A friend drove down from Anchorage last September (3,000 miles) with a new solo canoe for me on a van using foam blocks. I much prefer a "real" rack but the blocks can work.
I think a big key to safety is to not only tie the kayak down to the rack, factory or aftermarket, but also tie front and rear lines to the bumpers or toe hooks. That way, if your rack fails (or if your cross ropes do), you have a fail-safe to keep the kayak from flying off.
As far as length, so long as you aren't cranking down so hard on the end lines that you warp the cockpit area, you should be fine. I've seen lots worse than this. :shades:
Heh, you'd be surprised. I've known at least one kayaker who has lost a boat going 60+ down the highway. The whitewater crowd is pretty slack about tying their boats down and some just rely on bike inner tubes or bungies across the bars. Tailgating them isn't recommended. :P
As I see it, the two major flaws with the SX4 are 1) the wide discrepancy in the final drive ratio between the 5-speed (4.41) and automatic (2.81), which causes high cruising RPMs on the manual and sluggishness on the automatic; and 2) Overly sensitive drive-by-wire system.
Are there any Suzuki engineers who can comment as to whether Suzuki has any plans (or TSBs for the drive-by-wire) to improve on these issues?
i thought someone on here was talking about getting a letter about a ECU Re-programming? i wonder what this reprogramming reprograms? in some of the other suzukis it had to deal with the Fuel Injection and problems with it..
The reprogramming has to do with an error in the ECM logic that can falsely cause the MIL to come on. I haven't had mine done yet, but I'm curious as to whether it will correct the problem with the engine revving up during up-shifts. If the final drive ratios given above are correct, then the automatic must only be turning about 2200 RPM at 65-70 MPH. The stick shift could definitely pull a taller gear with a resultant increase in the highway mileage. My mileage computer shows much higher fuel consumption as the speed goes up, and it appears to have more of a relationship to the engine RPM than it does to the air drag. My overall mileage is between 25 and 26 for 1100 miles, but it doesn't go much higher on the highway. The only time I've seen the computer show in the low 30's is when I've been driving on level roads at 45-50 MPH.
It's been really quiet here. So who has driven the Sport? I think there may have been one reference to it being in Canada. What about the U.S.? Any sightings?
I got a Sport last Friday. I love it. It is the Technoblue one, Automatic. Today I installed the Armrest. And filled the gas tank 9 and 1/2 gallons. First tank averaged 26.9 mpg. By the way, I am in New Hampshire. Looking forward to some snow.
It seems to be in the correct place. It wasn't too hard to install. There are no written instructions, only pictures, but fairly easy to follow. My dealer gave me 10% off, not great, but better than list. I paid $116.95
I have finally seen the sport! It was on a Beckley (wv) lot. It's supose to have tinted windows, this one sure didn't seem to have them. I bought the SX4 back at the end of Sept. I couldn't wait for the sport, very inpatient haha.. I love it. But it seems that the enterior is cheaply made. And the and the door panels look like wet cardboard (warped) two dealerships have told me thats what happens when the sun hits it. I guess! and I had to have a clip put in my back door panel because it kept popping off and jamming my door. Has anyone else had these problems
I have no use for rear seats. Tumble-forward seats are usually pretty easy to unbolt. You'd lighten the car by about 100 lbs as well as gaining cargo space.
Has anyone tried this? How flat is the cargo floor? Is it long enough for a 6-footer to camp in if you shove the front passenger seat forward?
Has anyone taken their's in yet for having the Engine Control Unit re-programmed, as per the bulletin that was sent out last month? I would like to know if it makes any changes to the sensitivity of the drive-by-wire throttle system? I am hoping that it will alleviate the tendency for the engine to rev up during upshifts. That trait is about the only complaint I have with the SX4, and may end up complaining to the manufacturer about it.
I bought mine knowing it took more concentration to shift smoothly than most cars, but I thought I could get used to it after awhile. The problem is that it's not consistent, so it's hard to get smooth shifts everytime. It's a bit embarrassing if you have riders, because it makes look like a "student driver!" Has anyone with a stick shift SX4 had this ECU re-programming done yet? My dealer hasn't done one yet, so they can't tell me what difference (if any) that it will make in the shifting.
has anyone yet heard of any aftermarket performance parts available for the sx4? Turbochargers or any performance parts at all? Aftermarket accessories?
Well, drive-by-wire is becoming a necessity for me I think, due to a bad neck/back. The typical steering vibration you get from driving goes up my arms and into my neck. Drive-by-wire - none of it, or too small to really matter.
"Drive by wire" as we're using the term here refers only to the lack of a direct mechanical connection between the accelerator pedal and the throttle valve at the engine. Instead, this function is taken care of by an electric actuator at the throttle valve. The car's computer "looks" at the position of the accelerator pedal (as well as other data) and then uses it's logic to signal the actuator for an adjustment of the throttle valve.
Yep, I've noticed several manufacturers are now using electric assist for the power steering. That way they get around running a power steering pump full time, and gain a bit on fuel economy.
That's what I wanna know. I just got this new magazine dedicated to micro cars called Siphon hoping it might have some retailers with SX4 gear but no luck just yet. It does make an honorable mention on the Sx4 tho, and I'm hoping it might have more stuff on it later.
I just organised to trade in my 2001 Kia Sportage for an SX4 JX AWD in Sapphire Blue. I cannot wait. Although I see someone else enjoys their Sportage, it is the most unreliable car I've ever owned (with only 90000 kms too), and I'm really looking forward to having a brand new car as spunky as the SX4 is. Now I just have to wait a week to have the one I wanted delivered...
When I read this, I thought "Must be a Canadian." Then I visited Suzuki of Canada's website. I'm a little surprised you have some different color choices than us. I'm unsure if your 'sapphire' blue is the same as our 'techno' blue, but the azure grey (has a bluish tone) and ocean blue (baby blue) aren't choices in the U.S. We have a red option that you don't.
It surprised me how many Canadians post here (sometimes it seems like half of the people) when you consider the U.S. has about 10X the population.
Questions for Canadians.
1) All cars sold in Canada have km/hr speedometers and kilometer odometers, don't they?
2) Is all gasoline in Canada sold by the liter?
I notice many Canadians post their fuel economy in discussions as miles per gallon... and often the figures seem unusually high and are frequently disclaimered/corrected by other psoters as 'imperial miles per gallon'. If you don't measure by miles or purchase by gallons... why/how do so many Canadians deal with miles per gallon? Is it an easy conversion? :confuse:
Yeah, I live in Canada. 1) Yes, although I haven't lived here long enough to know if American cars brought across have to be adapted. (I'm Australian) 2) Yes. I don't - but again, I have no idea how to deal with the imperial system. I don't know how to convert...I know 2.2 kms is a mile, but I don't know how many litres in a gallon.
i seen the first used SX4 in the paper yesterday! 2380 miles on it. didnt say if it was a sport or not. i was shocked to see one on the used market so soon.. they wanted only $1000 under list. i bet he sits on that for a while...
I have been puzzling over why my SX4 revs up during upshifts!! I have moved my mats in and out and turned off my radio to listen to the engine, making sure my foot was completely off the gas!! I thought it was me!! (So did my boyfriend until he drove it and it did the same thing!) Other than this minor irritable trait, the SX4 is as surefooted as a mountain goat!! I absoultely love mine, since I drive over a mountain to get to work!!!
It's supposed to do that. When you upshift, it *should* use the computers to rev the engine up a bit so that you don't lug the engine when it goes to the next gear.
GM and Ford transmissions are moronic toads and never do this sort of behavior, so you might not be used to it
I agree that this is irritating. I bought this car for my wife who has never driven anything but a manual, and this is her only complaint about the car. It's embarrasing to her because the car is difficult to upshift without the appearance of being a novice driver. I just want it to shift like a normal car and not have to take my foot compleltely off the gas and wait for the engine to slow down, especially when trying to keep up with traffic or climbing a hill. Yesterday I filed a complaint with Suzuki Customer Service in an attempt to get them to come up with a software update to eliminate the problem. They gave me a case number and want me to have the dealership test drive it. I know they will say it's normal because others do it, but that doesn't make it right. It has to be hard on the clutch too. Please call Suzuki at 800-934-0934. Have your VIN number handy because they will ask for it. If possible, ask to talk to a representative by the name of Debbie. She's real nice and may be able to get some action on this.
Since late in the last century almost all manufacturers of FWD or front torque biased AWD vehicle have revised the transaxle's shift pattern/schedule such that it is impossible to inadvertently encounter engine compression braking during periods of coasting down to a lower speed.
If for some reason you wish to have engine compression braking there is usually a special procedure for that in your owners manual.
This is most noticeable as a feeling of being "bumped from behind" just before coming to a full stop or as sort of a "slingshot effect" upon a full lift-throttle coastdown event at 30-45MPH.
There is also the case, sudden RPM change, of converter clutch lockup being disabled the instant you apply the brakes but that one has been around since lockup clutches first came into use.
Well maybe it does. Are you trying to say that there is a deliberate attempt by the manufacturer to disable engine compression braking to avoid a possible skid or loss of control? I like to think I have a pretty good automotive background, but that is a new one on me. On the SX4, I don't notice any lack of engine compression braking. In fact, it holds back pretty well when descending hills, etc. In re-reading your comments, it sounds like they may only apply to vehicles with automatic transmissions. Otherwise how could there be any revision of the shift pattern or schedule? I do own a late model 4WD pickup with automatic transmission and lock-up converter, and I don't see it exhibit any of the characteristics you mention other than you can tell when the fuel cuts off on coast down, and then cuts back in when you touch the accelerator. I know traits that may seem strange to some us are often due to programming that is done to aid exhaust emmissions, and that may be why Suzuki is doing this, but it has been overdone to the point that it should be corrected.
As an example, or clue, Ford was just awarded a US patent that describes two techniques to be used with hybrid electric vehicles. Presumably the FWD Escape hybrid and the FWD Mariner hybrid.
The first of these involves significantly reducing the level of regenerative braking if/when the OAT is near or below freezing. The second technique will disable regenerative braking the instant the anti-lock system activates while braking.
And yes, this new (UP)shift pattern only applies, seemingly, to FWD and front torque biased AWD vehicles with automatic transaxles. I suppose it could be applied to manual transaxle vehicles by using DBW to raise the engine RPM to prevent braking but it appears the industry has chosen to eliminate manual transaxles from the FWD market altogether. 2007 RAV4 as example.
If the dumbing-down of all drivers continues I suppose we will begin to see this technique also applied to RWD and rear biased AWD vehicles such as your truck. Obviously engine braking can have adverse effects on RWD vehicles but not nearly as much so as FWD vehicles since steering ability will remain viable with RWD.
Thank you for your clear, and very well written explanation. I now understand where the industry might be headed in an attempt to avoid frivolous lawsuits resulting from "defective" cars that may actually skid on icy roads. Most likely the trend toward standard equipment anti-skid control, vehicle stability control, and traction control are part of this theme to reduce accidents, and thereby potential liability. The SX4 has many of those features available now, and perhaps the logic used for the throttle control of the base model with manual transmission reflects some of those traits. I would still like to see a TSB issued to improve the driveability relating to upshifting.
IMMHO it would be really nice to have a "snow mode" for the manual transaxle wherein a downshift would result in the engine RPM being automatically matched to the current roadspeed then with a slow decline in RPM for engine braking.
Or even with a quick lift-throttle event and an automatic should the OAT be below or near freezing. When slowing to a stop rather than upshifting the transaxle to prevent, or to reduce the potential for, loss of directional control go ahead and downshift to 1st but match the engine RPM to prevent engine braking.
The second feature that would be nice to have would be an ABS that didn't activate unless direction control was being threatened. VSC sensor signals could be used for that.
Many of the newer pickups with automatic transmissions have a "Tow-Haul" mode which downshifts the transmission when you deccelerate such as descending a hill. That feature might be nice on an SUV or crossover too. The "throttle positioners" that were used on the emission control systems of carburetor equipped cars gave characteristics similar to what you are suggesting. On my own cars, I usually defeated them (if I could) because of the tendency to neutralize engine compression braking and causing the engine revs to stay up during upshifts. Now 40 years later, I'm faced with the same problem and need to rely on Suzuki to come up with an ECU logic modification because there's not an adjustment that an owner can make himself.
Pickups, with few exceptions, are RWD or rear torque biased, so it is reasonably safe in comparison for those automatics to downshift on FULL lift-throttle.
Downshifting a FWD automatic while descenting a hill on a low traction roadbed is tantamount to signing your own death certificate.
Besides which pickups are not driven, generally, by the dumbed down Jane/John Q publics out there.
"Pickups, with few exceptions, are RWD or rear torque biased, so it is reasonably safe in comparison for those automatics to downshift on FULL lift-throttle."
A point you may be missing here is that a pickup has the weight bias to the front so it's pretty scary to have it downshift in low traction conditions - the rear can come around pretty easily especially if the road has some crown to it. I usually leave my pickup home and drive a 30 year old FWD VW with (4) studded tires when the roads are slick - and I do shift it down when descending hills. Years ago, I made the mistake of only putting traction tires on the front and the car was very scary to drive - but that was because of skidding of the rear tires, not the front. Here's a technical question for you regarding anti-lock brakes: If a car with them is sitting on an icy incline with the brakes firmly applied and gets bumped from the rear causing it to start sliding down the hill, will the wheels remain locked up as long as the driver keeps the brake pedal firmly pressed? My friends think the car would travel down the hill with the brakes alternately releasing and applying. I think the wheels will remain locked up as long as the pedal is not released.
"IMMHO it would be really nice to have a "snow mode" for the manual transaxle wherein a downshift would result in the engine RPM being automatically matched to the current roadspeed then with a slow decline in RPM for engine braking. "
I have to vehemently disagree. It is a manual transmission and the driver should be controlling the engine speed, not a computer. This could lead to more accidents when the car does not slow as the driver expects it to and as it 'normally' would. It is up to the driver to match engine speed and selected gear and slowly reduce engine speed. If a driver cannot do this, then that person should get an automatic. Or not geardown and let the clutch out if he or she cannot control the car.
Conversely, it could be argued that manual transmission cars already do exactly what you want. As you let out the clutch the engine has to speed up and how quickly it slows down depends on how much throttle you apply.
After driving FWD cars for years in Canada, I can't recall a single time when shifting down made the car unstable or caused a spin. And I am not an expert driver by any means, just an average one.
First, "SNOW" would only be active during rain or if the climate is near or below freezing or by manual activation by the driver. It is on these possibly LOW traction surfaces that the potential for loss of control from engine braking will be at its greatest.
And I absolutely agree that judicious use of the clutch would undoubtedly alleviate this problem. But then just how many of todays drivers, if put in a vehicle with a stick shift, most especially a FWD or front torque biased AWD one, would know how to "manage" engine compression braking on such a surface?
I think that's partially my point - people have to learn how to drive and manage their cars. To have another computer controlled driving function will result in less driving skills. If a person cannot manage the interaction between gas, brakes, clutch and steering, then they should stick to an automatic and have that much less to worry about.
I guess it is a question of approach - engineer to meet the lowest common denominator, or try to improve that lowest common denominator. There are merits and reasons for both approaches. I hate to think that at 45 I am one of the 'Old school', but I guess I am!
The only way possible to stop the dumbing-down trend of the driving public is that we start to require extensive training, well outside the "normal" driving "envelope", in driving simulators comparable to the flight simulators in use today.
Just teaching folks how to drive doesn't teach them how to survive in the various adverse circumstances many will encounter as they go through life. Regrettably some of those circumstances will result in the end of life.
"... stick to an automatic and have that much less to worry about...."
Wrong, totally WRONG..!
It should be pretty clear by now that automatic transmission are currently in a rather serious evolutionary phase. There are lots of things you can do with a clutch pedal that are simply not available to folks driving an automatic.
An automatic transaxle in a FWD or front torque biased AWD on a low traction surface and a driver with no substantive experience with same is purely a recipe for desaster!!
Give the same individual a stick shift and some brief training and they would instinctively disengage the clutch instead of simply releasing the gas pedal.
That's exactly why we are now seeing most automatic transaxles quickly upshifting upon a FULL lift-throttle event, the closest analog they can come to depressing the clutch pedal.
In the meantime we cannot fault the manufacturers for making everyday driving as beniegn (non-exciting...??) as possible.
We're way off topic, so my last post on this subject.
More training is always good. We survived without the use of simulators and so can today's drivers.
I dislike the trend towards sueing manufacturers to cover up for our stupidity, hence the risk-adverse lack of developments and the dumbing down of so many products.
I remain in disagreement with your original statement about having a 'snow' button that would have the engine react differently than it normally does. I think such a control would be riskier than proper training.
Back to the regulatly scheduled discussion on the SX4. The SX4 remains on my list as a potential replacement for my '94 Accord, along with a list of other cars. I have to take it for a test drive one day and see if it graduates to the short list or moves off of the potential list. Of course, my wife will have a lot to say in that reagard!
Apparently most manufacturers have already changed, or are in the process of changing, the cruise control "decel" functionality, automatic (downhill), or driver actuated, so it uses actual braking instead of engine braking (closing the throttle and/or retarding the timing) for reducing the speed while cruise control is active.
The owners manuals indicate that engine braking cannot be attained while using the "decel" function by downshifting as a aid in slowing the vehicle down more rapidly. Apparently the system will rev-match the engine speed to the roadspeed to prevent engine braking regardless of gear ratio.
Anyone yet expereinced this in their new 2007 RAV4?
Comments
I think a big key to safety is to not only tie the kayak down to the rack, factory or aftermarket, but also tie front and rear lines to the bumpers or toe hooks. That way, if your rack fails (or if your cross ropes do), you have a fail-safe to keep the kayak from flying off.
As far as length, so long as you aren't cranking down so hard on the end lines that you warp the cockpit area, you should be fine. I've seen lots worse than this. :shades:
Then again, I didn't ASK for one cuz it never would've happened. :P
Are there any Suzuki engineers who can comment as to whether Suzuki has any plans (or TSBs for the drive-by-wire) to improve on these issues?
Has anyone tried this? How flat is the cargo floor? Is it long enough for a 6-footer to camp in if you shove the front passenger seat forward?
Thanks
So in *some* cases, it's actually a good thing.
Aftermarket Pulleys
I cannot wait. Although I see someone else enjoys their Sportage, it is the most unreliable car I've ever owned (with only 90000 kms too), and I'm really looking forward to having a brand new car as spunky as the SX4 is.
Now I just have to wait a week to have the one I wanted delivered...
When I read this, I thought "Must be a Canadian." Then I visited Suzuki of Canada's website. I'm a little surprised you have some different color choices than us. I'm unsure if your 'sapphire' blue is the same as our 'techno' blue, but the azure grey (has a bluish tone) and ocean blue (baby blue) aren't choices in the U.S. We have a red option that you don't.
It surprised me how many Canadians post here (sometimes it seems like half of the people) when you consider the U.S. has about 10X the population.
Questions for Canadians.
1) All cars sold in Canada have km/hr speedometers and kilometer odometers, don't they?
2) Is all gasoline in Canada sold by the liter?
I notice many Canadians post their fuel economy in discussions as miles per gallon... and often the figures seem unusually high and are frequently disclaimered/corrected by other psoters as 'imperial miles per gallon'. If you don't measure by miles or purchase by gallons... why/how do so many Canadians deal with miles per gallon? Is it an easy conversion? :confuse:
1) Yes, although I haven't lived here long enough to know if American cars brought across have to be adapted. (I'm Australian)
2) Yes.
I don't - but again, I have no idea how to deal with the imperial system. I don't know how to convert...I know 2.2 kms is a mile, but I don't know how many litres in a gallon.
I think you got the 2.2 from the conversion factor between kilograms and pounds.
1 liter is 0.22 Canadian (Imperial) gallons or 0.26 U.S. gallons.
tidester, host
GM and Ford transmissions are moronic toads and never do this sort of behavior, so you might not be used to it
If for some reason you wish to have engine compression braking there is usually a special procedure for that in your owners manual.
This is most noticeable as a feeling of being "bumped from behind" just before coming to a full stop or as sort of a "slingshot effect" upon a full lift-throttle coastdown event at 30-45MPH.
There is also the case, sudden RPM change, of converter clutch lockup being disabled the instant you apply the brakes but that one has been around since lockup clutches first came into use.
The first of these involves significantly reducing the level of regenerative braking if/when the OAT is near or below freezing. The second technique will disable regenerative braking the instant the anti-lock system activates while braking.
And yes, this new (UP)shift pattern only applies, seemingly, to FWD and front torque biased AWD vehicles with automatic transaxles. I suppose it could be applied to manual transaxle vehicles by using DBW to raise the engine RPM to prevent braking but it appears the industry has chosen to eliminate manual transaxles from the FWD market altogether. 2007 RAV4 as example.
If the dumbing-down of all drivers continues I suppose we will begin to see this technique also applied to RWD and rear biased AWD vehicles such as your truck. Obviously engine braking can have adverse effects on RWD vehicles but not nearly as much so as FWD vehicles since steering ability will remain viable with RWD.
Or even with a quick lift-throttle event and an automatic should the OAT be below or near freezing. When slowing to a stop rather than upshifting the transaxle to prevent, or to reduce the potential for, loss of directional control go ahead and downshift to 1st but match the engine RPM to prevent engine braking.
The second feature that would be nice to have would be an ABS that didn't activate unless direction control was being threatened. VSC sensor signals could be used for that.
Downshifting a FWD automatic while descenting a hill on a low traction roadbed is tantamount to signing your own death certificate.
Besides which pickups are not driven, generally, by the dumbed down Jane/John Q publics out there.
A point you may be missing here is that a pickup has the weight bias to the front so it's pretty scary to have it downshift in low traction conditions - the rear can come around pretty easily especially if the road has some crown to it. I usually leave my pickup home and drive a 30 year old FWD VW with (4) studded tires when the roads are slick - and I do shift it down when descending hills. Years ago, I made the mistake of only putting traction tires on the front and the car was very scary to drive - but that was because of skidding of the rear tires, not the front. Here's a technical question for you regarding anti-lock brakes: If a car with them is sitting on an icy incline with the brakes firmly applied and gets bumped from the rear causing it to start sliding down the hill, will the wheels remain locked up as long as the driver keeps the brake pedal firmly pressed? My friends think the car would travel down the hill with the brakes alternately releasing and applying. I think the wheels will remain locked up as long as the pedal is not released.
I have to vehemently disagree. It is a manual transmission and the driver should be controlling the engine speed, not a computer. This could lead to more accidents when the car does not slow as the driver expects it to and as it 'normally' would. It is up to the driver to match engine speed and selected gear and slowly reduce engine speed. If a driver cannot do this, then that person should get an automatic. Or not geardown and let the clutch out if he or she cannot control the car.
Conversely, it could be argued that manual transmission cars already do exactly what you want. As you let out the clutch the engine has to speed up and how quickly it slows down depends on how much throttle you apply.
After driving FWD cars for years in Canada, I can't recall a single time when shifting down made the car unstable or caused a spin. And I am not an expert driver by any means, just an average one.
MikeF
And I absolutely agree that judicious use of the clutch would undoubtedly alleviate this problem. But then just how many of todays drivers, if put in a vehicle with a stick shift, most especially a FWD or front torque biased AWD one, would know how to "manage" engine compression braking on such a surface?
I guess it is a question of approach - engineer to meet the lowest common denominator, or try to improve that lowest common denominator. There are merits and reasons for both approaches. I hate to think that at 45 I am one of the 'Old school', but I guess I am!
Cheers,
MikeF
Just teaching folks how to drive doesn't teach them how to survive in the various adverse circumstances many will encounter as they go through life. Regrettably some of those circumstances will result in the end of life.
"... stick to an automatic and have that much less to worry about...."
Wrong, totally WRONG..!
It should be pretty clear by now that automatic transmission are currently in a rather serious evolutionary phase. There are lots of things you can do with a clutch pedal that are simply not available to folks driving an automatic.
An automatic transaxle in a FWD or front torque biased AWD on a low traction surface and a driver with no substantive experience with same is purely a recipe for desaster!!
Give the same individual a stick shift and some brief training and they would instinctively disengage the clutch instead of simply releasing the gas pedal.
That's exactly why we are now seeing most automatic transaxles quickly upshifting upon a FULL lift-throttle event, the closest analog they can come to depressing the clutch pedal.
In the meantime we cannot fault the manufacturers for making everyday driving as beniegn (non-exciting...??) as possible.
More training is always good. We survived without the use of simulators and so can today's drivers.
I dislike the trend towards sueing manufacturers to cover up for our stupidity, hence the risk-adverse lack of developments and the dumbing down of so many products.
I remain in disagreement with your original statement about having a 'snow' button that would have the engine react differently than it normally does. I think such a control would be riskier than proper training.
Back to the regulatly scheduled discussion on the SX4. The SX4 remains on my list as a potential replacement for my '94 Accord, along with a list of other cars. I have to take it for a test drive one day and see if it graduates to the short list or moves off of the potential list. Of course, my wife will have a lot to say in that reagard!
Cheers,
MikeF
Apparently most manufacturers have already changed, or are in the process of changing, the cruise control "decel" functionality, automatic (downhill), or driver actuated, so it uses actual braking instead of engine braking (closing the throttle and/or retarding the timing) for reducing the speed while cruise control is active.
The owners manuals indicate that engine braking cannot be attained while using the "decel" function by downshifting as a aid in slowing the vehicle down more rapidly. Apparently the system will rev-match the engine speed to the roadspeed to prevent engine braking regardless of gear ratio.
Anyone yet expereinced this in their new 2007 RAV4?