The Wretched Start/Stop Button Is DEAD

[flatbutt]

I appreciate much of the new auto technology but hate ALL of the nanny stuff. I remember driving without power steering and power brakes. Power is better.

I do get nostalgic for those summer Saturdays when I'd be out in the yard doing a shade tree tune up with the Yankees game on the radio. I bet if I look long enough I'd find my old timing strobe in a box.

[911 Rod]

Is there anything other than the sound (or lack of) and the tach, that effects the car when it shuts down?

[Dixie]

The start/stop feature induces more stress in me than I care to admit. If I'm in a car that has it, I have to turn it off. If I don't I'm sitting at a red light thinking, isn't all this starting bad for the bearings? This can't be good for the starter. Will I be stuck here if the system just now happened to fail? Am I really saving all that much gas?

[wilnj]

Originally Posted by Dixie

The start/stop feature induces more stress in me than I care to admit. If I'm in a car that has it, I have to turn it off. If I don't I'm sitting at a red light thinking, isn't all this starting bad for the bearings? This can't be good for the starter. Will I be stuck here if the system just now happened to fail? Am I really saving all that much gas?

No, you're not saving anything appreciable on gas but this is not new technology. My first encounter with it was in Europe in 2010 with a Hyundai with a manual. I remember it taking a bit to figure out what it was as I'd never heard of such a thing. I couldn't figure out why I kept stalling the car with the clutch in.

[daepp]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

It’s yet another example of how manufacturers game the system and CAFE tests to meet MPG standards...

And don't get me started on the thinner oils they're all using. Once again, it's due to CAFE standards, the thought being that thicker oil produced a great deal of drag on reciprocating parts. Of course, they DO NEED LUBRICATING!

[daepp]

Originally Posted by rwest

I wonder if the hate for the auto start/stop is a generational thing?

We had a wedding to attend in St Luis maybe a decade ago, and were upgraded into a really nice sized Cadillac. We exited the parking and drive to the first light, which was red. And as soon as we came to a complete stop the engine died. I had read about Start/Stop tech in a motor magazine, but my heart skipped a beat this first time experiencing it first hand, because I'm 62, and I REMEMBER what that meant in years past... It meant you had car trouble.
Of course in this case I did not, but I sure didn't like the feeling.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by Dixie

The start/stop feature induces more stress in me than I care to admit. If I'm in a car that has it, I have to turn it off. If I don't I'm sitting at a red light thinking, isn't all this starting bad for the bearings? This can't be good for the starter. Will I be stuck here if the system just now happened to fail? Am I really saving all that much gas?

I don't think it's marketed as "we're going to save you $1000 a year in gas."

But, if it saves 10 gallons of gas per vehicle per year (which doesn't seem that crazy for folks in big cities that commute in stop and go traffic), then multiply that savings by how many thousands of cars just in the US, and you potentially have HUGE reduction in use of gas over the course of a year. I think the "engineering explained" guy did some math on the potentially yearly savings and it was considerable.

I'm not out there hugging trees, and I drive a boxster S which gets crap mileage compared to a lot of cars (probably far less than the average corvette), but saving hundreds of thousands of gallons of gas sounds like a good thing.

(Any time I've had a rental or loaner with the feature, I'd figured out how to disable it or defeat it.)

Originally Posted by daepp

And don't get me started on the thinner oils they're all using. Once again, it's due to CAFE standards, the thought being that thicker oil produced a great deal of drag on reciprocating parts. Of course, they DO NEED LUBRICATING!

I have heard that while yes, it may improve mileage, it's also due to modern vehicles having much tighter clearances, and tighter clearances call for reduced viscosity. I think Lake Speed has said something about it, but I don't remember exactly what.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by rwest

I wonder if the hate for the auto start/stop is a generational thing? Probably all of us older folks have had many cars that we drove with at least the fingers on one hand crossed that it wouldn’t die on us and a car that shuts down makes our heart skip a beat whereas a younger person that has basically only lived during times of ultra reliable EFI computer controlled cars isn’t worried about a car not starting.

I suspect you are correct.

It's like those kids that talk about "people that were born in the 1900s", LOL!

[masraum]

Originally Posted by 911 Rod

Is there anything other than the sound (or lack of) and the tach, that effects the car when it shuts down?

Well, imagine anything that would change in a vehicle if the motor wasn't running.

The motor stops, the radio keeps playing. The AC continues to blow, but gradually warms up. In the couple of vehicles that I'd driven with it, if the AC got warm enough and the light was long enough, the motor would periodically start back up to spin up the AC compressor a bit.

In all of the vehicles that I've driven with it, it was a function of the fact that the vehicle is stopped and you've got your foot firmly on the brake pedal. (I've never tried going into neutral or park in a car with an auto trans). In all of the vehicles that I've driven, I've been able to back way off on the brake pedal with the car still just barely immobile, and the motor has started.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Worth a question though - if it saves a tiny bit of gas but leads to premature failure of your starter or engine, is it really friendly for the environment? Because lets be real, the most eco friendly car is one that you can drive for many years.

[wilnj]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Worth a question though - if it saves a tiny bit of gas but leads to premature failure of your starter or engine, is it really friendly for the environment? Because lets be real, the most eco friendly car is one that you can drive for many years.

Again, this is not new tech. I first drove a car with it 16 years.

I don’t recall any reports of widespread premature failure of starters or engines.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by wilnj

Again, this is not new tech. I first drove a car with it 16 years.

I don’t recall any reports of widespread premature failure of starters or engines.

If they got past the warranty phase I doubt you’d ever hear about it. There has to be an impact to long term reliability when a starter is being used multiple times every drive and your engine is experiencing start up engine wear multiple times.

[wilnj]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

If they got past the warranty phase I doubt you’d ever hear about it. There has to be an impact to long term reliability when a starter is being used multiple times every drive and your engine is experiencing start up engine wear multiple times.

https://practicalmotoring.com.au/car-advice/myth-busting-stop-start-damage-engine/

If you tried to apply the tech to an engine that wasn’t designed for it, yes you would have a problem.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by wilnj

https://practicalmotoring.com.au/car-advice/myth-busting-stop-start-damage-engine/

If you tried to apply the tech to an engine that wasn’t designed for it, yes you would have a problem.

Interviewing an auto executive probably isn’t the most unbiased source, and I still take objection to some of the “facts” cited in that article. These systems have been scabbed onto existing engine platforms, do you really think they redesigned the bearings, oil system, and starter for an engine like the VAG 2.0T that’s been mostly unchanged for years? Battery tech hasn’t really changed for 10-20 years, except some of these cars have a second battery tacked on for start/stop purposes so now you have two to replace. Oils have continuously gotten thinner for MPG and not engine life, compounded by extended oil change intervals for marketing’s sake.

[Deschodt]

All good points, it does save fuel, modern starters can take it, it's annoying, it can't be great for the engine..
There's also different tech. My wife (bless her heart) loves land rover products (generally viewed as the most unreliable cars ever made this side of Maserati). Her latest Discovery is a mild hybrid (48V) which means absolutely nothing for anything except the starter, I quote "48-volt belt-integrated starter generator (BISG) to manage engine stop-start, harvesting energy during deceleration to store in an under-floor battery". That is smooth as hell and as much as I hate start stop, it's shake free and quick enough I do not mind (as much)...

On my 718 (just got that, 10y old, chuffed to bits) it's horrible and shakes the car at startup, gives me that "oh crap it died" feeling when shutting off. Especially on a manual.... I am actively looking for someone with a device that can code that out to "last state" (my Icarsoft can't code that).

[aschen]

Is there any evidence of it leading to a statistically significant rate of starter replacement? Its probably a good idea for most commuter cars. Pennies saved turned to dollars so to speak.

My cayman goes to individual mode everytime I drive it so I don't have it. My wifes highlander is hybrid so its a bit of a different thing, but its engine is on and off on a whim. I don't notice unless I look at the indicator on the dash. Its a big vehicle and gets 38mpg.

[Rodsrsr]

There are also safety concerns with it. I don't like my vehicle sitting with the engine off on a public road, even if its a stop sign or red light. (especially a stop sign) What happens if I need to suddenly move out of the way when seconds count?

[masraum]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

If they got past the warranty phase I doubt you’d ever hear about it. There has to be an impact to long term reliability when a starter is being used multiple times every drive and your engine is experiencing start up engine wear multiple times.

I wonder about the "startup wear" bit. Since the motor likely sits for <30 secs most of the time, how much extra wear are we talking (assuming good oil is used and changed on schedule, of course, the modern schedules are crap). I'm not saying that I don't believe it, I'm just curious how much of a difference it makes since the oil is still in place (hasn't had time to run down). I get that there are lots of factors at play, hot oil will run faster. Modern cars run super thin oil to begin with, etc.... So it certainly sounds like it could accelerate wear.

And I've always thought that it could/would wear the started faster. But it's also been years since I had to replace a starter in anything < knock, knock, knock >.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by aschen

My wifes highlander is hybrid so its a bit of a different thing, but its engine is on and off on a whim. I don't notice unless I look at the indicator on the dash. Its a big vehicle and gets 38mpg.

That's a marvel of modern engineering, especially when you think about the fact that my boxster is reported to get 18/26mpg. I usually get ~22.5mpg with mostly interstate driving.

[flipper35]

Stop/Start in our van never bothered me. I thought I would hate it but it really is pretty seamless so I never bother with turning it off. No issues yet at 118k miles other than two batteries to deal with.