Slashdot Mirror

Going a safe speed is the most important thing, I applaud you for that, but there are a couple of other relevant facts:
1) Impeding the flow of traffic is illegal.
2) Driving in the passing lane without passing is also illegal.
3) Your speedometer may not match those of other drivers. They may be "going the speed limit" as well.

I've heard this argument many times, and people need to remember there are more laws than the speed limit that govern how you should drive, especially what lane you should be in. Respecting the posted speed limit is good, but so is respecting all those signs that say "slow traffic keep right." If your aim is to follow the law, follow ALL of them. And probably don't assume people going faster are jerks. Speedometers can vary quite a bit. See Car and Driver's feature on the topic.

He got pissed when he found out the VW cost $20,000 less than his Volt.

Huh? The Volt is $41K - $7500 tax rebate = ~$34K. A VW TDI Sportwagen is $27K. That's a $7K difference, not $20K.

Are you by chance directly comparing the price of a used car to a new one?

Now, I agree a diesel engine chugging steadily away is very hard to beat on the freeway. But for people who do mostly city driving, I think the Volt could be very competitive.

When the speed limit is 30 mph and your visibility is 2 miles with no traffic on a flat 3-lane road in good condition it is definitely safe to do 50 mph and probably 70mph if the road is dry.

On the other hand, I've seen a road with a 50 mph speed limit and turns like "The Corkscrew" at Laguna Seca. Without something like a Lotus, it's not safe to do the posted speed limit.

Speed limits do not correlate to safety.

Factory HID ballasts are 35W each, so you're looking at 70W for headlamps.

Some vehicles (Audi R8, Audi A8, Lexus LS600H, Cadillac Escalade, some motorcycles, ) feature LED headlamps but there are problems with LED headlamp design - mainly cooling (see http://www.caranddriver.com/features/2010-audi-r8-led-headlights ) and collimation/focus (it's not a single-point light source like HID, and it's not a filament like halogen incandescent, but an array of LEDs) but if a headlamp assembly is designed from the beginning to use LEDs it's not a problem.

It took a bit of searching but I found that one of VW's concept cars uses Osram's new headlamp module which requires only 19W, and Osram expects to get it down to 15W in a few years without sacrificing light output.

When traveling at a true 70 mph, as indicated by our highly precise Datron optical fifth-wheel equipment, the average speedometer (based on more than 200 road-tested vehicles) reads 71.37 mph.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/speedometer-scandal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedometer#Error

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/05/11/how-fast-are-really-going-accuracy-speedometers/

There are two douchebags in this case, but they are not the victims of the crime or the merely peripherally involved girlfriend.

The first douchebag is the guy who ploughed into the victims' motorcycle as he texted while driving. The second douchebag is the NJ court which "punished" him with a $775 fine and a few hours community work, but did not even suspend his driver's licence. It has been repeatedly established that texting while driving is more dangerous than driving while impaired by alcohol. He should have received rather more than this slap on the wrist, and the victims of his crime apparently plan to appeal his light sentence.

In Finland and various other countries, and in several states of the US, the law is you stop your car to talk or text on any communication device. You may get fined if observed talking or texting on the phone even if your driving is otherwise perfect.

Texting is right up next to drunk driving for stupidity.

Texting while driving has actually been demonstrated to be worse than drunk driving in some experiments.

At least the drunk person has the intoxicating effects to blame for their idiocy (although obviously they're the ones that chose to drink in the first place so no sympathy on that count), but most people trying to text and drive at the same time are stone sober and thus have no excuse for their stupidity.

The Model T didn't have the same UI as modern cars. There was a great Top Gear segment where they went to an old car museum and drove a bunch of cars, including the Model T (and one created by my great-great-grandfather Duryea), to show all the different interfaces that were around before everyone decided on something.

It's true that it did have a steering wheel and pedals, but other than that superficial similarity (and the fact that the steering wheel works essentially the same) everything works completely differently than a modern car :)

HOLY CRAP that dude is STRONG !


bonus chart

http://blog.caranddriver.com/is-this-the-engine-of-the-future-in-depth-with-matti-holtzberg-and-his-composite-engine-block/

This article goes into a little more depth. The block is actually a combination of aluminum and carbon. The parts that see the highest stress and highest temperature still have to be metal.

Also, this engine was announced a year ago, and I haven't been able to find any links to people actually driving one.

Here's the citation, from Car and Driver. Their claim: "And despite dramatic horsepower increases since C/D’s 1987 unintended-acceleration test of an Audi 5000, brakes by and large can still overpower and rein in an engine roaring under full throttle." They didn't test a Lexus, though.

But not as much better as the engine in the case of the car chosen by C&D. The Roush Mustang took 80 more feet to stop from 70 mph throttle closed vs open. The Toyota Camry took only 16 more feet to stop. Since Lexuses are performance luxury cars, they have pretty good brakes comparatively. http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-to-deal-with-unintended-acceleration

Plus: When this happened a bunch of motor magazines tried braking when the car was under full throttle and the brakes won. Every time. Even with muscle cars. cite

You can also put the car in neutral.

Not sure what this says about the "Highway Patrol Officer"'s abilities as a driver. If he couldn't manage either of those then this new system won't save him.

This has been tested by many of the car magazines. A Toyota Corolla's brakes are stronger than the engine and will stop the car from 50mph while under full throttle.

Popular Mechanics tested it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOMYjiCiTYg

Car and Driver tested it and the Corolla stopped only 16 feet longer than with no throttle. http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-to-deal-with-unintended-acceleration

As someone who used to "sneak in" when I was out past curfew. I can tell you it is possible to turn off a car and coast into your driveway while making a turn without power steering and power brakes. It is much more difficult, but doable if you know to expect it. The part about some steering wheels locking up is true, but if you leave the key in the accessory position it should still work. In any event as a driver I much prefer manual (more fun and safer in this case). Save the Manuals!

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/save-the-manuals-official-headquarters

I don't believe there has ever been a production model of car or truck where the brakes aren't FAR more powerful than the engine/transmission.

If you apply the brake firmly, you WILL stop, even if the engine is at Wide-Open Throttle.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/how-to-deal-with-unintended-acceleration

Just like GP says: on most cars, with the mirrors properly adjusted, a vehicle exiting the field of view of the rear-view mirror will simultaneously cross into the side mirrors, and exit the side mirrors as it enters your peripheral vision. A quick sideways glance may be required to pick it back up at this point, but in most cases it should be nearly alongside you once it's out of the mirrors (this is not strictly true in, say, a convertible with the top up, but it still holds in most cases). This isn't to discount the importance of a good long look before changing lanes, but generally, you should be able to have constant 360-degree situational awareness without craning your neck around the B-pillars.

As previously mentioned, most drivers set their mirrors such that the wing mirrors are completely redundant with the center mirror, and don't cover any of the bind spots that they should be. Here's a great how-to on properly adjusting your mirrors from Car and Driver.

If the Cruze and the Sonic are the best Chevy can do, then they are doomed. Neither are class leaders, Consumer Reports hasn't sung their praises either. Car and Driver was shocked that the Sonic didn't completely suck http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2012-chevrolet-sonic-ltz-turbo-comparison-test-car-and-driver-page-6 but the version they said was almost as good as the competition cost a few grand more. (this is one of the better reviews)

They also say the Cruze doesn't hold a candle to the Hyundai Elantra (honestly, Hyundai really hit a home run with the new one) Way more features for less money. http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/11-chevrolet-cruze-and-12-ford-focus-vs-jetta-elantra-and-mazda-3-comparison-test-2011-chevrolet-cruze-lt-page-3

They are better cars than Chevy has made in a while, but they have a long way to catch up with Asia, particularly at the same price point. Breaks my heart to say that, but the truth hurts sometimes. At least the new Chevrolets are a bit "less ugly" than the last decade, but they still aren't winning any beauty contests either, especially when compared to Ford and Hyundai.

On that note, Ford has really gotten their shit together over the last 5 or 6 years and is producing a good car at a good price. When I bought my last car 6 months ago, I had narrowed it down to Ford and Hyundai. Ironically, part of what sold me on the Hyundai was that the dash layout and interior was more "classic GM" in feel to me, more comfortable. Kept bumping my head getting in and out of the Fords. Didn't hurt that the Hyundai had more power (275hp 2L turbo) and better gas mileage (34 Hwy). I'm averaging 31 in mixed but mainly highway driving. The resale value on Hyundais have also skyrocketed. I put a ton of miles on my Azera over two years, and sold it for almost as much as I had bought it for when it was 1 year old.

If the Cruze and the Sonic are the best Chevy can do, then they are doomed. Neither are class leaders, Consumer Reports hasn't sung their praises either. Car and Driver was shocked that the Sonic didn't completely suck http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2012-chevrolet-sonic-ltz-turbo-comparison-test-car-and-driver-page-6 but the version they said was almost as good as the competition cost a few grand more. (this is one of the better reviews)

They also say the Cruze doesn't hold a candle to the Hyundai Elantra (honestly, Hyundai really hit a home run with the new one) Way more features for less money. http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/11-chevrolet-cruze-and-12-ford-focus-vs-jetta-elantra-and-mazda-3-comparison-test-2011-chevrolet-cruze-lt-page-3

They are better cars than Chevy has made in a while, but they have a long way to catch up with Asia, particularly at the same price point. Breaks my heart to say that, but the truth hurts sometimes. At least the new Chevrolets are a bit "less ugly" than the last decade, but they still aren't winning any beauty contests either, especially when compared to Ford and Hyundai.

On that note, Ford has really gotten their shit together over the last 5 or 6 years and is producing a good car at a good price. When I bought my last car 6 months ago, I had narrowed it down to Ford and Hyundai. Ironically, part of what sold me on the Hyundai was that the dash layout and interior was more "classic GM" in feel to me, more comfortable. Kept bumping my head getting in and out of the Fords. Didn't hurt that the Hyundai had more power (275hp 2L turbo) and better gas mileage (34 Hwy). I'm averaging 31 in mixed but mainly highway driving. The resale value on Hyundais have also skyrocketed. I put a ton of miles on my Azera over two years, and sold it for almost as much as I had bought it for when it was 1 year old.

I can't argue with how good it looks; I'm not competent to judge. It's intentionally not novel, though. Car and Driver got an interesting quotation from one of the designers:

Chief designer Franz von Holzhausen says the Model S has a conventional “face” and proportions—never mind that freakish width—to make customers who might be cross-shopping the car against a BMW or an Audi more comfortable with the Tesla. Once the brand is established, he hopes to push the design more to take advantage of the unconventional powertrain, and “expand the notion of what a car is supposed to look like.”

Actually no.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/a-graphic-representation-of-whats-really-made-in-america-feature

GM,Ford and Chrysler are last in "USA made"

I went the route of getting one of the '05 Mazdaspeed miatas, already with factory turbo, suspension upgrades, anti-sway bars..etc.

I'm looking to drop about $1600 or so, to get rid of the factory air restriction...using the Flyin Miata upgrades...basically the little enchilada...to get to about 200HP true rear wheel horsepower...which will be pretty fun.

I'll likely keep it at that, and use this for my ragtop, and possibly get one of the new 580 HP ZL-1 Camaro that should come out some time next year...to get my 'muscle car' jones taken car of.

Lots of good serotonin between those 8 wheels.

False sense of security.

There have been studies, and more well known, mythbusters did an episode on something very similar (is talking on a cellphone while driving just as bad as drinking and driving), and while mythbusters is a bit hollywood science at times, they confirmed the myth. Texting isn't that far off. And in other studies, is just as bad.

But don't take my word for it, take a look at all the studies and materials.

There's a reason why texting/talking on the phone is rapidly becoming illegal while driving. But hey! Maybe in Nebraska, facts and truths aren't the norm!

Detroit is begging for any innovation that will put them ahead of the hybrid invasion.

[...]

Remember Detroit must average 35mpg by 2016 and 54mpg by 2025.

So how come European cars have been doing this for years and they don't know about it?

It wouldn't be anything to do with the cosy relationships between Detroit and the oil business, now, would it?

The guy has a model engine and is trying to raise money in Silicon Valley. What isn't mentioned is that Detroit engineers have worked with pretty much every type of engine over the years, including this type. Maybe this guy's engineers have made a breakthrough but he'll have to prove it first.

And he's been trying since the 70s which means his idea doesn't work in passenger vehicles.

Detroit is begging for any innovation that will put them ahead of the hybrid invasion. They've even gone plug-in hybrid before any other manufacture with the Chevy Volt and GM pioneered the electric car in the 90s which was poor timing since gas was still only about $1 a gallon. If there were some magic engine technology that allowed 50% better fuel economy in cars while maintaining reasonable reliability Detroit would be all over it.

Remember Detroit must average 35mpg by 2016 and 54mpg by 2025.

So anyone saying "Oh I have this amazing engine technology that uses 50 less fuel but no one wants it" is either a liar or crazy.

I think GM said it best:
“There are 50 opposed piston engine companies out there, and they all haven’t gotten to the point where they’ve figured out what their Achilles’ heel is,... there is always a ‘but,’ and most of these companies haven’t gotten to the ‘but’ yet.” says Byron Shaw, general manager at GM’s Advanced Technology division in Palo Alto.

Here's a qualifying domestic contender http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/11q2/2012_chevrolet_sonic-first_drive_review

:)

You are still incorrect, shifting into neutral should not kill ABS or power steering, while turning the vehicle off will kill both, at high speeds power steering isnt as much of an issue, but abs would still be useful to have. Toyota itself recommends depressing the brake, shifting to neutral, and if all else fails shutting power off, then immedently pulling the car over and turning the car off.

sources:
http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/document/Floor_mat_Owner_Letter_sample.pdf (instructs the user to shift to neutral and power the vehicle off)
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/resources/streaming/PDFs/cr_suddenunintended-acceleration_012910.pdf

and to the GP
Most cars have "rev limiters" which should kick in preventing any damage to the engine while running full throttle in neutral, this should prevent any rods from being thrown, which while not usually fatal (their usually angled up and away from the seating cabin v6/v8, or are vertical/diagonal and aimed out the side of the vehicle inline4/inline6 which would most likely not make it out of the motor compartment after loosing force penetrating the head) could cause alarm.

it depends on the exact hypothetical scenario. If were referring to the cases were the engine goes full throttle, and the brakes fail to function at all (being in a affected model such as a Prius) the correct coarse of action would be to try to shift into neutral and to to power off the car. If however you are in some other car you would need to specify what type of car, weather it was automatic or clutch, and weather it was drive-by-wire or manual throttle control, as well as weather it had disc brakes, drum brakes, etc. there are many variables. Sticking strictly to the reported scenarios with the models they were reported in, (assuming driver error isnt at fault, which it most likely is, but for this "hypothetical scenario" lets rule it out). What would YOU recommend a driver do in this case? (Stuck behind the wheel of a Prius at 60+Mph, with no brakes, and the motor going full throttle, regardless of pedal input?) Toyota itself recommends shifting into neutral, pulling over, and trying to turn the car off...

source:
http://pressroom.toyota.com/pr/tms/document/Floor_mat_Owner_Letter_sample.pdf (instructs the user to shift to neutral and power the vehicle off)
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/resources/streaming/PDFs/cr_suddenunintended-acceleration_012910.pdf

oh and also most cars have "rev limiters" which should kick in preventing any damage to the engine while running full throttle in neutral, but even so, what is more important your motor, or your safety (and in the event it does total the motor and is found to be a fault in the car, im fairly confident that this would net you a brand new car from the mfg provided the car wasn't ridiculously out of warranty of anything).

That group was Car and Driver...

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept

And even though the 540 hp Roush Mustang took forever to stop from 100 mph, it did stop...

I am not surprised with this outcome. I read an article from Car & Driver a while back where the specifically tested the scenario of trying to stop your car with the throttle wide open. Here's the link.
br> Key facts:
1) In a Toyota, shifting into neutral while the throttle is wide open, will disengage the engine from the transmission and slow the car down. So all of the people claiming that these cars are all computers and not mechanical so it still wouldn't work, are full of crap.
2) They brought a standard Toyota Camry up to highway speed (including a 100 MPH test) and hit the brakes while still holding down the accelerator. The result? The brakes were able to overpower the engine and slow down the car. The faster your initial speed, the longer it took, but the distances, even at 100 MPH, were reasonably safe.

C/D's conclusion without actually analyzing the specific reported incidents, was that the most likely cause of these accidents was driver error, specifically people hitting the gas instead of the brake. The natural instinct for any driver if a car starts accelerating uncontrollably is to hit the brakes, which C/D has shown is sufficient to slow the car on its own. If that wasn't sufficient, then the thing to do is to shift into neutral. This real data from the incidents seems to support the gas instead of brake theory, and the statistics showing a sharp spike (and subsequent sharp drop-off) in "unintended acceleration" incidents after Toyota instated the recall for sticky accelerators and at a time when the US auto industry has one foot in the grave, Toyota is looking more and more in the clear on this one.

I'm really not so sure about that, from a standstill, perhaps, running at highway speeds? Thats another story. You run into brake fade issues very quickly unless you are running highly exotic ceramic brakes (which they are not). Some Aurions have really got obscene amounts of power too. Whilst it is probably true that you *can* apply enough force to stop a car at WOT, the question is can most average drivers actually pull this off before their brakes overheat and become quite useless? I personally remain unconvinced.

Car and Driver put it to the test, and found that with full throttle and full brakes the car would come to the stop:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept

Granted, it does appear that brakes heating up is a concern, and can be an issue if the car is moving at around 120MPH or more. Probably the big mistake many drivers will make is to not apply the full brakes at first, or partially let up on them when they start to smell - all this is going to accomplish is heating the brakes without getting the full stopping power out of them. The key is to apply full brakes and to not let up until the car stops.

With the engine past the redline there is very little vacuum to operate the power brakes. Without power assist the brakes may not be able to overcome the engine (this is, IMHO, a fundamental design defect).

Are you sure about this? I've messed around with a lot of different cars and have never had a problem braking while flooring the accelerator.

Hmmm, Car and Driver calls BS on this, too: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept

I doubt there's an automobile on the planet that is designed to have the brakes applied while the gas is at full throttle without just burning the brakes down to the bare metal then continuing to accelerate.

From this article:
"And despite dramatic horsepower increases since C/D's 1987 unintended-acceleration test of an Audi 5000, brakes by and large can still overpower and rein in an engine roaring under full throttle."

That's hilarious - you accuse me of hand waving, and link to a post that contains you doing exactly that - mentioning various factors that *you assume* might come into play, but nothing in the way of actual data or calculations. I see in another thread where you also ignored the test that Car & Driver did which showed that of 3 cars they tested (including one of Toyota's recalled models), all were able to stop from 100MPH with the engine at full throttle.

Since you claim in your other post that people are ignoring other factors (and provide a nice list of them) why not enlighten us with your knowledge? I'd be perfectly happy to post the spreadsheet I used for my calculations up on Google Docs, if you wanted to take a look at it.

With you until the last paragraph. Pretty much any car on the road today CAN be stopped from 70MPH at WOT. See http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept for one of the recent tests done to prove it. Sure, if you pussyfoot around on the brakes for a mile or two you can heat them up to the point of fading, but getting on them and stopping NOW will work.

Every time this story keeps popping up, everyone keeps getting this detail wrong. The requirement exists for a vehicle at rest. Brakes must be able to prevent a vehicle from starting to roll at full throttle. The physics involved when a vehicle is traveling at 50-80 mph and at full throttle are completely different. On many vehicles the brakes can not stop a vehicle in this situation; which is completely different from holding a vehicle at rest.

Think about this people - you can still do burn outs in modern cars; its just a lot harder to get started and get right. I don't know why everyone keeps getting this soooooo wrong. Plus, if everything could be made right by simply pressing the brake peddle, chances are very high we wouldn't be reading about this problem today.

Sp please stop spreading this misinformation. It largely does not pertain to the greater context.

But the fact of the matter is that EVERY proper test that has ever been done has shown that the brakes can stop the vehicle even one traveling at speed with the throttle wide open. See http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept

It seems you are the one spreading mis-information.

Car and Driver magazine tested the brakes vs throttle question recently. They tested a V6 Camry, an Infiniti G37, and, as they put it, just for the "why not?" factor, a 540-horsepower Roush Ford Mustang. The Infiniti had the feature wherein applying the brake will cause the electronics to cut the throttle. But the Camry and Mustang didn't.

All cars could be brought to a stop from both 70mph and 100mph with the throttle wide open. The Camry stopped shorter at 70mph full throttle than a 2010 Ford Taurus at 70mph with closed throttle.

The Roush Mustang took 903 feet to come to rest from 100mph while throttle was full-on - but it did stop.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept

Car and Driver looked into how well a car could stop with the accelerator pinned, and at highway speeds it took only 80 extra feet to stop for a 540bhp Mustang. Less powerful cars had a smaller difference in stopping distances. http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept In the end, the solution is to not panic, and have been trained in what to do in this particular crisis. I think this recall has caused many many people to think about what to do if they ever are stuck in a car with the throttle stuck, which is a good thing.

This mob actually tested it out for real and claim they were able to shift into neutral:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept

Who do you believe? I believe the mob who tested it out for themselves.

Oh, and they also managed to apply the brakes too.

The Toyotas w/o the brake override system could be stopped if you were at slow speeds with a lot of effort on the brakes and emergency brake. At higher speeds, the breaks where not enough to stop the vehicle with only the brakes. They also tried turning the vehicles off which would stop the vehicle, but the driver had to manhandle the vehicle w/o benefit of power steering and power brakes.

That doesn't appear to be the story I read. No, e-brake did not have to be used, and you didn't have to press on the brakes REALLY REALLY hard as you put it. Read the quote from Car&Driver below:

"With the Camry's throttle pinned while going 70 mph, the brakes easily overcame all 268 horsepower straining against them and stopped the car in 190 feet--that's a foot shorter than the performance of a Ford Taurus without any gas-pedal problems and just 16 feet longer than with the Camry's throttle closed. From 100 mph, the stopping-distance differential was 88 feet--noticeable to be sure, but the car still slowed enthusiastically enough to impart a feeling of confidence. We also tried one go-for-broke run at 120 mph, and, even then, the car quickly decelerated to about 10 mph before the brakes got excessively hot and the car refused to decelerate any further. So even in the most extreme case, it should be possible to get a car's speed down to a point where a resulting accident should be a low-speed and relatively minor event."

The only time brakes didn't work well is if they got really hot and started to fade. If you let your car accelerate to 120 mph before hitting the brakes, that's not good. So basically, it's possible to stop it if you press on the brake and keep holing it.

However, this was under controlled conditions. In the case of crashes, it was reported that the brake didn't work very well, which could be related to absence of vacuum needed to operate the brakes. This could be ECM-related.

Which articles were that?

The one I saw was this:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept

The speed where brakes+full throttle didn't eventually stop the car was 120mph.

And their conclusion:
http://www.caranddriver.com/news/car/10q1/toyota_recall_scandal_media_circus_and_stupid_drivers-editorial

Which articles were that?

The one I saw was this:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept

The speed where brakes+full throttle didn't eventually stop the car was 120mph.

And their conclusion:
http://www.caranddriver.com/news/car/10q1/toyota_recall_scandal_media_circus_and_stupid_drivers-editorial

Maybe you are correct - I could swear I've been in cars that locked in off, but did not in ACC. In any case...

This is an emergency situation. Your primary goals should be getting the car stopped, and off the road without hitting anything. How your engine fares should be least on your mind...

Turning off the car should be a last resort since you are partially disabling systems you need in this situation - brakes and steering. Why turn OFF the car, when you have other things to try first:
Brakes (which should overcome the engine alone)
Disengaging the Engine via the clutch/shift to neutral - which will allow the Brakes to function 100%

The best I've read on this is car and driver:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept

They say:
Press the brake all the way down - once. No pumping
Shift to neutral/park or disengage clutch.
Turn key to ACC/disable engine with push button (which can take as long as 3 seconds) as last resort.

Didn't Car and Driver do a very similar test and report that Ford Explorers categorically don't roll over when there's a tire failure unless the driver panics and starts steering like a madman? http://www.caranddriver.com/features/01q1/why_are_ford_explorers_crashing_-column

That said - there's a reason I drive a manual. Even if my (non-recalled) Yaris suffers some kind of acceleration problem, I can disable it by... pushing the clutch, taking it out of gear, turning off the engine. I have many failure-safe modes.

Still getting 40 MPG, too.

Anyway, in my experience, braking is problematic at best in competition with the accelerator. The brake might be enough to hold the car in place while revving the engine at a stop, but I doubt you could make a reasonable controlled stop at full throttle while at speed. (Your results may vary depending on your transmission, brakes, and engine)

Car and Driver tested just that scenario. At 70 mph and the accelerator floored, a 268 hp Camry came to a full stop in 190 feet (vs 174 feet with no accelerator). It was actually better than a Ford Taurus with no accelerator. So making a controlled stop at full throttle while at speed is very reasonable.

I had a similar experience as you (passenger shoved a windshield heat reflector to my side without me noticing, and it restricted the accelerator's travel so it was half-depressed while I braked). I didn't notice any difference in braking at speed. It was only when I was close to stopped that I noticed it was taking longer than usual to come to a complete stop with the brake depressed the usual amount. So my experience says it just feels a lot worse than it really is. By the time you can feel it, you're traveling slow enough that it while it may take more time to stop completely, it won't take much more distance.

Car and Driver tested the ability for brakes to overcome the power on the engine. In a 540hp Mustang they found that it nearly could. http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept

As for the emergency brake, it doesn't take a whole lot to overpower one of those. In my manual transmission car (which has over 300hp) I forgot the brake on once and was able to get going with no problem. It did make a horrible screeching noise though.

Good information here. I would suspect however, if the driver didn't immediately apply full brakes, and instead let them get hot before trying to actually stop the car (because of traffic concerns maybe), they might burn up before the car gets stopped.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q4/how_to_deal_with_unintended_acceleration-tech_dept

According to my source a typical Volkswagen Golf 2010 Rabbit weighs 3100–3250 pounds or 1410-1480 kg (rounded) and since 1 atmosphere is very nearly 10N/cm^2 and a 1 kg mass exerts ~10N force we can conclude that 3500 atmospheres is like balancing ~2 and 1/2 Volkswagen Golf 2010 rabbits on a 1cm^2 area. So the journalist wasn't that far off from the truth this time.