I know someone with this type of car. Dangerous af, in my opinion.
Driving sometimes requires evasive maneuvers to protect yourself from the reckless actions of others and if you're waiting for your car to re-start before you can get out of the way of oncoming danger you might just be fucked. One second can make all the difference and these cars will get people killed just to save a few drops of gas at a stoplight
Thats exactly what happend to me in the middle of the road. I commented the fully story but yeah, I almost got T Boned by a truck because my engine died on me, because I forgot to hit the off button when leaving the shopping center. I should never have had that control taken away from me.
Im sorry I dont expect my engine to die middle of the road because my car thought i was stopping even though I was still rolling forward? I shouldn't have a button in my car that regardless of the position its in can stop my car s engine without my input. This is a start/stop issue.
If I had any other vehicle with it defaulting the "feature" to off or not having that functionality, that would never have happened.
If there is no "off" switch, you have a righteous complaint. In my car, the brake must be engaged for it to work. If the feature can be disabled (no default reset), you have no complaint. It comes down to particulars of make and model. If Zeldin is making a default "on" illegal, that is fine with me. I don't regard it as a "climate technology" but a fuel-saving technology. Mileage is notoriously poor in city driving on account of frequent stops and traffic jams, and this helps a lot to mitigate it.
I have a reset default no option to change it either, now default leave it off is something I am okay with. But I think something needs to change so that even if I wanted to have that feature on im not lost without engine power without coming to a complete stop first. It was very concerning to me that I had not come to a complete stop, maybe going 3mph but I was not full stopped. I know saving money for city driving and fully get that. I just dont think the way its been implemented has been good safety wise.
Basically if car makerswant to have it they should no legislation should stop that. But at the same time. There shouldn't be legislation that requires it either. Only legislation I want is that which will protect life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for Americans. Hope that clears up my point.
As I said, my system does not activate unless I am already stopped. It depends on how the manufacturer chooses to design the system. I have had situations where I needed to stop momentarily to exit the car, and moved the selector to park. Only to find it had decided to stop the engine when I came back to resume driving, and had to re-start manually. No safety problem, but annoying as hell. ("Park" is the only way I can engage a parking brake. Ultra-stupid to put it in "neutral.")
There are notorious failures to think things out (e.g., the 737 MAX MCAS). Your point is understood. Perhaps a best practice (no activation unless fully stopped) requirement might be in order.
yes agreed. the math is after i think like 5-6 seconds after stop is when you actually save fuel with that feature. other than that its the same amount of fuel to re start the car than keeping it idle. I cant remeber the exact number but it plays into your point of only after a complete stop. i think even 3 seconds would have been more than ample for my scenario. Cool to find some middle ground with you on this.
Some thing when you’re behind someone on a stop sign or light, give yourself some room. If they fuck around, like walk out with a gun, you have that extra room to do what’s need to be done
Not just the starter but it fucking eats up your batteries lifespan.
Before I got an aftermarket device to override the auto stop, I would have to replace my interstate battery after just 1.5 years. At the exact same car previously with virtually identical features but no auto stop and the battery would last me around 3 to 4 years.
Now that I've shut that crap off the battery I've had in there is lasted almost 2 and 1/2 years.
It's not only a useless feature that really doesn't save any gas in itself, it actually raises your carbon footprint by wearing out other parts.
It's hard on all the engine internals to have that many oil pressure ups/downs in one drive cycle. Just like how cylinder deactivation seemed like a great idea...until it wasn't. Turns out combustion engines wear better when all cylinders are combusting while moving, isn't that crazy?
Yes! Diesel has come quite a long way from the smoky clunkers of the 90s.
I used to drive a straight-6 twin-turbo diesel BMW SUV.
Full size, 5,500lbs. All wheel drive.
My sister-in-law has the same exact model, similar miles, same transmission, only hers is the gas version.
Both accelerate the same to 60.
I could get 23 mpg around town in my diesel.
When I drove hers, best I could get was 14 mpg around town.
The newer ones that still smoke are tuned improperly. Too much fuel with not enough boost = black smoke.
Today's turbo technology means you ONLy get that if you're adding too much fuel/not enough air; usually with a (poor) tune.
The main reason diesel development got skewed was because, although Europe is the king of diesel, decades ago they decided that CO2 was the Bogey-Man that would bring the end of the world (laughable but whatever). On the other hand, our guys studied what caused the smog in places like LA and found out that it was main NOx (which is effectively unburned fuel). So the Euro motors that were developed for their market don't fair well here because our tests are weighted for different particulates.
The problem with diesel vs gasoline is diesel leaves almost no CO2 after combustion but it's harder to control the burn of the mixture so it emits FAR higher NOx. Since they are not able to run catalytic converters, it makes cleaning that up much more difficult. That's what all the DEF BS is about even though modern diesel engines burn far cleaner thanks to better designs and more accurate on-board computers.
It's a tough issue because no one wants the 70s smog haze but there has to be a middle ground somewhere. Recently, all the "emissions" standards have been used to attempt to force EV uptake (which is failing miserably here atm).
One other externality of running the DPF / regen cycles is the fact that the particulate matter gets smaller, and actually can cause more respiratory distress as it traverses deeper into the lungs. Less NOx, more lung damage.
I have one of these cars. The car thought I was coming to a complete stop and killed my engine power as I was in the middle of the road exiting a parking lot, getting ready to make it across 3 lanes to the middle to then merge with traffic and go about my way.
But instead I was almost t boned because my car thought it knew how to drive better than me. And then it wouldn't restart even as I hit the gas pedal.
This feature is such a perfect example of greenwashing... My car displays the cumulative time spent not idling and the amount of fuel saved. So far I'm at about an hour and a half of idling time saved... But less than 2 litres of gas saved. It's a joke.
All new cars do it. Some can be set to default off but many automatically default to on every time you start your car. You have to push a button to get it to stop, every time you start your car. Irratating.
I have a Jaguar and a Land Rover. They both have the feature. It is a switch for enable or disable. When enabled, it gets the engine restarted as soon as you let up on the brake. I have had no problems with it in either car. It mitigates the 0 mpg that you rack up in waiting at a stoplight, which can be a long time in city driving. No reason for any of the design to change, since you can disable the feature for indefinite time. Sometimes, it does not kick in. Don't know why, don't know when.
As mentioned, the bulk of the wear and tear on an engine is the starting cycle. Zero oil pressure means the crank and rods, not to mention all the parts in the valve train, are rubbing on each other until oil pressure creates the oil film that keeps them apart. That metal on metal rubbing is wearing those surfaces. One start sequence per trip compared to many per trip accelerates the wear seen in the engine. All for an imagined decrease in air pollution. Typically when starting an engine fuel is added to the mixture creating a temporary rich condition. This rich condition would increase the air pollution as some fuel is unburnt. As others stated, the engine starter is also seeing excessive cycles causing it to wear prematurely. All in all a bad idea.
I've owned about 9 automobiles in my life, and never had to give up any of them for the problems you relate. It was never argued to me that this was a pollution measure or a "climate" measure. It was simply a way to limit the waste of gasoline waiting at stoplights or in traffic. I had a vehicle that monitored instantaneous mpg, and it was remarkable how much a little bit of 0 mpg affected trip mileage. I would wait in traffic and watch the trip mileage calculation slowly sink to lower values. And starting a warm engine is much different than starting a cold engine. In any case, I ended up burning LESS fuel than otherwise, so the starting rich argument falls on its face.
I suppose, theoretically, I could get better mileage if I had a manual transmission. So, would your argument be to ban automatic transmissions? You drive what you want to drive and I will drive what I want to drive.
I’m at 36 or so, not counting RV’s and other off road vehicles. And I wouldn’t ban any mileage related aspects or require features such as the on/off one. We should have the freedom to choose to use them or not. Like a buzzer alarm for seat belts. I wear them but hate the buzzer, which I turned off on my vehicles. As long as I am willing to pay for the gas I use why should it be anyone’s business how much I use? It’s all about freedom. I think electric cars are a boondoggle, the cost to the environment to make them far outweighs any benefits. Not to mention dealing with the batteries after their 6-8 year life is up. Still, if some people want them fine with me. Just don’t mandate them.
All of which I agree with. But I have a very specific grudge against EVs: the lithium-ion batteries. They are a catastrophic fire hazard. Lithium is so combustible, its fire cannot be extinguished. It will burn the oxygen out of water, carbon dioxide, and sand. It will burn the fluorine out of halon or halotron. The only way to put it out is to smother it with molten metal, and a Class D fire extinguisher does just that. But God forbid one of these decides to light off in your garage at home, or in a parking garage. Or at a charging park. I don't know why insurance companies are not raising hell over them. (They are also much heavier than a normal car, due to the ton of battery pack, leading to greater wear and tear on the vehicle and the roadways.)
As for their rationale, "climate change" (formerly "global warming") is a feeble hoax, and I'm saying that as someone who has run the radiation transfer analysis of the Greenhouse Effect. The Effect is real, it is salubrious, and it is essentially already maxxed-out. Adding more CO2 will do nothing. My deduction is that NASA is using the wrong analytical approach...in order to prop up a pre-determined political position. If people were serious about fuel efficiency, they would do better to adopt hybrid vehicles. Huge increase in mpg and carries energy in the highest specific energy manner: hydrocarbon fuel.
I've never noticed it to stop. For only a few seconds, there is enough thermal inertia for it to keep going and the fan is electric. After a few seconds, the car restarts on its own if the dwell time at the stop is too long. If the car is at a tolerable inside temperature to begin with, a few seconds at an exterior 100 F is piffle.
A much shorter list would be to name the cars and trucks that DONT. This is just the tip of the iceberg:
Many car manufacturers, including Honda, Ford, and General Motors, have incorporated idle stop technology into their vehicles. Honda's Idle Stop system, for example, is available in select models like the Accord, CR-V, and Pilot. Similarly, Ford's start-stop systems can be found in vehicles like the Fusion SE and Escape SE. General Motors also utilizes automatic start/stop in models such as the Chevy Silverado 1500 and Malibu 1.5L Turbo.
I know someone with this type of car. Dangerous af, in my opinion.
Driving sometimes requires evasive maneuvers to protect yourself from the reckless actions of others and if you're waiting for your car to re-start before you can get out of the way of oncoming danger you might just be fucked. One second can make all the difference and these cars will get people killed just to save a few drops of gas at a stoplight
Thats exactly what happend to me in the middle of the road. I commented the fully story but yeah, I almost got T Boned by a truck because my engine died on me, because I forgot to hit the off button when leaving the shopping center. I should never have had that control taken away from me.
You didn't. You had the off button. Forgetfulness is a killer.
Im sorry I dont expect my engine to die middle of the road because my car thought i was stopping even though I was still rolling forward? I shouldn't have a button in my car that regardless of the position its in can stop my car s engine without my input. This is a start/stop issue.
If I had any other vehicle with it defaulting the "feature" to off or not having that functionality, that would never have happened.
If there is no "off" switch, you have a righteous complaint. In my car, the brake must be engaged for it to work. If the feature can be disabled (no default reset), you have no complaint. It comes down to particulars of make and model. If Zeldin is making a default "on" illegal, that is fine with me. I don't regard it as a "climate technology" but a fuel-saving technology. Mileage is notoriously poor in city driving on account of frequent stops and traffic jams, and this helps a lot to mitigate it.
I have a reset default no option to change it either, now default leave it off is something I am okay with. But I think something needs to change so that even if I wanted to have that feature on im not lost without engine power without coming to a complete stop first. It was very concerning to me that I had not come to a complete stop, maybe going 3mph but I was not full stopped. I know saving money for city driving and fully get that. I just dont think the way its been implemented has been good safety wise.
Basically if car makerswant to have it they should no legislation should stop that. But at the same time. There shouldn't be legislation that requires it either. Only legislation I want is that which will protect life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for Americans. Hope that clears up my point.
As I said, my system does not activate unless I am already stopped. It depends on how the manufacturer chooses to design the system. I have had situations where I needed to stop momentarily to exit the car, and moved the selector to park. Only to find it had decided to stop the engine when I came back to resume driving, and had to re-start manually. No safety problem, but annoying as hell. ("Park" is the only way I can engage a parking brake. Ultra-stupid to put it in "neutral.")
There are notorious failures to think things out (e.g., the 737 MAX MCAS). Your point is understood. Perhaps a best practice (no activation unless fully stopped) requirement might be in order.
yes agreed. the math is after i think like 5-6 seconds after stop is when you actually save fuel with that feature. other than that its the same amount of fuel to re start the car than keeping it idle. I cant remeber the exact number but it plays into your point of only after a complete stop. i think even 3 seconds would have been more than ample for my scenario. Cool to find some middle ground with you on this.
Some thing when you’re behind someone on a stop sign or light, give yourself some room. If they fuck around, like walk out with a gun, you have that extra room to do what’s need to be done
It's a good way to destroy a starter in your vehicle and then have to be forced to pay a mechanic $$ to replace it.
Not just the starter but it fucking eats up your batteries lifespan.
Before I got an aftermarket device to override the auto stop, I would have to replace my interstate battery after just 1.5 years. At the exact same car previously with virtually identical features but no auto stop and the battery would last me around 3 to 4 years.
Now that I've shut that crap off the battery I've had in there is lasted almost 2 and 1/2 years.
It's not only a useless feature that really doesn't save any gas in itself, it actually raises your carbon footprint by wearing out other parts.
It's hard on all the engine internals to have that many oil pressure ups/downs in one drive cycle. Just like how cylinder deactivation seemed like a great idea...until it wasn't. Turns out combustion engines wear better when all cylinders are combusting while moving, isn't that crazy?
Yes, cylinder deactivation has been an absolute engine killer. It needs to go away!!!
I can fix it easily. I won't buy a car that does that....ever.
At least make it default to "OFF." Hate it.
I'd settle for, remember the last setting you had it on when you turned the engine off.
Make diesel trucks great again. No more DEF and restrictions that cycle exhaust back in the engine creating catastrophic engine failures.
Yes! Diesel has come quite a long way from the smoky clunkers of the 90s.
I used to drive a straight-6 twin-turbo diesel BMW SUV. Full size, 5,500lbs. All wheel drive.
My sister-in-law has the same exact model, similar miles, same transmission, only hers is the gas version.
Both accelerate the same to 60.
I could get 23 mpg around town in my diesel.
When I drove hers, best I could get was 14 mpg around town.
The newer ones that still smoke are tuned improperly. Too much fuel with not enough boost = black smoke.
Today's turbo technology means you ONLy get that if you're adding too much fuel/not enough air; usually with a (poor) tune.
https://www.liquidpiston.com/
I think lots of the new ones that smoke have been tuned specificially to smoke. The diesel community calls it "rolling coal."
The main reason diesel development got skewed was because, although Europe is the king of diesel, decades ago they decided that CO2 was the Bogey-Man that would bring the end of the world (laughable but whatever). On the other hand, our guys studied what caused the smog in places like LA and found out that it was main NOx (which is effectively unburned fuel). So the Euro motors that were developed for their market don't fair well here because our tests are weighted for different particulates.
The problem with diesel vs gasoline is diesel leaves almost no CO2 after combustion but it's harder to control the burn of the mixture so it emits FAR higher NOx. Since they are not able to run catalytic converters, it makes cleaning that up much more difficult. That's what all the DEF BS is about even though modern diesel engines burn far cleaner thanks to better designs and more accurate on-board computers.
It's a tough issue because no one wants the 70s smog haze but there has to be a middle ground somewhere. Recently, all the "emissions" standards have been used to attempt to force EV uptake (which is failing miserably here atm).
One other externality of running the DPF / regen cycles is the fact that the particulate matter gets smaller, and actually can cause more respiratory distress as it traverses deeper into the lungs. Less NOx, more lung damage.
Caterpillar on road engines were almost indestructible until the EPA got a hold of them. Made them go strictly off road or for gen sets.
A good Fren of mine in logistics used to say " If it's yellow under the hood you're good. "
Tractors and skid loaders too. Insane that any engine over 25HP has to have costly DPF emissions garbage and DEF over 75HP.
I have one of these cars. The car thought I was coming to a complete stop and killed my engine power as I was in the middle of the road exiting a parking lot, getting ready to make it across 3 lanes to the middle to then merge with traffic and go about my way.
But instead I was almost t boned because my car thought it knew how to drive better than me. And then it wouldn't restart even as I hit the gas pedal.
This shit is dangerous please get rid of it.
Let's get rid of the Gas Guzzler Tax also. I've had enough tyranny for one lifetime.
No point in buying a brand new car. More expensive to maintain then worth it.
Common sense from the government? We are truly witnesses to a revolution. Thank God.
Just void all auto regs since 1980.
Problem solved.
Oh, and we get small trucks back again.
Winning!
Start/ stop, so dumb.
My dad has had to replace his spark plugs 3 times in 4 years due to this.
Thank GOD!! I Hate it with a passion!!!
You mean the starter motor killer?
This feature is such a perfect example of greenwashing... My car displays the cumulative time spent not idling and the amount of fuel saved. So far I'm at about an hour and a half of idling time saved... But less than 2 litres of gas saved. It's a joke.
What?!! Name the cars, trucks please.
All new cars do it. Some can be set to default off but many automatically default to on every time you start your car. You have to push a button to get it to stop, every time you start your car. Irratating.
I have a Jaguar and a Land Rover. They both have the feature. It is a switch for enable or disable. When enabled, it gets the engine restarted as soon as you let up on the brake. I have had no problems with it in either car. It mitigates the 0 mpg that you rack up in waiting at a stoplight, which can be a long time in city driving. No reason for any of the design to change, since you can disable the feature for indefinite time. Sometimes, it does not kick in. Don't know why, don't know when.
As mentioned, the bulk of the wear and tear on an engine is the starting cycle. Zero oil pressure means the crank and rods, not to mention all the parts in the valve train, are rubbing on each other until oil pressure creates the oil film that keeps them apart. That metal on metal rubbing is wearing those surfaces. One start sequence per trip compared to many per trip accelerates the wear seen in the engine. All for an imagined decrease in air pollution. Typically when starting an engine fuel is added to the mixture creating a temporary rich condition. This rich condition would increase the air pollution as some fuel is unburnt. As others stated, the engine starter is also seeing excessive cycles causing it to wear prematurely. All in all a bad idea.
I've owned about 9 automobiles in my life, and never had to give up any of them for the problems you relate. It was never argued to me that this was a pollution measure or a "climate" measure. It was simply a way to limit the waste of gasoline waiting at stoplights or in traffic. I had a vehicle that monitored instantaneous mpg, and it was remarkable how much a little bit of 0 mpg affected trip mileage. I would wait in traffic and watch the trip mileage calculation slowly sink to lower values. And starting a warm engine is much different than starting a cold engine. In any case, I ended up burning LESS fuel than otherwise, so the starting rich argument falls on its face.
I suppose, theoretically, I could get better mileage if I had a manual transmission. So, would your argument be to ban automatic transmissions? You drive what you want to drive and I will drive what I want to drive.
I’m at 36 or so, not counting RV’s and other off road vehicles. And I wouldn’t ban any mileage related aspects or require features such as the on/off one. We should have the freedom to choose to use them or not. Like a buzzer alarm for seat belts. I wear them but hate the buzzer, which I turned off on my vehicles. As long as I am willing to pay for the gas I use why should it be anyone’s business how much I use? It’s all about freedom. I think electric cars are a boondoggle, the cost to the environment to make them far outweighs any benefits. Not to mention dealing with the batteries after their 6-8 year life is up. Still, if some people want them fine with me. Just don’t mandate them.
All of which I agree with. But I have a very specific grudge against EVs: the lithium-ion batteries. They are a catastrophic fire hazard. Lithium is so combustible, its fire cannot be extinguished. It will burn the oxygen out of water, carbon dioxide, and sand. It will burn the fluorine out of halon or halotron. The only way to put it out is to smother it with molten metal, and a Class D fire extinguisher does just that. But God forbid one of these decides to light off in your garage at home, or in a parking garage. Or at a charging park. I don't know why insurance companies are not raising hell over them. (They are also much heavier than a normal car, due to the ton of battery pack, leading to greater wear and tear on the vehicle and the roadways.)
As for their rationale, "climate change" (formerly "global warming") is a feeble hoax, and I'm saying that as someone who has run the radiation transfer analysis of the Greenhouse Effect. The Effect is real, it is salubrious, and it is essentially already maxxed-out. Adding more CO2 will do nothing. My deduction is that NASA is using the wrong analytical approach...in order to prop up a pre-determined political position. If people were serious about fuel efficiency, they would do better to adopt hybrid vehicles. Huge increase in mpg and carries energy in the highest specific energy manner: hydrocarbon fuel.
What's it like in 100° weather when the A/C stops with the engine?
I've never noticed it to stop. For only a few seconds, there is enough thermal inertia for it to keep going and the fan is electric. After a few seconds, the car restarts on its own if the dwell time at the stop is too long. If the car is at a tolerable inside temperature to begin with, a few seconds at an exterior 100 F is piffle.
Guess I am going to keep the current car in good condition. That has got to be the worst idea since the Edsel
A much shorter list would be to name the cars and trucks that DONT. This is just the tip of the iceberg:
Many car manufacturers, including Honda, Ford, and General Motors, have incorporated idle stop technology into their vehicles. Honda's Idle Stop system, for example, is available in select models like the Accord, CR-V, and Pilot. Similarly, Ford's start-stop systems can be found in vehicles like the Fusion SE and Escape SE. General Motors also utilizes automatic start/stop in models such as the Chevy Silverado 1500 and Malibu 1.5L Turbo.
Not buying any of those.