EPA to end Auto Start/Stop on cars!

[Ducati1098]

People who believe the manufacturers when they say they “put a heavy duty starter” in are adorable.

I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, but it's pretty easy to prove that there was a change.
Just look at any model where a certain year had some with auto start-stop and some without.
For example, the 2015 F150 when auto start-stop was first introduced.
There was a clear distinction in the parts catalog between vehicles that had it and vehicles that did not.
They aren't going to make 2 different starters to try and "fool" people into believing they had to redesigned or improve something lol

Sponsored

 

[JBlanco]

I don't like it, spent $50 on the eliminator, moved on...

 

[BroncoBuckaroo]

The EPA announces it is getting rid of the ‘start/stop’ incentive on cars. This means that Ford could theoretically remove the default to 'On' every time you start your Bronco via a software update and allow it to remember your last setting. This would be huge!

START STOP SUCKS

 

[Sparkie]

Lots of discussion already around this. I mean, I'm not a huge fan of the technology, but my disdain has never reached the level of hatred it seems to generate amongst most folks.

https://www.bronco6g.com/forum/threads/auto-start-stop-gone.114878/

https://www.bronco6g.com/forum/threads/why-do-we-hate-auto-start-stop-so-much.97405/

Yes sir, I agree. I don't understand the extreme hate when Ford put the AS/S disable button in a convenient location. If anything, I would have Ford trade locations of the AS/S disable button with the location of the Parking Brake -- something that's truly necessary everyday.

 

[crenca]

That's not a mandate. That's an incentive.

Baloney. When the incentive is "do this and if you don't then it will cost $millions and $millions in direct or indirect consequences of not meeting best possible fleet average targets" then that is a mandate, because the corporations are never going to leave that kind of money on the table - that is how our economic system works.

In other words in every way that matters it is a mandate and everyone knows this. Words matter, and calling such a thing an "incentive" is the very definition of obfuscation and manipulation and political/lawyer "speech".

 

[BroncoChallenger]

Baloney. When the incentive is "do this and if you don't then it will cost $millions and $millions in direct or indirect consequences of not meeting best possible fleet average targets" then that is a mandate, because the corporations are never going to leave that kind of money on the table - that is how our economic system works.

In other words in every way that matters it is a mandate and everyone knows this. Words matter, and calling such a thing an "incentive" is the very definition of obfuscation and manipulation and political/lawyer "speech".

Why do you think they're saying now that it's a 'mandate' instead of being honest about how it is actually labeled in the EPA guidelines? They're trying to get people fired up over something that can be disabled with the very simple, less-than-a-second push of a button. In other words, fired up over literally nothing.

And taking it out won't save ANYONE any money. You really think the cost is going to go down just because it isn't there? If you do...well you're just foolish.

 

[crenca]

how it is actually labeled in the EPA guidelines

Your the one who said words matter. "They" (by this I suppose you are meaning the political/consumer coalition against ASS and other unneeded "incentives" ) are using the more accurate, descriptive word "mandate" because, well it is in reality more accurate. I suppose you can say I am "incentivized" to obey the speed limit, or not murder my neighbor (with fines, jail, even death in some states) but most folks recognize I am "mandated" by government/society to behave a certain way and that is the right term.

I suppose if the EPA has a document somewhere that says the sky is "green" then blue becomes just a hidden agenda?

Just in case it is not clear, the EPA bends the language when they claim "credits" around this subject as well. What they in fact do is not take their money - fine or tax them - when the manufactures specifically implement ASS. If they don't, then a tax/fine is levied. This is not the same as saying "achieve this target/goal in any technical way you deem fit and thereby avoid a tax" - they are fining them for not implementing ASS specifically, and that is a mandate all day long.

In any case this conversation is probably in vain, you can have the last (no doubt Orwellian) word.

 

[TNcoupe]

I live near a roundabout and this type of thing happens all the time - just not as dramatic.

I live near a town with lots of red lights.....people run them all the time. Same concept. I also sit at said red light at 5:30am on a Sunday morning going to work with not a soul in sight for miles in any direction. If it was a roundabout I wouldn't be sitting there wasting gas.

 

[DarthLincoln]

I don’t mind AS/S in the Bronco as it doesn’t impact my driving at all - the engine starts up more or less instantaneously without annoying noise or vibration, and the idling 2.7l engine sound isn’t that great to listen to anyway. And if it can save me 5-10% in fuel then great! So I almost never turn it off.

It would make sense as a driver if it was more tied into the optional drive modes selection. E.g. it automatically disables already in Sport mode (but can be manually turned on), so by similar logic, I think it should automatically enable in Eco mode. But it would be nice in the Normal drive mode if it would not default to on or off, but simply remember your last selection - keep the default Normal mode as a mode where the driver can decide what additional features to turn on.

 

[userdude]

So how 'bout dem Cowboys??

 

[zyglyrox]

the hate for these systems always makes me laugh. the conspiracy theories are even better.

 

[Brian_B]

There is cost involved to take it out. Is it relatively easy? Oh probably. But is it cost-effective to redesign wiring circuits, dash panels, starters, etc. to remove it once it's designed and being produced? Not usually, because there's tooling and training costs involved in all of that. Not to mention it will likely come back in the future.

I agree there is a cost to take it out. But doesn’t require anything physical, as people love to point out - there is a button.
Would sure be nice if we could figure out how to get the computer to push it every time….

 

[bassist]

This is the right step, hope there is more to come. If you want things, pay for it, but let’s not make all pay for it.

We all pay more when people waste fuel - both for fuel and for the associated costs of pollution.

 

[bassist]

It is a "mandate", in that the EPA issues fleet mileage credits for implementing it, and the manufactures have to play along given market conditions because if you don't, the $cost$ is too high.

They could choose to put more fuel efficient engines in their vehicles.

But then people would whine about their freedom or something.

 

[bassist]

Baloney. When the incentive is "do this and if you don't then it will cost $millions and $millions in direct or indirect consequences of not meeting best possible fleet average targets" then that is a mandate, because the corporations are never going to leave that kind of money on the table - that is how our economic system works.

In other words in every way that matters it is a mandate and everyone knows this. Words matter, and calling such a thing an "incentive" is the very definition of obfuscation and manipulation and political/lawyer "speech".

Sigh.

Which would you rather have: start/stop or an engine with less power to get better fuel economy.

Sponsored