Enough about the ESS ! ( Auto Start Stop)

[Dqban]

Can't do that. Auto makers can't give the built-in ability to defeat it.

So many people haven't ever driven older vehicles or grown up with a lived with no PS, no PB, no AC, no power windows, no power locks, manual everything.

There's also a reason Microsoft does what they do......... I worked as an IT specialist for years - those in IT know.

i've worked in IT too. Microsoft reasons for pushing their updates on you are dubious at best. They have no idea how my laptop or computer is set up so the assumption that their update is best for me is complete nonsense....So many times they're stupid update has crashed my driver.

An even better scenario is when they're insisting on the update and it disables the Wi-Fi on the laptop until i do. Meanwhile I cannot order emergent drugs on my crashing patient. F.U. For that microsoft

Same logic completely applies to the automatic start stop. It's a mandate that serves their purpose and not mine... I don't want my engine starting 1000 times more than it needs to. The only thing it's supposed to do is save gas in it does that very poorly.

and to correct you, they are completely free to engineer a switch that remembers. However, if they have a switch that remembers, the EPA will calculate fuel economy on the vehicle with the switch on and the switch off and then take the average. If the switch resets itself every time you start the car they use a different more favorable calculation for their EPA mpg estimates......so they make it turn on Every time you restart the jeep in order to make it look like it has better gas mileage.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ca...-to-deactivate-stopstart-systems-temporarily/

ESS sucks!

Sponsored

 

[ShadowsPapa]

and to correct you, they are completely free to engineer a switch that remembers. However, if they have a switch that remembers, the EPA will calculate fuel economy on the vehicle with the switch on and the switch off and then take the average. If the switch resets itself every time you start the car they use a different more favorable calculation for their EPA mpg estimates......so they make it turn on Every time you restart the jeep in order to make it look like it has better gas mileage.

ESS sucks!

Wow, a non-mechanic who hasn't done their research. They are NOT free to engineer a switch that remembers. You haven't read the rules related to it.
It's not for THAT vehicles rating - it's for a CREDIT.
Further, it has pretty much no impact on the life of the starter. It's been around for decades, and more recently, in broader use since about 2013 or so. VW first used it years ago. |
Read the facts, not the "I hate ess dot com" sites.
Don't know where you get your info - but Edmunds and the EPA itself contradicts you.

Quote -
t turns out the effects of stop-start systems aren't baked into the EPA fuel economy estimates for the very cars that use such systems. The official city test pattern has plenty of stops, but there's not nearly as much idle time as many of us deal with every day. It's entirely possible that a stop-start car could exceed its own city mpg rating with the system engaged.

A quote from Edmunds -
Our Test Results
For the first couple of tests we attempted to capture the maximum difference, so we ran the BMW and the Jaguar with the air-conditioning off in order to prevent premature restarts triggered by rising cockpit temperatures. Consider it the spring/fall scenario with the windows cracked to let some fresh air inside.

Our 328i GT used 3.1 gallons with the system off and 2.8 gallons with it on, a savings of 9.5 percent. That works out to 91 cents saved in 80 miles. Calculated fuel economy rose from 26.2 to 28.7 mpg.

The Jaguar did a little better, which makes sense when you're talking about a thirstier V8. It consumed 4.1 gallons with the system off and 3.6 with it on, a reduction of some 10.9 percent. At local prices that returned $1.47 to our pocket. Corresponding fuel economy increased from 19.7 to 22.1 mpg.

This, of course, begs the question of what would have happened if we had run the air-conditioning on a hot day. We saved that test for the Mini Cooper. We ran both loops with the automatic temperature control set to 74 degrees.

It used 2.7 gallons with A/C on and stop-start off, and that shrank slightly to 2.6 gallons with stop-start up and running. That works out to a modest fuel savings of 2.9 percent, with fuel economy climbing from 30.0 to 30.9 mpg. At this point we ran a third loop with the system engaged and the air-conditioning off and the savings shot up to 9.5 percent at 33.2 mpg.

The Verdict
All three of our test subjects delivered the estimated 10 percent in city traffic. People who live in particularly tough traffic areas with long wait times could do even better.

And the systems were mostly easy to live with. Restarts were fairly seamless and seemed appropriately quick for drivers who use the same foot for throttle and brake. Two-footed drivers who left-foot brake, on the other hand, could find themselves ahead of the engine restart cycle.

Stop-start is hard to ignore in a loud car like the Jaguar. This technology seems most ideally suited to cars that idle so quietly you barely know they're running. The F-Type gets away with it, though, because the snarling restart note of its powerful V8 is entertaining enough that you don't mind hearing it over and over.

Functionally, stop-start doesn't take very long to get used to — in our three test cars, at least. The biggest obstacle is mental: overcoming that sinking feeling that your engine just died. Once you get past that, you'll welcome the silence.


-start systems aren't baked into the EPA fuel economy estimates for the very cars that use such systems. The official city test pattern has plenty of stops, but there's not nearly as much idle time as many of us deal with every day. It's entirely possible that a stop-start car could exceed its own city mpg rating with the system engaged.
----------------
The EPA accepts about 15 to 20% of what the manufacturers report to them for mpg results, the rest they test or verify using a dyno........ and they get the mpg results by measuring the carbon out the back - the tailpipe emissions.

The ESS is also largely for EMISSIONS. I have a PDF file full of pages of the laws in this country related to IDLING - some cities, some counties and some states have laws related to how long certain vehicles can idle under certain conditions.
The ESS use originated in ASIA where emissions are the biggest concern. It then ended up in Europe and now the US.
So the EPA isn't turning that switch on and off and averaging things.
You are getting bad info from haters and angry people (like yourself)

Here's the facts on the "ESS" and how it works as far as the EPA is concerned - and it's ALL ABOUT EMISSIONS -

After the Supreme Court granted the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions (in 2015?), the emphasis shifted from mpg to grams of CO2 produced per mile of driving. Backed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the EPA figures that burning one gallon of gas emits 8887 grams of CO2. So 54.5 mpg means 163 grams CO2/mile. Manufacturers are spending billions on lighter, more-efficient vehicles to get there. Meanwhile, the EPA is recognizing creative ways to reduce vehicles’ environmental impact. The most interesting of these is called Off-Cycle Credits, a roster of ways to chip away at CO2 emissions that may not be reflected in the tests used to determine CAFE mpg figures. Companies employing these technologies earn credits without additional testing. Truck credits are higher because they burn more fuel and produce more emissions.

This means if a company adds ESS to a truck, they get CREDITS toward their emissions goal. Look above - WITHOUT ADDITIONAL TESTING!!
So that blows away the bit about the epa turning it on and off and averaging.

It's here, get used to it. Soon every single petro fueled vehicle sold in the US will have it. And more and more localities are passing laws - fining you if you idle vehicles (so far it's mostly buses and commercial vehicles, diesels and so on, but it's moving toward gas, too)

 

[ShadowsPapa]

The auto makers earn "carbon credits" for creative ways to reduce the output of a vehicle.
The EPA has authority over auto makers as far as not only fuel economy, but carbon output. They actually measure the carbon output to calculate the fuel actually burned - and that goes into the emissions rating.
Although AAA, Edmunds and several organizations have done real-world testing to find out "does ESS actually save fuel?" as most of their headlines read (and the result of each is yes, 10% not hard to achieve) the EPA is looking at it as a way to HELP auto makers achieve the very difficult rules or goals to reach as far as not only MPG, but CARBON output. Emissions must be reduced. To make it easier, the EPA has a list of things an auto maker can do to earn credits toward the output goal - and for things like the ESS - the auto maker gets a CREDIT if they add it - and said vehicle doesn't even have to be re-tested!
All of these things can be added to a vehicle already tested, already listed, and the EPA will give that company credits - and not retest the vehicle. These things count for more credits on trucks for obvious reasons - add it to a truck and they get a larger percentage of credit. And yes, the rule is - customer can't easily totally turn it off. Otherwise - it can't count.
And note - grams per mile is for EMISSIONS, carbon, which means emissions AND mpg since they measure carbon output to get mpg but the basis is CARBON EMISSIONS cut.


Credit Check
Grams-per-Mile Credit, Car/Truck

Reduced cabin thermal loads: up to 3.0/4.3
Solar-reflective glass and paint are very effective at lowering interior temperatures and reducing HVAC system loads.

Battery charging with a 75-watt solar panel: 3.3/3.3

Engine stop-start with cabin-heater operation: 2.5/4.4
Toyota currently uses a system that stores heat in an insulated vessel for use in cold climates, to be released when the engine is shut down, which winds up saving fuel.

Engine stop-start without cabin-heater operation: 1.5/2.9
This nets fewer credits because drivers are more likely to disable stop-start if occupant comfort suffers. (HAHAHA - they know Jeep people LOL)

Active engine warm-up: 1.5/3.2
Preheating engine coolant significantly trims consumption and emissions after a cold start.

Active transmission warm-up: 1.5/3.2
Warming powertrain fluids diminishes friction losses and smooths upshifts. Some Ram trucks already use this technology.

Waste-exhaust heat recovery, 100 watts: 0.7/0.7
Thermoelectric generators convert waste-combustion heat to electricity for powering a propulsion motor or reducing the alternator’s load. No manufacturer has put such a system into production yet.

High-efficiency lighting, 100-watt savings: 1.0/1.0
LED lighting consumes half the energy of HID lamps and only a quarter as much as halogen lights providing the same illumination.

Active aerodynamics, 3-percent drag reduction: 0.6/1.0

 

[Dqban]

Dude, with everything you just typed you are still wrong. They can build the switch anyway they want. They are just not incentivized to do so. You did not point out one single law that states they can not engineer a memory into that switch. This is completely about them trying to meet standards imposed upon them by different governments. No law that I am able to find or that you have shown says they cannot engineer a memory into the switch.
Your entire post Confirms what I said, ESS sucks at saving gas. 10% reduction sucks and not worth it to me, and 10% is being generous.

your post states that ESS must be added... that's how they get credit. It does not matter if they retest it. That is also correct.

HOWEVER... when they add it to their car and they submit it to the EPA they must state that it is not with memory.... if they don't, it essentially doesn't count....and they wont get the credit. It's not about the testing. It's about how they engineered it and stated to the EPA how it works.

you can argue all day long the starts dont hurt the car, but it is an additional action that is occuring thus causing one additional moment of use that is not needed or wanted bythe vehicle owner.

how do you know I'm not a mechanic?

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Sure there's no law - but if it's able to be disabled forever, then why even have it since it won't get them any credit at all. Almost anything can be engineered - but why lock that switch to disable and get no credit? Makes no sense. Why spend the money and engineering behind ESS only to get nothing out of it at all? Your logic is sideways. All things can be done -but a car company that must meet EPA regs or face the wrath of the EPA (and then the money collected in fines goes to government pet projects and organizations) Why would they?
There's no point - so in a sense, "they can't". I never said the engineering was impossible - you read that into it. They can't and have a system that complies with EPA regs to get any credit. And the next level of fuel economy is in the 50 mpg range for the fleet. So in a sense, they can't and stay in business or not face fines.
Your hate is really showing. Maybe explain to the residents of LA why their air isn't important, or that you don't care if their laws are so strict they can't possible own a vehicle that's not electric because of your hate for something so very simple - and you can't be bothered with pushing a button. (surveys show that only about 40% ever disable it - so you are in a minority there)

Yes, I have a degree in automotive, factory and college trained and have worked on vehicles for decades. I keep up on some of the new technology, and as a person who professionally does custom restorations for people - including starters and such, I can say that the starters and other hardware used on these is light-years ahead of what existed even 10 years ago. Years ago, a well-cared-for vehicle could see a starter last well over 100,000 miles. I have one that went over 150,000 miles and all that was wrong was brushes. These take milliseconds to restart, the starter turns a fraction of the revolutions they used to. The brushes are no longer simple carbon, the bearings are needle bearings, not bronze bushings. Read the info from real engineers, not your hate groups. This has been studied to death, and the technology is crazy efficient, to the point the PCM knows the piston positions and fires the injectors accordingly, NOT like a cold start. And since they've been around for almost a decade in the US (longer in other parts of the world) there's real-world, long-term data to show the lives of starters and such are not cut short. This is not new technology - it's been around years, and many vehicles with it have already long ago crossed over 100,000 miles.

I don't like it or dislike it - I simply know the whys of it, the reasons it's there. And I know without it - Jeep won't be long for this world (save for hybrids, electric, etc.)

You are an APRN- not very many people would go through all of that and switch to being a mechanic.
I've been in the industry since the early 70s.

To get so angry over something so simple that's helping to save an industry - amazing. (and our air for that matter - and keep $$ out of the hands of the middle east)

 

[Dqban]

Sure there's no law - but if it's able to be disabled forever, then why even have it since it won't get them any credit at all. Almost anything can be engineered - but why lock that switch to disable and get no credit? Makes no sense. Why spend the money and engineering behind ESS only to get nothing out of it at all? Your logic is sideways. All things can be done -but a car company that must meet EPA regs or face the wrath of the EPA (and then the money collected in fines goes to government pet projects and organizations) Why would they?
There's no point - so in a sense, "they can't". I never said the engineering was impossible - you read that into it. They can't and have a system that complies with EPA regs to get any credit. And the next level of fuel economy is in the 50 mpg range for the fleet. So in a sense, they can't and stay in business or not face fines.
Your hate is really showing. Maybe explain to the residents of LA why their air isn't important, or that you don't care if their laws are so strict they can't possible own a vehicle that's not electric because of your hate for something so very simple - and you can't be bothered with pushing a button. (surveys show that only about 40% ever disable it - so you are in a minority there)

Yes, I have a degree in automotive, factory and college trained and have worked on vehicles for decades. I keep up on some of the new technology, and as a person who professionally does custom restorations for people - including starters and such, I can say that the starters and other hardware used on these is light-years ahead of what existed even 10 years ago. Years ago, a well-cared-for vehicle could see a starter last well over 100,000 miles. I have one that went over 150,000 miles and all that was wrong was brushes. These take milliseconds to restart, the starter turns a fraction of the revolutions they used to. The brushes are no longer simple carbon, the bearings are needle bearings, not bronze bushings. Read the info from real engineers, not your hate groups. This has been studied to death, and the technology is crazy efficient, to the point the PCM knows the piston positions and fires the injectors accordingly, NOT like a cold start. And since they've been around for almost a decade in the US (longer in other parts of the world) there's real-world, long-term data to show the lives of starters and such are not cut short. This is not new technology - it's been around years, and many vehicles with it have already long ago crossed over 100,000 miles.

I don't like it or dislike it - I simply know the whys of it, the reasons it's there. And I know without it - Jeep won't be long for this world (save for hybrids, electric, etc.)

You are an APRN- not very many people would go through all of that and switch to being a mechanic.
I've been in the industry since the early 70s.

To get so angry over something so simple that's helping to save an industry - amazing. (and our air for that matter - and keep $$ out of the hands of the middle east)

Start stop was there before they added the on/off switch for it. The Option to turn it off was added later when customers kept complaining about it. When it was first released you couldn't turn it off. your opening sentence to this post literally repeats what I stated in mine..... they did not engineer a permanent off button because it doesn't benefit them.... it would be cheaper and more efficient from an engineering standpoint to simply not have that whole system in the car to begin with. For a system that has been so well engineered and in use for so long it seems to cause a lot of trouble for jeep owners....Including when I had to take mine in for repair. My starter was OK,Still couldn't drive the jeep because the ESS failed.

I would much rather have a hybrid than a stop start system.

Some survey says 40% don't disable it...Show me the survey that says 60% would option it on their car or ENABLE it If it didn't come on automatically. The driver not disabling is more a sign of apathy than a sign of wanting it running


you are also making the assumption that ESS will solve the smog emissions in California....no. That's just silly. When we complete the switching to electric there will be a noticeable difference in California air.

i've been building motorcycles for 20 years... still do.... including rebuilding my own engines, porting them myself, creating the custom fuel maps after my work was done, designing different exhaust systems depending on if I am going to track or street the bike, rebuilt my Forks on pretty much every bike I've owned....

I stopped doing custom stereos years ago but would build the system including rebuilding the alternator, fiberglass box, custom dash/rear deck.

you still don't get the point though, I don't want it and neither do a lot of people....40% according to you. Thats still a large percentage of the population that do not want this feature.

Just to be clear, i got no love/loyalty for any tech. I actually find ICE a huge PIA and relish the day economiclly sensible electric alternatives are available

 

[ShadowsPapa]

(iii) Engine idle start-stop means a technology which enables a vehicle to automatically turn off the engine when the vehicle comes to a rest and restarts the engine when the driver applies pressure to the accelerator or releases the brake. Off-cycle engine start-stop credits will only be allowed for a vehicle if the Administrator has made a determination under the testing and calculation provisions in 40 CFR Part 600 that engine start-stop is the predominant operating mode for that vehicle.

Buick actually found customers requesting it for their vehicles. Jeep owners appear to be the exception.
My comment on 40% was that 40% had ever disabled it at all, even once - not that they constantly turned it off. Those that always turn it off would be a lot lower than that. So if you ever turned it off - you were part of the 40%. Doesn't mean that large a number keep it off.

I understand about electronics and switches. I worked at Compressor Controls Corp for a few years, designed their Series IV computer interface, was authorized Compaq laptop warranty person, designed a voltage regulator (electronic) for vintage Motorola charging systems, devised a circuit to allow use of AMC cruise control switch to be used to control the PCM-based cruise in Jeeps, among other things. I restore probably 2 or 3 dozen starters and alternators a year. I see how long those of the past have gone, what's worn them, what's caused failures, and what's allowed them to last for decades. Modern starters will last many many many times longer. ESS isn't a starter killer. And that's been discussed by real engineers, not opinions on a forum.

I meant professional mechanic -

ESS is here to stay. Hate won't make it go away.
Why get so very angry over it. Accept change.

 

[5JeepsAz]

 

[SwampNut]

The only thing dumber than multiple multi-page threads whining about the key fob is the multiple multi-page threads about this silly little thing that affects nothing.

 

[Haley]

I’m actually happy for once to live in a place where AC is required 99% of the time ?

One other thing I found out - even if you have the AC and fan off, it will be disabled if the outside temperature is above 110*.

 

[guntrust]

No need to worry about ESS with manual transmission

 

[alyn]

Turn your HVAC below 62 degrees and drive your truck. Oh! And wear the damned mask.

 

[WXman]

Where's the ESS on this?

I love Kentucky.

 

[Orange01z28]

People who don't notice it must not live in areas that are really hot

I defeated mine by having an airbag service warning light come on?

 

[SwampNut]

People who don't notice it must not live in areas that are really hot

I live in chilly Phoenix, AZ. So it is often self-disabled. When it runs, it makes no difference, because it fires up before the AC becomes ineffective. Totally a non issue.

Sponsored