Ford To Offer Fuel-Saving 'Start-Stop' System 572
Ponca City writes "The Detroit Free Press reports that Ford plans to offer start-stop systems on many cars in 2012 that save fuel by turning an engine off when the vehicle is idling and quickly restart it when the driver releases the brake or steps on the gas pedal, improving fuel economy by 4% to 10%, depending on driving conditions. The system, common in Europe on cars with manual transmissions, is already in use in the US on gasoline-electric hybrids, including the Ford Fusion Hybrid. Automakers have been reluctant to add the feature to cars in the US because the testing method that the Environmental Protection Agency uses to determine fuel efficiency ratings doesn't include many stops and thus doesn't recognize the technology's effectiveness."
Cold weather (Score:5, Interesting)
How does this system behave in cold weather? Sometimes, I want the car running for a while, either to power the heater or to just warm up the engine before I take it on the road?
Re:Buy a Ford! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I love the American way... (Score:4, Interesting)
That was not what he meant. The technology is tried and testes. Maybe half of the cars around me use it. It works, it's reliable, and it undeniably saves gas/emissions. The problem here is that it doesn't save so much gas on the EPA test track. As such, it's not worth it - no matter the environmental benefits in the real world.
Re:Buy a Ford! (Score:4, Interesting)
_WRONG_. It costs in performance.
Not true.
Start/Stop causes extra wear and tear on the engine block.
The majority of all engine wear comes during start/warming of an engine, but only because its when oil pressure doesn't exist and lubrication has gone elsewhere.
In this situation, it doesn't apply because the engine has been freshly lubricated and oil lines are likely still highly pressurized. So unless you have extensive and conclusive studies, your comment completely flies in the face of all established ICE doctrine.
Additionally, you need to ensure that the engine block retains heat longer which in most cases means bigger and heavier engine block
No you don't. That's only true for diesel engines which require a thermal element to start. I looks like we're talking about gasoline engines. So your comment seemingly has absolutely no merit.
Similarly, you may need some extra work on the cat and emission control to keep the entire system warm and ensure you stay within pollution limits.
The catalytic converter does need to maintain a specific temperature range to properly function. This, however, can be addressed by the use of a heating elements (to maintain a temp - even perhaps outside of limits) and/or periodic engine starts (to maintain limits).
On top of that you need a beefier starter motor and a beefier battery
Thus far, this appears to be your first legitimate complaint. Having said that, starter technology has progressed significantly over the last two decades. Starters can now be roughly a quarter the size they were only two or three decades ago and with much higher reliability. So lets say they add an extra ten pounds of weight in starter/battery. That's comparable to roughly 1.2 gallons of automotive fuel. If the technology can save 10%, for most vehicles, that alone more than offsets the weight penalty associated with the added technology.
to ensure you get the cranking current for it so that the engine starts up straight away.
Wrong. This is seemingly like a pattern here.
They specifically stop the engine at a specific position so that it need only spark to initiate combustion, rotation, starting, and charging of the battery. So basically, nothing really new needs to take place. The only caveat is one needs to properly monitor the battery's health to ensure the engine starts, to recharge the battery and/or maintain catalytic converter efficiency.
A good engine especially diesel eats nearly nothing in idle
I no longer remember the exact number, but idle consumption in the US alone is a considerable amount of fuel. So reduction of this consumption is a worthy goal and should not be hand waved and ignored.
All in all you get worse pollution (and nastier - particles and unburned/partially burned hydrocarbons),
Completely baseless statement and likely extremely wrong. In fact, its extremely likely to dramatically reduce pollution as idle is typically the lowest point of efficiency for ICE and catalytic converters. By almost entirely doing away with the phase which creates a disproportionate amount of pollution, the increase in air quality is likely to be disproportionately profound.
worse economy and worse performance than an smaller and "weaker" normal engine with an electric boost similar to the one on the Honda, Mercedes and a few others.
Completely baseless statement and likely extremely wrong.
Frankly, I'm not sure anything you said is even remotely grounded in fact.