the parking brake was not engaged. if it was the car would not have gone anywhere

 

People should jst get them installed properly and not worry about it! lol My shop wouldnt even do manuals.

 

I never understood people that don't use them. I almost think they deserved the result they got.

 

The guy has two things gongi against him. 1. he put a remote start on a CIVIC. 2. He doesnt use his ebrake on a manual car. he was doomed for failure.

 

A couple of observations:

1. You already mentioned that the parking brake wasn't used.
2. A 4-cylinder Civic weighs less and has less engine compression to overcome than an LS1 f-body (hence a starter motor has a better chance of moving the car)
3. It must have been an older remote start setup without the safety timeout circuitry. There is no way a starter motor, even running continuously, can generate enough engine revolutions on a car left in gear to fool the remote starter brains into thinking the engine is running. A modern remote starter would give up after a few seconds of being unable to start the engine - so the car would never move far.

 

ah yeah...

Correct, the ls1 is a bigger engine, but it also has a bigger starter motor. And this was actually a high compression motor.

The misconception that a starter motor (even without the parking brake engaged) does not have enough power to start the car and have it drive away is simply not true.

 

Let's do some math...

The starter motor is capable of spinning in excess of 6000 RPM when unloaded but is generally designed to turn the engine at 200-250 rpm when starting, let's go with 250 RPM for now.

First gear in an M6 F-body has a ratio of 2.66:1. That means that if the starter motor turns the engine at 250 RPM, the drive shaft turns at 94 RPM (I'm rounding for simplicity).

Manual transmission F-bodies have a rear end ratio of 3.42:1. That means that the 94 RPM of the drive shaft becomes 27.5 RPM at the wheel. 27.5 RPM equals 1650 revs per hour.

The 16" wheel/tire (245/50R16) turns 813 times in a mile (the 275/40R17 turns 811 so they're about the same). 1650 revs per hour divided by 813 revs per mile gives 2.03 miles per hour.

So, assuming the starter motor can move the weight of the car and assuming that the battery can keep up the average 350 amps current draw for any length of time, the car will go blazing across the parking lot at the impressive speed of 2 miles per hour - slower than my mother-in-law using her walker (average adult walking speed is about 3.1 mph). Bear in mind that the 250 RPM rating of the starter motor is for turning the engine alone - with the added resistance of the weight of the car, the starter motor would turn much slower resulting in even less speed moving the car.

But feel free to believe in remote starters causing manual transmission cars to go flying some distance into various expensive obstacles. After all, it must be true if somebody said it on the internet.

 

once the starter starts moving the car at said 2mph, then the engine will start and drive off at idle speed which is a little faster than 2mph.

I used to have a jeep wrangler with a manual trans, stock 3.73 gears and 33" tall tires. The starter could drive the jeep on its own up hill in my driveway, i would guess a 15 degree slope. On flat surface it was more than enough to start the engine.

All the math in the world is not going to compare to real world experience.

 

im pretty sure this guy is right. BUT its like me saying that ill just start my car, and drop the clutch... its going to die, not go driving off down the road

 

I haven't owned or driven a Jeep since way back when I was working for an American Motors dealer so I can't comment on the starter in your Jeep.

How's this for real world experience? I don't have a remote start on my car but I figure sitting in the car and holding the key in the start position would be the same thing. Besides, as previously stated, a modern remote starter will time out if the engine doesn't start quickly so this experiment is more like it would have been back in the days of carburetors and unsophisticated electronics.

So, at lunch today I went out and tried it. I used the parking lot where I work because it's relatively level - there's enough slope to make rain water drain but this is Florida... everywhere is basically flat. The car is in good shape with only 70K miles but has no modifications that would affect this test (gears, high compression, etc.) although I'm sure my 250 pounds didn't help any. The battery is a year-old red top and the starter is original. It has always started immediately without excessive cranking.

The car lurched and shuddered and moved a little over eight feet before I gave up for fear of destroying the starter. It never came close to starting and driving off. It took almost ten seconds to go that eight feet - much longer than a remote starter would keep trying.

I suppose it's possible on a low compression engine (e.g. 8.8 in the six cylinder Jeep), in a relatively light vehicle, with a good starter and battery, with the parking brake disengaged, and an old remote starter without the safety timeout feature, that a vehicle could move far enough to actually run into something.

But that's meaningless to somebody wanting to buy a remote starter for the F-body these days. Yes, moving a couple of feet is enough to dent another car or a garage door but using the parking brake will avoid even that possibility.

 

^^ok so you turned the key... and the car didnt start?? im so freaking confused lol... in order for the starter to do ne thing you would of had to be on the clutch am i right?? so how the hell did that work? i may be retarded, but plz let me know lol

 

Sorry, I should have mentioned that I have already bypassed both the clutch switch and VATS. I did that while I was under the dash anyway installing an alarm and the progressive door lock mod. As I mentioned earlier, I have had remote starters in almost all of my cars - manual or automatic - and I plan to put one in this car sometime.

 

try it again with the brake set lol but i know what will happen