Start stop battery or something else

[400ixl]

Based on a friend's husband who is in F1.
Bad due to start up wear, which is more than driving wear, oil film is dispersed.
Wear on crankshaft gearteeth.
Apparently can minutely twist a crankshaft over time.

None of these will really show for at least 3 years. Or 60,000 miles

Ask yourself a question
If there were 2 identical non start stop cars, same mileage etc.
You knew and trusted both owners Implicitly.
One drove to to work 50 miles on Motorway and back each day. I.e. 100 miles/ day.
The other Did 25 journeys every day of 4 miles .
Which would you prefer to buy?
I rest my case.

Er why cant you turn it off permenantly ... so MB can get their echo grant.

Your case is very flawed, You are describing two different scenarios and neither have anything to do with stop / start.

If you had two cars that did 50 miles on a motorway and one had it, the other didn't I would buy the one with stop start

If you had two cars that did 25 journeys each day of 4 miles and one had it and the other didn't I would buy the one with stop start.

There are thousands of taxi's running stop / start for 10+ years now and the failure rate has been insignificant.

Gone are the days where oil starvation is an issue for cars using this technology and if your friend is in F1 then he should know this. The wear on parts has proven to not be an issue and is not theoretical, it is real world tried and tested. So not relevant in the slightest.

People find it annoying, get that and appreciate that point of view. People claiming it is technically flawed is just not the case.

Whilst you can't switch it off permanently via any switches, there are companies out there doing devices that will do this if you look for them and it is annoying you that much.

 

[400ixl]

Never mind engine wear, What about thermal issues, heating and cooling caused by constant switching on and off for an I/c engine doesn't make sense. Buy an electric motor for stop start, not i/c.

The system shuts down way before thermal bleed becomes an issue.This isn't technology by dummies, it is well thought out and tested.

Agree its a pain at times, but equally you can also control when it cuts in with your foot. Press the brake pedal lightly enough at a stand still and it doesn't cut in.

Lets take the technology out of this as it works, has next to zero impact on the engine and adds no measurable failure rate (sub 0.1%).

People like it, people hate it and some just have it and let it do its thing with no real feeling either way.

 

[400ixl]

I should be clear, I mean engine failures, not wear and tear such as battery.

 

[Submariner1]

Your case is very flawed, You are describing two different scenarios and neither have anything to do with stop / start.

If you had two cars that did 50 miles on a motorway and one had it, the other didn't I would buy the one with stop start

If you had two cars that did 25 journeys each day of 4 miles and one had it and the other didn't I would buy the one with stop start.

There are thousands of taxi's running stop / start for 10+ years now and the failure rate has been insignificant.

Gone are the days where oil starvation is an issue for cars using this technology and if your friend is in F1 then he should know this. The wear on parts has proven to not be an issue and is not theoretical, it is real world tried and tested. So not relevant in the slightest.

People find it annoying, get that and appreciate that point of view. People claiming it is technically flawed is just not the case.

Whilst you can't switch it off permanently via any switches, there are companies out there doing devices that will do this if you look for them and it is annoying you that much.

You totally missed my point.
It was fundamentally would you prefer a car that had a massive amount of small journeys or one with the same mileage but just a few longer drives. If you cant see the enourmous difference and want to beleive the echo pr bull**** .. buy one.

As for the source of my information. He definitely would know and is right at the top of his game and with amazing contacts within the oil industry.
THEY ABSOLUTELY DISAGREE WITH YOU!
Apologies, but I see their logic, and as Theresa would say "they know and you just dont have a clue!"
Eg Every time the engine comes to rest, the weight of the components slightly squeezes the vital oil film between bearings, yes its still there but not in the volume of say under pressure of a running engine. Stop the engine and the oil coating the cyclinders runs down ... or do you believe they have defied physics and it no longer runs down the bore.
The other point is the cogs on the flywheel are not in the centre of the flywheel are they, so their is minute twisting of the crankshaft. Yes it is minute but enough over time that say at 100,000 miles wont be helpful.

 

[400ixl]

I saw the point you were trying to make, but thats not stop / start. It could be short journeys with little stopping or motorway journeys at peak times on the M25 which are stop start. The latter would use the stop / start function of the car far more than the former.

This is the point you have completely misunderstood. This is about the stop start functionality, not about what is better, a car which is only used for short journeys or long journeys. If it were, I agree I would buy the one that had done the longer journeys if the mileage, condition etc were identical. But that isn't stop / Start.

You don't have a clue about me, I actually know quite a few F1 engineers and have spent quite a lot of time doing engine management systems over the years which included stop / start technology. I also have a very close friend who develops oils in labs for vehicles. All of who pretty much unanimously agree that stop / start technology along with oils has progressed to the point that it is not an issue. This is backed up by over a decade now of real world use where they number of failures of engines or components within caused by stop / start is PROVEN to be minimal.

Where is your evidence that is contrary to the fact that the industry is NOT seeing these major issues you are talking about? There isn't any because it isn't happening. This isn't an infancy technology anymore, it has been around for over a decade on hundreds of thousands of cars.

Show the evidence to back up the claim. Until then I'm not going to engage in an internet argument.

 

[Submariner1]

I saw the point you were trying to make, but thats not stop / start. It could be short journeys with little stopping or motorway journeys at peak times on the M25 which are stop start. The latter would use the stop / start function of the car far more than the former.

This is the point you have completely misunderstood. This is about the stop start functionality, not about what is better, a car which is only used for short journeys or long journeys. If it were, I agree I would buy the one that had done the longer journeys if the mileage, condition etc were identical. But that isn't stop / Start.

You don't have a clue about me, I actually know quite a few F1 engineers and have spent quite a lot of time doing engine management systems over the years which included stop / start technology. I also have a very close friend who develops oils in labs for vehicles. All of who pretty much unanimously agree that stop / start technology along with oils has progressed to the point that it is not an issue. This is backed up by over a decade now of real world use where they number of failures of engines or components within caused by stop / start is PROVEN to be minimal.

Where is your evidence that is contrary to the fact that the industry is NOT seeing these major issues you are talking about? There isn't any because it isn't happening. This isn't an infancy technology anymore, it has been around for over a decade on hundreds of thousands of cars.

Show the evidence to back up the claim. Until then I'm not going to engage in an internet argument.

Probably best to agree to disagree.
I think the key is in your words "the number of failures of engines or components within caused by stop / start is PROVEN to be minimal"

I like technology that eradicates or reduces failure and wear, not one that produces a minimal increase.

And yes , I would pay a premium for a car without Start Stop.
But that wont be possible because they want their EU grants.

 

[geraldrobins]

Probably best to agree to disagree.
I think the key is in your words "the number of failures of engines or components within caused by stop / start is PROVEN to be minimal"

I like technology that eradicates or reduces failure and wear, not one that produces a minimal increase.

And yes , I would pay a premium for a car without Start Stop.
But that wont be possible because they want their EU grants.

Its nothing to do with EU grants. Please explain how you think it is.

 

[malcolm E53 AMG]

Stop/Start technology is part of the EU5 emissions regulations to reduce vehicle exhaust pollution, cars fitted with the device emit less due to the engine being cut while standing in traffic and consequently put the vehicle into a lower tax bracket so there is a financial benefit to the driver in lower tax and fuel consumption and to the environment due to less pollution

In my opinion there is a case to answer regarding wear and tear on the engine due to x thousand more start-ups the engine has to perform over it's lifetime. This does put extra load on the battery, starter motor, timing gear and camshaft as well as the heat sink element that all engines suffer from for a few minutes after switch off

There are benefits but I find the system doesn't work very well with an automatic gearbox and is more controllable with a manual gearbox so mine being an auto is always switched off

 

[geraldrobins]

Stop/Start technology is part of the EU5 emissions regulations to reduce vehicle exhaust pollution, cars fitted with the device emit less due to the engine being cut while standing in traffic and consequently put the vehicle into a lower tax bracket so there is a financial benefit to the driver in lower tax and fuel consumption and to the environment due to less pollution

In my opinion there is a case to answer regarding wear and tear on the engine due to x thousand more start-ups the engine has to perform over it's lifetime. This does put extra load on the battery, starter motor, timing gear and camshaft as well as the heat sink element that all engines suffer from for a few minutes after switch off

There are benefits but I find the system doesn't work very well with an automatic gearbox and is more controllable with a manual gearbox so mine being an auto is always switched off

Agreed its to do with reducing emissions,and reducing tax brackets, but not echo grants.

 

[400ixl]

I like technology that eradicates or reduces failure and wear, not one that produces a minimal increase.

And yes , I would pay a premium for a car without Start Stop.
But that wont be possible because they want their EU grants.

That's fair enough, I know lots of people who hate it with a passion. Personally not fussed either way.

 

[400ixl]

There are benefits but I find the system doesn't work very well with an automatic gearbox and is more controllable with a manual gearbox so mine being an auto is always switched off

Finding it quite controllable in my auto. When I come to a halt I release enough pressure off of the pedal that it doesn't cut in but holds ths the car.

The downside is I can't use the hold assist at the same time. When I want that, its the point at which I manually switch off the stop / start.

Mind you, in the winter its frequently not active anyway so no need to even worry about it.

One question for anyone who has disconnected the auxiliary battery to disable stop start, does the hold function still work? Have seen reports that hold function does not work if the battery fails, so just wondering if it is a downside for people who use that method to disable it.

 

[geraldrobins]

Getting back to the point, mine is working well even in the colder weather, and seems to work better since the ATF was changed in September.

 

[400ixl]

Interesting, mine is available less of the time, but that may be due to driving it more at times when the lights are on in the winter but wouldn't be in the summer.

It is still on most journeys but can take longer to be available and often for a shorter time.

 

[geraldrobins]

Interesting, mine is available less of the time, but that may be due to driving it more at times when the lights are on in the winter but wouldn't be in the summer.

It is still on most journeys but can take longer to be available and often for a shorter time.

I am at an advantage, which must help, as now that I dont work full time and have no early starts so seldom need lights.

 

[Submariner1]

Agreed its to do with reducing emissions,and reducing tax brackets, but not echo grants.

Well its both!
But you can bet MB know its flaws, the reason it cant be turned of permenantly is so they get the grant!
Thats also the reason its not an option! I.e. If You say wanted the tax advantage you could buy that option, like say distronic. And if you had stop start it would have a lower tax.
But MB are forcing this crap on us, so they get the Echo Grant.

 

[geraldrobins]

Well its both!
But you can bet MB know its flaws, the reason it cant be turned of permenantly is so they get the grant!
Thats also the reason its not an option! I.e. If You say wanted the tax advantage you could buy that option, like say distronic. And if you had stop start it would have a lower tax.
But MB are forcing this crap on us, so they get the Echo Grant.

The reason it cant be turned off permanently is because the emission testing is done with stop start enabled so to sell a car with x emissions it needs to default to the test settings surely.

I thought ECHO grants were about foreign aid?

 

[rorywquin]

I think that in some European countries, it is law that you must switch off your engine when waiting in traffic, lights etc. This may also be a reason that it is installed .
Be useful for those folk but I dislike it.