.
Fascinating stuff, and brilliant digging to get to the actual facts, thanks for sharing!
Can’t blame the gas pedal if it doesn’t use gas…
Reminds me of the first BYD buses that were sold in the U.S.
They were horrible pieces of shit (they have made huge progress). But one “feature” that they had was if you were in certain situations with your foot on the brake, and in drive, the bus would start going in reverse under its own power. It was due to software/controls issues for the regen.
Almost all drive-by-wire cars have this failsafe if a throttle body or accelerator pedal fault is detected. Most drive-by-wire throttle bodies I’ve seen actually default to something like 5-10% opening with no power applied, and the computer actually has to actively drive it closed for idling. The idea is that if the accelerator pedal or throttle body electronics fail, the engine will default to a “high idle”. Just enough to get the car moving and to a safe location. Usually applying the brake pedal will cause the computer to apply a partial fuel cut to the engine (a very low rev-limiter) to bring it down to a rough, but low idle.
It appears in this case there are two issues:
1) The Charger EV pedal (or software) has issues and is defaulting to the “failsafe” way more frequently than a car should
and
2) Chrysler engineers programmed the fail-safe torque value alarmingly high. Seems like an engineer saw “10% Throttle Body Default” for a gas vehicle, neglecting that was for a 165 HP Jeep Renegade and applied the same 10% value to a 670HP EV. It shouldn’t be able to get up to highway speeds in failsafe mode.
Finally, if that much failsafe torque is intentional, then they need to give more information to the driver. i.e. “Accelerator pedal failure, please pull over, 5% acceleration applied – brake firmly”
Yup. Communication is key. Making the car movable to get out of dangerous situations makes 100% sense, but they did not communicate any of this to the driver.
This is a well-known feature of many Stellantis vehicles: “Drive by ‘break'”
I would believe Stellantis if any application of the brake disengaged the acceleration. Since an owner reported that it took more brake application to stop the vehicle, I am calling out their BS.
Long ago, manufacturers started programming their cars to reduce the engine power output if the brake and accelerator were both depressed. See the Toyota Star Safety System, SST.
This should not be friction fighting the motor, the brake pedal should pull torque.
No longer need put a brick on the gas pedal before jumping out…
Just tinker with the ilde screws…
I wonder what their top speed in this mode would be, can someone take it out onto the highway and see how fast they’ll go? (or, fine, you can be safe and use a dyno).
I can see it now:
Cop: do you know why I pulled you over?
Person: I swear officer, I was doing the speed limit until my car decided it needed to go faster! It’s not my fault.
why there are so many “gas” pedal failures in these cars? I don’t think i have heard of one in the last 25 years or so that they have been pretty common?
Dodge just trying to one up the Cybertruck…..
I’ve had the precursor condition for drive-by-brake happen twice now, I just happened to be parked and starting the car at the time, not driving.
I didn’t try to take it out of Park to see what happens, but I’m going to if/when the car goes into limp mode again.
Also, it’s such a shame Dodge has screwed up basically everything possible about the new Charger, because I think it really does have so much potential.
Also also, yay I get mentioned in an article!
As someone else who said “it’s probably in the manual” yesterday:
I probably did the same thing David did: a CTRL+F on the PDF version for every mention of “accel” and “brake,” as well as reading the “warning lights” (which David posted most of) and “in case of emergency” sections.
Only a matter of time now before Dodge tweets out, in edgy marketing-speak, that slowing down is woke and this is just the car’s way of helping you be a man. JD Vance will retweet this with the cry laughing emoji and will do a photo-op with whoever’s in Charge of Dodge now. During this photo-op he will, at some point, slam his dick in the car door and will disappear from public for approximately 10 days, but no media outlet will ever speak of it again.
I mean, they went to the trouble of sending out a software update to change the nomenclature of the menu function to turn the electronic vroom vroom noises on and off to try to sound more badass.
At purchase: EV Sound On/Off
After a late April/early May update: Stealth Mode On/Off
So yeah, it’s entirely possible they would do something like this.
Car door is a weird substitute for a couch, but hey, weird is the brand, so why not?
It shouldn’t be happening in the first place. I firmly believe these are software coding errors, and not mechanical ones. I consider that essentially unforgivable. Not because coding complicated systems isn’t one of the hardest things in the universe to do perfectly, but because the accelerator is a primary system and as such, should have been well sorted before being released. It’s not like it’s a new feature in vehicles either. Electronic gas pedals have existed for decades now. This is basic modern car stuff, not something new. What is new is their code for this vehicle and it’s clearly not ready.
I like UConnect BTW, so it’s not like they can’t produce viable code. Let’s blame Carlos for this one.
They definitely seem to be failing more often than they should. The only other possible physical causes I could think off it if there’s a problem with the wiring harness in the Charger, eg it’s slightly too short, or it’s not properly shielded in a particular spot and too easily rubs on something. I’d be very surprised if the pedal units themselves aren’t common across other vehicles.
But yeah, software would be my first guess.
It is a feature in the gas cars. The electronic throttle went out in my beater 200, and instead of being stuck at idle, it had a HIGH idle that allowed me to still drive it, mostly by shifting the 6AT manually to get up to roadway speeds.
When this happens does touching the brake barely get the car to return to idle levels of power or if you’re trying to maintain say 25MPH are you constantly dragging the brakes?
If it’s the former I am a big fan of this system IF THEY CLEARLY STATED THE ISSUE to the driver! I’ve had a throttle cable break on me while driving on the highway in my first car, a throttle cable get stuck at full throttle in a track car (turns out tire dust + having the throttle cable right next to the breather makes a nice paste after several years) but was able just hit the kill switch and get towed back to the paddock, and most scarily of all in a Chevy 3500 express while towing as I crest a hill. My only recourse then was to turn off the vehicle which locks the steering momentarily until the engine dies, then turn it back on and try to slow the van + 9K Lb of trailer down without power brakes while going downhill. Fortunately the trailer brakes were just redone a few months earlier. Compared to old cable throttle methods of failure this system is much safer and better in my opinion both from a standstill and at highway speeds.
The problem in my opinion is that as cars have gotten much smarter about the status of each component and are able to provide a wealth of useful diagnostic data they’ve only gotten dumber and more hostile in their communication. For example the old way of doing power windows is power goes to the main switch panel + multiple slave switches, activates a relay perhaps, and then sends power to the motor, which then moves the window up and down a mechanical track known to break fairly often. The new way is to have 4 separate switches tied to a central controller and 4 separate window motors which also are positionally aware. In the old car you’d have to start probing wires at many locations and mechanically test several components. A new car has the ability to tell you it lost communication with which specific switch, which motor it lost communication on, or which window has a blockage preventing it from moving to pinpoint exactly the part that needs to be investigated and replaced while the other 3 keep working. Instead, it may decide to disable all your windows, your sunroof, your power locks, and heated seats because “fault mode” and only display a message to “see your service center”, where only they can look up the codes because they’re not using standard OBDII diagnostic codes for things that aren’t required.
I hate the thought of advocating for MORE regulation, but it sounds like there needs to be a rule on this. The failsafe should be consistent regardless of OEM, including whatever gets displayed on the message center.
If it were me, I’d go with something like this:
APPS failure would yield a chime and a message on the screen reading “Gas Pedal Malfunction; expect gradual acceleration to 5 MPH unless you press brake or enter Park. Pull over safely and see dealer immediately.”
Lawyers have to approve the messages and this one might be too wordy but yes, that should be the idea. The driver must be informed what’s happening!
Yeah, but what if I prefer going to a non-dealer affiliated shop? Or fix it myself? Take that, David! Right to repair!!!
This is literally he least they could do. I mean my coolant reservoir was 1/8″ low one day and the car literally yelled at me and demanded I TURN OFF ENGINE NOW”..
However, she is German and can be a bit, shall we say, overbearing in nature.
It just sounds like the reverse of OPD, tbh.
Dear Owner,
We are aware that your Ford Pinto recently explosively removed the contents of its fuel tank. This is actually a safety feature intended to clear space behind the vehicle in the event of a rear-end collision. Enclosed is a new set of “I love my Ford” floor mats, our gift to you for being a loyal Ford customer.
We’re pro-Pinto around here…
You have no idea how close I came to buying one before I got the Suby. Saw a wagon that really piqued my interest. I would rock a Pinto. And yeah, I’m very aware that darn near every car before the 70’s had a fuel filler neck in the same spot as the Pinto (including my Olds). It’s sad that my joke is on slightly less sensitive than Ford’s actual response.
But still, I have a big soft spot for little cars that have big car architecture. Mini versions of the front engine/rear drive setup deserve love. Gimme a Pinto, a Chevette, a 70’s Celica…
My 1985 Delta 88 would also do about 45 mph with no pedal input.. just put it in drive and it kind of just.. went.
My sister’s ’84 Tercel would do the same
I was going to say, this was kind of a thing back in the carburetor days as things gummed up and or started to wear out. turning down the idle was all you could often do until the root cause was found.
My ’72 Delta 88 does that too. In my case, that’s big block torque, a tall axle ratio, and high idle being enough being enough for the transmission to hit third.
EV fans love to say that one pedal driving is great, but Dodge decides to make that pedal the brake and it’s suddenly not okay?
>So are there any other secret drive modes that Stellantis uses, say, if the steering fails you can control the steering rack with the window switches? Or if the parking brake fails, the power seat buttons can be used instead?
That’s silly, the volume knob should control the throttle and the tuning knob the steering. Only way to drive.
There are various derate functions that aren’t exactly spelled out. For example, if your vehicle gets hot, it will pull power.
Though I do wonder if that’s in the owner’s manual. I think this IS a “reduced power” light, but is it detailed in the manual on how it ramps down and why?
Regardless, execution on Dodge’s “feature” is clearly bad.
As a computer programmer, all the computer stuff in cars fascinates me, frustrates me, and the likelihood of bugs scares me.
If nothing else I wish the vehicle would communicate what it knows and what it’s doing with the driver more. I know manufacturers don’t want to confuse/scare drivers but for one thing simply displaying the trouble code and description on the giant-ass touch screen instead of just turning on a Check Engine light sure would be nice.
When Tesla first started building cars around giant touchscreens, I had lovely dreams of my car being able to not just show an error code, but pull up an interactive service manual, show me where the problems are, what diagnostic and repair procedures are advised, then offer me links to either buy replacement parts or contact my preferred service center.
We have failed as a society.
From what I’ve heard, Tesla’s public service manuals are actually pretty good, and I presume you could load it on the touchscreen. They are missing a trick not making it interactive though, there’s no reason why it couldn’t at least automatically take you to the page in the service manual dealing with whatever problem code(s) your car is throwing.
I just want to cover up the smell, not go faster!
That would certainly make sense, but I thought those no longer existed in modern cars? Maybe Dodge will put them back in for backup controls?
The new Charger has
a plethora ofseveral actual dials and buttons! No tuning knob, though, just volume.This is making me think of Boeing’s MCAS debacle a few years ago. Like MCAS, drive-by-brake is a cromulent solution to a very specific problem. Also like MCAS, Dodge erred by not including a description of this important “feature” in any manual. How hard would it have been to add one line describing drive-by-brake in the owner’s manual? Not everyone will read the manual, but enough will that this feature wouldn’t be a complete surprise. Dodge is lucky no one was injured or killed as a result of this feature. I’m surprised companies can’t learn from the mistakes of others.
I also concur with everyone who says this feature should be limited to slow/parking lot speeds. Allowing the car to accelerate to 45+ mph is a bizarre decision. At this point I’m very skeptical of any Dodge product. If this is what happens when the car is working as designed (aside from the pedal failure), what happens when something goes wrong???
Literally the first thing that came to mind…
You weren’t already skeptical of a Stellantis product?
NHTSA: Stellantis it looks like you have a number of unintended acceleration complaints.
Stellantis: Oh. Um. No, the acceleration is intended, just not by the person driving the car.
NHTSA: Oh ok, carry on then.
It insane to think that this would be OK with anyone. And it’s scary to find out it’s supposedly in ICE vehicles too. Having a vehicle do the unexpected is exactly why people fear self-driving cars. So it’s even crazier that in a car I supposedly control it can just take off on its own. Anything over a couple of miles an hour it nuts.
truly.
Absolutely no way a car should intentionally accelerate itself beyond parking lot speeds. Especially since it doesn’t seem to give the driver any indication of what the feature is or how it works. Additionally these Chargers seem to be having lost of issues with loss of comms to the accel pedal maybe they should fix that as well.
I guess you can’t stop a Charger
Time to dodge the charging vehicle
Lest you ram it into a hedge. Or a wall. Or traffic.
Oh – this is worse than the Audi thing – which wasn’t really a thing.
This is full-on gaslighting.
If not for that NHTSA study, I’d have thought the same.
(BTW, in a way, PR is professional gaslighting).
My parents owned an oil change business when I was a kid. An Audi 5000…um…Audi Fivethousanded itself off the front of the lift, hanging precariously. My parents had to pay for the repairs. Shortly thereafter, Audi announced the recall, but it was too late for my folks to recoup those funds.
But back to the Dodge…at this point, I don’t need any more reasons not to buy one.