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.
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.