Auto Start/Stop to be removed says EPA chief

[roger bass]

Several studies, including by Edmunds (I'll post this for the 100th time) have shown 7-10%, depending on the vehicle. For a fleet - that is heavy numbers.
My wife and I both notice a savings with our driving in all of the stop and go long long traffic lights, stopping every 2 blocks and so on. We can watch the average literally drop - or not - as we sit at lights and signs. It was a big deal getting around stupid traffic in some of the southern states a couple of years back.
FACT, as you claim, is that it actually saves.
Commuters will save, highway drivers, longer trips, few stops - no, it won't.
Studies on multiple vehicles by multiple parties have confirmed. Do the research in the dozens of other threads on this.

https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/fo...n-analysis-2-years-122-tanks-30k-miles.73702/

Sponsored

 

[ourjeeps]

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.

Wow lots of activity here today. Must be Friday???

100% Keys almost always work.

Not a fan of key fobs or automobile start buttons (although older aircraft had start buttons). Laziness is a central and primary affliction of the human condition avoid it for success (humor, or maybe not) . Have a great JEEP weekend.

 

[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

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 live/reliability in time of war.

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

I agree with the K.
I.S.S. principle. The irony is that when the Pentastar first came out, most techs didn't want to work on such a complicated engine. Now, the Pentastar and Pentastar Upgrade are the simplest engines in Jeeps.

As for the dual batteries, two things would fix most of the problems. First, quality batteries. Mopar batteries have a bad reputation that is well earned. Secondly, put the auxiliary battery where it is as easy to access as the main battery. Finally, some Gladiators and Wranglers are weekend vehicles, not driven enough to maintain a battery state of charge properly. This also affects any vehicle with computer modules on board, modules use power to keep volatile memory alive.

ESS is here to stay, whether people like it or not. But at least there is a button within a few inches of the start button to disable it for that trip. If a person can learn to push one button, how much harder is it to push another, nearby button to disable ESS?

 

[ShadowsPapa]

https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/fo...n-analysis-2-years-122-tanks-30k-miles.73702/

Not really scientific in the methods, and covered only one vehicle and driver............. but as we've said over and over for more than 4 years - it will vary wildly with the vehicle, driver, and where and how you drive.
Go back to my posts showing results in testing over time, SAE, AAA, Edmunds and others.

In our own personal cases, it's a whole lot more than 0.2 miles difference.
Again, if you don't like it, press the button!

People will always find someone who has "proven" it's not worth it - it's easy to find such things out there.

 

[GeneralMaximus]

ESS is here to stay, whether people like it or not.

I agreed with you until this statement. Did you not read the title of this thread? It’s going away! Gone! D.O.A! Kaput! Cancelled! Au revoir!

 

[ShadowsPapa]

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.

This exactly.
I was taking over Dad's shop area by the time I was 14.
If you know how they work, or are supposed to work, it's a lot easier to figure out why they don't work now.
I was fortunate - our HS shop teacher groomed me for later things, college, and then on the job factory training.

You remember Plymouth LOL -

 

[Ding gus]

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)

Pot calling the kettle black here. You still fail to recognize the greater discussion here. I will reiterate yet again the information I provided factually proves the ESS system does not result in a cost benefit.

 

[ourjeeps]

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

I agree with the K.I.S.S. principle. The irony is that when the Pentastar first came out, most techs didn't want to work on such a complicated engine. Now, the Pentastar and Pentastar Upgrade are the simplest engines in Jeeps.

As for the dual batteries, two things would fix most of the problems. First, quality batteries. Mopar batteries have a bad reputation that is well earned. Secondly, put the auxiliary battery where it is as easy to access as the main battery. Finally, some Gladiators and Wranglers are weekend vehicles, not driven enough to maintain a battery state of charge properly. This also affects any vehicle with computer modules on board, modules use power to keep volatile memory alive.

ESS is here to stay...

Yes good old K.I.S.S. --- Modern vehicles have too many electronic related parasitic/phantom loads to be kind to batteries and charging systems. All the processors, sensors, network connections and communications require power. So let us add rodents to the wiring harness/connector horror mix. Not good.

Batteries have become a central bane/threat to our vehicular life, you are damned with, and without them.

More complex Lithium-ion battery variants with their BMS/charger specific challenges, energy density, and battery fires aside offer some size, capacity, recharge cycle relief, but alas are NO universal panacea.

Your share on MOPAR OEM battery quality is believable, and just plain sad.

Lead acid batteries have been manufactured the USA since the early 1900's. You'd expect (hope) lead acid battery design and QC (flooded cell, SLA, AGM etc.) would be solid at this point. Can we get it right?!?! Sadly not.

Have a great Jeep weekend!

 

[Charles 236]

I agreed with you until this statement. Did you not read the title of this thread? It’s going away! Gone! D.O.A! Kaput! Cancelled! Au revoir!

I did read the title, and saw the announcement on a news site. I just doubt that the manufacturers will drop ESS. Remember that Jeep is owned by a European company, that doesn't care what Americans want. Also, this announcement is just one administration reversing a rule. Four years from now could be very different, a new rule may be in place that requires systems even worse than ESS to meet.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

I provided factually proves the ESS system does not result in a cost benefit.

You did? Even though many of us save well over $100/year?
Did you see the percentages saved in those studies, take that times the dollars per gallon and figure the real savings?

I figure over 4 years, for me, that's $400 (actually over that in higher gas price times).
In 4 years, I've not paid any more. The technology was created, engineered, implemented years ago. The extra cost is miniscule vs. the savings.
Where's my extra costs?

I also have to include the fact that without it, we would not even HAVE Gladiator. For that matter, the Wrangler may suffer badly.
Since it's used world-wide, the costs of development have been spread over about 20 million units.
Where's the extra cost for me?

I also see a savings for my grandson and future generations. It"s way beyond a few bucks per person dollar savings.
FCA would have to implement far far more expensive methods of achieving the same results, or pay massive fines.
How would you like our only engines to be a 2.0 turbo, or we have no choice but a 4xe version?
Figuring a hard cost per person is rather short-sighted, very limited if used as the ONLY benefit. It saves us money because it saves FCA money! They'd pay millions in fines - guess WHO pays that? You do. So they pass along costs of meeting CAFE rules.
If FCA couldn't meet CAFE rules, they would have paid millions more than they have already paid. It could in the end mean FCA goes away, or at least our "life style Jeeps" go away.

The ESS costs me really nothing more. But I'm saving fuel and cutting CO2 among other things. Good enough for me.

 

[Hootbro]

If everybody just agrees with me on this subject, we can shut this thread down and it will be settled once and for all. Why anyone has a differing opinion is baffling and against the common good.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

If everybody just agrees with me on this subject, we can shut this thread down and it will be settled once and for all. Why anyone has a differing opinion is baffling and against the common good.

Do we even know what your opinion is?
Or do you even have one?
Do you care one way or another?

For that matter, what do the last 7 pages have to do with the original post?
Going forward there won't be credits for using the technology - so does this mean that companies must comply without getting any credits? Hmmmm.
"we're getting rid of the the auto stop/start" says the EPA guy. OK, so are they relaxing the rules? Or, if you don't meet the rules you pay a fine - period, no credits?
GM chose to pay the fines instead of using their credits.

Now you made me think about the original post - how will the EPA compensate for getting rid of a credit companies were using to comply with the rules?

Two choices -
Relax the rules, make it easier to comply.
Take away credits for using technology, forcing companies to comply or pay the fines.

 

[Breadman]

Ironically there seems to be a large overlap between people who (up until 4 months ago) were whining about high gas prices and people who bitch about this device and willfully part with even more money by disabling it.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Ironically there seems to be a large overlap between people who (up until 4 months ago) were whining about high gas prices and people who bitch about this device and willfully part with even more money by disabling it.

That's an interesting take.
And it makes logical sense.

 

[Hootbro]

Ironically there seems to be a large overlap between people who (up until 4 months ago) were whining about high gas prices and people who bitch about this device and willfully part with even more money by disabling it.

I think the "cost savings" is something people have conflated with the system when it's intended purpose to reduce idle emissions multiplied by the prospect of many thousands of people using it in theory.

There is probably hundreds of decisions the average person can make in their discretionary spending that will save them way more than any fuel saving from using start/stop.

Sponsored