Where you have to still twist to start, but if I'm not mistaken, Porsches still do that! I know they did in '15, and haven't driven one since, but this shows '17 hasn't changed...

What isn't clear is it does sound like computer control starts the car, not the user, kind of like a GM car that didn't have a push to start button--the computer is still engaging and releasing the starter.

At any rate, heck if it's good enough for Porsche, it's good enough for my LS430!

http://www.porscheownersmanuals.com/...+engine+pg.252

 

I prefer the turn switch. Not fond of the start button.

 

I'm just happy that I can leave the key in my pocket when I drive the stupid thing..

 

I agree not a fan of the start buttons

Thats my favorite part also i love that i dont have to even touch a button to unlock my doors haha

 

Having a toggle or turn switch is a significant advantage. Start buttons are a very bad design that can cause confusion in critical situations when user is trying to stop the engine from running. With a toggle or turn switch you can instantly tell what "position" the system is in - on or off. Start buttons provide zero information.

 

The interesting thing is I believe you are correct, and that's why there have been CO poisonings from people leaving their car running--but I never understood it. I mentioned on the other forum that a colleague left a rental car running the entire day on a business trip because of that. Believe me, he's a bright guy, but he apparently felt that if he left the car, locked it, and it had no fob, it would turn off on its own.

I prefer the button but that's me, and from the first time I used one, in 12/06, I always for whatever reason equated presses from off to be accessory, then start. Then, when running, one press shuts down. But on the BMW, from this scenario, one can lock the vehicle and the electronics go from accessory to off. The vehicle would not, as designed, go from running, to off, when locked with the fob and the fob goes away (into a house, office, etc.).

I have been told with Porsche, it's simply tradition. Like having the handbrake to the left of the driver's seat, and the key to the left of the steering column...

 

I prefer the turn switch. Love the fact that I only take the key out of my pocket when I change trousers!

 

I like the turn switch but push button start is cool. If I'm not mistaken the LS430 was the first Lexus to have the smart key.

I drove a 2004 LS430 recently that used a regular key. I actually would prefer that over the smart key. Smart keys are so expensive.

 

You can turn off a "runaway" car by pressing the Start/Stop button for 3 seconds.
You can enter "Accessory" mode by pressing the S/S button without your foot on the brake.
You can turn off the car but enter "Accessory" mode by pressing S/S while still in gear.

You can however (as described by JohnHav430) walk off and miss the three (3) little chirps
and the car will run till dry!

 

Mercedes still do that sort of thing in some models. It looks like it wouldn't be too hard to break a smart key if something happened and hit it.

Mine is weak. It doesn't even have the immobiliser. The original clamshell remote broke apart and I lost the internals in my partner's VR4 Legnum somewhere. But the Yeti still started up just fine without it

 

If you think that's ridiculous, the S2K used both a key to unlock the steering wheel and turn on the car's systems but there's a start button to start the engine. You turn the key to stop the engine.

 

FPV Ford Falcons are the same, its just a button boogied into the starting circuit

 

The S2000 is actually kind of a throwback to really old cars from the 20's/30's/40's. Those cars had keys too, you turned the key to the "on" position, then the starter was turned over with a button on the floor.

 

Nothing wrong with tradition (like when Saabs had to go into R before the key could be removed from the floor console)....I like when the key is not in the steering column...