In reply to Knurled: It's still wires over a cable. If they actually try to shift into reverse while the car is going forward, that would be super stupid.
Besides, the shifter lock will prevent the shifter to going into reverse unless you have the lever depressed.
The 2000 something Ford Taurus I drive for work has a very noticeable fuel cut on coast down. One or two seconds after you lift off the throttle there is a defined thud of increased decelleration when the injectors shut off. Hope you didn't program that one Alfa. 
In reply to alfadriver:
Mercedes-Benz will slam the transmission into Park if you open the door while rolling, even if you're rolling fast enough for the park pawl to buzz.
I'm not saying that a newer Hyundai will in fact not prevent you from shifting into Reverse at speed. I'm suggesting that it's a possibility that could happen, and that the problem with making something foolproof is that it is easy to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. Which is why I was impressed with the lengths you'd have to go to in order to drive a Volt off with the charger attached. It won't let you shift into gear with the charger plugged in. If you shift into gear and then plug in the charger, it applies the parking brake until you remove the charger. I'm sure that there IS a way but it would have to be pretty durn convoluted, like having someone drive next to you on the highway and plug in a charger (connected to an inverter so it's "live") while tooling along at 70mph.
Back to the Hyundai thing, I wonder if they are doing something in the trans like bypassing the pump or cooler or something when in Neutral in such a way that bearings would get starved of oil or the fluid would overheat. Dumb from a coasting in Neutral standpoint, smart if the goal was to minimize frictional losses when in Park and they treat Neutral as an unlocked Park.
Streetwiseguy wrote:wbjones wrote:If I ever buy the 72 142E I want, I will come and take you for a ride, with a scope hooked up to the injectors.alfadriver wrote:I can "maybe" accept that for the more recent vehicles .. but for those of 10 - 15 - 20 yrs ago .. and the BS computers they had then … that's harder to swallowwbjones wrote: In reply to Streetwiseguy: but I am willing to be convinced … well sorta .. I've had some pretty darn good mechanics that say nope … nor do I have much faith in GM being this good with something like the Sonic … we ain't talking about one of their top of the line vehicles with the stop start system … *shrug* by that I mean, I have trouble believing they would put that much work into making it as seamless as it seems to be … I can't feel/hear it regardless whether I roll to the light still in 6th, or in neutral … and for that matter I can't feel/hear it in Mom's automatic Fit … again *shrug* even if the ECU would show zero duty cycle, can there still be a "trickle" of fuel passing ?Non-linear actions in cars piss people off- so yes, the off and on is calibrated that well. And no, if there zero duty cycle, there is not trickle fuel- if there is, it won't burn, and that will completely burn up the catalyst in very short order.
OOOOOOK … that would be a bit over 4000 mi round trip
alfadriver wrote: In reply to wbjones: Unlike all of street's cars- not all cars had instant fuel shut off 15-20 years ago. But eventually they all did- so going down hill, the fuel would shut off. Two reasons- one is to save fuel, the other is to save the catalyst. At very low throttles and high speeds, the engines don't run very well- at some point, the engine just misfires badly- which ends up burning up the cats. So it's better to just turn the fuel off to slow down. Some did turn if off immediately, others 5-6 seconds after a tip out. Manuals have even other things they *can* do- some do shift fuel shut off. I wish more of them did- my Fiesta does not, and the speed that the engine slows down during shifts is way too slow. Still, it's not that hard to turn the fuel on pretty seamlessly. Get to an engine speed that the combustion is good, turn it on with very retarded spark- and it still makes almost no torque. The ECU's 25 years ago were just about as good as the best MS3 right now. 20 years ago- much better than anything you can get in the most of the aftermarket today. 15 years ago, way, way better as they could do funky VCT, electronic throttles, and some fancy trans controls. 10 years ago- we were doing very fast direct injection- I started working on that in 2004.
my lack of comprehension of how it might have worked in yrs gone by, was in response to this post:
Streetwiseguy wrote:wbjones wrote: now for the rest of the question … if I've just filled up (this assumption so that the instant milage read out will change more quickly) in my new Sonic the milage will go up more quickly if I shift to neutral (6sp manual) than if I lift throttle and just roll up to the stop sign … in the latter, the tach stays up (which is where y'all are saying there's no fuel flow) .. if I shift to neutral the tach shows ~ 600 rpm all the way to stop …engine obviously running …Sure its running. If you left it in gear, the injectors would go to a zero duty cycle until the engine rpm dropped enough. In neutral, its burning fuel to keep running. Your fuel economy dashboard doodad is just a plaything to entertain bored drivers. Really. Honest to God. Seriously. For well over 40 years now. On every EFI car I have ever encountered. Its true. No fuel delivery coasting in gear with closed throttle. As God is my witness. On my mothers grave, I swear. May I be struck by lightning if I am attempting to deceive. If I'm lyin, I'm dyin.
^yes. On every (all 6) standalone ECU's I've dealt with, one of the parameters is injector cutoff. Not cutback, cutOFF. If there's fuel flow when you are coasting to a stop and your foot is off the gas, not only is that wasted fuel, but a setup for truly monumental backfires, as evidenced by what happens if you tell those ECU's to not cut off fuel on decel. Can we be done here now?
Jay_W wrote: If there's fuel flow when you are coasting to a stop and your foot is off the gas, not only is that wasted fuel, but a setup for truly monumental backfires, as evidenced by what happens if you tell those ECU's to not cut off fuel on decel.
My 13B not only doesn't fuel cut but it is set up to actually dump excessive fuel on decel for a little bit more cooling. No backfires, no boom, no flames.
It only ever pops when do an ignition cut flat shift, and only if I'm near the RPM cutoff when I do it.
Well that's magic spinning doritos! We all know that is alien tech that plays by another set of rules.
What about just about everything carbureted ever? Traffic in the 50s/60s/70s wasn't a parade of exhaust fire and flames coming up to every traffic light and stop sign.
I bring up the 13B because one thing rotaries are known for is exhaust fire.
You'll need to log in to post.
