I guess you have it on the digital menu or something. In my golf some basic buttons like deactivation of ESP are not physical, you need to navigate through the car menu. I think it is weird that they do not give you the option to disconnect the start/stop, are you sure?
This system is good for saving a few litres, but im more concerned about Engine, battery and starter life. Which is way more expensive than price for a few litres of fuel. But EU only looks to the MPG not engine wear.
My GF has an audi a1 with a (only) 1.2 liter motor. after two years the battery was dead as hell. And shes not even working or living in a city... Two years for a battery 3 times the price of a standard one! Unbelievable. Yeah just think of how much CO² is made when producing a battery or a starter. Its bullshit. also the data 10-12%.. Lol when what? When driving non-stop for 100 miles? I think not...
don´t Forget engine wear, Timing chain / belt wear, dual mass flywhell etc etc.. all These things wear the least if the engine is running... car makers can tell me what they want, everything on today´s cars wears out so fast, I just don´t trust them
+ChinnuWoW due too the extra wear & tear placed on to it by the constant restarting of the engine! meaning a normal starter will start an engine only so many times before its worn out enough that either its not strong enough to turn the engine or the starter has to much gunk in it to function properly! as for the engine though, it much worse, the engine needs oil & other fluids to function correctly & a shutdown'ed(ie:turned off or stopped) engine doesn't move said oils/fluids around to the needed parts of said engine, making it wear/tear faster! simply put, stop/starting an engine is a lot harder on the engine then just letting it idle but most hypermilers(ie: people who want to save fuel & do a lot of things to try to save said fuel) will do this regardless! by what I've noticed that the bigger the engine with the parts being not that costly & doing the work yourself, shutting down the engine will save you a few coins in the long run! but if you already have very new & a very fuel efficient vehicle this may not be so true! newer vehicles tend to cost more in repairs due too the cost of parts & how many more parts there are, plus the fact that those parts tend to be much harder to get at due too their placement in said vehicles! the best type of vehicle I would say to get(if you're in to buying a new vehicle) is to get a hybrid one that only uses the engine to charge the batteries that run the motors that moves the vehicle! they're designed more for that kind of use! ie: the Chevy Volt is just one of the vehicles that works in this way but again if something does break it will cost more to fix due too the tech that is involved!
elementalblaze79 Yes, I've thought of all of that, but when the engine starts back up, it starts up really fast(or at least in the BMW and Grand Cherokees I've driven). Wouldn't it still take a long time before you need a new starter and engine?
+ChinnuWoW depends on how long is how long?! I figured that if I can get over 7 years with one it would be great! in normal use, for what I've gone though, a starter can last 10 to 15 years, but stop/starting can half that easily! also if/when you do replace it, are you replacing it with oem or better?! if a better one that is designed to handle constant starts then it would last much longer! a buddy of mine has been doing the stop/start method for over 10+ years & he only replaced it in the 1st year(the vehicle was boughten used & has tons of mileage on it) or so with a far better one & hasn't had any problems with it! he's gone though batteries due too he does cheap out on them & runs a lot of things while the vehicle is turned off ie: sub systems, high powered exterior lights & coolers! but he does have a multi alternator setup for everything to be powered but running a 6+ liter v8 diesel(engine swapped from a 3.2ish liter inline 6 diesel) isn't cheap though!
cars with stop/start systems, do not have regular starters. they are stronger, faster, more durable. i dont know how you managed to only get 7 years with a starter. our 1992 nissan still has its original starter. my 2008 fiat still has the same starter, my parents 2008 quasqai still has the same starter. in fact, there is only a very few people that i know who had an issue with their starter so soon in the life of their cars. even an Opel astra of a friend of mine who uses it to deliver repaired electronics all over the city (which means he starts it at least 40-50 times a day) never had an issue as for the engine, it needs oil when its running. if its not running, there is no need for oil circulation
specially when you drive a hybrid Toyota. The 2 e-motors double up as a giant startermotor and giant alternator. They are completely integrated in the driveline. It's ideal for driving in urban area's and it gets great mileage. Not much fun though.
and he even said on the second run he missed the 4 WAY TEMP traffic lights, so if you stop at 20 on test 1 at Red the Test 2 only 15 Red the that alone will allow more fuel saving on Test 2
It's true that when the battery is needing recharging and you have lights, heater or air con on, the Stop Start won't do its thing. However, it takes only a short journey or time with the engine running (standing in jams) before there is enough juice again. The alternators are also beefed up to take this into account. It is a brilliant way to solve a problem with the least fuss. Turn the engine off equals zero consumption, emissions and noise. With the much larger engines that for some reason the US and Australia, etc, are addicted to, the savings will be much more dramatic.
@@soawn29 It lets the temperature build up a little, but then turns it back on again to cool it off once it exceeds a certain amount. Kind of like a household air conditioner does.
@@worthington3637 More emissions and money spent on making a beefing up the alternator, starter.. the battery will most likely last for a little bit shorter amount of time.. not sure if its saving that much really. Especially when you drive in one city every day you know where youre going to wait for longer periods of time on a red light so you can turn the car off without needing the cars system to bother you :D so some saving is there but I doubt its going to be 10% in the real world.. closer to 5% in my opinion
@@MisoElEven It's actually a bit more than 10% in most cars in cities, at least in Japan where I rented dozens of different cars. Driver need to know when stopping for less than 10 sec, they should turn the auto stop off. And that's the problem I have with this system, instead of a switch to cut the engine while keeping the electronics on (GPS, stereo, head lights etc.) , they opt to make it auto which annoys me. Because I'll need to predict the stopping time to decide whether to shut it off or leave it on, in every stop.
I can see why people think this will wear out the starter/engine. However, they are designed with this system in mind so should be able to cope well enough with this. Also it will not do it until the engine has warmed up, so will only need to quick restart a warm engine, which is not an issue. Is basically a step or two away from a hybrid, so might as well go a little bit further and have a starter/alternator unit that is linked to the crankshaft and a battery or capacitor that can start the car in gear. Then you are almost at a Prius, which has proven you can have an engine stopping and starting all the time without adverse wear and tear.
Good point, they are far more likely to fail than a starting motor, With low-friction bearing and lubrication technology in place the potential threat to engine life by stop-start systems should theoretically be overcome. But the current technology is still relatively new and only time will tell whether every car manufacturer has got it right.
The instruction manual in my stop/start Mitsubishi says that the starter motor and generator are enlarged for the stop start function to be able to take the extra beating in the long run. That adds weight to the car, I would say... I do not have the stop start on as I drive motorways mainly and in a pile up I do not use stop start as it is used too frequently to my taste (yes, I am also afraid it will wear the starter engine down). So, I only use it in town where I do not drive too many miles in the first place. Gain for me: about 3%.
Those average fuel savings add up but having to replace the starter motor, ring gear and battery will be very expensive and wipe out about 20 years of projected fuel savings. If the manufacturers choose to use this method to increase advertised fuel consumption they should give a warranty to the mechanical/electrical starting components. Somehow I don't think so.
I use the vw version. ..no problems. .I keep the clutch engaged on short sequence traffic lights. I can get up to around 78 mpg on the blue motion caddy maxilife.
VW has similar issues. Turn the steering wheel and it will start the engine, too much AC requirements it will start the engine. In the auto version, roll forward in traffic and it will start and not stop again. hybrid is the real true stop/start system you want!
Two things +Bad wolf Theoretically when you press the clutch pedal it totally disconnects from the engine, what is your point? Second +Hovermotion +Bisrobytes you know that there is a button on any VK next to the gearshift where you can disconnect the start/stop right? You don't have to press the clutch while being stopped at the traffic light. The biggest concern I have with mine when I use it, however, is the Turbo, which everybody knows it needs to cool down with the engine being stationary for at least 2 minutes to make it last
If a diesel engine runs out of fuel, the injector pumps don't work if there's even the smallest amount of air in them. Therefor it will be necessary to bleed the air completely from the fuel lines and injector pumps before the engine will start and run properly
The new TG is for people who like cars and not lunatics messing about. Chris Evans wasn't used to the show, if you look back the first series Jeremy Clarkson is just like Evans was.
Not sure what you are trying to explain. Chris Evans is Jeremy Clarkson under sheep clothing. That's like saying Polish and Romanian Music Idol are not as good as the British one. It's the same fucking thing, same identical decors, same people who can't sing, same 3 juries, 1 is harsh, 1 one is lean and the middle one is a pretty terrible ex singer people vaguely remember. The NEW Top Gear is a replica of OLD Top Gear.
I have a hybrid with this system. It's electrics can pull of the motor assist battery at stop if the 12 volt battery gets to low. It also starts the engine with the motor assist battery. the 12 volt battery is only used to run the spark plugs and electrical devices when it's charged enough. The assist battery can run the electrics without charging for a lot longer because the battery is 128 volt to run the electric motor. It charges off the engine, while coasting, and also while braking. This makes the stop/start system work even more efficiently than on regular cars.
Correct. Peugeos and Citroen called this a "EHDi system" and it works really well. Doesn't let the battery wear out faster compared to modern stop start systems like today, where there is no extra battery.
Terrible idea, I turn it off at the start of every trip. In heavy traffic pulling out into a small gap, that short delay while the engine restarts can make the difference between a clean getaway and an accident, it caught me out on a few occasions in the early days when I forgot to disable it.
skybluesky1000 You have to evacuate the air from the system and the pump will run without lubrication which can damage it. Also, and that counts for patrol and diesel, if it is an older car, you will suck up all that gunk from the bottom of the tank. That can also block the pump or at least the filter.
These systems are designed to withstand the wear and tear from stopping and starting. Stronger starters are used however some don't use a typical starter to restart the enging. Some use a belt driven starter/generator assembly to restart the engine. The batteries, two options, one is a small inexpensive battery and the other is a rechargeable battery designed to be discharged and recharged. Some vehicles now use capacitors to capture electrical energy to be released during a stop, in this case a start/stop battery is not even needed. In the end, I have not seen and more issues with this system compared to any other system they put on cars today. If anything this system is holding up very well compared to some other crap they put on cars.
It doesn't matter, after 5 years, you should trash the car and buy a new one, it'll last for 5 years sure! And then they talk about ecology, and never say how much it costs the enviroment to produce a new car.
My car has lasted 23 years and is still going strong. If your car is only lasting 5 years you are not talking care of it at all, that sounds like the driver is driving it hard and not taking care of it, do you even change your oil? Or is that all you do is change the oil?
You are not reading what I wrote. And keep that BS about not changing oil and other fluids, because that's not why cars break, they break because they are designed deliberately like that, and all that BS about pollution, how much pollution does a production of a new car cost? If there is climate change, make cars last 50 years and there will be much less pollution, make gasoline cost 10 times as right now, and people will abandon cars, there you go, much lesss pollution.
pilicic andrija Are you telling me that we dont have to change our oil? No wonder your car does not last 5 years, i bet you dont see it go above 60k miles. Meanwhile, my 23 year old truck still purs on
Yet as others have mentioned the additional wear on the engine (particularly turbo's, starter motors and batter) the system seems designed to increased maintenance costs, but just happens to increase MPG as an ancillary benefit. It is a no from me.
Some stop start systems work by sparking the cylinder with fuel that was next to go in the firing order before shut down. So not started by the starter at all. Don't know if it's the same with Diesel. If that the case the starter isn't going to wear out any sooner than a regular car.
What about the cost of the battery and startengine? had to replace both last year, 640 euros, at the dealer. not even covered. only cuz i saved like 120 euros fuel. good job volkswagen.
Forgetting obvious wear and tear issues.............Has anyone seen how much the batteries cost for these? Of course as usual the motoring press is only interested in the costs to the first owner (first 2 or 3 years), not the poor sod who buys it 2nd hand and tries to run it for 10 years.
Latest cars do not use the battery for the start-stop system. They are using huge capacitors manufactured only for this purpose. However your engine wear and starting motor problem going to pull out a lot more money from your pocket compared to fuel savings...
Supercapacitors are the opposite of cheap, MFR probably use them to prevent damage to the electrical system, isolating the battery and preventing a voltage drop at the ECU. Still not very common though. Truth is they all want us driving new cars every 3 years, with 20% VAT and 2.5 million new cars sold each year, at an average value of 25k per car, the automotive industry puts A LOT of money into govt coffers, to be more precise that's £5000 x 2.5 million cars. You can forget the environment and all the BS about buying greener cars, all they want is for us to keep buying cars we can't really afford. Keeps the money rolling in for the already rich, keeps the rest of us in debt, keeps us quiet and keeps us compliant.
i mean no offence brother but the batteries the least of your worries...........is the econetic a petrol? and ifso a diesel a standard 1 isnt around £200 no way. i am not quoting but ime going on the fact my 330d is £165 a year so no way a 1.8-2 litre diesel mondao is £200 per year. petrol yes it will be. and your mear 380 quid would be saved if you owned the car for 16 years....... how many first owners do that? 1 in 500,000 am guessing...... heres wen ule loose the your money tho..... a starter motor for a ford focus with stop/start is 1200 pounds fitted. a normal starter motor on a standard focus is 400 pounds fitted....... genuinely sorry if i come across like a twat, ide never make a journalist.
I drive a Skoda Octavia 3 with a 1.6 TDI/81 kW engine. I have tested for several times to see the differences between driving with and without the stop/start system and the results are that when i am driving through the city during moderate/intense traffic, stop/start saves me about ~2 liters of diesel per 100 km. My car has now ~85000 km of which ~35000 have been driven within urban areas. Sparing ~2 liters for each 100 km means ~700 liters of saved diesel for the ~35000 km. The price for the diesel in my country is ~1.2 euro/liter, this means that i have saved some 840 euro only by using the stop/start system. Now, 1 month ago i had to replace the battery. I bought a brand new Varta Silver Dynamic AGM 70 Ah. I have spent ~150 euro for the battery + its installation, so this means I am ~700 euro on the "plus" side. Therefore, from my point of view, having the stop/start system is an advantage.
well, stop/starting at stop lights make sense on saving fuel, its a hyper-miler trick! but it does have its drawbacks, its hard on the starter, battery & alternator! so if you don't mind wearing out those, then go ahead & stop & start the vehicle when possible! I've seen in my 01' 4.0 4x4 ford ranger extended cab pick-up a good 15-20% increase in fuel economy by doing so but like others stated, you would wear out certain parts faster & is the cost of those parts cheaper to replace or is it cheaper to just run the engine is the question! in my opinion, with the cost of fuel, its cheaper to stop/start a vehicle then just let it idle at lights/construction stops by far! at least for me, I'll save about $170 USD a year even with factoring in replacing those parts every 7-10 years but(which I factored in) if I have to replace those parts every 4 or less years then its cheaper to just let it idle! that's with me using oem parts but the battery noted, if I factor in all oem parts, if I can go more then 3 years then it would still be cheaper to stop/start!
You make some good points. A normal car's starter is not designed to handle excessive start/stops in a day, so eventually it'll die on you. Now, if you aren't handy around cars and can't replace a starter yourself, then all that gas you saved will go to having replace the starter. It may be possible to get the car's starter changed to a beefier model (one which is designed for delivery for instance) but I don't have much experience with them. Me, I'll drive as normal, turning off the vehicle when I'm stuck at a long traffic light, or avoiding those intersections altogether. If you practice fuel savings techniques in your normal driving routine, you'll probably end up with about the same gas savings without the start/stop.
+GrognardOfXCOM yes I agree! I found that planning your route can save you tons! where I go, I can either take the highway or drive though town! I think of where I need to go & plan ahead! sure its shorter to just go though town but the time I've went to get on to the highway & take the long way around, I've saved time & fuel! but if you're not as lucky as I am & have to go though town then that stinks! living near large towns, even though I live in a somewhat small town & for me to get certain things I have to go elsewhere, this does help a bit to know the area!
I think the thing most people forget is it is much easier to start a warm engine, and it really doesn't put that much extra wear. I do this on my carbureted motorcycle - morning starts suck taking several seconds and some choke, stop-light starts on first crank, no problem. Some wear, yes, but it's not cold starting below zero. It's a big reason why hybrids get such good fuel economy - they waste a lot less energy idling.
It is a little different in a car equipped w/ stop-start systems. They have generally engineered the started to be much more durable for those cars. Also, you aren't running the engine as much, which in itself decreases wear and tear, negating at least some of the remaining wear and tear concerns.
Yes, we can see with Prius. Most Prius last a very long time without big repair. And the engine is stoping and starting all of the time, much more than with a stop/start system. Also it is very easy to do the maintenance yourself.
Here in the U.K. It's all about saving fuel with technology like stop/start and common rail diesel etc. Nobody seems to worry about checking tyre pressures and changing air filters which make a big difference.
This test is basically flawed. Traffic conditions cannot be identical and you do not mention about the extra costs involved over time when replacements are needed for battery, starter, etc........
Previous car was a Ford Focus on a 12 plate, stop start worked when you came to a halt and put into neutral , put into gear and foot on clutch and off you go. I now have a 18 month old Ford Puma from new. The stop start is far too sensitive and will activate when you start to slow down even when you are queuing at a roundabout for example or at a T junction when you need a quick turn of speed. My dealer says its on the least sensitive setting. I never have it on now, drive in sport mode where it is not active or switch it off. My only complaint about the Puma other than that a joy to drive.
The bearings of the car wear out every time when the car starts and stops.. this is a efficient way to save fuel but not for saving money because it damages a lot of parts of the car
I manually started/stopped my 2002 car for a year. I only stopped it if it looked like I would be at the light for more than about 30 seconds. My MPG went up by about 9%. I had no engine or starter problems (Chevy 3.0L V6.)
I was told apparently that when this stop start system is engaged it actually uses more fuel. As when the engine is every-time started up this causes an excessive amount of fuel to be taken??
A few years ago I owned a Mazda CX5AWD diesel and it had this annoying feature. When the engine cut out it kept a record of the amount of fuel saved. In stop start city driving over a tank of fuel it saved about a cup of fuel. I don't know if newer vehicles have the ability to measure this automatically now. They probably don't as it would allow owners to see how ineffective the system really was.
Literally every comment thread on here is some moron saying "but you're gonna spend more on the starter and engine replacement!" then an actually educated person replying that the parts are made specifically for start stop and will last just fine.
In the Ford Escape I've been in that had that auto off engine feature, it came to a nice complete stop before quietly turning off. The person who was driving the car just recently started driving it, he didn't even know he had that feature on it! :P I noticed it was really quiet and thought I heard the engine start up before he accelerated again, so I figured it out. It's pretty quick and seamless.
Im not sold on that system. Constant start/stop would put quite a bit of strain on the starter and other components that run off the crank. I'd like to see the lifetime of a motor on start/stop tech vs. a conventional one.
+Lytinwheedle reinforced my arsehole, I can see the board meeting now! Engineering team: "This new stop/start technology will put massive strain on the starter motor and other key components, should we make them more durable in light of this?" Motor company boss: "Fuck off, they'll be coming in for repairs more often... Happy days".
My golf 7.5 does this too. Sometimes when i want to make a left turn across the other lane i almost come to a halt and the engine cuts off. But im still rolling and because the engine cuts of the power steering doesnt work.
I'd like to see them do this with 3 model cars from different manufacturers, test them stop-start enabled and then disabled alternatively for 100 cycles. (i.e. they drive with stop start disabled on the set circuit then enabled, repeat 100 times per vehicle) This would give a far more accurate assessment... especially if they engineer-fit a specific volume tank, bypassing the stock one.
I like start stop because it can save fuel, evidently. However, the best point about it is that it saves you when you stall your car. So once you're used to your car having it, you can almost rely on to start your engine if you stall it. Especially if you start to panic. But being reliant on it is never good especially once it fails. Plus, the kind of car batteries needed for cars with s/s are super expensive compared to regular car batteries because they need to have something called AGM (not sure what it is exactly) and they need to have a higher CCA and overall capacity compared to a normal car, especially in a diesel. My Audi A3 uses a 70Ah AGM battery which was £137 from Bosch (vat free).
I really dont like the self-starting feature after stalling the engine. I myself drive a car where you have to start the engine again yourself and if i drive a start-stop car I get really confused and kill the engine while it wants to start again. Also, in my car I can switch the ignition off (I leave it in gear, otherwise the oil pressure would drop like in a start-stop car) while driving which allows me to disable power steering which is not needed during fast driving. Also I have already reset the starter lock and if I stall I dont need to switch the ignition off, i can just simply turn the key forward. And: AGM stands for Absorbent Glass Mat, which is a way to store electircal energy, like lithium or lead battery
@@Simon_r2600 Yeah, I suppose that's true. Start/stop isn't really favoured amongst motorists, I don't really mind it because of what I mentioned but your points are sound. I guess I got used to it. However, I don't have a car with s/s now so my points are moot for me. Thank you for explaining what AGM is.
This test wasn't properly conducted in line with the scientific method because the investigated variable, namely difference in fuel consumption with start/stop system either engaged or disengaged, is unfluenced extremely easily between either test for a multitude of reasons. I know that's not really the point of this experiment because it's just consumer advice but hold on to me here because IMO it applies to how lots of consumer advice research is (wrongly) performed. I don't disagree with the experiment's conclusions, because when you think about it the results of the experiment overwhelmingly resemble those one can logically hypothetically expect to observe within the confines of this experiment. I mean in their right mind wouldn't expect a car that doesn't use petrol standing still to be more fuel efficient than one that does use petrol standing still. The results are completely intuitive to almost everyone. I do however disagree with how the experiment was conducted because even though it is a piece of consumer advice and not concrete scientific research, it does have a lot external influences that haven't been controlled and/or compensated for. Among others: traffic lights, crossings, traffic itself etc aren't identical in either circumstance, therefore driver input isn't identical in both circumstances, the human element of driving itself has an enormous amount af variables and therefore is extremely unpredictable. Think of things like This might seem like being deliberately obtuse but IMO the results of this experiment are negligible because for any scientific results to be conclusive you want all (external) parameters set to a known degree/value apart from the one to investigate. This experiment has a multitude of variables that aren't set/fixxed to a known value/degree. The difference of 10 mpg between can't conclusively be pinned down to the start/stop system alone because of all these uncontrolled external and internal parameters. Who knows how much less traffic he encountered or braking he had to do when conducting the experiment with the start/stop system turned on. Really don't mean to brag here but as a biomedical scientist myself I can't ever get away with a multitude of uncontrolled parameters if I want to be taken seriously by my peers, and IMO it shouldn't be any different when conducting an experiment such as this. A test track with identical speeds, distances, route and time in set before conducting both experiments would help tremendously, to add some complexity and known variability one could add controlled traffic and traffic lights. They'd add a closer simulation of daily driving but because the time standing still is known before conducting the experiment it would take away much of the uncertainty of the results. God do I feel like "that guy" now. I'm not this much of a know-it-all normally, just felt like this needed some criticism for how it was conducted. Not because it came to the wrong conclusion but because of faulty methodology. IMO we should expect Fifth Gear to have higher standards when doing research for consumer advice.
Well you are correct. Another mistake is that the first time you start the car the engine is colder and idles higher. It would have been better to just calculate the time he came to a stop and used that time to see how much fuel that would have cost. If for example he would had to stop for 5minutes in total then you would run the car again with 1 liter and let it idle for 5minutes then see how much fuel you have left. This would still grand you a hypothetical* answer, because as seen in the video the car did not always used its start/stop in order to keep the battery charged. But the best way to save money on fuel is not saving fuel, but overtrowing our goverments that demand exorbitant taxes on fuel. A legit tax uses all the money from the tax to improve the conditions in wich the tax is drawn from. Thus in case it would have to be spend on road maintenance/roads/controlling the roads.
Jeroen Yes exactly, that would be one way to do it. Measuring the total amount of time with the engine turned off at traffic lights and have the car idling for the same amount of time would have indicated the excess consumption between the engaged and disengaged start/stop system. There's is one drawback to this approach though, because you'd only have conducted the experiment once with the system turned on. You can't compare any results because the experiments weren't conducted in identical form with the exception of (dis)engaged start/stop system. For science to be conclusive the conditions of the experiments should be as close to identical as possible in either circumstance. Sorry but I'd like to respectfully decline adressing your remarks about government and taxes. I'm rather uncomfortable with turning a discussion about the methodology of a scientific experiment into a political one. IMO it would only complicate trying to have a constructive dialogue about the subject and would probably lead to heated and frustrating arguments. Hope you can understand my position here.
coenijn .... what kind of car are you driving some thing from the 80s possibly. Never seen a new car with higher revs at cold start sorry you need to update your car possibly .
I was always told these cause a lot of wear on the engine, starter and battery and in the end will probably cost more in maintenance than the fuel savings it brings. Having being a passenger in a few stop start cars I find it extremely irritating like the car is constantly stalling. Happy I don't have a car with this feature.
WoW, so many people not understanding how a battery works (it constantly recharges anyway), as does your alternator. The only thing that might need replacing is your starter engine, but you can design them with this issue in mind. But oh well. people need to complain if it "saves fuel" as we cannot touch the holy golden oxen that is the Car and Gasoline. The Petrol industry has instructed you well :P.
Gotta love that Megane. Rock solid car too, i have a Megane II, the cabrio version, i bought it with 120.000 km and 9 years, COMPLETELY neglected... and i neglected it even more. Not a single problem, not with the engine, not with the electrical systems, even the roof works like a charm (and it's actuated around twice daily).
Wow, running out of fuel with a diesel?! Is there some BTS with that which you're not telling us, like... repriming the fuel lines by cracking them open at the injectors while cranking? How did you get that running again?
If you run out of fuel, there is a very useful handpump in the engine bay to prime the system. On this car, it's right next to the window washer reservoir.
@@MidshipRunabout2: I bet that handpump is there if we run out of fuel or not. OK, that's cool that that vehicle has that; I had never heard of it. But I just remembered now that some newer diesels are even better than that: self-priming. I wish my 2001 Dodge Ram (Cummins) had either of those things.
@HelloKittyFanMan. It's built onto the fuel lines so you can't lose it. But yeah, it can be a pain on older cars, thankfully I've been pampered with the diesels I've driven and never had to bleed the lines or re-prime system.
Depends on the car. I dunno about Renault, but my Mazda will restart the engine by combustion. Seriously clever stuff, and an interresting read @ www.mazda.com/en/innovation/technology/env/i-stop/ But even so, for me who rarely drive around the inner city centers, it's completely pointless.
Says who? does anyone research before typing away, normal starting motor built to do 50,000 cycles, stop/start built to do 500,000 fact, im amazed how many people on here have something negative to based on fiction, you know nothing, yet you make ridiculous remarks about something you simple dont understand, like all of a sudden you lots are experts, and those qualified engineers, are thick, and never thought about all the things that you have? Bottom line is simple, a stop/start car will out last a non stop car, as it is designed and built to be more durable than a non stop/start motor, the battery is a AGM or EFB technology battery and therefore will out perform your non stop start battery in every aspect! A normal car has a life expectancy of 50,000 cycles compared to 500,000 cycles of a STOP/START motor, designed to last the life of the engine in both cases! And here is the best bit, no one mentions this, which is the biggest threat to the engine upon start up, where the real damage is done When the engine starts, there’s a point before the two surfaces become separated by the oil film called the ‘boundary condition’, where the crankshaft is spinning, but there’s metal-to-metal contact between the bearing surfaces. This is when most wear takes place. Fitting stop-start means the boundary condition (and metal-to-metal contact) could exist perhaps 500,000 times in the life of the engine instead of 50,000 and normal bearings would wear out long before that. Two things prevent that happening. The first is that bearing manufacturers are developing new bearing material with greater self-lubricating properties to resist wear on start-up. Federal Mogul has developed a new material called Irox with a polymer coating containing particles of iron oxide (rust), which in this microscopic form is surprisingly slippery. In fact it’s so slippery that the co-efficient of friction of an Irox bearing is 50 per cent lower than a conventional aluminium bearing and will easily last the life of an engine equipped with stop-start. Low friction oils can also assist Do you research before you type, because these stop/start cars are bulletproof, and i can guarantee not one of you know someone with a stop start car that have replace any of the things you mention, with the exception of the battery, which i have replaced once in 9 years
Not a big difference in real world. Modern downsized engines have terribly short life. Most damage to your engine is casing starting. Every star puts lot of stress on crank journals. Even Wankel engine became more reliable than most off stuff you can find under bonnet of new car. Saving bit of fuel and causing much more enviromental damage with neeed for making a new car with shorter lifespan.
1:50 in and I already see a flaw in the testing. Two different runs on the same route. Should have done two cars nose to tail. Exact same traffic cues.
While it may save fuel, these system puts excessive wear & tear for the engine, battery, and starter motor. They cost a lot more the fix than just fuel.
Aoru stop start cars have upgraded starters able to withstand 8 times more starts. Plus the engine has a crank sensor and the ecu sprays an extra dose of fuel in the first cylinder that will fire.
quenchize The more complicated the systems are, the easier it is for things to go wrong and if it does go wrong, expensive to fix. Hence these start stop systems originally started with BMW and Mercedes cause people who buy them could afford the repairs or couldn't care about it. Though i have doubts about other start stop systems. A hybrid can be more efficient. However, as mentioned it won't save fuel if the start stop process is constantly being used (especially in heavy traffic) that will force the engine to be on all the time which will result in the same as a non-start/stop equipped engine. So how much fuel it saves really depend on where you live or the time of the day.
If you drive hard, the start stop wont turn the engine off. If you drive normally, the turbo wont be near hot enough to be a concern for the 15 seconds it will be sitting without oil flow.
i have a stop start SUV hybrid ZERO WEAR, ZERO SLUDGE, NO OIL CONSUMPTION The engine only has 1365 Hours on it at 89,100 miles(hours not counted in auto stop) LACK OF MAINTENANCE IS THE CAUSE OF FAILURE *NO FREE RIDE*. IT has active fuel management which is known for OIL consumption issues as well.. most people are burning 1 to 2 qt per 1,000 miles I burned 0 QT in the last 2500 miles.. MAINTENANCE is the key as it's fully maintained 3,000 miles oil changes... with the BEST MOTOR OIL on the market Mobil1 they have the right balance of ingredients.. while other may use "SUPER SLUDGE cleaning" those oils will blow up your engine once a big chunk breaks off and clogs up the tiny passage ways for the oil.. = you have a blown engine...
From what I've seen. The only good Stop/Start cars are hybrids, namely the Prius. Its engine was built to be constantly stopped and started, it uses the traction motor to start the engine which is powered by the large traction battery. No stress on sensitive 12V batteries and no stress on starter motors. Of course, Stop/Starts are still new technology, so engine designs will likely be designed around this feature in the future. Though for in-town driving, a hybrid or BEV is still the best option if you want to save on fuel.
iv only ever driven one car with stop start, it was my friends, and it felt so weird, i kept thinking i was stalling, and manually starting it again lol
so you are at the lights your engine has just gone off, behind you something is happening and you need to make a good launch to get away from a danger.. how hard is it on your starter because unless they made them a ton better and flywheels a ton better i can only see bad things
The engine is on again in less then a second with most cars, as soon as the clutch has reached the floor it is already on basically. I don't know how much it will affect automatic cars, but with manual ones it is really not that noticable. Still i think stop/start automatic is really dumb, and a waste of technology. The cars we have at work claim they use 0.6L of diesel an hour standing still, so if you turn off the engine for 2 minutes at a red light, you just saved a few ml of diesel. Not really worth the strain it puts on the engine (moving parts with missing oil pressure) and the starter imho
Cars I driven with stop/start tends to shut off the engine anytime you stop, for example making a turn to the left in the middle of cross junction, or letting through cyclists and turning right, the car shut itself off while you roll a meter frontwards towards a turn. I hate these situation and I always turn off start/stop
Yes, it does save fuel. Yes, it does help the environment. But that's why there are Prius, to get great fuel economy. Don't buy a start/stop car because it does save fuel but it also damages the starter and fuel pump and other things and it also uses power more so the battery does not have a long lasting life which means you have to keep buying batteries. Already just from that you waste more money from a car with start/stop than a normal car. Not to mention how much those cars cost. Summary: you are not saving any money from buying a start stop car compared to a normal car
I drive about 2K miles per month in my 2018 Audi S3, which has an auto Stop/Start system. It works very well, and restarts the engine when I take my foot off the brake and has it fully ready by the time I hit the throttle. It’s seamless and unobtrusive. I average about 26 mpg for each tank of fuel. As an experiment, I went a whole month (about 6 tanks of fuel) with the Stop-Start turned off. My average that month was 21.5 mpg. That’s enough evidence for me that the system works.
What about turbo wear? Turbo is still spinning while engine is off and it’s not getting oil. Also what about the dpf? If it doing a regen will the engine shut off?
It’s only good if your battery is at a certain level. As if it needs a slight charge the stop start won’t work. Mine hasn’t worked for over a month and it’s only a year old car.
Not at all Minimum wear and Tear on an already "Warmed up Engine" Battery & Starter Motor Brushes etc Have Been Majorly Upgraded for this system ...and its only available on 1.6L and Lower capacity engines (Smaller /Less Fuel usage) It works very well if say you know your regular route to work for example You know the Long Red Light stops etc
If these start/stop cars are monitoring the battery, do they tell you when the battery needs replacing as well? (before the car is unable to start obviously!)
Those new starter motors are significantly more robust than old ones, and in terms of battery they are using super capacitors in parallel with lead acid batteries to limit strain on the battery.
I have a 2017 Grand Cherokee jeep limited with the start stop system and I find it very annoying to hear the engine start up at the stop sign or stop light. I feel it will shorten the life span of my starter and battery life which cost more to replace. So I try my best to keep it turned off. Maybe better on gas but not on replacing starter or battery. Bad idea.
You mention in this car that when it stops is quite rough, I own a mazda 3 and the start/stop thing in it is quite flawless, Hardly notice the car is off sometimes and the system tells me ive saved 3 trees since own the car, Im doing my bit ;)
The best thing about the stop/start system is the button to turn it off.
Cars coming out now and in the future will have no button to disable.
oldtwins just imported a car from germany to the netherlands and i just notice it doesnt have a stop start button all cars here got it
I guess you have it on the digital menu or something. In my golf some basic buttons like deactivation of ESP are not physical, you need to navigate through the car menu. I think it is weird that they do not give you the option to disconnect the start/stop, are you sure?
fuckers can't tell us what do do, with some common knowledge and a soldering iron i am sure one can turn it off even without a button
@@oldtwins nope..they're still doing it accept for certain makes.most japenese n korean will have that button.even in future models
This system is good for saving a few litres, but im more concerned about Engine, battery and starter life. Which is way more expensive than price for a few litres of fuel.
But EU only looks to the MPG not engine wear.
My GF has an audi a1 with a (only) 1.2 liter motor. after two years the battery was dead as hell. And shes not even working or living in a city... Two years for a battery 3 times the price of a standard one! Unbelievable. Yeah just think of how much CO² is made when producing a battery or a starter. Its bullshit.
also the data 10-12%.. Lol when what? When driving non-stop for 100 miles? I think not...
these parts on stop start are more expensive also be careful people
don´t Forget engine wear, Timing chain / belt wear, dual mass flywhell etc etc.. all These things wear the least if the engine is running... car makers can tell me what they want, everything on today´s cars wears out so fast, I just don´t trust them
bobl78 yes thats the point. Small engine with lots of boost. Fuk it!
I say a mild hybrid (a hybrid which can't run on the electric motor, but the electric motor kicks on at idle) is probably the best choice.
my start stop system stopped after 3 months and never worked again
I have never been happy that something broke in my car but this time I was happy
Save money on gas. Spend it all on a new starter or engine repairs ROFL
Why would the starter and engine break down?
+ChinnuWoW due too the extra wear & tear placed on to it by the constant restarting of the engine! meaning a normal starter will start an engine only so many times before its worn out enough that either its not strong enough to turn the engine or the starter has to much gunk in it to function properly! as for the engine though, it much worse, the engine needs oil & other fluids to function correctly & a shutdown'ed(ie:turned off or stopped) engine doesn't move said oils/fluids around to the needed parts of said engine, making it wear/tear faster! simply put, stop/starting an engine is a lot harder on the engine then just letting it idle but most hypermilers(ie: people who want to save fuel & do a lot of things to try to save said fuel) will do this regardless! by what I've noticed that the bigger the engine with the parts being not that costly & doing the work yourself, shutting down the engine will save you a few coins in the long run! but if you already have very new & a very fuel efficient vehicle this may not be so true! newer vehicles tend to cost more in repairs due too the cost of parts & how many more parts there are, plus the fact that those parts tend to be much harder to get at due too their placement in said vehicles! the best type of vehicle I would say to get(if you're in to buying a new vehicle) is to get a hybrid one that only uses the engine to charge the batteries that run the motors that moves the vehicle! they're designed more for that kind of use! ie: the Chevy Volt is just one of the vehicles that works in this way but again if something does break it will cost more to fix due too the tech that is involved!
elementalblaze79 Yes, I've thought of all of that, but when the engine starts back up, it starts up really fast(or at least in the BMW and Grand Cherokees I've driven). Wouldn't it still take a long time before you need a new starter and engine?
+ChinnuWoW depends on how long is how long?! I figured that if I can get over 7 years with one it would be great! in normal use, for what I've gone though, a starter can last 10 to 15 years, but stop/starting can half that easily! also if/when you do replace it, are you replacing it with oem or better?! if a better one that is designed to handle constant starts then it would last much longer! a buddy of mine has been doing the stop/start method for over 10+ years & he only replaced it in the 1st year(the vehicle was boughten used & has tons of mileage on it) or so with a far better one & hasn't had any problems with it! he's gone though batteries due too he does cheap out on them & runs a lot of things while the vehicle is turned off ie: sub systems, high powered exterior lights & coolers! but he does have a multi alternator setup for everything to be powered but running a 6+ liter v8 diesel(engine swapped from a 3.2ish liter inline 6 diesel) isn't cheap though!
cars with stop/start systems, do not have regular starters. they are stronger, faster, more durable.
i dont know how you managed to only get 7 years with a starter. our 1992 nissan still has its original starter. my 2008 fiat still has the same starter, my parents 2008 quasqai still has the same starter.
in fact, there is only a very few people that i know who had an issue with their starter so soon in the life of their cars. even an Opel astra of a friend of mine who uses it to deliver repaired electronics all over the city (which means he starts it at least 40-50 times a day) never had an issue
as for the engine, it needs oil when its running. if its not running, there is no need for oil circulation
What you save on fuel you spend on battery replacement.
or the alternator..
The components are built to last, just saying.
thats ofc true, but every part has a certain lifetime..
specially when you drive a hybrid Toyota. The 2 e-motors double up as a giant startermotor and giant alternator. They are completely integrated in the driveline. It's ideal for driving in urban area's and it gets great mileage. Not much fun though.
And starter
same road, same conditions ? the town centre is hardly a constant :p
and he even said on the second run he missed the 4 WAY TEMP traffic lights, so if you stop at 20 on test 1 at Red the Test 2 only 15 Red the that alone will allow more fuel saving on Test 2
I always switch it off as soon as I've started the engine. It's extra wear on the starter motor and the ring gear on the flywheel.
I do to,old school driver.
But what about the extra wear to the starter, flywheel, and engine bearings?
These are designed to cope with increased wear and tear from the beginning.
cars are cars buses are buses some are built tougher than the other same goes to those parts in these stop/start cars
***** in your own thoughts
Because they're tougher that the usual bearings, they'll last just as long but probably cost more.
Like the VW's defeat devices design?
This technology is now in the United States.
The auto start/stop won't kick in when the engine is cold or the battery charge is below a certain level.
It's true that when the battery is needing recharging and you have lights, heater or air con on, the Stop Start won't do its thing. However, it takes only a short journey or time with the engine running (standing in jams) before there is enough juice again. The alternators are also beefed up to take this into account. It is a brilliant way to solve a problem with the least fuss. Turn the engine off equals zero consumption, emissions and noise. With the much larger engines that for some reason the US and Australia, etc, are addicted to, the savings will be much more dramatic.
Worthington I have my ac on ad stop/start is still working
@@soawn29 It lets the temperature build up a little, but then turns it back on again to cool it off once it exceeds a certain amount. Kind of like a household air conditioner does.
@@worthington3637 More emissions and money spent on making a beefing up the alternator, starter.. the battery will most likely last for a little bit shorter amount of time.. not sure if its saving that much really. Especially when you drive in one city every day you know where youre going to wait for longer periods of time on a red light so you can turn the car off without needing the cars system to bother you :D so some saving is there but I doubt its going to be 10% in the real world.. closer to 5% in my opinion
@@MisoElEven It's actually a bit more than 10% in most cars in cities, at least in Japan where I rented dozens of different cars. Driver need to know when stopping for less than 10 sec, they should turn the auto stop off.
And that's the problem I have with this system, instead of a switch to cut the engine while keeping the electronics on (GPS, stereo, head lights etc.) , they opt to make it auto which annoys me. Because I'll need to predict the stopping time to decide whether to shut it off or leave it on, in every stop.
Just happens that he ran out of fuel each time there was a parking space, even though it was in central Birmingham.
I can see why people think this will wear out the starter/engine. However, they are designed with this system in mind so should be able to cope well enough with this. Also it will not do it until the engine has warmed up, so will only need to quick restart a warm engine, which is not an issue. Is basically a step or two away from a hybrid, so might as well go a little bit further and have a starter/alternator unit that is linked to the crankshaft and a battery or capacitor that can start the car in gear. Then you are almost at a Prius, which has proven you can have an engine stopping and starting all the time without adverse wear and tear.
What about the untold wear on bearings, etc within the engine with every start?
Ohh, it doesn´t matter, just save a few in a month/ year. I´m wanna know how´s the turbo if you quit the engine after a good run....
Good point, they are far more likely to fail than a starting motor, With low-friction bearing and lubrication technology in place the potential threat to engine life by stop-start systems should theoretically be overcome. But the current technology is still relatively new and only time will tell whether every car manufacturer has got it right.
The instruction manual in my stop/start Mitsubishi says that the starter motor and generator are enlarged for the stop start function to be able to take the extra beating in the long run. That adds weight to the car, I would say... I do not have the stop start on as I drive motorways mainly and in a pile up I do not use stop start as it is used too frequently to my taste (yes, I am also afraid it will wear the starter engine down). So, I only use it in town where I do not drive too many miles in the first place. Gain for me: about 3%.
Daniel Matthiesen Better off with a hybrid instead of stop start.
Those average fuel savings add up but having to replace the starter motor, ring gear and battery will be very expensive and wipe out about 20 years of projected fuel savings. If the manufacturers choose to use this method to increase advertised fuel consumption they should give a warranty to the mechanical/electrical starting components. Somehow I don't think so.
soo 120ish saved on fuel so you can spend it on starter
EmptySergeant you sir deserve a trophy lol
new engine too. most of the wear on an engine is during start-ups because all the oil drains downs and there is no lubrication.
@@AIDANPEREIRA That's only after a cold start, briefly stopping an engine doesn't give the oil time to drain.
I use the vw version. ..no problems. .I keep the clutch engaged on short sequence traffic lights.
I can get up to around 78 mpg on the blue motion caddy maxilife.
keeping the clutch engaged? good luck
VW has similar issues. Turn the steering wheel and it will start the engine, too much AC requirements it will start the engine. In the auto version, roll forward in traffic and it will start and not stop again.
hybrid is the real true stop/start system you want!
Two things +Bad wolf Theoretically when you press the clutch pedal it totally disconnects from the engine, what is your point? Second +Hovermotion +Bisrobytes you know that there is a button on any VK next to the gearshift where you can disconnect the start/stop right? You don't have to press the clutch while being stopped at the traffic light. The biggest concern I have with mine when I use it, however, is the Turbo, which everybody knows it needs to cool down with the engine being stationary for at least 2 minutes to make it last
I drive a 2016 Crafter for work and i absolutely hate the system, i always turn it off whenever i drive.
What a useless "feature".
to much AC. this is england. AC is used like once a year then forgotten about. it's heater all the way
If a diesel engine runs out of fuel, the injector pumps don't work if there's even the smallest amount of air in them. Therefor it will be necessary to bleed the air completely from the fuel lines and injector pumps before the engine will start and run properly
Which we saw being performed at 3:01
no, they drained the lines of fuel
and the car didn't seem to give a shit
maybe in old diesels, but not the modern high pressure jobs
You picked the worst time possible to stop the show guys. Right when car fans needed a replacement car show.
The new TG is for people who like cars and not lunatics messing about.
Chris Evans wasn't used to the show, if you look back the first series Jeremy Clarkson is just like Evans was.
Not sure what you are trying to explain. Chris Evans is Jeremy Clarkson under sheep clothing. That's like saying Polish and Romanian Music Idol are not as good as the British one. It's the same fucking thing, same identical decors, same people who can't sing, same 3 juries, 1 is harsh, 1 one is lean and the middle one is a pretty terrible ex singer people vaguely remember. The NEW Top Gear is a replica of OLD Top Gear.
@@epender Clarkson Top Gear was just for people who hate cars so much they want to see them destroyed.
@@bangerbangerbro hahaha what
I have a hybrid with this system. It's electrics can pull of the motor assist battery at stop if the 12 volt battery gets to low. It also starts the engine with the motor assist battery. the 12 volt battery is only used to run the spark plugs and electrical devices when it's charged enough. The assist battery can run the electrics without charging for a lot longer because the battery is 128 volt to run the electric motor. It charges off the engine, while coasting, and also while braking. This makes the stop/start system work even more efficiently than on regular cars.
Correct. Peugeos and Citroen called this a "EHDi system" and it works really well. Doesn't let the battery wear out faster compared to modern stop start systems like today, where there is no extra battery.
"in the long run" you will have more engine and battery issues to spend on..
Terrible idea, I turn it off at the start of every trip. In heavy traffic pulling out into a small gap, that short delay while the engine restarts can make the difference between a clean getaway and an accident, it caught me out on a few occasions in the early days when I forgot to disable it.
You should never run a Diesel engine completely flat. It can damage the whole engine. Patrol is not such a big problem. Poor car. :(
Not the whole engine but definitely can damage the pump.
how come only diesel engines will take damage and not petrol engines?
skybluesky1000 You have to evacuate the air from the system and the pump will run without lubrication which can damage it.
Also, and that counts for patrol and diesel, if it is an older car, you will suck up all that gunk from the bottom of the tank. That can also block the pump or at least the filter.
+blocki your fuel pump pickup is at the bottom of the tank so you always suck fuel from the low point. pretty common misconception though.
Most modern engines can be bled with a diagnosis computer turning the electric pumps on and off, without cranking the engine.
These systems are designed to withstand the wear and tear from stopping and starting. Stronger starters are used however some don't use a typical starter to restart the enging. Some use a belt driven starter/generator assembly to restart the engine. The batteries, two options, one is a small inexpensive battery and the other is a rechargeable battery designed to be discharged and recharged. Some vehicles now use capacitors to capture electrical energy to be released during a stop, in this case a start/stop battery is not even needed. In the end, I have not seen and more issues with this system compared to any other system they put on cars today. If anything this system is holding up very well compared to some other crap they put on cars.
He didn't mention what effect start/stop has on the battery and starter motor?
It doesn't matter, after 5 years, you should trash the car and buy a new one, it'll last for 5 years sure! And then they talk about ecology, and never say how much it costs the enviroment to produce a new car.
My car has lasted 23 years and is still going strong. If your car is only lasting 5 years you are not talking care of it at all, that sounds like the driver is driving it hard and not taking care of it, do you even change your oil? Or is that all you do is change the oil?
You are not reading what I wrote. And keep that BS about not changing oil and other fluids, because that's not why cars break, they break because they are designed deliberately like that, and all that BS about pollution, how much pollution does a production of a new car cost? If there is climate change, make cars last 50 years and there will be much less pollution, make gasoline cost 10 times as right now, and people will abandon cars, there you go, much lesss pollution.
pilicic andrija Are you telling me that we dont have to change our oil? No wonder your car does not last 5 years, i bet you dont see it go above 60k miles. Meanwhile, my 23 year old truck still purs on
pilicic andrija
u mad bro?
Yet as others have mentioned the additional wear on the engine (particularly turbo's, starter motors and batter) the system seems designed to increased maintenance costs, but just happens to increase MPG as an ancillary benefit. It is a no from me.
The turbo's _what?_ Which possession of a turbo did you mean?
Car manufacturers does not make money if you buy fuel. But they do pocket if you buy a new starter.
Some stop start systems work by sparking the cylinder with fuel that was next to go in the firing order before shut down. So not started by the starter at all. Don't know if it's the same with Diesel. If that the case the starter isn't going to wear out any sooner than a regular car.
Short summary: Yes it makes a difference, about 10mpg.
in city driving yes, else no
Well obviously a start/stop system won't work unless you fucking STOP, right?
+derbigpr500 hahahahahah
I live in the countryside and it still gets me a few extra mpg
this comment needs to be at the top.
What about the cost of the battery and startengine? had to replace both last year, 640 euros, at the dealer. not even covered. only cuz i saved like 120 euros fuel. good job volkswagen.
Forgetting obvious wear and tear issues.............Has anyone seen how much the batteries cost for these?
Of course as usual the motoring press is only interested in the costs to the first owner (first 2 or 3 years), not the poor sod who buys it 2nd hand and tries to run it for 10 years.
The manufacturers don't care, the shorter a cars life, the more cars they sell.
Latest cars do not use the battery for the start-stop system. They are using huge capacitors manufactured only for this purpose. However your engine wear and starting motor problem going to pull out a lot more money from your pocket compared to fuel savings...
I bet those capacitors are cheap when they inevitably fail............................
Supercapacitors are the opposite of cheap, MFR probably use them to prevent damage to the electrical system, isolating the battery and preventing a voltage drop at the ECU. Still not very common though.
Truth is they all want us driving new cars every 3 years, with 20% VAT and 2.5 million new cars sold each year, at an average value of 25k per car, the automotive industry puts A LOT of money into govt coffers, to be more precise that's £5000 x 2.5 million cars.
You can forget the environment and all the BS about buying greener cars, all they want is for us to keep buying cars we can't really afford. Keeps the money rolling in for the already rich, keeps the rest of us in debt, keeps us quiet and keeps us compliant.
i mean no offence brother but the batteries the least of your worries...........is the econetic a petrol? and ifso a diesel a standard 1 isnt around £200 no way. i am not quoting but ime going on the fact my 330d is £165 a year so no way a 1.8-2 litre diesel mondao is £200 per year. petrol yes it will be. and your mear 380 quid would be saved if you owned the car for 16 years....... how many first owners do that? 1 in 500,000 am guessing...... heres wen ule loose the your money tho..... a starter motor for a ford focus with stop/start is 1200 pounds fitted. a normal starter motor on a standard focus is 400 pounds fitted....... genuinely sorry if i come across like a twat, ide never make a journalist.
I drive a Skoda Octavia 3 with a 1.6 TDI/81 kW engine.
I have tested for several times to see the differences between driving with and without the stop/start system and the results are that when i am driving through the city during moderate/intense traffic, stop/start saves me about ~2 liters of diesel per 100 km.
My car has now ~85000 km of which ~35000 have been driven within urban areas. Sparing ~2 liters for each 100 km means ~700 liters of saved diesel for the ~35000 km. The price for the diesel in my country is ~1.2 euro/liter, this means that i have saved some 840 euro only by using the stop/start system.
Now, 1 month ago i had to replace the battery. I bought a brand new Varta Silver Dynamic AGM 70 Ah. I have spent ~150 euro for the battery + its installation, so this means I am ~700 euro on the "plus" side.
Therefore, from my point of view, having the stop/start system is an advantage.
How much cost turbo charger, catalyst, DPF, starter, timing belt and few other things destroyed by stop-start 2-8 times more often?
The only reason they have start/stop is so they can be accepted trough the environment testing.
well, stop/starting at stop lights make sense on saving fuel, its a hyper-miler trick! but it does have its drawbacks, its hard on the starter, battery & alternator! so if you don't mind wearing out those, then go ahead & stop & start the vehicle when possible! I've seen in my 01' 4.0 4x4 ford ranger extended cab pick-up a good 15-20% increase in fuel economy by doing so but like others stated, you would wear out certain parts faster & is the cost of those parts cheaper to replace or is it cheaper to just run the engine is the question! in my opinion, with the cost of fuel, its cheaper to stop/start a vehicle then just let it idle at lights/construction stops by far! at least for me, I'll save about $170 USD a year even with factoring in replacing those parts every 7-10 years but(which I factored in) if I have to replace those parts every 4 or less years then its cheaper to just let it idle! that's with me using oem parts but the battery noted, if I factor in all oem parts, if I can go more then 3 years then it would still be cheaper to stop/start!
You make some good points. A normal car's starter is not designed to handle excessive start/stops in a day, so eventually it'll die on you. Now, if you aren't handy around cars and can't replace a starter yourself, then all that gas you saved will go to having replace the starter. It may be possible to get the car's starter changed to a beefier model (one which is designed for delivery for instance) but I don't have much experience with them.
Me, I'll drive as normal, turning off the vehicle when I'm stuck at a long traffic light, or avoiding those intersections altogether. If you practice fuel savings techniques in your normal driving routine, you'll probably end up with about the same gas savings without the start/stop.
+GrognardOfXCOM yes I agree! I found that planning your route can save you tons! where I go, I can either take the highway or drive though town! I think of where I need to go & plan ahead! sure its shorter to just go though town but the time I've went to get on to the highway & take the long way around, I've saved time & fuel! but if you're not as lucky as I am & have to go though town then that stinks! living near large towns, even though I live in a somewhat small town & for me to get certain things I have to go elsewhere, this does help a bit to know the area!
I think the thing most people forget is it is much easier to start a warm engine, and it really doesn't put that much extra wear. I do this on my carbureted motorcycle - morning starts suck taking several seconds and some choke, stop-light starts on first crank, no problem. Some wear, yes, but it's not cold starting below zero. It's a big reason why hybrids get such good fuel economy - they waste a lot less energy idling.
It is a little different in a car equipped w/ stop-start systems. They have generally engineered the started to be much more durable for those cars. Also, you aren't running the engine as much, which in itself decreases wear and tear, negating at least some of the remaining wear and tear concerns.
Yes, we can see with Prius. Most Prius last a very long time without big repair. And the engine is stoping and starting all of the time, much more than with a stop/start system. Also it is very easy to do the maintenance yourself.
Here in the U.K. It's all about saving fuel with technology like stop/start and common rail diesel etc. Nobody seems to worry about checking tyre pressures and changing air filters which make a big difference.
Stop/Start system for my car,results in early turbo failure.Mine is always turned off and will remain so.
This test is basically flawed. Traffic conditions cannot be identical and you do not mention about the extra costs involved over time when replacements are needed for battery, starter, etc........
I think if you guys can do a full analysis of the cost to replace shortened battery life and spark will be cool.
If youre talking spark plugs they were using a diesel.
Previous car was a Ford Focus on a 12 plate, stop start worked when you came to a halt and put into neutral , put into gear and foot on clutch and off you go. I now have a 18 month old Ford Puma from new. The stop start is far too sensitive and will activate when you start to slow down even when you are queuing at a roundabout for example or at a T junction when you need a quick turn of speed. My dealer says its on the least sensitive setting. I never have it on now, drive in sport mode where it is not active or switch it off. My only complaint about the Puma other than that a joy to drive.
The bearings of the car wear out every time when the car starts and stops.. this is a efficient way to save fuel but not for saving money because it damages a lot of parts of the car
Exactly
I manually started/stopped my 2002 car for a year. I only stopped it if it looked like I would be at the light for more than about 30 seconds. My MPG went up by about 9%. I had no engine or starter problems (Chevy 3.0L V6.)
While this may save fuel, what are the long-term effects of start/stop on the starter that now has to be put more to work? Any information on that?
I use it on a 2012 a3 1.8 tfsi Quattro, since 2014 no problems so far
I was told apparently that when this stop start system is engaged it actually uses more fuel. As when the engine is every-time started up this causes an excessive amount of fuel to be taken??
how did you start a diesel from empty don't you have to bleed the system?
They would have done, but TV progs like this make it look simple by cutting out the important bits.
that was deliberately done in an small area with a lot of lights make little difference in outer city/country areas, then add on cost of new starters
Save on fuel or engine wear
YOU CHOOSE
The mileage might increase but what of the extra use of the battery and starter. They will have to be replaced much more often and at what cost?
the turbo isnt veery happy of temp changing as well though
A few years ago I owned a Mazda CX5AWD diesel and it had this annoying feature. When the engine cut out it kept a record of the amount of fuel saved. In stop start city driving over a tank of fuel it saved about a cup of fuel. I don't know if newer vehicles have the ability to measure this automatically now. They probably don't as it would allow owners to see how ineffective the system really was.
Literally every comment thread on here is some moron saying "but you're gonna spend more on the starter and engine replacement!" then an actually educated person replying that the parts are made specifically for start stop and will last just fine.
All that means is that you've spent the extra money up front.
From personal experience they don't last the same time.
In the Ford Escape I've been in that had that auto off engine feature, it came to a nice complete stop before quietly turning off. The person who was driving the car just recently started driving it, he didn't even know he had that feature on it! :P I noticed it was really quiet and thought I heard the engine start up before he accelerated again, so I figured it out. It's pretty quick and seamless.
Im not sold on that system. Constant start/stop would put quite a bit of strain on the starter and other components that run off the crank. I'd like to see the lifetime of a motor on start/stop tech vs. a conventional one.
They have been reinforced to deal with the wear and tear.
but when they do break prepare to spend more than what you saved in fuel
+Lytinwheedle reinforced my arsehole, I can see the board meeting now! Engineering team: "This new stop/start technology will put massive strain on the starter motor and other key components, should we make them more durable in light of this?" Motor company boss: "Fuck off, they'll be coming in for repairs more often... Happy days".
My golf 7.5 does this too. Sometimes when i want to make a left turn across the other lane i almost come to a halt and the engine cuts off. But im still rolling and because the engine cuts of the power steering doesnt work.
Yes. Had a 2017 leon
This was dangerous!!!!!
I'd like to see them do this with 3 model cars from different manufacturers, test them stop-start enabled and then disabled alternatively for 100 cycles. (i.e. they drive with stop start disabled on the set circuit then enabled, repeat 100 times per vehicle)
This would give a far more accurate assessment... especially if they engineer-fit a specific volume tank, bypassing the stock one.
I like start stop because it can save fuel, evidently. However, the best point about it is that it saves you when you stall your car. So once you're used to your car having it, you can almost rely on to start your engine if you stall it. Especially if you start to panic. But being reliant on it is never good especially once it fails. Plus, the kind of car batteries needed for cars with s/s are super expensive compared to regular car batteries because they need to have something called AGM (not sure what it is exactly) and they need to have a higher CCA and overall capacity compared to a normal car, especially in a diesel. My Audi A3 uses a 70Ah AGM battery which was £137 from Bosch (vat free).
I really dont like the self-starting feature after stalling the engine. I myself drive a car where you have to start the engine again yourself and if i drive a start-stop car I get really confused and kill the engine while it wants to start again. Also, in my car I can switch the ignition off (I leave it in gear, otherwise the oil pressure would drop like in a start-stop car) while driving which allows me to disable power steering which is not needed during fast driving. Also I have already reset the starter lock and if I stall I dont need to switch the ignition off, i can just simply turn the key forward.
And: AGM stands for Absorbent Glass Mat, which is a way to store electircal energy, like lithium or lead battery
@@Simon_r2600 Yeah, I suppose that's true. Start/stop isn't really favoured amongst motorists, I don't really mind it because of what I mentioned but your points are sound. I guess I got used to it. However, I don't have a car with s/s now so my points are moot for me.
Thank you for explaining what AGM is.
I got a better idea, nuclear powered car, can drive way more with a tiny amount of uranium.
its very bad for the envirement and will cost way more so i dont see a difference in price
Imagine a car crash in that
vuurkoning'1 Bad for the environment? Nuclear power is very efficient
tiff is so much more easier to watch than rory or ej!
This test wasn't properly conducted in line with the scientific method because the investigated variable, namely difference in fuel consumption with start/stop system either engaged or disengaged, is unfluenced extremely easily between either test for a multitude of reasons. I know that's not really the point of this experiment because it's just consumer advice but hold on to me here because IMO it applies to how lots of consumer advice research is (wrongly) performed.
I don't disagree with the experiment's conclusions, because when you think about it the results of the experiment overwhelmingly resemble those one can logically hypothetically expect to observe within the confines of this experiment. I mean in their right mind wouldn't expect a car that doesn't use petrol standing still to be more fuel efficient than one that does use petrol standing still. The results are completely intuitive to almost everyone.
I do however disagree with how the experiment was conducted because even though it is a piece of consumer advice and not concrete scientific research, it does have a lot external influences that haven't been controlled and/or compensated for. Among others: traffic lights, crossings, traffic itself etc aren't identical in either circumstance, therefore driver input isn't identical in both circumstances, the human element of driving itself has an enormous amount af variables and therefore is extremely unpredictable. Think of things like
This might seem like being deliberately obtuse but IMO the results of this experiment are negligible because for any scientific results to be conclusive you want all (external) parameters set to a known degree/value apart from the one to investigate. This experiment has a multitude of variables that aren't set/fixxed to a known value/degree. The difference of 10 mpg between can't conclusively be pinned down to the start/stop system alone because of all these uncontrolled external and internal parameters. Who knows how much less traffic he encountered or braking he had to do when conducting the experiment with the start/stop system turned on.
Really don't mean to brag here but as a biomedical scientist myself I can't ever get away with a multitude of uncontrolled parameters if I want to be taken seriously by my peers, and IMO it shouldn't be any different when conducting an experiment such as this. A test track with identical speeds, distances, route and time in set before conducting both experiments would help tremendously, to add some complexity and known variability one could add controlled traffic and traffic lights. They'd add a closer simulation of daily driving but because the time standing still is known before conducting the experiment it would take away much of the uncertainty of the results.
God do I feel like "that guy" now. I'm not this much of a know-it-all normally, just felt like this needed some criticism for how it was conducted. Not because it came to the wrong conclusion but because of faulty methodology. IMO we should expect Fifth Gear to have higher standards when doing research for consumer advice.
Well you are correct. Another mistake is that the first time you start the car the engine is colder and idles higher. It would have been better to just calculate the time he came to a stop and used that time to see how much fuel that would have cost. If for example he would had to stop for 5minutes in total then you would run the car again with 1 liter and let it idle for 5minutes then see how much fuel you have left.
This would still grand you a hypothetical* answer, because as seen in the video the car did not always used its start/stop in order to keep the battery charged.
But the best way to save money on fuel is not saving fuel, but overtrowing our goverments that demand exorbitant taxes on fuel. A legit tax uses all the money from the tax to improve the conditions in wich the tax is drawn from. Thus in case it would have to be spend on road maintenance/roads/controlling the roads.
Jeroen
Yes exactly, that would be one way to do it. Measuring the total amount of time with the engine turned off at traffic lights and have the car idling for the same amount of time would have indicated the excess consumption between the engaged and disengaged start/stop system.
There's is one drawback to this approach though, because you'd only have conducted the experiment once with the system turned on. You can't compare any results because the experiments weren't conducted in identical form with the exception of (dis)engaged start/stop system. For science to be conclusive the conditions of the experiments should be as close to identical as possible in either circumstance.
Sorry but I'd like to respectfully decline adressing your remarks about government and taxes. I'm rather uncomfortable with turning a discussion about the methodology of a scientific experiment into a political one. IMO it would only complicate trying to have a constructive dialogue about the subject and would probably lead to heated and frustrating arguments. Hope you can understand my position here.
coenijn .... what kind of car are you driving some thing from the 80s possibly. Never seen a new car with higher revs at cold start sorry you need to update your car possibly .
As you said, it's a light hearted entertainment show. Would 2 million people want to watch you at work on their televisions every week? Probably not.
You must be fun at party's
I was always told these cause a lot of wear on the engine, starter and battery and in the end will probably cost more in maintenance than the fuel savings it brings. Having being a passenger in a few stop start cars I find it extremely irritating like the car is constantly stalling. Happy I don't have a car with this feature.
Never been convinced by this. what you may save on fuel you spend on Battery replacement and a knackered Starter motor way sooner than need be!
Engines will generally use more fuel when cold. Was the engine warmed up before both runs?
WoW, so many people not understanding how a battery works (it constantly recharges anyway), as does your alternator. The only thing that might need replacing is your starter engine, but you can design them with this issue in mind. But oh well. people need to complain if it "saves fuel" as we cannot touch the holy golden oxen that is the Car and Gasoline. The Petrol industry has instructed you well :P.
to recharge the battery you need energy..from the engine..from the fuel..
amojak
So you rather just waste that fuel standing still.. got it :). Same with braking. Let's just waste that energy.
Gotta love that Megane. Rock solid car too, i have a Megane II, the cabrio version, i bought it with 120.000 km and 9 years, COMPLETELY neglected... and i neglected it even more. Not a single problem, not with the engine, not with the electrical systems, even the roof works like a charm (and it's actuated around twice daily).
0:05 Just realised that's my old astra parked closest to the camera. 😂
Wow, running out of fuel with a diesel?! Is there some BTS with that which you're not telling us, like... repriming the fuel lines by cracking them open at the injectors while cranking? How did you get that running again?
If you run out of fuel, there is a very useful handpump in the engine bay to prime the system. On this car, it's right next to the window washer reservoir.
@@MidshipRunabout2: I bet that handpump is there if we run out of fuel or not.
OK, that's cool that that vehicle has that; I had never heard of it. But I just remembered now that some newer diesels are even better than that: self-priming. I wish my 2001 Dodge Ram (Cummins) had either of those things.
@HelloKittyFanMan.
It's built onto the fuel lines so you can't lose it.
But yeah, it can be a pain on older cars, thankfully I've been pampered with the diesels I've driven and never had to bleed the lines or re-prime system.
once starter motor seizes it will cost more than the savings to repair/replace
depends how servicable the starter motors are.. cause you are going to replace it sooner on the stop start car
Depends on the car. I dunno about Renault, but my Mazda will restart the engine by combustion. Seriously clever stuff, and an interresting read @ www.mazda.com/en/innovation/technology/env/i-stop/
But even so, for me who rarely drive around the inner city centers, it's completely pointless.
Says who? does anyone research before typing away, normal starting motor built to do 50,000 cycles, stop/start built to do 500,000 fact, im amazed how many people on here have something negative to based on fiction, you know nothing, yet you make ridiculous remarks about something you simple dont understand, like all of a sudden you lots are experts, and those qualified engineers, are thick, and never thought about all the things that you have?
Bottom line is simple, a stop/start car will out last a non stop car, as it is designed and built to be more durable than a non stop/start motor, the battery is a AGM or EFB technology battery and therefore will out perform your non stop start battery in every aspect!
A normal car has a life expectancy of 50,000 cycles compared to 500,000 cycles of a STOP/START motor, designed to last the life of the engine in both cases!
And here is the best bit, no one mentions this, which is the biggest threat to the engine upon start up, where the real damage is done
When the engine starts, there’s a point before the two surfaces become separated by the oil film called the ‘boundary condition’, where the crankshaft is spinning, but there’s metal-to-metal contact between the bearing surfaces.
This is when most wear takes place. Fitting stop-start means the boundary condition (and metal-to-metal contact) could exist perhaps 500,000 times in the life of the engine instead of 50,000 and normal bearings would wear out long before that.
Two things prevent that happening. The first is that bearing manufacturers are developing new bearing material with greater self-lubricating properties to resist wear on start-up.
Federal Mogul has developed a new material called Irox with a polymer coating containing particles of iron oxide (rust), which in this microscopic form is surprisingly slippery.
In fact it’s so slippery that the co-efficient of friction of an Irox bearing is 50 per cent lower than a conventional aluminium bearing and will easily last the life of an engine equipped with stop-start.
Low friction oils can also assist
Do you research before you type, because these stop/start cars are bulletproof, and i can guarantee not one of you know someone with a stop start car that have replace any of the things you mention, with the exception of the battery, which i have replaced once in 9 years
So you save a few dollars in fuel but the price of replacing the starter motor and short lived battery life. Eats up the any and all savings.
starter motor and battery has been updated for start/stop otherwise they would have no balls to put that kind of a car out :)
Not a big difference in real world. Modern downsized engines have terribly short life. Most damage to your engine is casing starting. Every star puts lot of stress on crank journals. Even Wankel engine became more reliable than most off stuff you can find under bonnet of new car. Saving bit of fuel and causing much more enviromental damage with neeed for making a new car with shorter lifespan.
U faild to mention how much will it cost for smudge up engine clean up n starter motor replacement in the end of the year.
It costs 70 pounds to fill up a tank in UK? I just filled up today for $20 in US.
It used to cost that much, now its about 50 pounds so so, yeh its a rip off but its called tax.
That's your government paying you to turn a blind eye to the oil wars.
It's almost $100 for me to fill up with 16 gallons here in Sweden.
1 gallon in germany is like 4.20$ so yes in europe we pay munch for Fuel this is why we have small diesel engines
lol 😂 😂 in Saudi Arabia it's very cheap.
1:50 in and I already see a flaw in the testing. Two different runs on the same route. Should have done two cars nose to tail. Exact same traffic cues.
While it may save fuel, these system puts excessive wear & tear for the engine, battery, and starter motor. They cost a lot more the fix than just fuel.
You're 100% right! But no one seems to talk about it at loud ;-)
Aoru stop start cars have upgraded starters able to withstand 8 times more starts. Plus the engine has a crank sensor and the ecu sprays an extra dose of fuel in the first cylinder that will fire.
quenchize The more complicated the systems are, the easier it is for things to go wrong and if it does go wrong, expensive to fix. Hence these start stop systems originally started with BMW and Mercedes cause people who buy them could afford the repairs or couldn't care about it. Though i have doubts about other start stop systems. A hybrid can be more efficient.
However, as mentioned it won't save fuel if the start stop process is constantly being used (especially in heavy traffic) that will force the engine to be on all the time which will result in the same as a non-start/stop equipped engine. So how much fuel it saves really depend on where you live or the time of the day.
With turbo engines I'd be also concerned about the sudden shut off and the hot turbo not being cooled during the stand still ...
If you drive hard, the start stop wont turn the engine off. If you drive normally, the turbo wont be near hot enough to be a concern for the 15 seconds it will be sitting without oil flow.
More damage done stopping and starting. Complete false economy. I used to deactivate mine.
i have a stop start SUV hybrid ZERO WEAR, ZERO SLUDGE, NO OIL CONSUMPTION The engine only has 1365 Hours on it at 89,100 miles(hours not counted in auto stop)
LACK OF MAINTENANCE IS THE CAUSE OF FAILURE *NO FREE RIDE*.
IT has active fuel management which is known for OIL consumption issues as well.. most people are burning 1 to 2 qt per 1,000 miles
I burned 0 QT in the last 2500 miles.. MAINTENANCE is the key
as it's fully maintained 3,000 miles oil changes... with the BEST MOTOR OIL on the market Mobil1
they have the right balance of ingredients.. while other may use "SUPER SLUDGE cleaning"
those oils will blow up your engine once a big chunk breaks off and clogs up the tiny passage ways for the oil..
= you have a blown engine...
From what I've seen. The only good Stop/Start cars are hybrids, namely the Prius. Its engine was built to be constantly stopped and started, it uses the traction motor to start the engine which is powered by the large traction battery. No stress on sensitive 12V batteries and no stress on starter motors.
Of course, Stop/Starts are still new technology, so engine designs will likely be designed around this feature in the future. Though for in-town driving, a hybrid or BEV is still the best option if you want to save on fuel.
0:17 don't read that wrong like me....
iv only ever driven one car with stop start, it was my friends, and it felt so weird, i kept thinking i was stalling, and manually starting it again lol
so you are at the lights your engine has just gone off, behind you something is happening and you need to make a good launch to get away from a danger..
how hard is it on your starter because unless they made them a ton better and flywheels a ton better i can only see bad things
The engine is on again in less then a second with most cars, as soon as the clutch has reached the floor it is already on basically. I don't know how much it will affect automatic cars, but with manual ones it is really not that noticable. Still i think stop/start automatic is really dumb, and a waste of technology. The cars we have at work claim they use 0.6L of diesel an hour standing still, so if you turn off the engine for 2 minutes at a red light, you just saved a few ml of diesel. Not really worth the strain it puts on the engine (moving parts with missing oil pressure) and the starter imho
Cars I driven with stop/start tends to shut off the engine anytime you stop, for example making a turn to the left in the middle of cross junction, or letting through cyclists and turning right, the car shut itself off while you roll a meter frontwards towards a turn. I hate these situation and I always turn off start/stop
Bad for the engine puts strain on the starter motor because car is constantly turning on & off!
Yes, it does save fuel. Yes, it does help the environment. But that's why there are Prius, to get great fuel economy. Don't buy a start/stop car because it does save fuel but it also damages the starter and fuel pump and other things and it also uses power more so the battery does not have a long lasting life which means you have to keep buying batteries. Already just from that you waste more money from a car with start/stop than a normal car. Not to mention how much those cars cost. Summary: you are not saving any money from buying a start stop car compared to a normal car
Battery company will agree this system 😂
I try in motorcycle with start stop system on....in 3 years i replace battery twice
What's the cost to replace the part when it broken?
All your questions are answered at 1:39" it can be turned OFF! :D That's all I wanted to know.
You alao need to know not all brand of cars have this function
What about turbo lubrication when you stop at the motorway toll after a long run at high power ?
Unless you are driving a hybrid like honda's IMA, stop start is stupid and will screw up your starter.
I drive about 2K miles per month in my 2018 Audi S3, which has an auto Stop/Start system. It works very well, and restarts the engine when I take my foot off the brake and has it fully ready by the time I hit the throttle. It’s seamless and unobtrusive.
I average about 26 mpg for each tank of fuel.
As an experiment, I went a whole month (about 6 tanks of fuel) with the Stop-Start turned off.
My average that month was 21.5 mpg.
That’s enough evidence for me that the system works.
Just wait till you hear how much the battery will cost :)
Now you will have some money to buy a new battery. Cheers :)
What about turbo wear? Turbo is still spinning while engine is off and it’s not getting oil. Also what about the dpf? If it doing a regen will the engine shut off?
stupid system. prematurly kills your starter and battery so nope not having it.
It’s only good if your battery is at a certain level. As if it needs a slight charge the stop start won’t work. Mine hasn’t worked for over a month and it’s only a year old car.
first thing i do when i start my Audi is switch the stop/start off..fookin' hate it!
Is it worthwhile stop/starting manually in a car without this feature?
Complete nonsense.... what about wear and tear on all the mechanical moving parts - way more expensive in the long run.
Not at all Minimum wear and Tear on an already "Warmed up Engine" Battery & Starter Motor Brushes etc Have Been Majorly Upgraded for this system ...and its only available on 1.6L and Lower capacity engines (Smaller /Less Fuel usage) It works very well if say you know your regular route to work for example You know the Long Red Light stops etc
That's not true. Audi 2L engines also has it
If these start/stop cars are monitoring the battery, do they tell you when the battery needs replacing as well? (before the car is unable to start obviously!)
You will save 100 from fuel and spend 150 for new battery. yeah great deal!
All these components are reinforced to account for the increased wear and tear.
Lytinwheedle
is that why the car started to charge the battery after the first try... LOL
Those new starter motors are significantly more robust than old ones, and in terms of battery they are using super capacitors in parallel with lead acid batteries to limit strain on the battery.
67 mpg driving around town is amazing to be fair. I'm supposed to get 27 mpg in mine but get more like 22.
You dont save shit, because when it fails *and it will! it will cost you a thousand to fix it :DDD
I have a 2017 Grand Cherokee jeep limited with the start stop system and I find it very annoying to hear the engine start up at the stop sign or stop light. I feel it will shorten the life span of my starter and battery life which cost more to replace. So I try my best to keep it turned off. Maybe better on gas but not on replacing starter or battery. Bad idea.
A test in a controlled environment would have been a more accurate test.
You mention in this car that when it stops is quite rough, I own a mazda 3 and the start/stop thing in it is quite flawless, Hardly notice the car is off sometimes and the system tells me ive saved 3 trees since own the car, Im doing my bit ;)