2017 Tacoma, V6, 6 speed automatic. Can not take it out of park unless the engine is running. Can not start it unless the brake pedal is depressed. Don't know off hand if after it's been started and still in park whether you have to step on the brake to shift out of park or not; my guess is yes, you still have to. When in all shift-positions the driver has the ability to shut the engine off. Park, Reverse, Neutral, Drive (or manual shifting using the up/down shift lever). You can shut it off in neutral then restart it but ONLY if you step on the brake pedal. Same thing is true for the Toyota Venza. Wife drives a 2009.

I've never tried to shut the engine off while moving. There may be some feature that will not allow you to shut the engine off while driving and in gear.

"Brake to start" is a safety feature so that you don't accidentally start the car while in gear. If for some mechanical reason the transmission IS NOT in park (or neutral), starting with your foot on the brake pedal makes it very unlikely you will start the car and hit something directly in front or behind you; be it a car, a wall or another person. "Brake to start" is an idiot proofing method to prevent accidental damage or injury to person or property.

My 2017 Grand Caravan starts very well without touching the brake pedal. BUT it stays in park until I press the brake.
and every car since my 1958 Plymouth has had to be either in Neutral or in park to crank the engine. That feature makes sense. Requiring a foot on the brake is required because a few fools were starting in gear and causing damage and injuries.
But requiring applications of the brake to start in an automatic transmission vehicle is stupid!! It might make sense with a manual trans, but for those there is still a neutral sensor. Engines that are less than perfect have been known to die while rolling in traffic, and hitting the brake in heavy traffic can cause collisions. That can happen when running out of gas.
So requiring brake application to start an engine is just plain stupid. But considering some of the things that have been included in cars over the years, it is believable.

 

This Chev also requires to be in park or neutral, thanks to the neutral safety switch.
This is also a standard for modern vehicles.
Toyota doesn’t require a brake input unless it’s a keyless push button start. All VW since 2012 (maybe even earlier) require a brake input regardless of the key setup.

 

This Chev also requires to be in park or neutral, thanks to the neutral safety switch.
This is also a standard for modern vehicles.
Toyota doesn’t require a brake input unless it’s a keyless push button start. All VW since 2012 (maybe even earlier) require a brake input regardless of the key setup.

Neutral or park makes sense, brakes applied does not make sense. And how does the remote start apply the brakes?? THAT would be something to see?!!

 

How would you do it?

Been busy past few days with doctors and emergency rooms. When it rains - - - !

How would I do what?

OK, you answered TonyR1084 with the fact that you're not going to go with an electric fuel pump. That's OK. It's your project and you can do it any way you want. So I am guessing but I think you want to know how I would go about making it impossible to start the car via cranking the starter. Well, with a 67 all I'd need is a screwdriver to make contact between the battery cable on the starter and on the solenoid contact. I've never worked on a 67 so I don't know if the solenoid has a plug or a post. Every GM vehicle I've ever tinkered with and many non-GM all you had to do was tap the screwdriver across the battery terminal on the starter and the solenoid. I really don't see any way around that as far as under the hood jumping or hot wiring a car. Simply put a jumper from the battery to the coil and tap the starter with the screwdriver and it's gone in 60 seconds.

But if you want to prevent someone from gaining access inside the car and turning a key whether it's a picked lock, or the guts have been pulled out, that (likely yellow) wire going to the starter can be passed through a momentary switch (Normally Open) and turn the key. Anyone starting the car legitimately would have to know where that button is and push it while cranking the engine. If you don't push the button it won't crank. No timer needed. But if you wanted to go with a timer then a timing circuit such as a relay and capacitor of some large size, push a button and you have probably 5 seconds to start the car before the relay drops out. If the car doesn't start just push the button again.

I don't have time right now but maybe later I'll bang out a drawing of how I (ME, MYSELF) might do that.

 

Going back to post #1, the aim is to require an additional step to start the engine beyond what is commonly done, so as to inconvenience unauthorized drivers. The timer action was intended to serve as an automatic reset so that the driver did not need to remember to reset the thing. Then when I suggested using a brake application several suggested that brake application is needed to crank an engine, which I doubt is actually the case, because the long time requirement for the transmission being out of gear already inhibits cranking the engine if the car would move when the engine starts. My 2017Dodge starts very well without ouching the brake. And certainly, inhibiting starting while the brake is applied would stop any fool who stepped on the brake while attempting theft of the 1967 classic vehicle.

 

Going back to post #1, the aim is to require an additional step to start the engine beyond what is commonly done, so as to inconvenience unauthorized drivers. The timer action was intended to serve as an automatic reset so that the driver did not need to remember to reset the thing. Then when I suggested using a brake application several suggested that brake application is needed to crank an engine, which I doubt is actually the case, because the long time requirement for the transmission being out of gear already inhibits cranking the engine if the car would move when the engine starts. My 2017Dodge starts very well without ouching the brake. And certainly, inhibiting starting while the brake is applied would stop any fool who stepped on the brake while attempting theft of the 1967 classic vehicle.

The issue with your statement is this:
If we were to have a guess and say 70% of modern vehicles built after 2012 require you to have your foot on the brake to start it. The likely hood of an individual putting their foot on the brake whilst attempting to steal or start a car maliciously, is very high! Simple as that.

 

Given that the car is presented as a 1967 model, and given that the intent is to prevent others from starting that car, why does the crop of current vehicles matter in the discussion.
And my 2017 cranks with no brake activation, but only in park or neutral. And I hope none of you ever has an engine die while in the center lane at 55MPH during the rush hour. You would be responsible for many collisions.

 

why does the crop of current vehicles matter in the discussion.

That would seem obvious.
If the perp often drives a modern car that requires the depression of the brake to start, he will then likely automatically do it to start any car.
Connecting the inhibit circuit to the brake would seem to be dead-end.

 

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WAIeasXjGCY

 

That would seem obvious.
If the perp often drives a modern car that requires the depression of the brake to start, he will then likely automatically do it to start any car.
Connecting the inhibit circuit to the brake would seem to be dead-end.

Please consider that I suggested the brake as a RESET for the crank enable function. So hitting the brake will RELEASE the crank-enable relay! The idea was to replace the troublesome timer with pressing the brake, which will probably happen before the driver is done driving. But an individual knowing how the system was working will know to not press the brake until after the engine is started. And I still say that requiring brake operation in order to crank the engine is horribly stupid, as I already explained.
That is why my comments reflected such!

 

Still think that doing a simple latching relay circuit as I proposed in post #58, is all that is needed to prevent the car from starting until the hidden button is pressed, with automatic reset when the ignition is turned off.

 

Still think that doing a simple latching relay circuit as I proposed in post #58, is all that is needed to prevent the car from starting until the hidden button is pressed, with automatic reset when the ignition is turned off.

Using the switching on of the ignition power would demand that the button be pressed after the key is moved to the RUN position and before the key is moved to the Start position. Not only would that be quite inconvenient, it would also make the move very obvious to all who observed starting the car even just once.
(This is a consideration of the secondary effect of what seems like a good idea.)
Given that the purpose of the addition is to keep the uninvited from driving the car, it seems like not the best choice.