Engine Stop & Go - Technology

General Discussion
41

I think it most likely does save gas. More so in an urban environment. A minimal amount, if any, is saved in a rural setting like mine probably. I drive 30 miles to work and come to a complete stop 1 to 4 times, depending upon if I have to stop completely at yield signs. I don’t encounter 1 stop light. So I assume the feature would be useless for me. It probably wouldn’t be terribly obtrusive for me either. Until I do get in a stop and go setting like a drive through or a crowded parking lot. In which case, I think it would annoy me and I’d shut it off anyway. But, I don’t think it works anyway if the AC is on max. Which it would be for 6 months out of the year here in MS.

My concern would still be extra cost long term. I fear I’d spend more money on the system long term than I’d save in gas over the life of the vehicle. I understand the system uses a more “robust” starter. Obviously because you need one. I also understand (correct me if I’m wrong) that there are electric pumps to circulate transmission fluid when the vehicle is stopped. Those might need replaced at some point also. Also, I believe the battery is 2 or 3 times the cost of a regular auto battery. If that’s true, that would probably wipe out my fuel savings money.

The system wasn’t implemented for the consumers benefit, though. It was implemented for the environment. And, I suppose if the automotive world eventually has a .5% fuel savings on a whole, I guess it adds up.

Too bad humans are less important than the environment.

1 Like
42

So you think a system that makes the air cleaner is bad for humans? That’s interesting.

1 Like
43

I said the environment (which they’re trying to protect with this feature) is considered more important than the human (if the human dislikes the feature and would prefer to not have it).

I wonder what percentage of people would choose autostop if it was optional?

44

The environment is an issue because of the problems for people caused by auto exhaust. It’s all about humans.

1 Like
45

If stuck /always follow the $

46

Whether they like it or not. It’s for your own good (according to someone), now deal with it. That kind of thinking scares me a little. Not so much with autostop, but environmental awareness can be taken to the extreme.

The 10k mike oil change interval is better for the environment. If it’s better (or as good) for your engine or not is up for debate. The sealed for life transmissions are better for the environment. Don’t change the fluid. It’s better for you in the long run, since it’s better for the environment. Right?

47

There is no such thing as a sealed for life transmission

Who have you been listening to . . . ?!

48

By whom?

In my humble opinion, a healthy and clean environment is good for humans, especially those humans who want to live a long and healthy life.

1 Like
49

looks like you are shifting away from start/stop and getting on a soapbox about something…

and there it is:

2 Likes
50

Some automakers claim they are sealed for life. Either to make the vehicles appear to need less maintenance, or to make the vehicle appear more “green”. Following that advice rather than using additional transmission fluid would be better for the environment, at least short term, as you’d use less oil over the life of the vehicle, correct? You’d also probably use more transmissions over the life of the vehicle. I never said I followed that advice. My “sealed for life” Toyota transmission has already been serviced once.

51

Ok. Not following you.

My point is, some of the fuel saving technology on the newer vehicles, including longer oil change intervals, “sealed for life” transmissions, lighter weight oils, cylinder deactivation, auto stop, etc. may in theory, or in fact be better for the environment. They may not be better for the vehicle consumer (the human), financially speaking or in terms of the driving experience.

If you research cylinder deactivation, you can find a lot of examples where Honda and GM owners have had problems with that tech. I personally do not want that feature (again).

I’m a little concerned about the autostop system. I assume if it malfunctions, it defaults to not working. At which point you get some sort of warning on the dash. At which point, I don’t know if they’ll let you pass at the smog test, if required by your state. So I don’t want that either.

I’m all for saving fuel, clean air, etc. Shutting engines off at a red light and shutting engines partially down (cylinder deactivation) seem like hokey ways to save fuel. Your opinion may be different, and that’s ok.

52

This discussion really is going nowhere, but as long as it is going nowhere, I’ll just say that we had a similar discussion some time ago over safety. There is virtually nothing, regardless of the extreme, that you could not make a claim would improve safety. And of course some would be in favor of those regardless until there was no car and no drivers anymore, which is the ultimate goal in some circles.

It seems again that there is no end to what extremes some are in favor of as long as there is a minute savings in fuel or some theoretical improvement in the air that is breathed. So then as usual, people tend to treat the symptom not the cause. As a traffic engineer told me once, they are called stop lights not go lights. Somebody makes a lot of money off making, selling, installing, and upgrading stop lights. I think they are up to about $50,000 a piece now. Of course all installed to “improve safety” not traffic flow. So as much as I dislike round-abouts, I’d rather see the money put into round-abouts and overpasses and eliminate the stop light, instead of putting the money into idiotic start/stop systems. Ha ha ha, heads explode.

53

There’s plenty of other auto manufacturers who have had massive problems with that technology

54

Ok. So it’s (cylinder deactivation) not necessarily good for the consumer, but it’s (in theory at least) good for the environment. It’s a technology made with good intentions that I’d prefer not to have because of the driveability symptoms (yes, I notice it) and problems with the engine that sometimes arise from it. Just like the autostop system. Although I admit, I don’t really know if autostop will be as problematic, it certainly has some annoying driveability symptoms.

I imagine one day I won’t have a choice. And I bet pretty soon they’ll do away with the “off” button for autostop.

55

None whatsoever in my experience. I read reviews a few years ago for some cars that did and others that did not exhibit any problem with it.

56

Hey, there’s at least one driveability symptom: your engine dies every time you come to a complete stop :grin:. Ok, I’m being difficult.

I had a GM truck with cylinder deactivation. Some folks said they didn’t notice that either. I did. But I think that truck engine had issues. I got rid of it pretty quick. So I’m a little biased I suppose.

57

I’m trying to “think aloud” and do some numbers here:

So, using their numbers, my 2.5 liter engine will use 2.5*0.6 = 1.5 liters of 0.4 gallon of fuel per full hour of idling.
This is roughly $1 you spend on hour of idling.

Now, if we assume that 1 hour drive will give me 10 minutes of “eligible” idle to be eliminated with a Stop&Go (way more than I feel I have), and considering I drive around 12 hours a week including weekend errands, it makes for 120 minutes “saved” by Stop&Go, saving me $2 per week, but since AC is on for more than 6 months a year in our area, I assume I would be lucky to “save” $50 or $60 a year.

Now, in my area, I have to change battery every 4 years, heat kills them, $100 expense, $25 a year. If Stop&Go battery is told to be 2x times more expensive, my “savings” will be $25-30 a year and if it is 3x times more expensive, I’m breakeven. Now, if battery was the only components worn out in the process, I would feel “I don’t care”, but I suspect this Stop&Go will have more expense to it, to compare to the “classic” system.

As for environment: my annual fuel usage is around $1,100, so $50-60 will be 0.5% of it, so the difference is negligible.

More about environment: if this thing breaks (and boy it will!), now we have to consider the impact on environement from the manufacturing/disposal effects.

All to all, my humble opinion is that entire Stop&Go thing is pure marketing and dodging EPA regulations, nothing more than that.

1 Like
58

Ah, Canada. I thought that was French but it translated right away. Psst, actually I didn’t read it so I’ll take your numbers. The only thing I would add is that I think stop lights don’t last that long, even though they seem like it. I haven’t timed one for a while but I’d guess they gotta be around a minute or less. Now the one I went through years ago late at night in the pitch dark was way way longer than that but the policeman let me go because I blamed it on my girl friend and I was from out of town. She lived around there and said it must be broken. Honest. Before you could make a right on red turn so I was stuck. Little did I know the police were hiding in the dark probably controlling the light to see how long I’d wait. Nary a soul around. My VW didn’t have start/stop.