Auto Start/Stop to be removed says EPA chief

[ShadowsPapa]

. For example, Ford’s TSB 19-0451 cites starter failures on vehicles with start-stop systems around 80,000 to 100,000 miles,

And that's more frequently? for a typical person, that's a lifetime.
That happens in non-ESS starters.
That's also a Ford TSB - meaning they have a known issue. They have resolved it. Gee, we have a lot of TSBs for failures in our Jeeps, too. That doesn't mean it's a problem they can't fix or get around, it simply says they have an issue. That's a ford problem not an industry-wide problem. That's a specific thing to Ford.

demonstrates that in cold-start conditions or low battery states, starter current draw and mechanical load increase significantly, accelerating wear despite ESS design safeguards

Of course - cold-start conditions. ESS starters compensate for ESS, not cold-start conditions, low batteries and so on. And our vehicles shut down ESS in low battery conditions - non-issue. That doesn't even count..
In other words, they are saying "well, they'll still fail like others due to cold-start conditions that place excessive loads on the starter". Makes sense.

ESS starters are subjected to a vastly increased number of start cycles compared to conventional starters. Traditional starters may operate on the order of tens of thousands of cycles over the vehicle’s life, while ESS starters can experience hundreds of thousands or even millions of cycles. According to a study by Bosch (2017) on Start-Stop systems, the increased cycle frequency exponentially accelerates wear mechanisms, particularly fatigue in the solenoid coil windings and engagement components [1].

Again, a big DUH. Of course there's added wear, no one said there's isn't any added stress or wear, but all of the factors in place to compensate mean these will still last as long as a non-ESS starter on a non-ESS engine. Not shorter times than typical. (from 2017 - bet these have advancements beyond what this study includes)
Nothing here is saying they will wear out faster than a non-ESS starter on a non-ESS engine. So they accelerate wear and fatigue - they are made to compensate and still last as long as others.
It's like anything else - a tire built for abuse will last as long when it is abused in the rocks as a tire not built for abuse that's used on nice highways only.
These are made to handle the abuse and none of those studies point to any problems not already known for many years, nor more frequent failures.

They have to keep studying to see if any further changes or improvements are needed.
Nothing there suggests we are going to see increased numbers of starter failures. These are just studies showing the stresses - which have been addressed.

(I also note those are from several years back...........)

Hmmm - must be a typo as Ford TSB 19-0451, issued in 2019, addresses an issue of excessive oil consumption in some 2018-2020 F-150 vehicles with the 5.0L engine.

Sponsored

 

[Ding gus]

And that's more frequently? for a typical person, that's a lifetime.
That happens in non-ESS starters.
That's also a Ford TSB - meaning they have a known issue. They have resolved it. Gee, we have a lot of TSBs for failures in our Jeeps, too. That doesn't mean it's a problem they can't fix or get around, it simply says they have an issue. That's a ford problem not an industry-wide problem. That's a specific thing to Ford.


Of course - cold-start conditions. ESS starters compensate for ESS, not cold-start conditions, low batteries and so on. And our vehicles shut down ESS in low battery conditions - non-issue. That doesn't even count..
In other words, they are saying "well, they'll still fail like others due to cold-start conditions that place excessive loads on the starter". Makes sense.




Again, a big DUH. Of course there's added wear, no one said there's isn't any added stress or wear, but all of the factors in place to compensate mean these will still last as long as a non-ESS starter on a non-ESS engine. Not shorter times than typical. (from 2017 - bet these have advancements beyond what this study includes)
Nothing here is saying they will wear out faster than a non-ESS starter on a non-ESS engine. So they accelerate wear and fatigue - they are made to compensate and still last as long as others.
It's like anything else - a tire built for abuse will last as long when it is abused in the rocks as a tire not built for abuse that's used on nice highways only.
These are made to handle the abuse and none of those studies point to any problems not already known for many years, nor more frequent failures.

They have to keep studying to see if any further changes or improvements are needed.
Nothing there suggests we are going to see increased numbers of starter failures. These are just studies showing the stresses - which have been addressed.

(I also note those are from several years back...........)

I've never stated anyone is replacing a starter every couple years.
I've never stated shorter lifespan than typical.
Your exact quote was: "Starter wear is a non issue these days".
That is refuted by jeeps own TSBs specifically for repeated starter motor failures due to high cycle count in ESS systems.

The facts and studies I initially provided have nothing to do with specific starter longevity but rather reinforce that ESS systems do not provide a cost benefit. All of the added design complexity is what drives up the cost. When a failure happens...and yes they do happen, contrary to your personal opinion, the cost of replacement contributes significantly to exceeding the expected gains from the ESS system.

Completely ignoring those of us that have experienced starter failure... look at the costs incurred due to battery failure from the ESS system. The out of pocket cost can easily eclipse 800.00. That alone eats away at the estimated savings from ESS over the first 5 years. Mine failed within the first 2 years. And that is just replacement cost, not counting other variables that can drive it far higher such as time loss and towing expenses due to being stranded by the failed system.

In summary a gladiators ESS system will not result in positive financial gains.

 

[smlobx]

I rule that @Ding gus wins on technical merit citing his sources.

This case is now closed!

 

[Great Offender]

@ShadowsPapa - Thanks for providing some statistics. Didn't want to make myself a target.

 

[Charles 236]

I realize the ESS is one of "third rail" subjects in this forum. Like oil choices, everyone has an opinion, also, many opinions are not based on facts but on emotions. With that said, I will give my two cents worth.

I have worked on the 3.6 since the original Pentastar came out. After Chrysler sorted out the valve guide issues in the first couple of years, it became an excellent engine that replaced several older V6 engines. When maintained properly, it is as durable as any engine can be, I will include the 4.0 and the old Slant Six in that statement.

When the PUG (Pentastar UpGrade) came out in the model year '16 vehicles, I was not pleased. Chrysler had worked out the bugs in the 3.6, so why mess with it? In the first year, there were a few Variable Valve Lift issues, but no cam wear issues. It was around the model year '20 that the first intake cam issues really started showing up, I saw none before then that I recall. The PUG has been an excellent engine, the redesign for use in ESS vehicles has been very successful. Part of the redesign is improved bearings, the VVL (helps with hot restart, also broadens the torque curve), and a greater range of timing changes in the Variable Valve Timing intake phaser (same benefits). Not just the engine, but also the transmission was redesigned for ESS use. Even the starter and flywheel was upgraded.

Starter failure is very rare on modern vehicles, though not impossible. I have not had to replace a starter yet on an ESS equipped Jeep that failed from wear. The starters that I have replaced on ESS vehicles were replaced because of failure from external causes, such as a hydrolocked engine that the customer tried to start. The starter has what essentially is a fuse inside that prevents a current overload from melting the wiring insulation and starting a fire, and it fails when this happens. So far, I have not seen any other failure in an ESS starter on a Jeep.

What this boils down to is that the ESS system works as designed. Many people don't trust it, and that is their choice. In Jeeps and other Chrysler products of the last few years batteries are more of a problem than anything in the ESS system, but this is a case of using the cheapest batteries available, not a poorly designed system.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

I realize the ESS is one of "third rail" subjects in this forum. Like oil choices, everyone has an opinion, also, many opinions are not based on facts but on emotions. With that said, I will give my two cents worth.

I have worked on the 3.6 since the original Pentastar came out. After Chrysler sorted out the valve guide issues in the first couple of years, it became an excellent engine that replaced several older V6 engines. When maintained properly, it is as durable as any engine can be, I will include the 4.0 and the old Slant Six in that statement.

When the PUG (Pentastar UpGrade) came out in the model year '16 vehicles, I was not pleased. Chrysler had worked out the bugs in the 3.6, so why mess with it? In the first year, there were a few Variable Valve Lift issues, but no cam wear issues. It was around the model year '20 that the first intake cam issues really started showing up, I saw none before then that I recall. The PUG has been an excellent engine, the redesign for use in ESS vehicles has been very successful. Part of the redesign is improved bearings, the VVL (helps with hot restart, also broadens the torque curve), and a greater range of timing changes in the Variable Valve Timing intake phaser (same benefits). Not just the engine, but also the transmission was redesigned for ESS use. Even the starter and flywheel was upgraded.

Starter failure is very rare on modern vehicles, though not impossible. I have not had to replace a starter yet on an ESS equipped Jeep that failed from wear. The starters that I have replaced on ESS vehicles were replaced because of failure from external causes, such as a hydrolocked engine that the customer tried to start. The starter has what essentially is a fuse inside that prevents a current overload from melting the wiring insulation and starting a fire, and it fails when this happens. So far, I have not seen any other failure in an ESS starter on a Jeep.

What this boils down to is that the ESS system works as designed. Many people don't trust it, and that is their choice. In Jeeps and other Chrysler products of the last few years batteries are more of a problem than anything in the ESS system, but this is a case of using the cheapest batteries available, not a poorly designed system.

Too often, most of what's seen is "opinion" or feelings. Sometimes spot-on, sometimes based on faulty information, or files that are research files so engineers can make necessary improvements, or they are merely studies and not actually pointing to any real-world issue that hasn't already been addressed.
Then there are techs or technical people who have real-world hands-on experience in the world being looked at. It's factual, experience based or even training based.
When the two collide, watch out. The facts may get in the way and cause the one who has opinions that aren't based on solid facts to be shown to be incorrect, and no one likes that.
I'm comfortable based in my knowledge while some are comfortable in their opinions. The problem is, I can only present so many facts - then run out, while a person can always find others out there of the same opinion to support them even in errors.

While I don't have the current working information, I have done my share of study and research for years. And I base what I say on over 50 years of hand-on, first-hand experience, knowledge and training.
When I have questions - and have the slightest bit of hesitation in resting on my knowledge, I seek out more information.
The PCV is an example - I go to a shop, ask for parts, talk to people and so on. In that case, there was talk on the internet of those things being replaced left and right, big troubles, everyone has troubles - it took a MONTH for them to get me a used PCV to tear into because as they said "it's not a big issue, they rarely run into oil consumption or PCV issues"..
It's the same for other parts - I can't get my hands on a PUG 3.6 starter as the shop says - "we haven't replaced any in quite a while".
That not only supports what I pretty much already knew, but for me, a guy who likes to tear into things and figure it all out, it was quite disappointing! If I had the money to throw away, I'd just have them get me a new one............ but I'd rather take into a used one to diagnose the failure and do it on the cheap.

Interesting note from history - and I have the documents behind it - years ago, back in the early 1970s, Ford was having trouble with their 4 1/2" direct drive starters starting to spin before engaging with the flywheel/ring gear. It wasn't always, but it was coming up more and more often.
A small auto maker who also used starters made by Motorcraft/Autolite/FoMoCo figured it out and came out with a bulletin. Replace the steel spacer ring on the armature with a bronze spacer ring. The steel ring was being magnetized and holding the drive back from engaging quickly enough.
In that same time period, Ford was having trouble with drives staying engaged too long and wearing out the drive (or spinning the starter armature too fast)
The same small auto maker figured it out - and came up with a spring design change, and passed that on to Ford who implemented it going forward, saving FoMoCo from replacing hundreds of starter drives under warranty going forward with the new spring design.

 

[ourjeeps]

I realize the ESS is one of "third rail" subjects in this forum. Like oil choices, everyone has an opinion, also, many opinions are not based on facts but on emotions. With that said, I will give my two cents worth.

I have worked on the 3.6 since the original Pentastar came out. After Chrysler sorted out the valve guide issues in the first couple of years, it became an excellent engine that replaced several older V6 engines. When maintained properly, it is as durable as any engine can be, I will include the 4.0 and the old Slant Six in that statement.

When the PUG (Pentastar UpGrade) came out in the model year '16 vehicles, I was not pleased. Chrysler had worked out the bugs in the 3.6, so why mess with it? In the first year, there were a few Variable Valve Lift issues, but no cam wear issues. It was around the model year '20 that the first intake cam issues really started showing up, I saw none before then that I recall. The PUG has been an excellent engine, the redesign for use in ESS vehicles has been very successful. Part of the redesign is improved bearings, the VVL (helps with hot restart, also broadens the torque curve), and a greater range of timing changes in the Variable Valve Timing intake phaser (same benefits). Not just the engine, but also the transmission was redesigned for ESS use. Even the starter and flywheel was upgraded.

Starter failure is very rare on modern vehicles, though not impossible. I have not had to replace a starter yet on an ESS equipped Jeep that failed from wear. The starters that I have replaced on ESS vehicles were replaced because of failure from external causes, such as a hydrolocked engine that the customer tried to start. The starter has what essentially is a fuse inside that prevents a current overload from melting the wiring insulation and starting a fire, and it fails when this happens. So far, I have not seen any other failure in an ESS starter on a Jeep.

What this boils down to is that the ESS system works as designed. Many people don't trust it, and that is their choice. In Jeeps and other Chrysler products of the last few years batteries are more of a problem than anything in the ESS system, but this is a case of using the cheapest batteries available, not a poorly designed system.

Charles - Thank you for posting for this informative Pentastar V-6 engine development/historical timeline. We have owned several versions this engine, also the venerable 4.0 inline 6 you mentioned. BTW, and all this time I thought a PUG was a dog (humor).

As an old loggie, and former aviator, I am NOT a fan of complexity, which is nearly always crosswise with reliability and economy (especially desirable in aircraft (humor)).

So back to the "third rail" topic (TY again for "touching" on that (humor))

If the ESS/ASS designers has simply allowed for continual (w/o an every-darn start event deactivate button push) or (please yes) one-time permanent turn off of the ESS/ASS feature by the vehicle OWNER, I could conditionally accept that (manufacturers did not).

2nd problem putting in an aux battery, connected in Parallel with a main start battery is a no go in my respectfully, pragmatic, Keep It Simple Stupid (KISS) design book. Folks on this forum and other forums have reported inability to restart with aux battery fail or other ESS/ASS system fault occurs, worst case in an intersection --- and yes ALL batteries, of ALL types, eventually fail. So please - nope on that.

We respect, trickle charge, and desulfate ALL our batteries to get maximum service life from them. Our WWII military did that w/aircraft batteries to maximize their service life/reliability in time of war.

Again --- Thank you for posting for the detailed Pentastar V-6 engine development information/historical timeline.

 

[GeneralMaximus]

Charles

If the ESS/ASS designers has simply allowed for continual (w/o an every-darn start event deactivate button push) or (please yes) one-time permanent turn off of the ESS/ASS feature by the vehicle OWNER, I could conditionally accept that (manufacturers did not).

As I stated before, the manufacturers did give us that feature when ESS first came out +10 years ago. But our govt regulators made them get rid of it.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

I rule that @Ding gus wins on technical merit citing his sources.

This case is now closed!

LOL - yeah, but he's reading into those that which isn't there, taking those documents for other purposes.
We know there's more stress - but we also know that's a non-issue as it's all been accounted for in the very engine design itself, along with the starter design, VVL taking the load off the starter, PCM tracking things during a stop (Some companies take it a step farther and simply apply ignition to a cylinder to actually get it moving as the starter works - sort of like how we used to start tractors in the last century)

 

[ShadowsPapa]

As I stated before, the manufacturers did give us that feature when ESS first came out +10 years ago. But our govt regulators made them get rid of it.

It's just too bloody difficult and insulting to have to press a button when you start the vehicle. How horrible! The humanity!
i already have to press a button to start the thing, and now they want me to press another! I refuse! That's too difficult, it's ANNOYING!
(and brings me to another problem with drivers today - they get in, start it, and go - no more of the check behind you, make sure you can see out all mirrors, people are LAZY - want to get in and GO. Modern EVs support that with "sit and go" technology. Get in, sit down, and go. Get out, no need to turn anything off, it does that for you.
Drivers are lazy, - just go through a large department store parking lot some afternoon and look at the close calls as people hop in and go - no looking around, nothing.
People don't even check mirror adjustment as they get in at various times of the day - no the mirrors do not move, your body changes over the course of the day - but no one bothers - get in and drive.

My wife pretty much tells it as most think it - her attitude is "I don't want to have to drive there, I want to BE there".
It's like something new "I don't want to have to learn it, I want to know it".

 

[Charles 236]

Experience and knowledge (not opinions or feelings) should be the base for people to diagnose problems, real or imagined. When I diagnose a problem, my approach is to KNOW what has failed, or hasn't failed, before prescribing the fix. I have seen many guessed "fixes" fail because the tech didn't want to study and work the process to diagnose the problem. I have worked on cars off and on since the '70s, but don't have any formal training except Chrysler Technical. So I am self taught in a lot of technical areas. Part of my self taught approach is to take things apart and study how they work.

I have taken apart and "patched" a few of the starters that did fail, just so I could prove that a starter was needed. In every case, it was as simple as restoring the "fuse" inside the starter that fails, saving wiring damage. It does take a little longer to do this, since Chrysler doesn't pay us to repair starters, generators, and many other items that are considered cheaper to replace than repair. Since, officially we can't repair a starter, it is only a final confirmation of diagnosis, and a new starter has to be used for the final repair. It is also an educational time for my apprentice, who had never seen the inside of a stater and couldn't imagine "repairing" one. But that is another story.

 

[GeneralMaximus]

(and brings me to another problem with drivers today - they get in, start it, and go - no more of the check behind you, make sure you can see out all mirrors, people are LAZY - want to get in and GO. Modern EVs support that with "sit and go" technology. Get in, sit down, and go. Get out, no need to turn anything off, it does that for you.

This is too true. And dont forget the keyless unlock/lock features. I have not used my Tesla “key” in five years. Just walk up, open the door, sit down and shift into drive(no start button). Then after I park, just open the door to get out, walk away and the car locks itself.

I can actually pinpoint when technology started turning us lazy. It all started with the first iPhone. No longer did the user need any programming experience to use the supercomputer that fit in the palm of their hand. Apple made that technology accessible to the masses with their user friendly interface. And I see that exact same parallel with Tesla, when it comes to cars.

 

[ourjeeps]

As I stated before, the manufacturers did give us that feature when ESS first came out +10 years ago. But our govt regulators made them get rid of it.

TY for that clarification, I missed that in my reads of this thread.

Problem is currently that is no longer the case here with the new Gladiators/Wranglers.

Not intending to aggravate ANY forum moderators - they provide a necessary function, I have an often shared, often used, often applicable saying (joke?) that goes:

"If there's anything going wrong in your life, it is likely due to bad government policy." ("...our govt regulators made them get rid of it.")

I believe it's safe to assume, that folks from any side of the opinion spectrum could support above saying.

If humans made it (laws/regs)- it's going to be imperfect. (humor or maybe not)

 

[RHINO79]

It won't get changed on existing vehicles. You can count on that.

Yes, one has to take into account model year - as well as other factors. It's not a simple "add it and get this" thing.
I'm meaning the list of the 2020 and later where ESS can be turned off - and stay off through multiple restart cycles.
Again, being a rule, in 3 to 4 years, any change made now can be undone with the swipe of a pen. They aren't going to go out and disable it on existing vehicles - the company has already gotten the credits. I also suspect you'd see things tangled in court cases for months. And then there's the cost of programming and actual hardware mods in some cases to undo what's already out there.
Does anyone REALLY believe FCA is going to pay someone to devise the disable code and then give it away? Or even bother with it at all? They have gotten the credits, they have sold the vehicle.
This is a "moving forward" bit, not a retroactive bit.

 

[GeneralMaximus]

And for the record, I use the word Lazy but theres a fine line between lazy and progress. I am sure, when the first washing machines came out, there were grandmas across America who scoffed at the device. “How will you make sure the stains come off, if you aren’t scrubbing them off by hand? That is a lazy person’s machine, who is content with wearing dirty, stained clothes!”

Sponsored