1993 Mustang's have a plastic ratcheting mechanism that picks up slack on their [very heavy] clutch cables.
The teeth on the plastic ratchets eventually wear out (duh....)
If you're FORD, you design it so that this piece fails catastrophically, releasing all tension on the clutch cable. (Instead of, say, hitting a bump-stop that keeps some minimum amount of tension on the clutch cable.)
No tension on the clutch cable = no clutch.
No clutch on the OEM T5 w/ a stock-spec clutch = good luck with the next downshift.
However I'd still argue the purely mechanical systems are _objectively better_ in that they lend themselves to preventative maintenance.
Had I thought to look: I would've seen the _very_ worn teeth on my clutch quadrant.
I knew the clutch cable was old, rusty, and starting to bind in the sleeve, which probably led to the wear of my clutch quadrant.
As for a throttle cable: not only can I feel it binding in the pedal, but it's fairly easy to visually inspect a throttle cable or spring for faults, rust, etc.
In addition mechanical fixes are all radically simpler. If my throttle is sticking, I lubricate the cable and replace the return spring. If your computer controlled throttle is sticking: you hope it's (A) an actual bug and not intended behavior, (B) a bug that the mfr. is aware about, (C) a bug that a patch is available for, (D) that the ECU flash can be applied free or inexpensively.
Say you're an enterprising embedded electronics engineer and you wanted to fix it yourself? If you try to modify an automotive computer: you've just tampered with an emissions control device. Your car is no longer street legal in the United States.
Purely mechanical systems by their very nature are perfectly transparent.
Proprietary computer software is almost always a "black box." -- Due to federal regulations though: you have absolutely no legal way to repair or replace it on a street-driven vehicle. You are stuck with software you cannot see, understand, or control.
1993 Mustang's have a plastic ratcheting mechanism that picks up slack on their [very heavy] clutch cables.
The teeth on the plastic ratchets eventually wear out (duh....)
If you're FORD, you design it so that this piece fails catastrophically, releasing all tension on the clutch cable. (Instead of, say, hitting a bump-stop that keeps some minimum amount of tension on the clutch cable.)
No tension on the clutch cable = no clutch. No clutch on the OEM T5 w/ a stock-spec clutch = good luck with the next downshift.
(For anyone interested: firewall adjuster + aluminum clutch quadrant = sweet deal.)
---
However I'd still argue the purely mechanical systems are _objectively better_ in that they lend themselves to preventative maintenance.
Had I thought to look: I would've seen the _very_ worn teeth on my clutch quadrant. I knew the clutch cable was old, rusty, and starting to bind in the sleeve, which probably led to the wear of my clutch quadrant. As for a throttle cable: not only can I feel it binding in the pedal, but it's fairly easy to visually inspect a throttle cable or spring for faults, rust, etc.
In addition mechanical fixes are all radically simpler. If my throttle is sticking, I lubricate the cable and replace the return spring. If your computer controlled throttle is sticking: you hope it's (A) an actual bug and not intended behavior, (B) a bug that the mfr. is aware about, (C) a bug that a patch is available for, (D) that the ECU flash can be applied free or inexpensively.
Say you're an enterprising embedded electronics engineer and you wanted to fix it yourself? If you try to modify an automotive computer: you've just tampered with an emissions control device. Your car is no longer street legal in the United States.
Purely mechanical systems by their very nature are perfectly transparent. Proprietary computer software is almost always a "black box." -- Due to federal regulations though: you have absolutely no legal way to repair or replace it on a street-driven vehicle. You are stuck with software you cannot see, understand, or control.