Stop/Start Technology

[Jurassicspark]

A modern engine will use tiny quantity of fuel during idle, so the fuel saved by stopping for 15 seconds is virtually zero.

However, the additional wear on starter motors and the need for the start stop compatible batteries to allow the regular cycling required by start stop means that any fuel savings will be wiped out by the cost of a new battery after 4 years.

 

[SithLordHood]

I have a Mini Cooper and have used Bimmercode to remember the last setting used for Auto Stop/Start. Then on the selector i keep it turned off. If i ever want to re-enable it (cant think why) i can do so.
On the Mini it has a tendency to re-start the engine after sitting off for anything >1 minute anyway. Anything less is pointless in my opinion, not to mention what others have said regarding wear and tear.
A few years ago i recall reading an article claiming that over the typical life of the car, stop-start would save around £30 in fuel.. far outweighs extra wear and tear on other engine components if you ask me.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

And auto wipers but then a large proportion of today's car owners are not drivers in the true sense, so someone with a business mind will benefit from that fact by inventing a device that was never needed in the first place.

I must say I find auto-wipers absolutely fine, a great help, when you are busy driving. Wipers can be the one thing, which can take up a lot of your attention on wet road, constantly having to turn them on and off. It rains, I switch to auto, auto decides the screen is wet, and wipes, if it comes down heavy, it auto-switches to high speed. If the road/screen dries, they switch off, ready to work again if needed. If I switch the engine off, the auto is cancelled, and needs to be selected again. In all the miles I've driven in my present car, I've never felt the need to use any, but the auto position.

 

[Avocet]

To me it's just another gimmick that employs additional technology with the potential to fail.
Presumably both battery & starter motor have to be purpose built, in order to save miniscule(?) amounts of fuel & emissions.

But then I'm a confirmed cynic.

Even counting the (really quite small) changes to the starter and ring gear, there are significant CO2 and air quality benefits.

 

[Avocet]

Thanks, Mottie, I suppose it must be part of the Euro 6 regulations.

No, nothing to do with Euro 6. They're to do with the New Car CO2 Regulations, first introduced in 2009.

 

[Avocet]

These cars will not last long enough to ever see a cambelt change, so no problem there.

It's been on European cars since about 2004...

 

[Avocet]

Stop/Start technology was introduced by the manufacturers to improve tge overall mpg figures and emissions. My Seat Ateca had a button to turn it off. My Merc has a button to turn it off but I have also disabled it by coding it to off on start up. Basically it now monitors the stop/start until the various parameters are satisfied then the lamp disappears off the dash.

I dont like stop/start because the car hesitates when trying to pull away quickly onto a roundabout etc and the wear and tear on the starter motor must be immense.

It's pretty negligible, to be honest. People have been prophesying massive starter (and ring gear) wear on such vehicles for about 20 years now.

It hasn't happened...

 

[Avocet]

No problem there either.
These cars are short lived.
It's already a miracle if they get to see their first mot...

And yet, cars are lasting longer now, than ever before...

 

[Avocet]

I have a Mini Cooper and have used Bimmercode to remember the last setting used for Auto Stop/Start. Then on the selector i keep it turned off. If i ever want to re-enable it (cant think why) i can do so.
On the Mini it has a tendency to re-start the engine after sitting off for anything >1 minute anyway. Anything less is pointless in my opinion, not to mention what others have said regarding wear and tear.
A few years ago i recall reading an article claiming that over the typical life of the car, stop-start would save around £30 in fuel.. far outweighs extra wear and tear on other engine components if you ask me.

That's a bit like the old myth that it uses more electricity to start a fluorescent light than it does to leave it running...

 

[Avocet]

A modern engine will use tiny quantity of fuel during idle, so the fuel saved by stopping for 15 seconds is virtually zero.

However, the additional wear on starter motors and the need for the start stop compatible batteries to allow the regular cycling required by start stop means that any fuel savings will be wiped out by the cost of a new battery after 4 years.

Wife's car with stop start is 8 years old now. Still on its original battery...

 

[johnny2007]

It's been on European cars since about 2004...

How many of those cars are still around?
Besides, I don't recollect hearing of this technology until a few years ago.

And yet, cars are lasting longer now, than ever before...

How many of these cars have had a chance to clock 20 years and most importantly 300k+ miles?

Wife's car with stop start is 8 years old now. Still on its original battery...

Has it done 20k miles yet?

 

[Avocet]

How many of those cars are still around?

I'd guess about 10% of the UK's 33 million cars are over 20 years old.

Besides, I don't recollect hearing of this technology until a few years ago.

Just because you hadn't heard of it, doesn't mean it's not there! It was actually first introduced by Toyota in 1974! However the current generation of stop-start cars dates back to about 2003-4

How many of these cars have had a chance to clock 20 years and most importantly 300k+ miles?

Lots, I imagine. You're probably asking the wrong question though. You need to be asking how many of them have had a chance to clock 20 years and most importantly 300k+ miles with their stop-start systems enabled...

...and the answer is "I don't know" - but if you have some credible figures, I'd be happy to look at them?

Has it done 20k miles yet?

60k

 

[ReganAndCarter]

It's been on European cars since about 2004...

Point missed completely.

 

[ReganAndCarter]

And yet, cars are lasting longer now, than ever before...

They were. However recently, often to satisfy new emissions legislation, some of the latest cars seem to be a liability. Eg. wet belts and Ford Rangers with self destruct engines. Just two examples I can think of - there are others.

 

[Avocet]

They were. However recently, often to satisfy new emissions legislation, some of the latest cars seem to be a liability. Eg. wet belts and Ford Rangers with self destruct engines. Just two examples I can think of - there are others.

If you have any credible evidence that they're not lasting as long now, feel free to post it up...

And no, "wet belt" technology isn't necessary to satisfy the latest emissions requirements. Plenty of manufacturers seem to be able to do it without any kind of timing belt - wet or dry! I'm not sure you understand the difference between "emissions legislation" and "CO2 legislation"?