ESS - Rate It

[BullDogge]

Hate the ass. Plus mine is already acting up and I need to take it in. It has killed the vehicle 5 times now while driving. Must shift back into park to restart. Super annoying and could be dangerous. What are the concerns of turning off the engine and restarting it at every light? Doesn't seem like a good long term plan. I bought a tazer to keep it disabled which didn't solve the kill problem that it does on occasion.

Sponsored

 

[brancky3]

What about the other items that are in play aside from fuel? I have to imagine starters have to use more of the materials that are needed to make it reliable which have a greater impact on the environment. Same for batteries? Does the higher quantity of starts and stops put a higher strain on bearings in the motor causing there to be a denser material?

ESS vehicles have a significantly more robust starter, and in the JT's case there is a separate battery dedicated to running the vehicle when the ESS system turns the engine off. The vehicle can handle it, but I can see your point about environmental impact (as this is a negative of electric cars as a whole as well)

 

[AggieJeep]

A single sample / single user for this platform so far, sure. My salesperson told me he saw a 3MPG difference when he tried 3 tanks with it on, 3 tanks with it off. There is also TONS of data that shows that ESS / whatever a company calls it helps to save several MPGs per tank of fuel. It definitely depends on your driving conditions though - I only have ~3-4 stops on my way to work so it won't save as much fuel as someone with 10x more stops than me.

Watch the video from 'Engineering Explained' that explains the gas savings; for a 4-cylinder engine it took ~7 seconds of idling to equal the fuel it took to start the engine once. With a bigger engine it will take even less time idling before you reach the point where you're wasting gas.

Reference(s) please.

 

[WXman]

Thanks for sharing. I would like to see broader data for various driving areas, say urban, suburban and rural.

I could show 18 months worth, but it would all look the same except for when the ESS system quit. My driving is a roughly 50/50 mix of city/highway. My average MPG when stock always lines up perfectly with the EPA rating on the window stickers. So, I'm a pretty good test subject.

There is no question that ESS is beneficial. There is also no question that the more driving you do in the city, the more beneficial it's going to be.

I appreciate the effort you put in but honestly 1-3mpg isn't enough to make me like it. I have a refrigerator box on wheels with 4.10 gears and a transfer case, mpg isn't a concern. Even the wife's Durango has it, it sucks on it too. I have just gotten in the habit of pushing two buttons to start the Jeep instead of one. When I have money that isn't going to mods I may pay to have it turned off permanently.

To each their own. For the average U.S. driver, at current fuel prices, 1 MPG = ~$15/month. So, 1-3 MPG is $15-45 per month. While that's not a lot of money, it certainly isn't zero. Heck, that's enough savings to cover my monthly water bill. Or my son's school lunches. It adds up and it does help.

Now, imagine you're FCA and you're selling millions of vehicles annually at 1-3 MPG savings each. That's a T O N of money they are now not paying the EPA in fines and penalties. And that's why ESS will soon be everywhere.

 

[brancky3]

Reference(s) please.

I highly recommend you watch this video:


Also:
Check out pages 14-16 on this study from the US Department of Energy.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/02/f8/idle-stop_light_duty_passenger_vehicles.pdf

 

[CarolinaGladiator]

I agree to each their own, and I'm not doubting your findings. I still hate it and if it hadn't been for the button to turn it off, I'd hate it more.

 

[Malarkey21]

I find that I don't push the brake hard enough at stop lights to shut off the engine. I start to let off the brake and hold it with just enough pressure to keep the jeep from moving as I come to a stop. Its hard to describe how I drive but I guess it would be that I reduce pedal pressure as I slow down so that at the time of stop the front end does not rebound back up. (Could also be referred to a smooth driving?)

Once I stop I can sit there and it does not turn off. If I push on the brake a bit more it shuts off almost like its on command.

Anyone experiencing this too?

 

[brancky3]

I find that I don't push the brake hard enough at stop lights to shut off the engine. I start to let off the brake and hold it with just enough pressure to keep the jeep from moving as I come to a stop. Its hard to describe how I drive but I guess it would be that I reduce pedal pressure as I slow down so that at the time of stop the front end does not rebound back up. (Could also be referred to a smooth driving?)

Once I stop I can sit there and it does not turn off. If I push on the brake a bit more it shuts off almost like its on command.

Anyone experiencing this too?

Yep, that's normal for most cars with a system like this. It wants to make sure you're committed to stopping before shutting down

 

[Malarkey21]

Yep, that's normal for most cars with a system like this. It wants to make sure you're committed to stopping before shutting down

good to know im slowing down smoother then intended haha

 

[AggieJeep]

I highly recommend you watch this video:

Also:
Check out pages 14-16 on this study from the US Department of Energy.
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/02/f8/idle-stop_light_duty_passenger_vehicles.pdf

Kudos for a couple of references. The video answered a question I never asked. I’ve always known the fuel needed for startup is no big thing. I have had to futz with old carbs enough to know much isn’t needed.

The DoE doc was interesting but I think if you read closely, there is no big win there for their U.S. Real World approach. A snippet from their conclusions is below. Thx again for offering up real research.


The IS systems proved to be effective in producing FE improvement in the dynamometer testing, although the individual tests varied widely in exhibiting improvement. For the Smart vehicle, the percent differences in FE values between IS enabled and disabled modes for the 5-cycle methodology, NEDC, and JC08 were 3.3%, 14.4%, and 10.8%, respectively. For the Mazda vehicle, the percent differences in FE values for the 5-cycle methodology, NEDC, and JC08 were 1.1%, 8.3%, and 7.0%, respectively. For the Volkswagen vehicle, the percent differences in FE values for the 5-cycle methodology, NEDC, and JC08 were 0.5%, 6.3%, and 7.1%, respectively. It is clear that FE improvements were more significant for the European and Japanese methodologies in comparison to the U.S. method, as expected.
The on-road results were not nearly as definitive. The percent differences in FE values between IS enabled and disabled modes for the fleet values for the Smart, Mazda, and Volkswagen vehicles
were 0.3%, 2.0%, and -0.7%. It is unclear whether the IS systems did not function properly or whether the driver behavior, environmental conditions, and route differences overwhelmed the potential FE improvements. The Smart vehicle that was tested in the separate, prescribed-route test achieved a percent difference in FE values between IS enabled and disabled modes of 9.6% with A/C operating. When an attempt is made to analytically remove the A/C energy consumption, the FE improvement becomes 15.3%.
None of the three international testing methodologies produced results that matched the on-road tests more closely than the other two. Because the U.S. 5-cycle methodology is much more complicated (and expensive due to there being more drive cycles and sophisticated environmental equipment) to conduct, further research into the validity of conducting more, rather than fewer, drive schedules may be warranted.

 

[TennesseePA]

I don't mind it at all under normal driving conditions but in stop and go traffic it will worry me to death until I turn it off.

 

[Mkcagle]

Annoying as hell just to to satisfy a bunch of Kalifornia p———. Disabled mine.

 

[Epb1981]

First, their is a hesitation after you take your foot off the brake for it to start, compared to normal vehicle where your vehicle is running and begins to move as you take your foot off the brake. Second. I would much rather the starter fail in my driveway then on the highway during stop and go traffic. It sacrifices your safety to save a couple gallons of fuel a month. But atleast we have a disable button.

 

[jfoster55]

I have the ESS on my '15 Cherokee and it works as advertised. My only issue is that when UHaul put on my hitch, they did not attach the electrical to the harness as they would have from the factory. They just attached it to the pos terminal, eventually it killed my battery. The ESS stopped working. A new battery ($200) later, the ESS again works. I am used to it and anticipate the green light a second or 2 early, the car starts right up.

I am going to trade in or sell my '12 JKU for a Gladiator, most likely around Christmas. Being an older driver, I am beginning to like my creature comforts- ESS, blind spot detection and the back up camera. If it works like my Cherokee, I'll be happy.

 

[ACAD_Cowboy]

My experience with it is with a Mercedes GLK and all in all you do notice the fuel consumption when it is not functioning.The hesitation does take a little bit to get used to, at first I couldn't stand it but I've learned to preemptively release the brake. Mind you it won't release the brake lock until you apply throttle so roll away is not a concern so much.

I know this one feature won't save the world but it does make a small difference in fuel costs and when you're demonstrating the victory of thrust over aerodynamics, every little bit helps.

Sponsored