Gas guzzling over gas saving, for the win! That might be the immediate reaction to a federal proposal to permanently disable the fuel-saving tech feature. Or maybe the actual response is, “Finally!” Or possibly, “Nooo, for the love of clean air!” Either way, current EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin wants it axed.
In a social media post in May, Zeldin said that “everyone hates it” and suggested that the start-stop feature existed solely as a “climate participation trophy” for automakers. And he’s not entirely wrong.
According to The New York Times, the EPA subsidized the tech in 2012, thus encouraging OEMs to incorporate the feature into future products. Although availability has skyrocketed to the point of near-universal adoption, actual usage is likely far below the implementation rate. Also, yeah, consumers have complained about it, so Zeldin vowed to undo what his predecessors annoyingly allowed to continue. Per the NYT:
Most of the complaints fall in a few categories. Some skeptics believe that it doesn’t really save on gas, or that it adds wear and tear to the engine. Others worry about not having control of the car, or about having the air-conditioning turn off with the engine on hot days.
Manufacturers try to make the feature as seamless as possible. That might mean turning off the engine only during longer stops, or only if the air-conditioning isn’t drawing too much energy. Newer cars also have starter systems specifically designed for start-stop.
But that effort hasn’t quite made the feature beloved by everyone. In many models, it’s hard to miss when the engine shuts off and turns back on. Several tutorials on YouTube showing how to disable the feature have amassed over a million views.
Start/stop technology: where your car dies at every red light so companies get a climate participation trophy. EPA approved it, and everyone hates it, so we’re fixing it. pic.twitter.com/zFhijMyHDe
— Lee Zeldin (@epaleezeldin) May 12, 2025
This isn’t an empty threat. Fast-forward two months, and the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act has been approved and signed into law. With it came retroactive forgiveness of penalties for automakers who haven’t been compliant with NHTSA’s CAFE standards since model year 2022. With no financial repercussions for missing fuel economy targets, automakers may see little benefit in continuing efficiency tech like start-stop, which gives Zeldin’s EPA additional leverage on the matter. As Automotive News recently reported:
The EPA also awards credits for automakers that include specific technologies with apparent emissions reductions that may not show up in lab testing, including stop-start. The agency under Zeldin has promised to reconsider the greenhouse gas emissions standards that enable the credits.
“If there’s no CAFE program that can be enforced, and there’s not a greenhouse gas standard that requires improvement, that would remove the incentive for automakers to put in this technology,” said Chris Harto, senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports.
The intent is to reinvigorate the manufacturing of gas-powered vehicles. To support that mission, the bill also discontinued the federal EV tax credit, which has existed in some form since 2008. Vehicle production may be affordable again, but not for EVs or consumers interested in efficient cars, including hybrids.
That’s too bad when studies show increased interest in the electrified market and recent sales reflecting that sentiment. Regarding first-quarter sales, the U.S. Department of Energy reported:
About 22% of light-duty vehicles sold in the first quarter of the year in the United States were hybrid, battery electric, or plug-in hybrid vehicles, up from about 18% in the first quarter of 2024. Among those categories, hybrid electric vehicles have continued to gain market share while battery electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles have remained relatively flat, according to estimates from Wards Intelligence.
The strong hybrid sales carried over into the second quarter as well, with several car companies reporting growth in that sector, including Ford, Hyundai, and Toyota. Opposite that, how much money will automakers save now that they can effectively shrug off fuel efficiency and environmental concerns? Plenty. Reuters breaks down the costs:
Last year, Chrysler-parent Stellantis paid $190.7 million in civil penalties for failing to meet U.S. fuel economy requirements for 2019 and 2020 after paying nearly $400 million for penalties from 2016 through 2019. GM previously paid $128.2 million in penalties for 2016 and 2017…
Last year, Tesla said it received $2.8 billion in global revenue from regulatory credits it earns from selling zero-emission EVs and sells to other automakers seeking to meet vehicle emissions targets.
Senate Republicans estimate that car companies would save approximately $200 million in waived fees. That’s a pretty penny, but it’s not nearly enough to offset an OEM’s tariff-related losses, oh, but I digress.
With no start-stop, consumers do lose out, despite their love-hate (hate-kinda like?) relationship with that button with a circled A on it. Because it honest-to-goodness does function as designed. Says the NYT:
Though the technology has its skeptics, research says it does effectively cut fuel consumption and emissions. Most studies on start-stop technology show real-world fuel use reductions of 5 to 10 percent, depending on driving patterns. One study found that start-stop begins to save fuel when the engine is off for as little as seven seconds during an idling period.
In newer vehicles, a start-stop information screen can be scrolled through via the IP and/or the center display. There you’ll find fuel savings based on the amount of time the engine was shut off during your commute, as well as reasons why the system is unavailable even though activated. Kind of like hypermiling, every stop can be turned into a gamification of fuel efficiency. Sweet.
But the disappearance of the start-stop credit seems more a matter of when, not if. But that doesn’t necessarily mean automakers will remove the feature, or does it? A decade ago, the estimated cost of a start-stop unit itself was only a few hundred bucks. According to an Edmunds report at the time:
While stop-start systems have typically been included in the overall price premium for hybrids, many industry analysts say their actual cost is between $300 and $400.
Ford Motor Company recently announced a $295 price for its first stand-alone stop-start system, offered as an option on the automatic transmission version of the 1.6-liter EcoBoost model of the 2013 Ford Fusion SE sedan. By comparison, a full hybrid system can add $6,000 or more to the price of a car.
These days, opting for a hybrid adds about the same or less in cost. With more models out there, it really comes down to the vehicle build, especially when some automakers consider the hybrid a mid-level trim and above offering.
When comparing apples to apples, though, based on Kelley Blue Book data, the 2020 Fusion hybrid (the sedan’s last model year) cost just $3,500 more than its regular ol’ gas sibling. With the vehicle variants closer in price, perhaps the unit cost for a start-stop system decreased as well. And perhaps that’s enough to keep the feature around? There are other perks in its favor, says the NYT:
David Cooke of the Clean Transportation Program says that regardless of what the E.P.A. does, keeping start-stop is a “no-brainer” for manufacturers: It costs a small amount to implement, and it results in considerable fuel savings, which is a selling point to customers.
Start-stop would also help manufacturers stay under the emissions limit even if the off-cycle credits are canceled. That’s because the standard treadmill tests capture some — just not all — of the feature’s real-world savings. So car companies would still have reason to include the technology.
In Europe, and most other countries, start-stop technology is considered standard. In the United States, each automaker has adopted the feature at different rates. Volkswagen received the stop-start credit on 95 percent of its internal combustion cars sold in America, while Mazda received it for just 5 percent.
To counter that is Rasto Brezny, executive director of the Manufacturers of Emissions Controls Association, who also spoke with the NYT:
…[He] couldn’t predict if getting rid of the credit would change the number of cars with start-stop. But he did note that regulation has always been the driver of clean technology: “Nobody would put a catalytic converter on a vehicle unless they had to.”
Corporations save money, and consumers lose out on saving theirs? Neat! Even if you consider start-stop a nuisance and are irritated with having to deactivate it every single time you get into the car, you’d no longer be allowed to decide your level of annoyance. Honestly, I’m always annoyed anyway, so why take away my option to at least save some money whenever I scowl behind the steering wheel? Sigh. Maybe they’ll let us have a blank button as a reminder of what was.
I can’t speak about start-stop’s effect on global warming, but this won’t take the heat off the Epstein situation.
Every vehicle that I’ve had with that technology, I’ve completely disabled. Some vehicles need an ECU flash, and others have it buried in menus… But why on The Flying Spaghetti Monster’s green earth would I want to stress my vehicle starter more than is absolutely, minimally necessary? My car, my rules. Nuf’ sed.
Actual tests of the Mini Cooper diesel in the UK in 2007 showed that with start/stop tech the Mini achieved lower pollution numbers than the same year Prius. Did it suck to drive? Well, it was already a diesel, so…
I dunno why automakers made it so hard to turn the feature on/off. Our 2017 BMW has a switch that turns it off permanently right next to the start button. Duh. Simple and effective.
I believe the requirement is that it resets when you turn off the car. As in, the EPA said that’s what it needs to do if you want to count it in the test results. Your BMW may not have had the economy tested with the start/stop activated.
Yeah makes sense. Still, idiotic half-measures to reduce pollution. Simple solution, stop building car-oriented housing, work and shopping. So easy. 😛
Beyond the fuel economy issue, how does ASS affect your driving experience? Give us a thumbs down, and name your brand and year, please. I’m looking for trends here.
Personally, my 2014 Mercedes has a nice implementation. Besides its instant response, I’m happy not to feel that constant creeping torque at a stoplight, which can be quite strong with some auto transmissions. You had to press pretty hard on the brakes to hold back behind the bumper ahead. With ASS, my GLK has only a little creep on flat roads, and holds in place on uphill stops.
My ideal would be a car that simply sits still, with mild auto brake application, until you accelerate. Why can’t we have that?
Our 2021 Mazda 3 had that functionality. Once you come to a complete stop you could lift your foot off the brake and it would stay in place until you tapped the accelerator. I can’t remember what the feature was called.
I think different brands label it a few different ways but all the same idea. Subaru is Auto Vehicle Hold or AVH, Honda is Auto Brake Hold, etc.
My Forte GT has “Auto Hold”, which engages the brake when you come to a full stop until you press the accelerator. It’s nice and saves wear on the DCT.
Goos to hear. I live behind the times.
I have two main thoughts: 1) stop/start was clearly a compliance feature. A feature that was cheaper and easier for automakers to implement than to actually develop more efficient cars. I’m fine with it going away, but really wanted that to be because cars in general became better and it was obsolete. 2) pretty sure the rest of the world still believes the environment is in trouble, and wants efficient cars. So if US automakers want to export anything, or participate in any other market, I doubt this changes.
Im still waiting for any evidence that we can influence the environment, given the geometric population increases that are our real issue.
The numbers may work better in Fantasyland?
I guess I haven’t driven a bad one, but I don’t get all the hate for these systems. I have a Volvo S90 and it’s pretty inoffensive. However, I use the auto hold function so when you come to a stop, the car won’t go again when you lift the brake, only when you touch the gas. It works quickly.
I also drove an older rental Malibu that had it. I found that once you stop, the engine will turn off. If you want it back on again, lift the brake, car turns on and if you stop again shortly thereafter, the car stays on. Solves a lot of problems like running the AC/heat. After a day, I didn’t even think about doing it, it came easily.
Also, don’t forget that start/stop systems won’t save the individual a lot of fuel. They will work toward reducing the cumulative volume of pollutants.
With one car sitting at a light with the engine off for 10 seconds, that’s not a big deal. With 20 cars sitting at a four way traffic light, it’s adding up. For hours and hours of cars cycling through a single intersection, we’re making some progress. For a city of cars doing this, it does make a difference.
If 10,000 cars shut off their engines for 60 seconds every 10 minutes, that equals 3,600,000 seconds of engine-off time per hour, resulting in a reduction of about 0.526 metric tons CO₂ per hour.
The problem is that, most people don’t think of the effects that the fleet, they just complain that they don’t like the feeling of their car stopping, that it gets a little warmer/colder in the cabin, that it might ruin their starter. It’s hard to get people to think about the whole vs their own inconvenience.
Remember, there is no “I” in “team.”
Yes team is meat backwards.
I don’t have a problem with them philosophically, but how it’s implemented in my car is irritating – it cuts the engine before I’m stopped, making a smooth stop virtually impossible. Were that not an issue? I doubt I’d notice if my car had it or not.
Here is my feeling on it, make it a no cost option. Not everyone benefits. I live in a rural area and maybe stop 2x on the way to town. Benefits to me? Nada, zip. Is it a pain in the ass when I try to jump into traffic? Absolutely! In some cases that lag can be dangerous.
I NEVER use it. I have a 2022 Ford Ranger 4×4 and it is averaging 25 mpg with my rural driving style. I’ll guarantee no improvement using ASS.
In a busy city, I can see the benefit.
I should not be forced to disengage something that doesn’t benefit me, each time I use the vehicle and possibly makes it unsafe.
In a Wrangler 4xe, the start/stop is amazing. Even if the engine takes 1/10 of a second to start, it doesn’t matter because the electric drive is already moving the truck when you step on the accelerator. Then the gas engine can seamlessly take over. Going down hills, the engine is typically off the entire time.
I can see a big personal preference difference between pure ICE and hybrid. Hybrid is perfect for start/stop. ICE is a fuel economy thing and a lot of people are annoyed by eco modes.
It’s great in hybrids, and it’s really annoying when the engine starts up for no reason, well it’s usually the AC, but still it seems like it could wait until you either start moving or are in park.
I assume they don’t have stop start in cars with standard transmissions, but with an automatic and something more modern than a Bendix drive, it seems like a no-brainer.
The difference between start stop on a regular car and a hybrid are galaxies apart. In most gas cars I’ve driven, it is pretty jarring and a poor user experience. While every hybrid I’ve driven (aside from a 1st gen Prius) was seamless and smooth. I’d love to see every car be a hybrid even if it’s just a 1/4 kWh battery that’s only good for a smoother electric start from a standstill.
The rest of the article is fine, but that headline is VERY click-bait. Usually this site is pretty good about such things, so it’s kinda glaring.
if it didn’t work, they wouldn’t do it. authors don’t want to be annoying or stupid with no purpose.
I usually don’t like click bait headlines but this one was clearly a joke. It’s taking the piss out of a certain stereotypical person who always complains that the “gov’nmnt is tak’n our freedom!” whenever they’re slightly inconvenienced by some regulation.
Fair point!
Sure. It’s not like anyone needs kei cars or sports cars.
Or personal choice about anything.
They pass laws every day in stacks.
They just call them something else.
Even “clarifications”.
I think that Start/Stop should be voluntary. You want your engine to shut off at the traffic light, hit the ignition button yourself.
I agree it should be voluntary but it’s more complicated than just manually hitting the ignition. You typically want the engine up to operating temp first. You want the car still powered too, like A/C, navigation, lights, steering etc.
My VW is really sensitive, I only have to do is slightly release pressure on the brake to get the car to turn back on, and if I do it proactively it skips the start/stop for that cycle. I can’t turn it off in eco mode, but I can still game it. Kinda interesting because in eco mode I can get 45 MPG but if I really press the go pedal it forgets all that and goes. So not much sacrifice.
I rented a car with it recently (an A3 in Germany), my first experience with it that wasn’t a hybrid that I didn’t find annoying. It was pretty seamless, so good job Audi I guess. I think if it were a manual it would have been a bit more annoying, but as it was an auto it wasn’t bad. I think if it was implemented with electric air conditioners it is better because then the car doesn’t have to turn back on to run the compressor. I drove a Subaru with it once where it was a major pain and I didn’t like the implementation, so just don’t implement crappy auto start stop and people won’t hate it?
Audi’s newish 48v mild hybrid system is good enough to make the start stop almost completely transparent in my experience. On the other hand my A6 allroad has averaged about 24mpg over 5.5k miles vs my old A4 allroad which averaged about 28mpg over 72k miles. I suppose that’s to be expected with the extra liter of displacement and an additional 85hp though but it still feels like a big drop off for a car that seems so similar.
I drove a manual Nissan in Spain with stop-start and it actually worked quite well. The engine automatically turns on when you engage the clutch so by the time you put it in gear it’s good to go.
The technology was implemented because manufacturers knew it would increase their fleet numbers at minimal cost while maintaining HP figures that help them market cars. We have fleet MPG requirements because we heavily subsidize fossil fuels, and then attempt to address the consequences with a haphazard set of weak rules and programs that lack coherence and have minimal impact, mainly due to their creation by the industries they are meant to regulate. All because too many people in this country are clueless and believe cheap gas is some right.
But when the person saying they are making things better is a complete idiot, purposely evil, or both, who denies anthropomorphic climate change, there is zero chance that anything they propose will lead anywhere better.
If we collectively wanted to reward sound engineering while being responsible for our actions, we would start by acknowledging the actual cost of the fuel being used and then discuss how to address it. Since we can’t get past the first step, the rest is largely immaterial. Which is why my partner and I so often say to each other, “I’m so f’n glad we didn’t have kids!”
I don’t really care about stop-start tech. It was a fringe solution to a problem that is being addressed by claiming the core problem doesn’t exist. This is appealing politically because it gives everyone permission to avoid the issue for as long as possible.
well said
The only core problem is overpopulation.
Population is a vital variable, but I wouldn’t call “overpopulation” the core problem. Largely because if some fairly basic, straightforward things were addressed, the planet could sustainably support the current population. The number of people that would constitute “overpopulation” with the technology and knowledge of 2000 years ago is much different than 200 years ago and different again now.
That being said, there isn’t really any reason we want to increase our population, and the higher it goes, the more difficult it will be to fix the issues.
There are a lot of important reasons we are past capacity, but the most important one is disease evolution.
It will self correct, but I don’t believe anyone will enjoy that, if humans survive at all.
I bought Bimmercode precisely to disable this as soon as I got my G30. Besides all the known issues with ASS, in the hot & humid hellhole where I live, the car turns into an oven at every stoplight because AC can’t function properly with the engine off. Of course the car detects this and guess what? Turns the engine back on. It’s so mind numbingly stupid and I’m glad this shit could be going away for good.
In a hybrid it makes sense since the batteries can keep essential functions running, in ICEs? No. Get rid of it.
Where do you live where you need AC more than 6 months a year. I only need it about 4 months a year in Maryland. Scrapping a feature that doesn’t work at all for people living in some miserable hot hellhole doesn’t really add up for the majority of people who (sensibly) don’t live in said hellholes.
Maybe an easier perma-off for hellhole livers is a better solution than banning the feature for everyone.
That’s the beauty of Bimmercode. You can program it to remember the last used setting instead of enabling it automatically every time you start the car (or have it fully disabled too). I’ve heard newer BMWs (2022+) lost the ability to code this out, so you have to disable it manually every time, which sucks.
This hellhole is Costa Rica. AC is a necessity about 10 months a year.
I totally understand how some people might find this useful (the type of commute is key) but you gotta realize a lot of manufacturers are essentially forcing this on customers by not offering an easy way to disable it. I much prefer it to go away than the alternative we were headed to.
Plenty of places in the US. I probably use it 8 months of the year in South Carolina. November-February are AC free months, after that it’s likely to get used.
I’m shocked Marylanderianites know what AC is.
It’s alternating current, which is one of the reasons I don’t understand why car enthusiasts are so worried about it. Have there ever been any cars that used AC? Torch would know. We should ask him.
Droll
I have a 6-speed Jeep Gladiator. If you sit at stoplights in neutral, it’s dangerous. If I forget to push the “ESS off” button, I can always beat the computer and suddenly, I’m sitting at a light in a stall situation. It restarts the engine when the clutch is depressed, but it only takes one second to clutch in-shift into 1st-clutch out, but in that one second, the engine hasn’t fully started. It just sucks!
I haven’t driven a manual car that has it, but it sounds like it’s as bad in practice as it sounds in theory.
Thankfully, Jeep gave us an ESS off button, but I have to remember to push it every time I start the engine.
I got annoyed by stop/start quite often, but it was at a crosswalk in front of my office building. Sometimes I’d linger after crossing from the parking garage to finish a smoke and have to hear restarting cars (in my memory, GM pickups, so maybe they’re louder about it) at every pause. Eventually I quit smoking, so I wasn’t hanging out on the street anymore, which mostly fixed the issue. I don’t think I’ve ever driven a car so equipped.
Sounds like the ASS got you to quit smoking. So it really is good for something!
It took a while and I still smoked occasionally when I was drinking, but ASS certainly helped reduce my own noxious emissions.
This is one of the few modern features I don’t hate, though none of my own cars have had it, so I’ve only had limited exposure. When I have driven cars with it, I turn it off for stop-and-go as it’s annoying and of highly questionable efficacy, but if I’m on a route with a lot of long light cycles, I have it on. IMO, the solution is for the manufacturers to just have the switch stay on or off as set by the driver.
I never had an issue with start/stop as an idea. I kind of liked it at first. Then it caused me 2 separate repairs in my electrical system because it malfunctioned. My Jeep would just die at a red light when the start part of the start/stop was supposed to happen. Drove me insane. As much as I liked it before, I an now in the dump it side.
Like so many things, YMMV. I think it’s short-sighted to eliminate it entirely. Maybe make it a setting where the default can be on or off, but then you have the button to toggle to the other mode if you feel like it.
A rental Chevy Malibu had the smoothest implementation I ever drove. Maybe it’s easier with a small four-banger than a bigger sixes in the BMW X5 and MDX we had.
This. Make it like the “ECO” button that tons of 2010ish cars got.
I’m not a fan of the tech but it does work, and I’d be happy to turn it on in a slog through stop and go traffic. At least when it wasn’t 100F outside.
I could see them keeping it but changing the programming so that it becomes a latching function instead of defaulting to on with every key cycle. that was only done because it only affected the EPA results if it behaved that way.
Hybrid is the honest answer, the A/C and P/S are full electric and engine stop/start is seamless and less frequent. I often find traditional stop/start irritating.
I will qualify that my direct experience with traditional stop/start have all been rental cars and I have seen diferences between manufacturer and model. I own a hybrid.
Yes, stop / start works great in hybrids. It also does well with the 48V mild-hybrid systems.
The ones that people seem to complain about are the 12V systems and even those are a lot better than they used to be.
100% agree. I have rented cars that I hit the button the instant I hit the seat. Others I have never touched. Use case matters too, urban core driving (where the most benefit is) is frustrating with most. Suburban, low density driving is often not big deal with the system on.
Core urban driving is a highlight of the hybird. Go stoplight to stoplight on electric only, ensconced in comfortable A/C. The enigne runs ONLY (at idle speed) to keep up battery charge in these situations, with a longer run time and less abrupt start.
I was really surprised that my Accord with the 2.0T didn’t have stop start. Its decent tech but some OEMs do a poor job of it.
Pretty dumb to retool production lines because of cry babies that are currently in office. Does anybody see this administration even lasting another 3.5 more years?
Hey, Colbert got him elected twice.
Have faith
You just know this is something that the oil industry was pushing for.
Funny how the new US-EU trade deal includes US selling a large amount of energy to EU. It’s almost like strings on marionettes.
Plus, it “owns” the “Libs.” ; >
I’m a liberal.
Hard part is, I can still do math.
It is remarkable how the US government is working so hard to make the US automotive industry irrelevant.
I don’t think auto stop-start actually makes sense in anything but a hybrid, but the smart money is a push towards hybrids. The dumb money is trying to salvage the oil industry and encouraging the development of a line of products and a suite of technology that is unsellable in any other country.
Assuming the average MPG of something is 20, and you save 5-10 percent, the best you would see is an increase of 2 mpg. that just does not seem significant enough to make any of this terrible system justifiable.
Also, I will say that lacking this feature is a sell feature to me. I really don’t feel comfortable with the prevalence of overstressed boosted motorcycle engines in cars and the constant start-stop cycles of traffic light driving.
That right there: If the average driver is okay with getting just 20-22 mpg, it tells you gas must be so cheap as to make these systems seem irrelevant. Where I write this the price per gallon is around 7 USD per gallon. Which means that although my car gets about 35 mpg the cost of fuel per distance is about equal to your hypothetical 22-mpg-car. Without the system mine would be more expensive to drive here at far better mileage.
Also, my car is now at about 130k miles, and the system has never caused any trouble (knock on wood). I see nothing terrible about it.
You know what’s terrible? Your assumptions, your math, and your lack of logic.
The average mileage of passenger vehicles in the US is 25 mpg.
JD Power estimates that the average American spends around $2,500 per year on gas.
So even at a 5% improvement, the system would pay for itself within 3 years.
Most would never see a 5% improvement, only a city dweller. Those folk’s mileage would never come close to non city users who never used ASS. My mileage improved 7 mpg going from living in a city, to the country. And yes I used the auto stop start. It seemed I lived a lifetime at stoplights.
On mild hybrids, it works really well. But you need the bigger battery and the more robust starter, which obviously adds some cost, which is theoretically offset by the need for a smaller engine…
Anyway, if you get 20 miles a gallon on 3.50 fuel and drive 15,000 mile, yeah, you’ll only save a few hundred bucks a year in gas, but that’s still money in your pocket, no?
Small price to pay for the reduced aggravation… just $.02 though. And again the major issue I have with it is increased complexity and cost in the long run. I suppose the car makers will say oil starved turbos and starter replacement costs can be attributed to many other things over time, but I don’t feel like this gets this terrible system off the hook.
The $280 saved in fuel per year would pay for a starter every 18 months or so.
Including labor? That’s already almost a wash.
With a reman starter and a local independent shop – yes. (A reman starter for my Acura is $125 from Advanced Auto)
I was using the cost of a new OEM starter ($400) and the autopian rule that we work on our own vehicles and distrust all professional mechanics. 🙂
There is also a time factor even when you are working on your own car. As I get older, I’m appreciating driving newer, more reliable cars more and more as it gives me more time to work on projects I enjoy rather than just trying to keep my car running so I can get to work.
My starter is $1000 new.
Factory rebuilt $400-500.
But even pros can’t tell me a simple approach to removal.
I’ve bought several specialty tools already, and still shopping.
Plus, off the road two months already.
What make model is this so I can avoid it in the future?
Cummins 6 litre, all mechanical
450,000 miles so far, so worth the effort, but sheesh.
There are probably good mechanical reasons for the design, and I likely won’t need to rebuild it again until after I’m dead, but it is annoying.
For perspective, friend held up a water pump for a lesser Porsche and said this costs $800. Said that’s why I don’t drive a Porsche.
This was many years ago too.
So commercial engine that will never have stop / start?
Think of it as personal transport that God would drive
I don’t find it to be terrible in the cars I’ve owned with it. In my Volvo it’s seamless. You know the engine’s off, but there is zero lag. My Chevy has a little lag but it still works really well. Better than the 2013 Bimmer that I had with it (which was fine)
What increased complexity and cost in the long run? There is sw logic to shut the car down and restart the car, then the starter and a beefier battery. That’s nothing compared to the complexity of a full hybrid system.
But the full hybrid system can nearly double your fuel economy, going from 25 to 45, not 25 to 27. Plus a full hybrid also offers other savings. My hybrids have no belts. No starter, no alternator. The AC works when the engine is off. No lag at stops because the electric motor gets you moving.
Yes, a full hybrid isn’t really more complicated than they typical car with a 2.0L turbo and a 8 speed transmission.
The HV battery is new as is some cabling and other misc items.
However the big savings in complexity is ditching a 8 speed automatic with a simple planetary gearset (Toyota) or simple reduction gears and clutches (Honda)
Specifically $238 / year or just under $4,000 in the lifetime of a vehicles (Assuming 250,000 miles)
The $300 cost of the system pays back in 19,000 miles of driving.
I’m happy with my system. It is smooth as silk. When I lift my foot from the brake, the engine is running with no start-up shake well before my foot is on the gas. I used to always want to shut down my engine during bumper-to-bumper stop-and-go traffic, but was leery of wearing out the starter. On this car, no worries, no annoyance, just gas savings because I’m not turning expensive primordial forest ooze into CO2 while just sitting there doing jack.
It is kind of a crap shoot on this. Actual EPA Tests show the following. and for me at least the increased fuel use from a 30 second to 3 minute traffic light is negligible compared tot he annoyance from the engine cutting off and then stutter stopping away once you get going. (of course a Hybrid and maybe your brand is better at it than the ones I have experienced). I do still feel like the starter strain, the lack of oil circulation and the strain on the AC and heater components is my main issue with the system.
*Idling for more than 10 seconds uses more fuel (Figure 3) and emits more CO2 than engine restarting.
• NOx and THC emissions from restarting are larger
https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/which_is_greener.pdf
Modern synthetic oils can easily remain in place on engine components for five minutes or more.
It’s the same with my 2014 Mercedes. Startup is instant, and I can barely hear it only with the windows open. I love it- anything to tame the thirst of my 3.5 liter V6! Maybe the backlash is from owners of cheaper cars?
perhaps. it was terrible in a rental Pacifica. I could certainly feel it in the Biuick Enclave I had in Pasedena, but I don’t recall feeling it the suburban last week, just figured it was big enough that it was not part of the factor. I noticed it in the Sonata, but it was not as big of a pain it seemed. Though the heat vents shutting down in the winter was annoying. But it also did not seem to shut off as much when it was cold out like that, so who knows.
Heater operation should continue after the engine’s stopped. The heat is there, in the coolant, and the car retains enough battery power to run a fan. It’s AC that stops cooling when the engine stops.
Some people lose pay the second their car is down.
Makes them unreasonable.
Dependability? That’s a whole ‘nother issue than starter noise or HVAC interruptions. I’ve had several cars that failed to start. One wouldn’t restart when the starter got hot, but it was light enough to push it and hop in. None of those cars had ASS.
Once had a starter that failed when hot.
Had a feeling so loosened the bolts and jiggled the starter a bit and tightened them.
Worked since.
Someone failed to reinstall the metal template that aligned the starter.
I’m claiming real efficiency is achieved when designs are reliable overall.
Millions if not billions of dollars have been spent on R&D to find 1 whole MPG, let alone a single, repeatable gain of 1%…
and as a result, things like AFM/DFM and MDS in Chrysler stuff have made the cars fail sooner and cost more up front. It is kind of sad really.
A 1 mpg gain on a 20 mpg car represents a full 5% gain.
I think he was pointing out how much the auto industry spends to find a 1% gain. In comparison gaining 5 – 10% with a cheap and simple stop/start system is HUGE in the automotive world.
Generally when we are working for fuel economy gains it is 2 dozen little changes that are a fraction of a percent each that together add up.
5-10%?
That’s how you do comedy
Multiply that fuel savings x millions of cars and suddenly it’s a huge number.