Why do we hate Auto Start/Stop so much?

[BigMeatsBronco]

Propaganda like these profits of doom who push the climate agenda.

Worlds fine before we came around and will be fine after all of us are long dead, no need for these extreme measures or to believe the scientists who receive their funding from the govt

THIS

Sponsored

 

[alzito]

I've always been uncomfortable with vehicles with Auto Start/Stop. The first time I experienced the "feature" it was somewhat disconcerting having the vehicle stop running at a red light. At first, I fought against it. Although I never fully reprogrammed it out of existence, I'd still generally turn it off each time I'd drive the vehicle. The Bronco version of ASS seems to be a little less aggressive than some of my former vehicles. However, there are still little annoyances such as it turning off the engine as I stop in my driveway, only to immediately turn back on as the transmission is shifted to Park.

But why so much vitriol for a "feature" that is pretty benign. Certain consumers seem to hate this capability. Is it because so many of us from the older generations have been taught that starting/stopping the engine is wasteful or even actually damaging to an engine? Or because we are stubborn and don't like being told what to do by new technology that is often perceived to be imposed on us by the "nanny state"?

Clearly, the new technology and engine tolerances make this capability non-destructive in terms of engine wear and tear. It also, on the whole, leads to some incremental MPG gains.

So why do so many of us still feel angst or discomfort with ASS?

Because it is annoying, damaging to an engine and potentially dangerous. For the literal drops of fuel that it saves its just not worth it and by the way last I tracked this, these are OUR vehicles and we should be "allowed" to operate them how we want to and not having "ASS" is how I would prefer to operate MY vehicle. Now if the auto Mfg or the gubberement would care to compensate me (us) handsomely, I am thinking $5.00 per mile ) I may be inclined to let the thing work as designed. The inconvenience on hot days to have A/C stop working, the potential of the vehicle not starting (never any problems with batteries these days is there??) or shutting off in a potential hazardous situation (off roading and on a hill, etc) is short sighted. By the way keep in mind old school or not, an engine goes into what is called "Heat Soak" when it is turned off. Coolant is stopped and the engine is deprived of any cooling and starts to increase internal temperatures. Heat is an enemy of an internal combustion engine, repeat this process hundreds/thousands of times and it will take its toll. To make these systems work "correctly" vehicle Cooling Systems need to be redesigned with electric water pumps that would allow cooling to continue during "ASS" events AND A/C Compressors would need to be electric motor actuated as well. This would mitigate these issues at the cost of more complexity and larger batteries needing to be installed. 'ASS" is a crappy solution that has extremely little impact on fuel mileage and carbon emissions.

 

[Lcubed]

The inconvenience on hot days to have A/C stop working

at this point, i've never had the engine AND AC shut down due to ASS when the ambient is over 90F

are bronco's like the Mk7 golfs which had different AC programming for northern and southern climates?

 

[adam1991]

Because it is annoying, damaging to an engine and potentially dangerous.

A bit of hyperbole there, but:

For the literal drops of fuel that it saves its just not worth it

Absolutely 100% correct.

By the way keep in mind old school or not, an engine goes into what is called "Heat Soak" when it is turned off. Coolant is stopped and the engine is deprived of any cooling and starts to increase internal temperatures. Heat is an enemy of an internal combustion engine, repeat this process hundreds/thousands of times and it will take its toll.

Facts like this matter not to the EPA theater directed by disciples of the Great Greta Herself. And the toll you mention is not theirs to worry about. Kick that can and all of its expenses down the road for someone else to deal with, it's not for the EPA's fuel economy bureacrats to worry about.

To make these systems work "correctly" vehicle Cooling Systems need to be redesigned with electric water pumps that would allow cooling to continue during "ASS" events AND A/C Compressors would need to be electric motor actuated as well.

Simple hybrids solve all of this extremely well. Toyota even spins up the engine and gets the oil to pressure before turning on spark and fuel. Frankly, every mainstream car should be a hybrid.

 

[PrepVet]

I absolutely don't understand why people hate it so much. The only thing I don't like about it is that it sounds loud when it restarts at a stop light, but assume that is because I don't have the optional hood insulation.

 

[timhood]

at this point, i've never had the engine AND AC shut down due to ASS when the ambient is over 90F

are bronco's like the Mk7 golfs which had different AC programming for northern and southern climates?

The auto start-stop does not kick in until the engine is properly warmed up. It does not kick in if the cabin is too cold and needs to be warmed. It does not kick in if the cabin is too warm and needs to be cooled. If it engages when the cabin temperature is good but then the cabin gets too cold (in cold temperatures) or too hot (in warm temperatures), then the engine starts up again to bring the cabin back to optimal temperature. Just like a home HVAC system, it allows a few degrees of variance from the set temperature so that the system isn't constantly starting and stopping. In other words, it works exactly as you would expect it.

 

[timhood]

I absolutely don't understand why people hate it so much. The only thing I don't like about it is that it sounds loud when it restarts at a stop light, but assume that is because I don't have the optional hood insulation.

People have a lot of pre-disposed opinions about it, mainly based on conjecture and no real facts. Some people despise the idea of not being in control of everything (yet have no idea just how many components of a modern car they are not in control of. With every innovation in the auto industry, the refrain is the same: "That's just one more thing I don't need that can go wrong." Usually, the very first iterations of a new feature are not ideal, so there's a grain of truth about being an early adopter. But auto start/stop technology has been around for a long time.

The question of whether it is worth pursuing is difficult to answer without knowing the incremental cost of the upgraded components added to the purchase price of the Bronco, but the yearly savings work out to about $150 for a Bronco driven 15,000 miles per year based on average fuel prices. Of course, the exact numbers vary by individual. Those driving almost entirely highway miles won't see much savings. Those driving more city miles may see more. Likewise, if gas is particularly high in one's area. Based on those numbers, I imagine the component costs require three years to break-even before real net savings kick in.

I personally am on the fence about it as a worthwhile fuel-saving technology, given the cost, but all of the easy solutions have been implemented, and a 1 MPG difference makes a huge difference. Just how much of a difference? Assuming every vehicle had auto start/stop and saved 1 MPG, the net fuel savings would be nearly 5 billion gallons of gas per year in the U.S. alone. So there's the government's motivation. We can't complain about gas prices and foreign oil dependency and then also insist that we individually have no responsibility to achieve better fuel economy. Our Broncos aren't exactly fuel-efficient.

 

[tock13]

Personally I don’t get the point of ASS. I am averaging 20.2 mpg hand calculated after 4 tanks with it disabled and 19 mpg after 4 tanks with it on. All I need to know.

 

[timhood]

Personally I don’t get the point of ASS. I am averaging 20.2 mpg hand calculated after 4 tanks with it disabled and 19 mpg after 4 tanks with it on. All I need to know.

See the post above yours for the math. There is no single technology that is going to provide massive fuel economy improvements for an internal combustion engine. Things like 8-, 9-, 10-speed transmissions, auto start/stop, etc., all add incrementally. 1 (1.2) mpg doesn't seem like a lot, but when you scale it over all vehicles in the U.S., or even just the lifetime of your specific vehicle, it makes a difference. I'm speaking just on the technical merits, not whether people subjectively like it or hate it.

 

[Y2KFirehawk]

EPA Chief: Auto Start/Stop Technology Is Done

 

[Nibroc99]

Because it is annoying, damaging to an engine and potentially dangerous. For the literal drops of fuel that it saves its just not worth it and by the way last I tracked this, these are OUR vehicles and we should be "allowed" to operate them how we want to and not having "ASS" is how I would prefer to operate MY vehicle. Now if the auto Mfg or the gubberement would care to compensate me (us) handsomely, I am thinking $5.00 per mile ) I may be inclined to let the thing work as designed. The inconvenience on hot days to have A/C stop working, the potential of the vehicle not starting (never any problems with batteries these days is there??) or shutting off in a potential hazardous situation (off roading and on a hill, etc) is short sighted. By the way keep in mind old school or not, an engine goes into what is called "Heat Soak" when it is turned off. Coolant is stopped and the engine is deprived of any cooling and starts to increase internal temperatures. Heat is an enemy of an internal combustion engine, repeat this process hundreds/thousands of times and it will take its toll. To make these systems work "correctly" vehicle Cooling Systems need to be redesigned with electric water pumps that would allow cooling to continue during "ASS" events AND A/C Compressors would need to be electric motor actuated as well. This would mitigate these issues at the cost of more complexity and larger batteries needing to be installed. 'ASS" is a crappy solution that has extremely little impact on fuel mileage and carbon emissions.

"Drops of fuel" is incorrect. You're saving quarts, if not gallons of fuel depending on how often you're stopped idling at red lights or in stop and go traffic etc. It definitely does add up. The starters in these don't go bad often at all either.

 

[Brian_B]

Why don’t put this much effort into fixing traffic and traffic lights so we aren’t stopped so much?

 

[Nibroc99]

Why don’t put this much effort into fixing traffic and traffic lights so we aren’t stopped so much?

Facts!!!

 

[moikojay]

Judging by a shocking number of the comments here, lots of folks dislike it simply to be contrarian edgelords who purposely disregard science to seem cool. The same people that are excited that the R word is 'back' and would call me a f*ggot for having purple hair.

If you don't like ASS, do something about it yourself (i.e. Eliminator harness or gods forbid lift your arm a couple inches to push that little button on your dash). You know... take advantage of that rugged American individualism you're so fond of. For the rest of the 99.9% of drivers on the road, this technology is transparent and saving incremental amounts of fuel that would otherwise be wasted.

Not saying the tech is perfect, and there are WAY better ways to save idle fuel consumption (see: Roundabouts), but it is better to have and not want than to want and not have... yes?

 

[Dusty]

I guess I must be a contrarian edgelord because I don't like the auto-start-stop LOL. If they would just make your last selection persistent (leave it on if you left it on, leave it off if you left it off, next time you start the car), we would all get along fine.

Sponsored