Does this shit even save fuel in real world applications?I've owned several "modern" vehicles over the last 5 years or so with this feature and I honestly hate it.under perfect conditions MAYBE it would save 1mpg over a days worth of driving which pumps up the manufacturers MPG values but in real world applications I believe it's a null difference or maybe even a net negative when you take into account the extra components and wear and tear on the engine which might actually be worse for the environment overall.I would be completely fine with this being an optional feature but the fact that you can't permanently disable it sucks (you can disable it every time you start your vehicle but it will automatically come back on the next time you start it).Thoughts and opinions?
>>27608458afaik there's been research done, and it only actually saves fuel if you stop for over 7 seconds each stop. Imo its sort of pointless these days when most companies are going hybrid with a lot of their models, and the gas savings are so negligable most of the time
>*kills your starter motor, drains your battery and puts your oil through repeated heat cycles*heh, nuthin personnel, kid
>>27608475>>*kills your starter motor, Starting with low battery is what actually kills starters>drains your battery They auto restart if the load on the battery is too great to maintain>and puts your oil through repeated heat cycles*If you stop the engine for 20 seconds the oil doesn't even cool by 1 degree. You have no idea the temperature fluctuations the engine oil sees in stop and go traffic with the coolant fan kicking on and off or the engine thermostat opening and >heh, nuthin personnel, kid
>>27608458annoying, yes.saves fuel, also yes.if you are sitting at a light, and you turn off your engine, that saves fuel. most lights last 30 seconds.how many lights you sit at per day? or stop signs?how many minutes does that add up to?how many gallons per hour does your engine burn while idling?you can do the math and figure it out. its significant fuel savings.
>>27608458It's nice and quiet when car is stopped.
>>27608458The point of this is for emissions, not fuel savings. It's just advertised as that to try and make people think it's something they want, because most people hate it.
>>27608721Yeah, but doesn't it stop the AC in at least some cheaper implementations?
>pull up to stoplight>light turns green >halfway down in the street in second gear by the time the car next to me cranks itself to start moving again Automatics are bad enough without a "needs to start the car again" sequence every single time you move. It's like an auto stall just to make you take more time and be slow in front of other people.
>>27608458It saves about 10-12% of fuel, not a massive amount, but more than 1mpg (usually).
>>27608733Surprised it took this long. It's purely to pass idle emissions tests which are practically impossible for ICE cars to do. Thanks heaps eurofaggots
>>27608589Even if you're right and using the battery and starter motor 10x more than usual, and not letting the oil heat up as quickly as it should is fine, why are you shilling for this Jewish nonsense?
>>27608733Emissions? What? When i go to get a inspection they just plug the computer in and put the probe in the exhaust and rev the engine. No one checks if the damn system works. So on paper it might be for "emissions" but in reality it does nothing but annoy people.
>>27608817New vehicle emission regulations. Not your yearly smog test.
>>27608757Turning out AC saves duel,chud
>>27608757Well yeah, without the engine turning the compressor cannot be spun so you're working off the residual "cooling" of the evaporator. So when its 100 out and your car stops for 5 seconds with 100 degree air it warms up kinda quick. When its super hot I usually turn off the auto stop. >>27608695Instead of asking hypotheticals, you tell us the answer to those questions. Most people never stop at a light for 30 solid seconds. In fact, let me fuck up your calculations before you even start looking into them: say you come to a stop in traffic for 3 seconds (less than the 7-second idle/stop savings threshold) and then start moving again. How much fuel have you wasted for stopping the engine and then needing to restart it before that 7 second threshold yields any fuel savings?How much extra in engineering, parts, wear & tear, and under 7-second stops of fuel burned? Modern cars actually sip a tiny amount of fuel while idling, citing 4 cents being saved on your morning commute by auto-stop would never make up for the added cost of complexity and extra fuel needed to restart the engine.
>>27608458Its for emissions reduction. Engine restart is slower, doesnt save fuel even near so much like 48volt mild hybrid system does.>>27608475>Causes premature turbocharger failure.This as addition to your message.Even more retarded, these start&stop system cars might tell you to replace starter motor that is probably still in ok condition.https://www.youtube.com/shorts/kWmYYXabObI
>>27608458The truth is this: In some kind of standardized fuel consumption test, there is or was an overly long idle sequence. This idle sequence was way longer in relation to the drive sequence in this standard test that the relation is normally in the real world. So the fuel savings in the test are higher than in reality. This is why cars always need more fuel than advertised.https://www.carkeys.co.uk/news/here-s-why-your-car-can-never-match-official-mpg-figures>Muh emissions.Start/stop actually makes emissions worse. This is because the catalytic converter(s) cool down when the engine is off. So they don't work when the engine starts again, until they have heated up. In the meantime, the exhaust is extremely dirty.To sum it up, there is no real world advantage.If I had a modern car, I would get an Arduino driving a small relay wired into the switch harness, which automatically switches start/stop off should it be on.
Thankfully 2024 Mazda's without Turbos are getting shipped without auto start/stop due to supply chain issues.
>>27608829>without the engine turning the compressor cannot be spunI think some mild hybrids include an electric motor just for this purpose, even if they could do without. The AC doesn't need that much hp anyway, so having its power transmitted electrically even when the engine is running doesn't really hurt efficiency much. And it's much nicer when it keeps running when the engine is stopped.Start-stop slapped on top of a regular non-hybrid powertrain is trash.
buy hybrid not meme tech like this lmaohybrids are the true successors of ICE crars not EVs, there's a reason they win the le mans race
>>27608865Or use a switchbot:https://hackaday.com/2022/05/18/defeat-your-cars-autostop-feature-with-a-little-switchbot/
>>27608829>Most people never stop at a light for 30 solid seconds.you do realize that most red lights are 30+ seconds + a few seconds for yellow + a 15 seconds for left hand turners, + a few seconds for your turn to move forward.all that adds up, anon.>wasting fuel starting the enginethis aint the 1960's anymore gramps, the 7 second threshold does not apply to modern cars with auto stop/start.there is no extra wear and tear. car still have a 100k warranty. Other things will break down before you notice any measurable wear caused by extra stops/startsthere are no extra parts, just a few sensors. most cars idle at around a gallon an hour. it takes more fuel to keep an engine idling than it does driving it at 20mph.the race to the bottom, and production scaling has made auto starting a default component like the horn, or radio.>4 cents saved morning commutehow many morning commutes do you have? 5 per week? how about your commute back? or when you go on lunch, or when you go elsewhere? how about sitting at railroad crossings?using your 4 cents estimate, 4x2 + 4x5 ~= roughly 50 cents a week x 40 weeks, thats $20 a year. and thats not just you saving, thats everyone else wasting less fuel.it all adds up, seconds into minutes, minutes into hours, and dollars back in your pocket.
>>27608912>thats $20 a yearWhat a self own
>>27608912And then your starter fails prematurely and you're out 500 plus to repair it. I had a guilia with this "feature" and it cut the motor after I had to make an emergency hard stop on a highway with a truck behind me. Completely useless and unsafe, I bypassed it using some open hood sensor jankery. Now driving a 2014 cayenne with a 4.8 and permanent "start stop off" feature, feels good. I'm waiting for nuclear powered cars I can plug in to my house to power the grid before I go electric.
>>27608932skill issue
>>27608865>Start/stop actually makes emissions worse. This is because the catalytic converter(s) cool down when the engine is off.Do you really think a chunk of metal like that cools significantly when the engine is turned off for 0-30 seconds at a time? Or are you an engineer type thinking about hypotheticals that just can't happen?
>>27608912>you do realize that most red lights are 30+ secondsUh huh, how often are you going from 45mph to 0mph then waiting 30+ seconds? Almost never. Even then, how much fuel is used idling for 30 seconds? If you don't know, your assumptions are useless. >7 second threshold does not apply to modern cars with auto stop/start.It does, because by your own argument stopping the engine for up to 30 seconds is more beneficial than letting it idle for a likely 10 seconds. >there is no extra wear and tear.There is, thats how the starter motor works, and when metal components stop like that needing to be restarted is known wear and tear. If you want to ignore that and call it trivial I could see your point but saying zero wear and tear on metal contacting parts is stupid. >it takes more fuel to keep an engine idling than it does driving it at 20mph.Just ignoring physics now huh? An engine under no load uses more fuel than one under load? Are you high?>thats $20 a year.So by your own admission of "just a few sensors" being in the neighborhood of a few hundred dollars, plus the engineering R&D that went into it, what if the car simply didn't have it and cost $1000 less? You're really suggesting to break even on auto stop start people should drive the same car for 50 years just to break even?You're sniffing your own farts citing all the pennies being saved while ignoring the hundreds or thousands that it cost to save those pennies.
>>27608965>I am in the right, and all the engineers and studies are wrong
>>27608968>trust the experts>trust the science>asbestos is safe you guise!!!!
>>27608968>missed the point completelyauto stop start is to game the EPA tests. EPA tests in the US have infamously long "idling" times trying to simulate cars stopped to park or stopped at stop lights in traffic whatever. Engineers are playing the game, not saving real world fuel. We can see that comparing 80s and 90s shitboxes getting 40-50mpg and now '10's and '20's shitboxes getting 30-40mpg. Turns out when government adds gay little rules that companies have to follow, they find creative ways to skirt those rules and keep making products. Engineers and studies are just to game the emissions rules, not actually save fuel. What next? You'll hail cylinder deactivation as a good thing?
>>27608973asbestos is safe when handled correctly.
>>27608979so fucking never, gotcha
>>27608798hes le contrarian new car appreciator, unfortunately theres no normies or ladies here to impress so its just shitposting into the void
>>27608959Considering it struggles to stay hot enough in city driving even if the engine stays on, yes it can cool down enough. Same reason why particulate filters and egr systems clog up in cars that are going around town.>>27608865okay that sub 1 liter car fuel consumption is bullshit. You'd have to drive really wastefully to get 38.6 mpg (UK) on average on a 1 liter car, nevermind that 45 mpg on 2 - 3 liter cars shows that they are mixing simple petrol cars with hybrids and diesels. I'm assuming it´s from this study https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/hybrid-efficiency-put-to-the-test
>>27608975Yeah, emission regulations, low speed limits and speed bumps have the annoying habit of making the fuel consumption worse.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282672270_HOW_GREEN_ARE_THE_TRAFFIC_CALMING_METHODS
>>27609019I meant this study https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/beware-the-danger-of-downsizing
gotta say it's extremely disorienting when this happens in a modern manual
I'm not much of a conspiracyfag when it comes to planned obsolescence or all of that, but I am 100% convinced that these auto shutoffs are designed to either fuck drivers up or wear out the start motor of the vehicles they're installed in. Probably both. It's such a pants-on-head retarded idea it can only have been conceived out of malice.
>>27609019>Same reason why particulate filters and egr systems clog up in cars that are going around town.No, those get clogged and fail because people don't perform italian tune ups, and doing little 5-20 minute drives where the cat doesn't even have a chance at heating up even without a stop/start system on the car.
>>27609052The drivers are confused at first but get used to it eventually. The starter motors are beefed up in modern cars with such systems.A friend of mine has a really nice V40 diesel with it, works great. First time it came into action he was really confused and stalled the traffic for a couple minutes, when he lifted his foot from the brake the car came back to life and he resumed his commute.
>>27608798All that I have come across don't auto stop until the oil is warm. I have always ran into other major problems before starters start giving out.>>27608987>hes le contrarian new car appreciatorI am a turd worlder and have only ever owned shitboxes that I have had to work on up to 11:00 at night to make it to work the next day and I would still prefer that over some new fangled bullshit. However where I work can afford new cars and I travel a lot and rent cars. Most of the stop start stuff is fine once you get used to how it works. I have run across some horrible ones but most are fine if you know how to drive and focus on driving. People who complain the most seem to be NPC american's who can't actually drive a regular car.Most automatic auto stops seem to be brake pressure sensitive. Like Mazda's and KN/Huyundaieee, Ford, Toyota etc.. If you press the brake enough to hold the car still but not stand on it you see the autostop light flashing but it won't stop. Depress the brake more and it stops. If you know it is a long light, throw it in Neutral, pull up the hand brake and rest your leg.In most manuals if you throw it in neutral and take your foot off the clutch it will stop then. This can be annoying if you are like me and do that even if you expect to stop for less than 10 seconds but it was just something to learn the operation of.For both styles I generally am able to get the engine started and be primed to go before the voidbrain britfag, frenchcuk or americunt ahead of me even recognize the light switched.I don't prefer it but you fuckers are just brainless. It is a lot less scary seeing a truck overtaking another truck around a blind corner oncoming in your lane than it is seeing you snow niggers being unable to hold a straight line just because you are having a fucking conversation.
Imagine if 30 year old shitboxes had this feature. How would the car have aged? Who knows. I can't imagine this feature lends to the longevity of a car.
>I am a turd worldershould be a bannable offense
>>27609097Just means that our problems are real ones and not made up ones about transphobia or the psychotic mentality of freaking out about someone parking tail in.
>>27608982neither is uranium, human excrement, and mercury.
I wouldn't care about this shit if it actually only stopped the engine at long lights. But it cuts the engine at really fucking annoying times, like if I'm approaching a turn or merge onto a busy road and stop at a stop sign, the fucking thing will cut out just when I'm trying to make a move or suddenly stop me from turning the wheel right when I am in the middle of turning it. It's also annoying as hell at stop signs in general, usually I am just stopping for less than a second to look both ways and I will get materially interrupted by the fucking engine. I find myself constantly inching around and never coming to a complete stop just to avoid the engine shutting off.
>>27608458ICEcucks actually deal with this shit and still try and pretend like they are superior
>>27608458>Does this shit even save fuel in real world applications?While idling, the fuel economy meter in my wife's van switches from liter per 100 km to liters per hour. After the engine warms up, according to the meter, it uses 0.5L per hour (Ford/PSA 1.6 turbodiesel). For the sake of easy math, let's say it's 0.6L per hour. This works out to 0.01L (10 milliliters) per minute. Where I live, current diesel prices are about $1.70 per liter. So, at 0.6L per hour, every minute of idling costs about 1.7 cents.My commute is about 100 km round trip. With current diesel prices, it would cost me about $10 to do that commute in my wife's van (my car is a bit more thirsty). I haven't timed it, but I would estimate that, in an average round trip commute, I spend maybe 10 minutes idling without moving if traffic is heavy. Saving less than 20 cents on a $10 commute doesn't seem significant to me.
>>27609019It's almost as if weight and gearing are bigger factors than engine displacement... Imagine that.
>>27609560The simpler way to think about it is that up to the lower the RPM x displacement for a given speed, the better the fuel efficiency, up to the point when aero drag starts to become significant.
>>27609997
>>27610022
>>27608589>Starting with low battery is what actually kills startersNo retard.1. Total Cycles2. Total number of High Load conditions (extreme cold + thick oil)Gotta say retard to YOU again.
>>27608829>How much extra in engineering, parts, wear & tear, and under 7-second stops of fuel burned? Modern cars actually sip a tiny amount of fuel while idling, citing 4 cents being saved on your morning commute by auto-stop would never make up for the added cost of complexity and extra fuel needed to restart the engine.Great analysis here.Just an unbelievably stupid implementation of complex control systems to cause unnecessary wear on critical (and expensive) components.A NET LOSER if all things were considered, but they are not, only the supposed stupid "fuel savings" is
>peak summer temperatures>drive up to a red light>engine stops>AC compressor shuts down
>it will save you fuel>have to buy AGM start battery at double the pricewow thank you!
>>27608884DOMO ARIGATO MISTER ROBOTO
>in drive through>move 1 window up>hear their shit box rattle into life to move 10ft then shut off again
>traffic on motorway>cars at a standstill>car shuts off>other lanes are flying past at 70+Feels wrong sitting with the engine off tbqh
>>27608458>Does this shit even save fuel in real world applications?Even if it does, the additional wear on the engine and the starter motor makes it absolutely pointless any way you look at it.
>>27608458>I've owned several "modern" vehicles over the last 5 years or so with this featureNo you havent.
No thanks. I prefer to be in control of certain elements of my driving experience such as whether or not the engine is running or not running. I also enjoy changing my own gears at my leisure so maybe my opinion is invalid in an autonomous world.
>>27610260Reduced voltage means more amperage draw. Low battery has a low voltage state which means it draws more amps and that is what roasts field coils, rotors and brushes. Total cycles is just brush wear which is a consumable. High load to an electric motor is high amperage. Extreme cold? Low voltage + amperage spike. That's what that burning smell is you absolute faggot.
>>27608884My scanner has an option to disable start/stop on pretty much any car.
>>27610936Yeah, do you adjust your fedora in the mirror as you're driving so people can see what an enlightened gentlemen you are?
>>27610896>AGM battery.Alternatively EFB battery depending of the car.
>>27608458>maybe even a net negative when you take into account the extra components and wear and tear on the engine which might actually be worse for the environment overall.Well, yes, but you see, the problem for muh climate change is petroleum when consumed by average people, okay? So what if some extra engines and starter motors end up in landfills due to dying prematurely. I mean, they don't take petroleum to manufacture! /s
>>27608458Never heard of this. Wow, no wonder used car prices are so high. Fuck the government. Fuck car makers. And fuck fake climate scientist liars.I may never buy a new car ever again.
Clearly you retards haven't used a start-stop system in a hybrid, the car starts moving before the engine starts
>>27608912extremeelllyyyyyyyy JEWISH.Its also extremely annoying if you live anywhere but a bugman city
>>27608912are you fucking retarded or something?
>>27608968those fucking engineers are being paid to make a product that maxes out cafe points and keeps the engine from disassembling it's self until it's out of warranty. the emissions shit they add is not being added because it makes the car better for you. it makes it better for the company at your cost. those engineers you trust so much are in the business of fucking you.
>>27608817it drives down the avg emission per veichle that manufacturers need to comply with
>>27608475it’s purely a gimmick to help meet emissions requirements. Overall it’s bad for the car, the environment, and your wallet.Perfect example of why communism is bad.
