US Government Will Stop Pollution-Reduction Credits for Cars With 'Start-Stop' Systems (caranddriver.com) 304
Starting in 2009, the U.S. government have given car manufacturers towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions if they included "start-stop" systems in cars with internal combustion engines. (These systems automatically shut off idling engines to reduce pollution and fuel consumption.)
But this week the new head of America's Environmental Protection Agency eliminated the credits, reports Car and Driver:
[America's] Environmental Protection Agency previously supported the system's effectiveness, noting that it could improve fuel economy by as much as 5 percent. That said, the use of these systems has never actually been mandated for automakers here in the States. Companies have instead opted to install the systems on all of their vehicles to receive off-cycle credits from the feds. Virtually every new vehicle on sale in the country today also allows drivers to turn the feature off via a hard button as well. Still, that apparently isn't keeping the EPA from making a move against the system.
"I absolutely hate Start-Stop systems," writes long-time Slashdot reader sinij (who says they "specifically shopped for a car without one.") Any other Slashdot readers want to share their opinions?
Post your own thoughts and experiences in the comments. Start-Stop systems — fuel-saving innovation, or a modern-day auto annoyance"
"I absolutely hate Start-Stop systems," writes long-time Slashdot reader sinij (who says they "specifically shopped for a car without one.") Any other Slashdot readers want to share their opinions?
Post your own thoughts and experiences in the comments. Start-Stop systems — fuel-saving innovation, or a modern-day auto annoyance"
They used to be annoying (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They used to be annoying (Score:5, Insightful)
Gotta kill a successful idea if it means your oil buddies who spend on your crytpo cash are gonna lose some sales.
Re: They used to be annoying (Score:5, Insightful)
Oil buddies he met at pedo parties, let's not forget that.
Re: (Score:3)
In all fairness, we don't know what percentage of Epstein's friends did not rape children but knew he was raping children and were fine with that for the benefits he brought, versus what percentage raped children and were glad for the benefits he brought. As for those who did not know he was raping children, well, the excuse for that ended with the 2008 nonprosecution deal. If a good friend of mine had to make a plea deal over child rape, I think I'd have serious trouble staying friends with them.
Re: (Score:3)
In all fairness, we don't know what percentage of Epstein's friends did not rape children but knew he was raping children and were fine with that for the benefits he brought, versus what percentage raped children and were glad for the benefits he brought. As for those who did not know he was raping children, well, the excuse for that ended with the 2008 nonprosecution deal. If a good friend of mine had to make a plea deal over child rape, I think I'd have serious trouble staying friends with them.
It's interesting to observe that in order to have a basic level of functioning debate, societies need to have some sort of shared agreement. That used to be found in religion. It served as an ideal positive. As the authority of religion declined post-WWII, it was in some ways replaced by Nazism - everyone agreed that this was bad - a sort of ideal negative [ref: Dominion: The Making of the Western Mind, by Tom Holland]. It's interesting to see how in US politics pedophilia is coming in as an alternative to
Re:They used to be annoying (Score:4, Informative)
Gotta kill a successful idea if it means your oil buddies who spend on your crytpo cash are gonna lose some sales.
It might help Trump's oil buddies, but his actions are probably going to kill off the chance of the US car industry exporting to other countries.
Norway may be an outlier in car sales [lifeinnorway.net] at the moment, but as the world buys more electric and hybrid cars, American car manufacturers are going to have to make a choice. Do they stick to Trump engine cars, or look to manufacture what everyone in the rest of the world is using.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: They used to be annoying (Score:5, Informative)
Re: They used to be annoying (Score:4, Interesting)
Do you think there is additional stress on the engine while the little starter motor is moving the flywheel/flex plate?
You do know what an engine does, right?
It sits there and explodes. A lot. Every minute it's not exploding is another minute of its life.
Starting an engine is just spinning it and exploding it until it can continue to explode under its own power.
Re: They used to be annoying (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly - they will stop awarding "pollution-reduction credits" for installing this non-mandated and optional to use feature.
There is absolutely nothing preventing automakers from keeping this feature in future car models...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Liberterian much? Automakers and oil executives will willingly make decisions that cause the deaths of thousands of people if it means they can save 25 cents per manufactured automobile. You don't think the conversations around auto start/stop destroying engines were propogated by paid actors from said industries?
Re: (Score:3)
But they've gotten to the point of hardly noticeable.
You mean that you have become accustomed to them. The start/stop systems themselves have not changed at all.
So, while your perception has changed, that doesn't really speak to the veracity of the system nor whether or not this action is pointless.
For me, personally, I don't care for the system. But, since I can disable it on my vehicle, it doesn't interfere with me anymore. However, I do not like that the manufacturers are getting tax breaks for including the system in cars. Car manufacturers don't need any
Re: They used to be annoying (Score:5, Interesting)
The cars have a BMS which turns off the start/stop function if the battery gets low, there are other criteria that affects this too like engine/transmission temp, other electrical draw (heaters/defrosters etc) plus a bunch of others.
In practice, the car will never turn the engine off if you got a bad battery. And regarding batteries, it is a wear item that will go bad eventually regardless of what you do. Will the start/stop shorten the lifespan, absolutely, but compared to what?
Re: (Score:2)
The start is also electronically controlled - push button start where the computer starts the engine is remarkably efficient at getting the engine going quick. You don't really crank a pushbuttong start engine - it just barely turns and its running. I'm sure the computer is basically goosing the spark and mixture to get an easy start within half a turn or something.
That also means the starter gets used hardly at all.
I mean, I remember cranking for 3-5 seconds to start an engine, the modern start-stop system
Re: They used to be annoying (Score:3)
Just to provide a contrary example, I have had, in different vehicles, the automatic stop cut the engine in the few hundred milliseconds when I am dipping the clutch because the lights have changed or traffic has started moving.
This is doubly hilarious because the stupid thing will not then automatically start and forces you to turn the ignition off and on with the key. Such fun.
There is a sensor on the clutch which should inhibit this behaviour, but sometimes it happens. Peugeot, Merc, Ford and Renault if
Re: (Score:2)
Really? You can't imagine what to compare with?
Type of battery for example. I do hope you know that there are different types of battery technologies used in cars with start/stop.
It wears the battery down quicker when compared to a battery in an "always on" vehicle, and I'd imagine the engine doesn't benefit from the start/stop technology.
And you know this how? It seems you are basing your argument on what you think would happen and not actual facts.
The lifespan of batteries in cars with start/stop functionality (ie AGM/EFB batteries) is the same as cars without it (ie regular led-acid), the major factor that affects the lifespan is how the car is used.
If you want a bit more facts you can find them here: https:/ [anl.gov]
Re: They used to be annoying (Score:5, Insightful)
It stems from wanting an excuse to be lazy.
Re: They used to be annoying (Score:5, Interesting)
Last I checked, Toyota claimed their starter motor was good for 100,000 operations. Often times cars use a second starter motor for this feature and if they did consistently fail you’d hear about it.
Re: They used to be annoying (Score:4, Informative)
Last I checked, Toyota claimed their starter motor was good for 100,000 operations. Often times cars use a second starter motor for this feature and if they did consistently fail you’d hear about it.
That was for cars without auto start-stop and traditional starter motors. Toyotas with auto-start-stop actually have a software switch that enables the maintenance light and disables the auto start-stop function after 384,000 operations. And at that point they are only concerned with an increased potential to break down at a red light which is why the functionality is disabled until the motor is replaced.
For the record that's over 50 start/stops a day every day for 20 years.
Re: They used to be annoying (Score:5, Insightful)
Durable starters must be used; a conventional old one would die out quickly and be a huge problem. my brother is a mechanic. the new ones are better lasting. As far as hard-- no; not really. the engine is still hot - it doesn't need the effort or gas that cord start requires. The battery is quite strong for short loads like this as long as it gets enough charge back.
I find it funny that people think fewer explosions and revolutions would wear it out faster.
Re: (Score:3)
the new ones are better lasting
It's not just that newer is better lasting. There are literally different starter motors and different batteries used in vehicles with these features. It was an engineering problem solved through engineering, but people apply their 1970s era car knowledge to it. Someone here mentioned Toyota starters last for 100000 starts. The reality is Toyota hard disables the auto start/stop feature and puts on the maintenance light after 384,000 starts.
That's 52 starts a day, every day, for 20 years. That's the kind of
Re: They used to be annoying (Score:4, Informative)
That's life... engineers solve all our real-world problems, MBAs enshitify everything, marketing placates us, and orange men rape us (metaphorically in most cases.)
Re: They used to be annoying (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: They used to be annoying (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Why make China and India stop polluting? Where is the US going to get cheaply make knock-off items that break after a single use? We sure as hell can't make cheap stuff here in the US.
Re:They used to be annoying (Score:5, Informative)
I'd say touchscreens are worse.
I haven't tried it on an ICE-only car, but it's great for hybrids that don't need the engine right away. The engine doesn't kick in until you're over 25 mph anyways.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say touchscreens are worse.
I haven't tried it on an ICE-only car, but it's great for hybrids that don't need the engine right away. The engine doesn't kick in until you're over 25 mph anyways.
My experience is that they are a good way to suddenly have no engine power when you need it, and then start accelerating much more slowly than expected, putting your safety at risk. I got this feature on a rental car once, and had two near misses within the first day because of it before I realized what was happening and how to keep the car from shutting off.
Eventually, you learn to lift your foot off the gas once ahead of time, well before you're about to go, but when you're at a stop sign, you don't alwa
Re: They used to be annoying (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If people know what they are doing, is that a bad thing?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And I bet that if the orange shitgibbon stops the mandate for the seatbelts you will be the first one to defend that policy. Because this is what you do.
This pairs well (Score:3)
This pairs well with the runaway temperatures we're starting to see.
I was hoping to retire to Hawaii, but maybe the UP.
Re: (Score:3)
I've been thinking the same thing. The UP just sounds awesome... but with our luck, some company will go up there and start polluting the region with something highly toxic, making that area about as livable as Love Canal or Lake Erie was in the '70s.
What is the difference (Score:2)
From having this system available for everybody to disable it versus not having this system available at all? I might be wrong and/or not have the right friendship and working peers circle, but I am yet to find one person who actually said the auto stop start engine was one of the reasons why they purchased that particular vehicle.
Re: What is the difference (Score:2)
I had a cat with that system. It was useful. Saved some money on petrol.
Did I go out to buy a car with it? No?
Would I NOT buy a car because it did or didn't have it? No
Do I think they should be in every ICE car? They probably should. Although I'd be more in favour of ICE cars disappearing, TBH.
Will car manufacturers now remove these from future vehicles to save themselves money, whilst also not passing those savings on to customers? Yes, they absolutely will
Re: What is the difference (Score:2)
Cat! FFS! Slashdot needs an edit button.
Re: (Score:2)
nah, fun typo.
btw, my pretty old car has and the dealer had to explain to me what it was. i actually like it. i mostly drive on country roads and speedways but it's nice in the city and saves a bit of precious fuel, avoids a bit of pointless polluting. unlike cats it has also a button to deactivate it in case someone gets fed up for some reason. oh, technology! cats could use one of those too! and the problems humans have ...
Re: (Score:2)
Cat! FFS! Slashdot needs an edit button.
Glad you called out the error. I initially assumed you were talking about a dozer.
Re:What is the difference (Score:5, Insightful)
From having this system available for everybody to disable it versus not having this system available at all?
The difference is that the mere existence of such systems is a reminder to Trump of the Obama era, so they gotta go.
Re: (Score:2)
From having this system available for everybody to disable it versus not having this system available at all?
Ask Sinij. He's apparently made it a defining feature of his car purchase. And yes based on everything he's every said about cars here on Slashdot I fully believe him.
Re: (Score:2)
>"From having this system available for everybody to disable it versus not having this system available at all?
Because the F'ers make it so the setting is not remembered and you have to turn it off EVERY TIME you start the car. That is the major difference.
And the extra cost for it to be there- larger more complex starter, more electronics. And the extra weight. And the extra wear. And the additional delay from want to go immediately. And it doesn't save much at all on fuel. And what if your AC is
I am not of sinji's opinion. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I am not of sinji's opinion. (Score:4, Insightful)
Some guys just get a woodie from burning fossil fuels. The more, the better. Ever seen those rigs they use for coal-rolling? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Old people are scared of new things. They’re finally ok fuel injection and seatbelts.
Re: I am not of sinji's opinion. (Score:2)
Seatbelts were required to be in cars almost 60 years ago, you'd have to be over 76 years old to even remember being able to buy a car without them...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: I am not of sinji's opinion. (Score:2)
Few years ago, we got a long term rental due to a wreck, and it was the first time weâ(TM)d ever experienced it. It was the middle of winter, cold and snowy, and the colder it got, the longer it took for the starter to kick in when we would come to a stop. A few times Iâ(TM)d come to an intersection, try to accelerate to get through it, but the car would turn off the split second before I accelerated, and I would be terrified I was going to be hit because I wasnâ(TM)t used to having to think
Truly annoying "feature" (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't stand start/stop. When I rent a car with it, I immediately disable it. It's "jerky-ness" varies with manufacturers. I'll be glad to see it go.
Re: Truly annoying "feature" (Score:2)
It will not "go away", it was never required. All the EPA did was announce they'd stop giving automakers "pollution-Reduction Credits" for installing the non-mandated, optional to use, fuel-saving annoyance/feature.
I expect automakers will start featuring the theoretical fuel savings the stop/start feature offers.
Re: (Score:2)
My father installed a kit in his Toyota that reversed the start/stop disable switch, turning it into an enable switch instead.
The person who invented this system (Score:2, Insightful)
should be sentenced to an eternality of herding cats. They are absolutely vile in places with stop lights at every corner. Disabled it immediately on my wife's last vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
Because ... reasons? I mean we can use the word vile without backing it up or giving any specifics. I'm curious what your complaint is. As far as I can tell it has precisely zero impact on my driving, stop lights or not. What is it about a completely automated system that has no impact on you stopping or driving that makes you have trouble stopping or driving?
Re: (Score:2)
One single button press in my car.
Re: The person who invented this system (Score:2)
Every time you start the car...
Hybrid -- Automatically start/stop (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely Agree (Score:2)
I bought myself a hybrid a few months ago. Auto start/stop on it makes perfect sense, especially when the electric motor is there to do part of the work. I have to actually concentrate hard to even notice when the engine fires up or powers down.
On the other hand, when it's a pure ICE vehicle, I'm not a big fan. Most of the time it's tolerable, but three months ago, I was driving an Expedition that shut off the engine while I was idling at a frontage road waiting to make a turn onto the street. When I be
Re: (Score:2)
Auto start/stop systems can be buggy. I had a 2019 Jetta that had a bug associated with the windshield wipers and auto start/stop. If you had the wipers on in rain, they'd freeze up if the start/stop system engaged and stopped the engine at a red light (for example). Then when the engine started back up, it would throw an error on the dash and the wipers wouldn't function until fully cycling the engine. The car was still drivable, but driving in the rain with stuck wipers is not safe. . .
Re: (Score:2)
Hybrids can drive with the engine off (Score:3)
The critical difference is that a hybrid can drive the car with the engine off, a start-stop system can only restart the engine before driving.
I also drive a hybrid. I think that the start-stop our hybrids are capable of is very different than the start-stop for an otherwise ICE vehicle, where all they've maybe done is put a bigger stronger starter motor in it. That means it takes up to a second to start driving with a start-stop system, which I can see as annoying.
Looking it up, the electric motors in my
Re: (Score:3)
In the time it took me to take my foot of the brake and to push the accelerator it already started.
Honestly if I did not look at the engine RPM I would not even notice it, doing its job.
Re: (Score:2)
I drive a hybrid.
That is not the same thing as being discussed here. Hybrids have electric motor that can move the car.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't even know this was a thing until recently (Score:2)
(Note: we own a 2015 Camry and a 2019 Outback, neither of which has this feature)
I was helping my mom shop for a car. We went to CarMax - she had her eye on a Kia Soul. Well I pulled out of the lot (she wanted me to drive, don't ask me why) and got to a stoplight... and the tach goes to zero. I'm thinking "that's weird", and turned the key - started right up and we moved along. Then it died again at the next light... and again... I was wondering how the CarMax guys missed such an obvious problem.
After sever
Re: (Score:2)
Off is still better than any amount of idle. The starters in cars that have start/stop systems are designed specifically to handle it. Disabling the system will not give any significant extra prolonged life of those types of starters.
Re: I didn't even know this was a thing until rece (Score:3)
You seem to be saying that using something dozens of times an hour causes no appreciable wear compared to not using something at all.
I would think that if a starter motor has a design life of 100,000 operations, it is better to spread those operations over 50 years than maybe 18 months.
Your driving conditions may vary, mine have the start-stop operating a hundred times in an hour's commute. Yes, my vehicle slows to 0mph a hundred times on an hour's commute. Yes, the traffic planners are well paid.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, because corporations never lie.
Or you could look at the statistics.
Or you could take apart one of the systems and look at it's design and engineering.
Or you could simply have a brain and be capable of critical thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
Or I can just rely upon the dozens of times I've passed a vehicle stopped at a traffic intersection or on the 405 or the 110 or the 605 with its emergencies on because the car auto stopped in traffic and wouldn't start back up, causing hours-long delays.
That technology is utter shit.
Re: (Score:2)
I started noticing cars at intersections and around me were dying and then starting up again and figured somebody got smart until I noticed how fast and common it became. The reason I noticed is because I had a cheap EV and could hear everything around me while my old ICE car either dampened the outside sound or drowned it out from it's engine.
If you plan to accelerate quickly as possible then the feature is going to bother you. If you pause and make sure nothing is going wrong (like somebody going thru re
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I believe it makes much difference in terms of greenhouse gas emissions or fuel economy, since modern cars do idle very efficiently.
Stop-start is meant to do most good in dense urban areas, where the concentration of cars is higher, as well as that of people. Reducing the number of vehicles running at busy intersections can make a surprisingly large difference to air quality. There are some modest reductions in fuel usage to be had but as with hybrids they're mostly realised in city traffic. (A hybrid doesn't get better mileage when cruising than a non-hybrid with an equivalent ICE engine.)
But, in the grand scheme of things, this seems like a silly thing to get up in arms about... which describes a LOT of the pronouncements coming out of this administration.
It's definitely a repeal-whatever-Obama-did thi
Start/Stop doesn't fit non-hybrid powertrains well (Score:3)
I've been on multiple off-road trail drives where at least one newer Jeep Wrangler had it's start/stop system start fail in some way and couldn't keep running because of how Chrysler implemented the system on those engines.
One had to be limped home with an escort 15 minutes at a time, the engine would just stop while in gear and ignore the gas pedal until it was fully switched off and restarted, code reader kept saying errors in the start/stop system, etc.
The other one just didn't risk it, called a tow truck and opted to wait. Code reader also said start/stop system fault codes when we looked them up. Different Jeep from the previous one, BTW!
Start/stop is basically built in for hybrids, but for non-hybrids they're often just a boat-anchor mis-feature along with cylinder de-activation that mostly only exists to game EPA numbers.
A well engineered one that for example has an electric power steering pump and brake master cylinder that doesn't rely on the engine running to maintain pressure? Can be good.
But that still needs a MUCH stronger starter to survive even a single heavy-traffic commute where it will cycle 20+ times in an hour and only a few minutes in between to recharge, let alone years of that, and stronger/larger alternator and battery to handle the much more frequent rapid charge/discharge cycles, etc.
And at that point you're most of the way to a mild hybrid, so the good ones just get turned into a true hybrid model at that point.
So as a Prius owner? Good riddance to this, IMHO. It never really fits well on non-hybrids because so many other things are tied to the engine running and moving those off is most of making a vehicle a hybrid already.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Jeeps are just built like shit in general. Nothing to do with the stop/start system itself.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the same start/stop system and engine as the Ram 1500 pickups have used since 2013 (and still use today in fact), so it's not a Jeep-specific thing in this case, just I've encountered it twice because of the prevalence of Jeeps off-roading and they don't get the 'commercial vehicle' exception to being able to make the ESS optional at purchase time.
2000 Honda Insight (Score:5, Informative)
In the year 2000 I bought a Honda Insight, an early hybrid. I was surprised to find that it had start-stop: when I stopped at a traffic control signal it shut off the motor, then started it up instantly when I pressed the accelerator. A few times the driver of the car in the adjacent lane looked startled when the sound of my motor stopped.
The Insight had wonderful fuel economy. I once got 73.5 miles per gallon on a 109.4-mile stratch of Interstate 90.
I used that car as my daily driver until 2018, when I traded it in on a Nissan Leaf, an electric car, which I drive today,.
Re: (Score:2)
No that's not possible. You must be lying. Everyone here on Slashdot insists that cars with auto-start/stop are unreliable and fail early, so it is lies that your car lasted 18 years! /sarcasm
You're on point though, my previous car had auto start/stop as well. I had it for 10 years and it was 7 years old when I bought it. And when I scrapped it, I did so not because of battery, engine, or starter motor issues.
I have it on my car (Score:3, Insightful)
....so when I get home, I drive into the garage, come to a stop, car kills. ... so it can then shut off.
So I press the button to turn the car off 1 sec later, it restarts
ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT.
Here's an idea: let me, as a consumer, decide if that "energy savings" is worth my hard earned $0.000266 ?
I don't even think people would mind much if it was installed by default. It's the "automatically on whenever you start the car" that's bullshit.
But...ecomarxists know better than the rest of us.
Re: (Score:3)
Don't drive where it's hot (Score:2)
What annoys me the most is on a hot day and when the engine shuts off, so does the A/C. I can't stand the heat, so in the summer the first thing I do is turn the damned auto-stop off.
Simple way to turn off the start/stop permanently (Score:2)
Let the smaller, 2nd battery that powers it die. When it inevitably failed in my Grand Cherokee, I left it in the car. Now the Jeep says, "Start/Stop system unavilable" in the menu, and I never have to turn off the Stop/Start after forgettng to disable it when I start the car.
(Of all the bullshit Trump's EPA has done, they actually got this policy change right. The Start/Stop system was an awful idea from Day 1.)
Mechanic here with zero use for that shite (Score:2)
https://www.reddit.com/r/Mecha... [reddit.com]
covers issues fairly well. Modern vehicles are driving (pun inevitable!) many techs from the industry due to excessive complexity.
The best way to avoid modern hypercomplex vehicles raping your wallet is lease, don't own, so you can hand it back and let it destroy someone else's wallet.
It's flawed anyways (Score:2)
My wife's car had start/stop and it killed the starter with just 54k miles on it at 6 years. Now I disable the crap in all of our vehicles, it's not normal to start stop engines like this without a hardware cost. I would much rather feed my car slightly more gas than deal with paying someone to perform major work.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
In my experience, it just ends up requiring replacement of the starter battery more often.......Now, I suppose, if you sit in traffic a lot, and don't need A/C or heat too much, don't have a lot of accessories that are on a lot, (like heated or cooled seats, radio, etc.), and are absolutely wanting to save that last $2/month on gas, then go ahead.
"They" say they make the starters and electrical systems heavier duty to compensate. Obviously you would have to for what could be a couple orders of magnitude more operation cycles, not to mention those cycles now include all the other accessories like heat/AC, lighting, etc running concurrently as well.
All I would ask is that the button *remember* the setting, between on/off ignition cycles, so if I turn it off, it just stays Off. I have installed a few harness adapters that connect to the harness going to the start/stop button so that it can 'remember' it's setting and only enables if the button is pressed to enable it back on. That is how it should have been from the factory.
I know people who have had to go that route. Luckily I was able to disable it through coding on my car.
Re: (Score:2)
200+ million cars in the us by $2 per month is a paltry 4.8 billion dollars a year. Small things add up when the whole country does them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We do however have the data. There's no evidence that there's any increased repair cost or increased failures in start/stop systems. So yeah they add up the same way: completely fucking irrelevant to you the driver, just like those $2 of gas.
Also your car explicitly monitors the battery and disables the start/stop system if it gets even slightly below normal voltage. But never mind, you advertised to the entire world that you don't have a clue about cars when you said the heating system will affect the batt
Re: (Score:2)
Also your car explicitly monitors the battery and disables the start/stop system if it gets even slightly below normal voltage. But never mind, you advertised to the entire world that you don't have a clue about cars when you said the heating system will affect the battery, as if it were anything more than a tiny fan that could run from that battery literally for days. *facepalm*
Actually I'm well aware of the sequence with which my car disables things when the voltage drops. Things like heated seats are the first to go. They don't even have a fan. Go figure. I know this because I make lots of short trips, my battery never fully charges as it is and I put a charger on it regularly to avoid that problem. ASS does not make it better. Lucky I'm more clever than you.
Re: (Score:2)
"They" say they make the starters and electrical systems heavier duty to compensate. Obviously you would have to for what could be a couple orders of magnitude more operation cycles,
They do, which makes batteries and starters on those cars considerably more expensive to replace. My last car did not have start/stop and an OEM starter was $110. My current car has start/stop and an OEM replacement starter is $700. Neither of those include labor.
That's hardly shocking. On the bright side if they actually are orders of magnitude more durable I'm guessing my starting system should last forever with auto start/stop (aka ASS) disabled then. I'll take that.
Re: (Score:2)
You would think. But computer modeling for how long something will last has gotten really good. That's why things fail just outside of warranty more often these days. I'd guess that the starter motor itself could outlast the engine. But I'm sure there's some electronic component that will fail.
Like the module on the electric water pump on my previous car. $2K to replace, but it was under warranty. Guess they didn't model that one right LOL.
When I was young we would get a $2 Ford starter relay from the auto parts store and wire it in attached to a fender well or the firewall. That usually saved us $20 for a new starter and I don't think anyone who did this had to worry about it again.
I used to love working on cars when I was a kid back in the points and carburetors days. Still enjoy some mild modding, but modern cars are way more complicated. More time spent on a laptop than turning wrenches nowadays.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you're replacing the starter battery more often then you bought the wrong starter battery. Cars with auto start/stop systems need different batteries. I've had no problem getting 5 years out of my battery on my previous car, or my wife's current car. As for more expensive, you're absolutely right. It is $20 more every 5 years. Fucking calamity that.
That is how it should have been from the factory.
No the factory is doing the correct thing trying to save idiots from themselves.
Re:Start Stop, the bane of anyone's existance (Score:5, Informative)
First order of the day after turning on the car: Deactivate the start-stop.
Because you're either stupid or rented a shitty vehicle in general.
It increases engine, battery, and starter motor wear and tear. Leading to earlier disposing of the car
It does not. The whole system is designed to handle it. And by decreasing the amount of time the engine sits idle at stops, it actually reduces overall long term engine wear.
increases trafic
No, it doesn't, nor is there any proof of such.
But, please, do continue spouting absolute bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Starting and stopping puts more wear on engine components. Cars with these systems [google.com] reputedly have more robust starters, beefier batteries and core engine components that are supposed to be able to resist wear when spinning with low oil
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. https://www.jalopnik.com/here-... [jalopnik.com]
Re: (Score:2)
>and increases trafic, as non-smooth stop-start cycles lead to amplification down the queue.
Just had a rental that had this system on it. It worked perfectly, just as if I had the engine on the whole time. So this is BS.
Re: Start Stop, the bane of anyone's existance (Score:2)
Just had a rental that had this system on it. It worked perfectly, just as if I had the engine on the whole time. So this is BS.
Thank you for your anecdote, I don't think it really proves that all stop/start systems work "perfectly fine."
Re: (Score:2)
That's right out of the "I learned everything about cars in the 80s" playbook. No neither the engine nor the starter motor suffer any "wear" as a result of this. Cars with start/stop systems don't have their engines or starter motors replaced at any higher frequency than any other car.
You may have been on to something about the battery... except that cars with auto start/stop have different batteries to normal cars, explicitly designed for the duty, and the car's computer automatically disables start/stop w
Re: (Score:2)
That's a stupid generalization.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a stupid generalization.
Have you read the Slashdot comments? It seems sinij isn't the only moron who doesn't understand cars in the public.