Cheaper option to disable ESS

[Hootbro]

Your starter has X cycles before it fails. The more you cycle it, the sooner it will fail.

The design margins are built into most starters used in ESS systems to account for it. Actual bad starters in either the JL or JT are pretty rare to almost nonexistent. Most threads on the subject turn out to be either bad batteries or a problem with the FOB RFID chip.

Sponsored

 

[Jeeperjamie]

Your starter has X cycles before it fails. The more you cycle it, the sooner it will fail.

So your saying that FCA and most vehicles made today put these things in vehicles knowing that it would cause premature failures, that makes zero sense. It's funny though that people think like this, laughable.

 

[Jeeperjamie]

The design margins are built into most starters used in ESS systems to account for it. Actual bad starters in either the JL or JT are pretty rare to almost nonexistent. Most threads on the subject turn out to be either bad batteries or a problem with the FOB RFID chip.

This was my point in the beginning, my first post. Still don't see why it's so hard to push a button but I get it if it's messing with you amp. I'd probably try to figure out why that's happening

 

[redriderjf87]

So you're saying that FCA and most vehicles made today put these things in vehicles knowing that it would cause premature failures, that makes zero sense. It's funny though that people think like this, laughable.

You're responding with emotion. I didn't say anything that was laughable.

Please state what I said that was wrong.

 

[Jeeperjamie]

You're responding with emotion. I didn't say anything that was laughable.

Please state what I said that was wrong.

You are saying pretty much by stating that starters have a life cycle that having ESS would shorten the life of your starter. That's what's laughable because I've owned probably 40 vehicles in my life time and some I put over 300,000 miles on them. Only once have I had to replace a starter and that was on a old 1970 Ford F100 with who knows how many miles because nothing worked on the dash. Exactly what's the life cycle on a starter?

 

[Gatorized]

Your starter has X cycles before it fails. The more you cycle it, the sooner it will fail.

Does this take into account that engineers for all auto makers knew the starter would cycle considerably more with ESS than without? Hard to imagine they would stick with a design from the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s knowing the cycles would increase significantly With ESS.

 

[redriderjf87]

Does this take into account that engineers for all auto makers knew the starter would cycle considerably more with ESS than without? Hard to imagine they would stick with a design from the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s knowing the cycles would increase significantly With ESS.

Yes, that is taken into account, when stating:

"Your starter has X cycles before it fails. The more you cycle it, the sooner it will fail."

This statement applies, whether or not you're referring to a recently designed starter (with or without ESS), or a starter that was designed in the 70s.

 

[Gatorized]

Yes, that is taken into account, when stating:

"Your starter has X cycles before it fails. The more you cycle it, the sooner it will fail."

This statement applies, whether or not you're referring to a recently designed starter (with or without ESS), or a starter that was designed in the 70s.

It certainly applies … to everything and anything. None of which implicates the ESS starter as being superior or inferior to earlier designs. If FCA has indicated the ESS starter is engineered to accommodate increased cycles, than ‘x’ would only apply to non-ESS starters. ‘X times the ESS factor’ would be the new cycle expectation for ESS starters.

 

[redriderjf87]

It certainly applies … to everything and anything.

Exactly. My statement applies to any given starter, with its specific number of cycles before failure.

None of which implicates the ESS starter as being superior or inferior to earlier designs.

That statement has no bearing on my original statement.

If FCA has indicated the ESS starter is engineered to accommodate increased cycles, than ‘x’ would only apply to non-ESS starters. ‘X times the ESS factor’ would be the new cycle expectation for ESS starters.

If you can show me that using ESS on a vehicle/starter increases X by a factor compared to not using ESS on that same vehicle/starter, then I will agree with what you're saying. That doesn't seem logical to me, but I am open to what you're saying.

 

[billfraley]

I stumbled across this article the other day. While it is not scientific, it does offer some insight:

https://www.autotrader.ca/editorial/20180730/are-engine-stop-start-ess-systems-reliable/

 

[Gatorized]

Exactly. My statement applies to any given starter, with its specific number of cycles before failure.



That statement has no bearing on my original statement.



If you can show me that using ESS on a vehicle/starter increases X by a factor compared to not using ESS on that same vehicle/starter, then I will agree with what you're saying. That doesn't seem logical to me, but I am open to what you're saying.

The very fact you are concerned with the ESS starter is an indication that the cycles is increased over conventional starters. Otherwise, what is the concern?

 

[FitfulGoat]

Exactly. My statement applies to any given starter, with its specific number of cycles before failure.



That statement has no bearing on my original statement.



If you can show me that using ESS on a vehicle/starter increases X by a factor compared to not using ESS on that same vehicle/starter, then I will agree with what you're saying. That doesn't seem logical to me, but I am open to what you're saying.

With your line of logic, any component as part of a system or larger mechanism that creates wear on other component/s is inherently a poor design… every component on your car has a reasonable life cycle as a part of its very engineering… hence single use bolts, crank and cam bearings, etc. the list goes on. Yes your starter has a reasonable life cycle DESIGNED around any additional stresses or loads that may occur. Even ESS…

 

[Hockeydad55]

That would be turning it into a device with 'live' functions, just like the Tazer. JScan only works with changeable options that exist in the truck computer.

I just wish the Tazer would eliminate the ESS in submenu instead of live.

 

[Mr._Bill]

I just wish the Tazer would eliminate the ESS in submenu instead of live.

It would be nice, but it cannot, for the same reason as JScan and AlfaOBD. There is no option in the computer to turn ESS off. It has to be done as a 'live' function so it can interfere with the computers programmed behavior.

 

[Andy29847]

from andother thread/shadowpapa
It's weird that the dealerships are just sitting back and replacing thousands of batteries (the local shop had told me in 2020 they'd replaced dozens and they are a small shop)
And - that the voltages remain so low as far as battery state of charge, and never fully charge in the vehicle for many of us. Some are checking and finding voltages of over 12.60 and that's how it should be. Even at 12.8 with a parasitic draw of the "system" waiting for you to unlock, etc. - it should read 12.6 because the draw is extremely small (normally)
Jeep programming must be off for these things to sit so often at 12.1 or so volts and ESS never kick in after 40 minutes of driving......... that's crazy as AGM batteries, if charged properly, charge faster than normal wet batteries, a lot faster. That's the advantage - quick charging.
Where the great guru of Jeep programming - can he see where this sits in the PCM as far as voltage control? I have found a whole page or so of battery settings in AlfaOBD under Jeep.......
So, either the batteries are truly bad, or the IBS never works correctly in these, or the PCM programming for battery maintenance is way off or something else is going on.
No one should ever have problems letting a vehicle sit for a week - or in my case, 2 or 3 days, and have a battery that never fully charges. Again, if AGM batteries are not "maintained", if they are never fully charged, over and over the max is about 70%, they get to the point they can't be fully charged and the life is cut short.
A good AGM charger actually over-charged them a bit, 15 volts in some cases, and takes the battery up to 13 volts. I'd jump up and down and celebrate if mine ever sat at 12.6 after a long drive.
"

I was home for the holidays last week. I drove my 2020 Gladiator once. I didn't drive my 2020 Wrangler for several days. After jumping aboard on this thread yesterday, I got them both out on the road yesterday. The stop/start wouldn't work on either one. On one of them, the stop start went into alarm. On the other, the stop/start showed not ready, charging, even after driving for 15 minutes. I'm going to take the one in alarm to the dealer. It will be the 4th visit. The last visit they replaced the main battery. I expect they will replace the aux battery this time. On the other, the batteries were reading 12.4. I charged them for 3 hours (It is important when you charge the batteries that you connect to the ground on one of the cable lugs, not to the negative battery post.) On the test drive, the stop/start begin working as soon as the vehicle temps reached mid-range. I'm ready to agree with shadowpapa that the design of the charging system suspect.

Sponsored