Auto stop, worst idea ever just got worse.

[Deleted member 57233]

As someone that mostly rides bicycles and motorcycles around town, it's soo much nicer these days sitting at an intersection and not being in a cloud of exhaust. The only ones that bothered me when driving were the early Ford ones that killed the whole car, sitting at a light with the AC off in 105 degree heat was bullshit.

Sponsored

 

[Redleg37]

How is it burning more?

Who put the video up? Was it real world testing on real streets, or sitting in a chair determined to disprove any savings?

Did you know that hot ESS restarts are not like pushing the big button to start it? The PCM tracks the last time every injector fired, duration, piston position and so on so that it can be restarted without taking extra fuel.
Toyota even goes so far as to have one cylinder fire to start the engine, negating any load on a starter of any kind. It's sort of like the old shotgun start diesels, or how you used to start stationary engines - fuel into chamber, fire the ignitor, engine starts without spinning it

I completely get your concerns. First, no idea who he was, I wasn't really paying attention at first, it was a recommended video that started autoplaying. Second, he was very clearly supporting the technology and was very much in favor of it. He was using very generalized math. He was measuring fuel consumption in a four cylinder engine running in a lab, not even connected to a car. He ran it multiple times and took averages of how much fuel was consumed.

He tried to control variables but obviously, it's not a particularly precise experiment. He thought the 6 second conclusion made the technology worth using; I assume he waits in city traffic much longer than I do being that I am in a fairly small town.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

I completely get your concerns. First, no idea who he was, I wasn't really paying attention at first, it was a recommended video that started autoplaying. Second, he was very clearly supporting the technology and was very much in favor of it. He was using very generalized math. He was measuring fuel consumption in a four cylinder engine running in a lab, not even connected to a car. He ran it multiple times and took averages of how much fuel was consumed.

He tried to control variables but obviously, it's not a particularly precise experiment. He thought the 6 second conclusion made the technology worth using; I assume he waits in city traffic much longer than I do being that I am in a fairly small town.

I live in a rural area. Homes popping up here and there, but still - horses across the road, cows a short walk away, we have almost 3 acres 3.5 miles from the closest town of about 400 people.
Anything we want or need to do is a longer drive - winding curving hilly roads to town, then all the stop lights. The light we have to wait at to get into 163 can make you wait about 2 minutes. i've timed it.
Then there's several lights just to get through that town and into Des Moines - light after light. Sometimes the green is so short, and you are 5 cars back, you wait through 2 light cycles, a minute each in many cases if not more. This area loves stop lights and since it's a busy highway they give preference to the traffic on 163 while everyone else waits in line for minutes on end.
I'd almost bet that for us, we are at the top of the numbers that Edmunds has laid out - 10%.
When you can notice the difference without writing down every tenth of a gallon and every mile, it's a substantial difference.
Then again, for some others - it just won't be there. The lower numbers in the tests were 7% but you know there's people where there's as low as 1% and in those cases - meh, kill it.
Yeah, it was so bad in the traffic through GA and TN (Nashville sucks) that I literally did push that button. It was constant stop/start and each time you let off the brake to move forward you moved just far enough just fast enough to reset the ESS "timer" so to speak and it operated again. We sat for over an hour in one stretch of interstate down there due to an accident and I turned it off there, too. I told my wife (she was driving) just shut it off and sit a while when it was obvious we weren't going to be moving for a while, otherwise I hit the button.

 

[sharpsicle]

I watched a video where they did math and stuff and figured out that for a four cylinder engine, the car needs to be off for roughly 6 seconds to break even with turning the engine off and on. Mine frequently stops the engine when I'm paused slightly in city traffic. When used this way, it's actually burning more fuel than its saving

This sounds a lot like that old rumor that leaving lights on was more efficient than turning them off and on. The faulty premise back then was "it takes more energy to turn the bulb back on than just leaving it on". Obviously that was never right, but it's not hard to convince people it's real.

If it were a cold start each time maybe, but even then the amount of time an engine would have to sit off to return to cold start parameters easily outweighs the restart fuel costs. I smell something fishy here....

 

[Orange01z28]

Does this have any negative side affects?

None

Sponsored