Whats is your opinion the jeeps engine stop start system?

[ShadowsPapa]

This is what I find so humorous - non-engine techs telling experienced MOPAR engine techs and other engine mechanics what's possible or not, what's real or not - refusing to believe what's been shown to be fact. Doesn't matter about the math done, or other logic. When you hate it, I guess you must find a reason to support that hate?

So far no one has explained how there HAS TO BE wear or other problems with it.
Noting was really "beefed up" - just made far more efficient.

Sponsored

 

[red/green hawk]

I actually don't mind it but I've disabled it because I hate pulling in to a parking spot and instance before I put it in park the engine shuts off and turns back on again after putting in park and releasing the brake.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

I actually don't mind it but I've disabled it because I hate pulling in to a parking spot and instance before I put it in park the engine shuts off and turns back on again after putting in park and releasing the brake.

THAT is annoying - I pull up at the end of our driveway, stop, it shuts off, I put it in reverse and back in.

 

[DanW]

He didn't ask for scientific. He asked for opinions.

Mine is that I don't like it. I have concerns about the starting and stopping putting unnecessary stress on the engine internals. There was one Pentastar engine engineer who stated that the ESS was an engine killer. That could have been his opinion but I had mine before I heard his.

He said it "could" be. He also said they used a new (at the time) coating on the internals that was supposed to mitigate the extra wear caused by ESS. He also told me that if that coating worked as advertised, you should have a 500,000+ mile engine if you don't use it, Lol. On another note, he said the starter is also much more durable. Again, if you don't use it, you may never have to replace that starter, either.

Overall, though, he is not a fan of it and recommends shutting it off.

 

[DanW]

One other dumb thing about it....So they go to this effort and complexity to save some fuel. (On my commute, it is worth about 0.5 to 1.0 mpg.) But at the same time, they let you have remote start, which offsets any gain you'd get from ESS. STUPID government. How about tsthey make it an option where if you don't get remote start, you can delete ESS.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

He said it "could" be. He also said they used a new (at the time) coating on the internals that was supposed to mitigate the extra wear caused by ESS. He also told me that if that coating worked as advertised, you should have a 500,000+ mile engine if you don't use it, Lol. On another note, he said the starter is also much more durable. Again, if you don't use it, you may never have to replace that starter, either.

Overall, though, he is not a fan of it and recommends shutting it off.

My take on what you said he said was never anything at all even close to "engine killer". Especially since it's been around for 9 years in Jeeps, trucks, Dodge cars and so on.
Imagine the 2016 Grand Cherokees out there with possibly 200,000 miles on them.

I'd still love to know and am waiting for the logical, real-life explanation for exactly how restarting a hot engine will cause MORE wear than letting it sit and idle for 30-90 seconds with valves and pistons traveling up and down the whole time, injectors firing and so on. Engine stopped - zero wear while sitting. The startup process takes roughly 1 to 2 revolutions of the crankshaft. Where's the wear? While cranking those 1 to 2 revolutions there's hardly any pressure on the bearings at all. That increases dramatically once it is running.

Is it just possible that the guy was a bit biased and hadn't had any real world experience with the system and simply saw it as an intrusion and it clouded his otherwise logical thinking on it?
Just curious.

 

[Rusty PW]

This is what I find so humorous - non-engine techs telling experienced MOPAR engine techs and other engine mechanics what's possible or not, what's real or not - refusing to believe what's been shown to be fact. Doesn't matter about the math done, or other logic. When you hate it, I guess you must find a reason to support that hate?

So far no one has explained how there HAS TO BE wear or other problems with it.
Noting was really "beefed up" - just made far more efficient.

With the eco diesel. The manual says that you should idle the engine for a few minutes before shut down to cool the turbo. This is to prevent the oil in the turbo bearings from coking. And to keep oil supplied to the spinning impeller.

I've been on highways where you're doing 65 mph and come to a stop light. Then it's another sprit to the next traffic light a mile and a half away. Then repeat again. The turbo doesn't get enough time to cool down before getting shut down.

 

[Maximus Gladius]

It’s “unfavourable” because it works. I hate it.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

With the eco diesel. The manual says that you should idle the engine for a few minutes before shut down to cool the turbo. This is to prevent the oil in the turbo bearings from coking. And to keep oil supplied to the spinning impeller.

I've been on highways where you're doing 65 mph and come to a stop light. Then it's another sprit to the next traffic light a mile and a half away. Then repeat again. The turbo doesn't get enough time to cool down before getting shut down.

Diesels are another thing - I've always wondered about the turbo bit - it shuts off and maybe stays off for 90 seconds while things cook.
It seems to me to be a contradiction on a diesel -
"be sure to cool the turbo - oh but that doesn't apply to us!"
if I had a diesel - I'd be more concerned about the instructions in the book and common sense on a turbo than anything else.

 

[red/green hawk]

I've always wondered if it shortens the life of the starter. That is if the starter's life is directly proportional to number of starts before breaking down.

 

[Rusty PW]

Diesels are another thing - I've always wondered about the turbo bit - it shuts off and maybe stays off for 90 seconds while things cook.
It seems to me to be a contradiction on a diesel -
"be sure to cool the turbo - oh but that doesn't apply to us!"
if I had a diesel - I'd be more concerned about the instructions in the book and common sense on a turbo than anything else.

My twin turbo Nismo. I never just shut it off. I sit for a few minutes before shut down. Plus I never rev a turbo motor up before shut down either. When you do that. The impeller can spin up to 200,000 rpms. And your shutting off the oil feed to the bearings and adding more heat into the turbo housing.

 

[Coldjensens]

No one will say "Oh I love it, it really adds to the driving experience."

I am not a sit still kind of person. I am wiggly. Good song comes on, I need something from the back seat or glove-box, I wonder if i left anything sitting on the bed cover when I left and turn around to look, i see a cool looking jeep or classic car behind me and turn to see it better. . . . All kinds of things make me move about and change brake pressure. For me, it should be called "stop start, stop start stop start stop start stop start" system. i wish you did not have to remember to turn it off every time you start the jeep

If the "savings" data assumes that you spend 90 seconds staying still at each light. This data is in error. You are only going to be still for 90 seconds if you arrive at the light the second it turns red. That is pretty rare, at least for me. You will only have the engine off for 90 seconds if you remain in exactly the same place. This is also rare in my experience. People tend to move up a bit after stopping. Eventually after the front 4-5 cars move up, there is a pretty big gap. If you do not move up to fill it, silly impatient people behind you will honk at you.

Where it could have significant savings is when you get stuck at a railroad crossing. Where we live the trains frequently block the roads for 5 minutes to two hours (there is a massive rail yard near us). However most people turn their car off if they are at a train anyway, and most people will turn around and find a way around the train if it is there for more than ten minutes. Still, if you do not think to turn the car off yourself and if you decide to just wait it out, then stop start could result in significant gas savings over a year. (Assuming that you do not need to keep it running for heat or AC).

Overall I think it is one of those pointless modifications that are costly to repair, provide no benefit at all, and exist only to meet CARB requirements (like putting a plastic gas pump in the gas tank and assuming that it will be cooled by the gas in the tank sufficiently to keep the pump from burning out). It is all about theory, not about reality.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

I've always wondered if it shortens the life of the starter. That is if the starter's life is directly proportional to number of starts before breaking down.

Since the starter is very different from prior starters, and the load and spin time of an ess restart is so very small, it should actually last longer than the pre- PUG non-ess starters.

 

[Jaxmax]

Diesels are another thing - I've always wondered about the turbo bit - it shuts off and maybe stays off for 90 seconds while things cook.
It seems to me to be a contradiction on a diesel -
"be sure to cool the turbo - oh but that doesn't apply to us!"
if I had a diesel - I'd be more concerned about the instructions in the book and common sense on a turbo than anything else.

Wait , you are totally committed to ESS on a gasser as it’s designed for it , and you use it all the time on highway and light traffic but shut it off in congested traffic , where it would work the most efficiently. You use 90 seconds at a stop light where in my area which is not a big city it is three minutes so even more savings, but if you had a diesel with the designed system you would not use it cause of common sense. Again this is just a survey and asking opinions , it is not a gas or diesel thing , so which way did you vote. I assumed negative , as it is not good on diesels?
Not being a Jerk but this simple poll sure is getting a lot of pages and posts and always will…….Jack

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Wait , you are totally committed to ESS on a gasser as it’s designed for it , and you use it all the time on highway and light traffic but shut it off in congested traffic , where it would work the most efficiently. You use 90 seconds at a stop light where in my area which is not a big city it is three minutes so even more savings, but if you had a diesel with the designed system you would not use it cause of common sense. Again this is just a survey and asking opinions , it is not a gas or diesel thing , so which way did you vote. I assumed negative , as it is not good on diesels?
Not being a Jerk but this simple poll sure is getting a lot of pages and posts and always will…….Jack

You are right on the "always will" - you should note that this is like the 3rd or 4th and it comes up every year or so - and it's always the same.

IT's common sense to use it on a gasser, but there's conflicting real-world information on the diesel. I'm not a diesel tech, and perhaps there really isn't a major problem with letting ESS work on a diesel - I could sure check with my diesel friends who work on modern automotive diesel engines.

Why the problem with being unsure of a diesel, but very sure of the gasser? I know the gassers inside and out, including the starters - I've worked on starters for over 50 years. I've followed the changes they have gone through. And the gas engines - no-brainer. The diesel turbo may in reality be no issue as well, but I've not proven it to myself one way or the other.

I've always wondered if it shortens the life of the starter. That is if the starter's life is directly proportional to number of starts before breaking down.

Here's some "supporting" information on the starters - aside from the information from the engineers themselves that I have posted several times here:
1982 Eagle - 258 6 with a CARBURETOR and choke. It takes multiple revolutions to start it either hot or cold. It's not going to fire off fast. In cold weather it cane take quite a bit to spin it enough to start it. Starter was still fine at 160,000 miles when the oil pressure finally started to drop due to wear. It was a very abused car, from the Las Vegas area, finally California. It had been beat hard. Imagine the spin time on that starter, still going quite strong at 160,000 miles.
Another car was a V8 - starter went 200,000 miles, many many short drives. I was a teenager with a car, took it everywhere, even if it was only 3 blocks away. Carbureted V8 - you can imagine the loading and spin times.
Starters today use bearings instead of the bronze bushings of those days. They do not use carbon brushes, which wear quickly, or the plain copper commutators and they used field windings, not permanent magnets, adding to the heat and electrical load through those brushes as all current for both the armature and the field windings went through the brushes - very heavy load. The amperage draw in those starters was immense compared to today's starters. Look at the tiny cables running to the 3.6 starter compared to the cables as large as my thumb necessary for the starters of old.
I fully expect a starter on an ESS vehicle to last longer than the prior starters on non-ESS vehicles even with ESS enabled. The ESS restart is so short and simple, the "run time" and load is very small, amperage draw - extremely small.

Sponsored