Auto Start/Stop to be removed says EPA chief

[Breadman]

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

Makes sense to conflate them as both are true.

There 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.

Maybe, but anecdotally the average person we're talking about here is doing exactly 0 of those things because saving money is not their true goal, they would rather point fingers at someone people have instructed them to not like.

Sponsored

 

[ShadowsPapa]

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

There 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.

Yes, but the ESS is there and all I have to do is nothing at all and it saves me money. No thinking, no changing anything. So in that sense, it's literally a no-brainer.

Yes, the original intended purpose was two-fold - CAFE, fuel economy AND emissions (and the EPA figures one by using the other)
.A company could "meet rules" even if they didn't meet rules.

But as I've posted here before - the idling thing is very very real especially in the EU. It's illegal and there are signs stating as much, as long with the fines.
Some cities are even passing laws and ordinances that say if your vehicle sits over xx seconds, it must be shut off.

 

[Hootbro]

..................they would rather point fingers at someone people have instructed them to not like.

Those that do not like start/stop only have that opinion because somebody told them to?

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Those that do not like start/stop only have that opinion because somebody told them to?

For some, yes.
We know at least a few based on the bunk that gets repeated (I read it on the forum that it causes earthquakes, and my bearings will literally disintegrate while my batteries melt and the starter turns to dust, and leads to starvation in Africa)
But not all for sure.

* Some because they have read that it's bad and causes damage
(a subset of those because it's the thing to do in their online community and they are afraid to buck the crowd)

* Some because it simply annoys them - they just don't like it for whatever reason.
They just don't like it, find it annoying - all on their own, no one suggested it should be annoying or was bad.

If it annoys them, it annoys them. That's their opinion, their own thinking. They just don't like it. It's not right or wrong - it just "is".

 

[Hootbro]

For some, yes.
We know at least a few based on the bunk that gets repeated (I read it on the forum that it causes earthquakes, and my bearings will literally disintegrate while my batteries melt and the starter turns to dust, and leads to starvation in Africa)
But not all for sure.

* Some because they have read that it's bad and causes damage
(a subset of those because it's the thing to do in their online community and they are afraid to buck the crowd)

* Some because it simply annoys them - they just don't like it for whatever reason.
They just don't like it, find it annoying - all on their own, no one suggested it should be annoying or was bad.

If it annoys them, it annoys them. That's their opinion, their own thinking. They just don't like it. It's not right or wrong - it just "is".

That is kind of presumptuous.

I see that a lot in some threads of the usual suspects that seemed to get miffed and try to ram down their perceived "more correct" thoughts on the matter.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

That is kind of presumptuous.

You notice that I said "some" - and that is true. There are examples all around us.

 

[ourjeeps]

That is kind of presumptuous.

I see that a lot in some threads of the usual suspects that seemed to get miffed and try to ram down their perceived "more correct" thoughts on the matter.

Civil discourse is good. Exchange of info is good. Speaking for myself, based upon my career backgrounds, in this specific case logistics and sustainment, I've learned to seek simplicity, reliability, and economy. The rare elegant solution is greatly appreciated when it presents itself.

Folks are entitled to their opinions, and hopefully those are well informed, and allowed.

 

[Breadman]

Those that do not like start/stop only have that opinion because somebody told them to?

Your selective quoting shows you understand that is not what I said. But to engage your provocation, I would agree with Papa that it is indeed the case for many people. It typically manifests as an umbrella of hatred first and then reverse engineering anything and everything to support that, truth be damned.

In a vacuum, no rational person would be upset by a device that both helps keep the air cleaner for us, our kids, and the environment, and saves them money at the same time.

But if you can convince them this is the work of the evil people they have been bred and brainwashed to hate and trigger their emotions by saying some nonsense like "they" are taking away "freedom" or similar conspiracy they always fall for hook line and sinker, it's a much easier task.

On the other hand I guess they could also just be really, really dumb.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Folks are entitled to their opinions, and hopefully those are well informed, ...........

Sometimes that happens.........

 

[Hootbro]

Your selective quoting shows you understand that is not what I said. But to engage your provocation, I would agree with Papa that it is indeed the case for many people. It typically manifests as an umbrella of hatred first and then reverse engineering anything and everything to support that, truth be damned.

In a vacuum, no rational person would be upset by a device that both helps keep the air cleaner for us, our kids, and the environment, and saves them money at the same time.

But if you can convince them this is the work of the evil people they have been bred and brainwashed to hate and trigger their emotions by saying some nonsense like "they" are taking away "freedom" or similar conspiracy they always fall for hook line and sinker, it's a much easier task.

On the other hand I guess they could also just be really, really dumb.

That is a interesting take.

 

[Ding gus]

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.

The factual data I provided earlier holds true. Your 4 years with a conservative estimate of 100.00 a year savings is eclipsed by the the typical maintenance required by the system. I.E. Simple Aux batter replacement.

That is not opinion in regard to the system one way or the other, and I'm indifferent to it, but what I am not indifferent to is people taking their personal opinions and misleading others to support false claims.

I will reiterate yet again that you are responding to posts where I specifically addressed the financial cost of this system and show how it is not a net gain.

“We wouldn’t even HAVE Gladiator without ESS”
That’s speculative and irrelevant to the financials.
"What about my grandson and future generations?"
That’s an emotional appeal, not a response to the question of whether you, as a consumer, come out ahead financially.
“Would you rather only have a 2.0 turbo or a 4xe?”
Again, a strawman argument. No one is asking to eliminate engine choices—only pointing out that ESS might not be worth it for everyone in terms of cost savings.
“FCA saves money so you do too”
That doesn’t guarantee those savings are passed to customers. In fact, we’re paying for ESS through more expensive parts and maintenance, whether we use it or not.

 

[chaosjake]

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

Better not... If I woke up tomorrow and my 12.5mpg was even worse just because someone in DC doesn't like ESS, I'd be pretty angry.

 

[MikeNH]

I won’t miss it. I turn it off on mine every day. I’ve driven brands that do it better where I might actually be inclined to leave it on but Jeep isn’t one. My Gladiator and probably a dozen or more rental JLs and Grand Cherokees. All the same. Too slow and too rough. It doesn’t provide meaningful savings to the individual and dumping this especially half baked system on us while ignoring real polluters like aviation, ocean shipping and third world countries like china who have zero real environmental policy is a joke.

 

[Breadman]

I won’t miss it. I turn it off on mine every day. I’ve driven brands that do it better where I might actually be inclined to leave it on but Jeep isn’t one. My Gladiator and probably a dozen or more rental JLs and Grand Cherokees. All the same. Too slow and too rough. It doesn’t provide meaningful savings to the individual and dumping this especially half baked system on us while ignoring real polluters like aviation, ocean shipping and third world countries like china who have zero real environmental policy is a joke.

@Hootbro found one in the wild for you

 

[ShadowsPapa]

That doesn’t guarantee those savings are passed to customers. In fact, we’re paying for ESS through more expensive parts and maintenance, whether we use it or not.

How is my maintenance more expensive?
I have a 3/36 (that includes batteries) and a drivetrain warranty. Once that is up, I would expect, like others have shown, these engines to go as far if not FARTHER than others, in part due to the
Batteries are going to go no matter what. You will go through batteries pretty much the same. It's your choice WHERE to buy batteries, you can spend less or more, buy better/bigger, or not.
That choice is on you.
So far, our Jeeps have been the most reliable vehicles we've ever owned short of a 1990 Camaro we had, which was actually a perfect car, no flaws ever.

Anything we say on cost is speculative - no matter which of is says it, yes. But having worked in manufacturing and engineering companies - they reach a point where they are using things that are pretty much no cost to them moving forward..

Bottom line is you hate it - go for it. You'll do whatever or say whatever to support your hate of it, that's fine. But not so much when opinions become facts on the web.

half baked system on us while ignoring real polluters like aviation, ocean shipping and third world countries like china who have zero real environmental policy is a joke.

"But the other kids are all doing it........ "
good argument. China is being a jerk, so we should too.

As a society, we control what we can control.
And we also have control over such things to some extent, something about Novembers?

Sorry, it DOES save some of us - meaningful. But it's a given, even all the studies I've ever posted show it's "up to" - not ALL/EVERYONE. Some will save a lot, some won't save anything real.
Me - it saves, you it may not save you a dime.
But the point was to allow companies that otherwise could not meet CAFE rules to be able to earn credits and make fleet rules/numbers.
What if Stellantis could not earn and use those credits? What would be the fines they pay, and at what cost to us?
Shareholders will sell out and the company loses if they can't keep making money. Fines of any sort cost them money and are bad for stock prices. It's a matter of survival for some companies.

Sponsored