I would suggest you do so and post her response.
2 Likes
There’s plenty of precedent in other products. As one example, I spent a fair part of my career designing medical electronics. The technology exists to not only identify problems but to take corrective action without operator intervention. But no manufacturer will ever take that last step because the liability shifts heavily to the equipment manufacturer instead of the human operators. Once you start making decisions and acting on them, it’s pretty easy to argue that you own the result. Just from a risk analysis perspective, the probability of occurrence (resulting accident from proactively shutting down the engine at a time not of the operator’s choosing) would result in a very high RPN with no mitigation. I cannot see any company taking that risk when they have no incentive in the first place. Right now, you run out of oil, it’s on your dime no matter what. Why would I expose my company to any unnecessary risk?
1 Like
Here you go:
Liability lawsuits resulting from cars shutting down while driving. And that’s just from a defective part. I would suggest that it’s ludicrous to assume liability would go down if the manufacturer made the car shut down while driving on purpose?
1 Like
Comparing the subject at hand to the one in the article is “apples and oranges”. They’re entirely different. Although one could use your article to argue that manufacturers’ failure to include a system to shut down the engine in the event of a loss of oil pressure could make the manufacturer liable.
You’re welcome to your opinion, but I reserve the right to disagree.
Both situations involve cars shutting down in traffic due to manufacturer decisions. I fail to see how that renders them entirely different.
I certainly do respect and would vigorously defend your right to be wrong. 
-ducks-
And, isn’t it nice that the older members of this forum can disagree without being insulting to each other?
Note: a couple of new forum members seem to be more interested in insults than anything else, but… I digress…
Just to show you how different things can be, in another forum that I frequent, I politely disagreed with somebody’s opinion, and he/she informed me that I am “out of my mind”.
How about this… oil gets a couple quarts low and the HAZARD lights come on and stay on until the oil is brought up to proper volume (after a mechanic informs the idiot why the lights won’t go off or the idiot reads the Owner Manual)?
That way the car is still drivable and if nothing else is declaring and emergency (based on an idiot driver) and can still be driven safely to a parking spot.
I know what you’re thinking… all kinds of cars being driven daily by idiots with HAZARD lights flashing away until the engines go to h_ _ _ in a handbag. Perhaps the rear of the vehicle could flash I AM AN IDIOT… I AM AN IDIOT… I AM AN IDIOT… I AM AN IDIOT… I AM AN IDIOT…
CSA 
Hey, that’s a good one. They should do that. Maybe an annoying beeping sound that can’t be turned off manually too. The hazards are a doubly good idea because as you’ve pointed out, the engine might die on its own with low oil pressure and so now other drivers will be alerted to the danger.
That’s’ not a bad idea. It would require an oil level sensing system, but that’s not a major engineering challenge. I’d still prefer for the fuel pump to cut out, but yours is a good solution and there may even be other good ways to go about it.
The low oil hazard light idea is the one I like the most on this thread.
But then I wonder how many people would now think:
“Gee, I don’t need to worry about the oil until that light tells me I need to add some.”
No doubt there will be many.
However, that could be a better outcome than many running engines dry of any lubricant.
I can actually picture some folks continuing to drive their car normally with hazard lights on from then going forward. Perhaps on about day 26 the local police will stop these drivers to inquire as to the emergency or lack of proper signaling because they failed to get their “stuck hazard lights” repaired.
There’s only so much one can do for some folks. Not everybody’s elevator goes to the top floor. Not everybody’s dipstick goes all the way into some oil.
CSA 
typical question route
OP last comment was #41
than there were 30+ comments about low oil sensors
You say that as though it’s problematic that discussion continues on a discussion forum.
1 Like
Is that good or bad in your opinion? What is your point? Or are you simply making an observation?
I took note that you made one of the more recent comments and not about low oil or low oil sensors.
CSA
1 Like
i asked OP on monday what oil level was. i think they said a trip to garage was in plans. but never heard back
I feel your pain. That happens frequently around here. I keep asking a guy, complaining about a car, for the model-year and mileage. No answer, but other additional comments are made.
CSA
I believe that BMW already has that. To save money on that expensive system, they don’t have a dip stick. I imagine cost is the main reason more auto manufacturers don’t use an oil sensing system more sophisticated than the good old dip stick. They really are penny’s pinchers, and any cost increase is thoroughly discussed.
The GM system in my 1998 Olds Intrighe would shut the engine down under some circumstances even when the engine was full of oil. The car had a pretty stiff suspension, front and rear roll bars and wide for the time tires. I was on my way to work at a pretty good clip and the trip included a long sweeping ramp from pne expressway to another and I was taking that ramp at a high rate of speed and plastered all the pil against the right side of the pan and the car decided I was out of oil and shut off the engine in the middle of the curve.
If this had happened to someone less strong or experienced it could have caused an accident. I think giving a car that handling capability, a low oil pressure shut down feature and not putting baffels in the oil pan is negligence by the manufacturer.
Well, how do you think that GM got to the perilous state that they did, prior to reorganization? 
It surely wasn’t the result of owner satisfaction/loyalty or good decision-making on the part of GM’s management!
2 Likes
I’ve read that some cars have it now, but could not live with removing the dipstick too. I’d go bananas without a dipstick.