EPA deregulation to kill Auto Start Stop (ASS)?

[Ducati1098]

Well, that’s good to know. Unless that changes in updated version, that also answers if Ford Dealerships can easily turn it off via programming.
Saves me from looking or researching deeper!

Yep, no programming for anything like that. FDRS won’t let you change things like forscan does, not even tire size or anything like that. It’s completely different and far more locked down.

Sponsored

 

[MilesTeg]

On the debate of ASS saving money... read / viewed ? a mechanical discussion about the savings of ASS. It was questioned if savings for long term owners.... if you flush the car in 3-4 years, this likely doesn't apply. Starters & Flywheels are still part of the equation, and starters will wear out either prematurely or by usage wear. Often when they wear out, the Flywheel ring also shows signs it's worn & should be replaced. Replace a few starters (shop part rate & labor) and a flywheel possibly, quickly exceeds the minimal fuel savings.

Additionally, emission components and fuel systems are impacted each time the engine starts. The Injection rate for a "start" is normally strong / richer than an "idle" injection.

Serpentine Belts take a little more stress "starting" than "idle".
All this is minimal, but so is the fuel savings of ASS at stop lights and particularly stop & go traffic.

But the fuels savings isn't "minimal". Independent tests by the SAE, AAA, Edmonds, and many other say that ~10% is a pretty decent average, with some common driving situations (inner city) getting as much as 25% or so.

Getting a 10% boost is fuel economy is HUGE -- car companies have done a lot more crazy and expensive things to get that kind of gain than making a stronger starter and flywheel.

As to the engine start mixture, it's COLD starts that cause your engine to run very rich for a significant amount of time. One cold start will cause the engine to run VERY rich for at least several minutes until the engine is warm enough, which will cause more issues with emissions than hundreds, maybe thousands, of warm starts. A warm start of an engine does use a bit more gas than idling though. Typically the break even point is about 5-7 seconds.

 

[dougcjohn]

But the fuels savings isn't "minimal". Independent tests by the SAE, AAA, Edmonds, and many other say that ~10% is a pretty decent average, with some common driving situations (inner city) getting as much as 25% or so.

Getting a 10% boost is fuel economy is HUGE -- car companies have done a lot more crazy and expensive things to get that kind of gain than making a stronger starter and flywheel.

As to the engine start mixture, it's COLD starts that cause your engine to run very rich for a significant amount of time. One cold start will cause the engine to run VERY rich for at least several minutes until the engine is warm enough, which will cause more issues with emissions than hundreds, maybe thousands, of warm starts. A warm start of an engine does use a bit more gas than idling though. Typically the break even point is about 5-7 seconds.

Was typing up a response… phone crapped and lost it. Not worth retyping… In brief a 10% saving on MPG on Truck or SUV’s that avg 10-15 mpg isn’t a significant savings… about 1-1.5 mpg improvement. That’s about 30-45 miles on a 30 gal tank…. apx 2-3 gal fuel. Inversely, I’ve seen articles on experiments: same driver, same work route, same vehicle… 3 months ASS active, 3 months deactivated. Insignificant difference, lot less than 10% and in my opinion little gain.

If fuel efficiency is the goal… stop with the jackrabbit starts, back the speed down to 55-60. Those two individually will save more than ASS systems. No need for all the SUV, Big Trucks, and our poor mpg Bronco. But fuel efficiency is not, and neither is ASS systems.

It’s a procedure that prematurely wears components, etc. But for those that like it… drive on!

 

[MilesTeg]

Was typing up a response… phone crapped and lost it. Not worth retyping… In brief a 10% saving on MPG on Truck or SUV’s that avg 10-15 mpg isn’t a significant savings… about 1-1.5 mpg improvement.

With a big, inefficient engine like one in a vehicle that gets only 10-15mpg, you'll see more than the average I'm talking about, because big, inefficient engines are more inefficient (pound for pound) at idle than small, efficient engines. Firing 8 cylinders to keep things running correctly is gunna be more inefficient than 4. This is why GM, et al. played around with variable displacement engines.

These days the gap is smaller, due to multiple/variable cams and computer controller ignition, but it's still there.

That’s about 30-45 miles on a 30 gal tank…. apx 2-3 gal fuel.

.. and over the lifetime of the vehicle it adds up to thousands of dollars.

Inversely, I’ve seen articles on experiments: same driver, same work route, same vehicle… 3 months ASS active, 3 months deactivated. Insignificant difference, lot less than 10% and in my opinion little gain.

Here's the SAE study, the Edmunds test, and the AAA test. I've shown you mine -- now you show me yours.

https://www.sae.org/papers/auto-stop-start-fuel-consumption-benefits-2023-01-0346

https://newsroom.aaa.com/2014/07/aa...rld-benefits-automatic-stop-start-technology/

https://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/do-stop-start-systems-really-save-fuel.html

If fuel efficiency is the goal… stop with the jackrabbit starts, back the speed down to 55-60. Those two individually will save more than ASS systems.

Or, since they aren't mutually exclusive -- do both?

No need for all the SUV, Big Trucks, and our poor mpg Bronco. But fuel efficiency is not, and neither is ASS systems.

This is pretty much the rub. You want a big inefficient vehicle like a Bronco? ASS helps you keep being able to buy one because it helps Ford make vehicles that are less damaging to the environment, your pocket book, and your health.

 

[michelle227]

With a big, inefficient engine like one in a vehicle that gets only 10-15mpg, you'll see more than the average I'm talking about, because big, inefficient engines are more inefficient (pound for pound) at idle than small, efficient engines. Firing 8 cylinders to keep things running correctly is gunna be more inefficient than 4. This is why GM, et al. played around with variable displacement engines.

These days the gap is smaller, due to multiple/variable cams and computer controller ignition, but it's still there.



.. and over the lifetime of the vehicle it adds up to thousands of dollars.



Here's the SAE study, the Edmunds test, and the AAA test. I've shown you mine -- now you show me yours.

https://www.sae.org/papers/auto-stop-start-fuel-consumption-benefits-2023-01-0346

https://newsroom.aaa.com/2014/07/aa...rld-benefits-automatic-stop-start-technology/

https://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/do-stop-start-systems-really-save-fuel.html




Or, since they aren't mutually exclusive -- do both?



This is pretty much the rub. You want a big inefficient vehicle like a Bronco? ASS helps you keep being able to buy one because it helps Ford make vehicles that are less damaging to the environment, your pocket book, and your health.

Those studies don't make the massive savings you claim as they concede they weren't don't in real-world conditions that include running the A/C or in hot climates.

And when they say 'as much as' they ALSO quantified that some could see next to no significant savings.

I didn't buy my Bronco to sweat fractional percentages. If someone wants to use their Bronco to take them out to the trees they hug, so be it. Use ASS all you want. For many of us it's a nuisance we could do without.

Oh, and it takes a LONG time to save a measurable amount with gas under two bucks a gallon...

 

[dougcjohn]

With a big, inefficient engine like one in a vehicle that gets only 10-15mpg, you'll see more than the average I'm talking about, because big, inefficient engines are more inefficient (pound for pound) at idle than small, efficient engines. Firing 8 cylinders to keep things running correctly is gunna be more inefficient than 4. This is why GM, et al. played around with variable displacement engines.

Here's the SAE study, the Edmunds test, and the AAA test. I've shown you mine -- now you show me yours.

https://www.sae.org/papers/auto-stop-start-fuel-consumption-benefits-2023-01-0346

https://newsroom.aaa.com/2014/07/aaas-tests-reveal-real-world-benefits-automatic-stop-start-tech nology/

https://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/features/do-stop-start-systems-really-save-fuel.html

This is pretty much the rub. You want a big inefficient vehicle like a Bronco? ASS helps you keep being able to buy one because it helps Ford make vehicles that are less damaging to the environment, your pocket book, and your health.

Interesting articles... SAE and AAA indicated up to 7.x % depending on driving conditions. Edmunds I'd question their testing & results but that's not the point. All stipulated as I previously indicated... the longer you sit at traffic lights, etc the higher the benefit. The shorter the stoped interval, the less the savings. If you do more short interval (traffic congestion, parking lot exits, etc) that percentage shrinks even more. Counting the ASS Stops on a Weekend errand drive can be well over 100 short interval cycles.

Not arguing it's a savings... like anything adds up over a year, 2, 3... savings looks even better.
But it's also wearing on components, and that has higher costs than many realize.
I totally agree ASS has value in emissions in heavy traffic, and some fuel savings.

For my personal Driving environment, ASS is not a significant savings. I do practice economic driving (most of the time), and that provides visible, measurable gains. My tweaked Smart 453 avg 45-55mpg as my daily office driver, Work Truck F450 Diesel... Bronco is a new add.

Gotta hand it to ya... you're persistent. Enjoyed it, and appreciate the information.

 

[JBlanco]

Ok send me $50, then for my part I'll squelch the so called "outrage".

Although I'd rather you send me $100 for the better kit that doesn't work off the OBD port, and while your at it stop by to take apart the dash and install it.

You got it buddy! Just give me all your banking details, including mother's maiden name and the last 4 of your social.
Although, that's why I used the $50 solution, it just plugs under the driver's side dash, you don't have to remove anything and can be returned to stock in a minute or two.

 

[jtgensler]

Oh, and it takes a LONG time to save a measurable amount with gas under two bucks a gallon...

I could care less if I have ASS or not, most times I don't bother to turn it off & if you really hate it, it's a simple button push (or just let off the brake for a second at a stop light)

But gas under $2/gallon? That must be nice.
We'll never see that again in PA thanks to our insane fuel taxes & how F-d up Penn Dot is with wasting money.

 

[crenca]

.. and over the lifetime of the vehicle it adds up to thousands of dollars.

Nobody in their right mind cares.

If you purchased a Bronco (or any truck or med-large SUV - the majority of car purchases in America) to then "save money" on gas (or save the planet, or fill_in_the_blank), you started at the wrong place. A small hybrid sedan was and is the only place to start...attempting to save $ (or reduce emissions, or....) starting with a large brick shaped truck/4x4 to accomplish these goals is the very definition vanity.

The majority of consumers (based on survey's, car sales, democratic elections - every significant measure) do not share this concern/goal.

Your on the wrong forum @MilesTeg , a Prius forum would be more suited to your outlook.

 

[Oilbrnr]

You can always tell the guys in favor of ASS (saving gas the world and all) have zero clue the role that operating oil pressure plays in their engine.

 

[CarmeloS]

I'll be honest. I don't mind ASS being on my vehicle. If it were packaged up a bit differently, I may even use it.

I literally pulled the factory A.S.S. Plug on my parents Range Rovers, and I installed an A.S.S. Eliminator on my girl day 2.

It was a solution to a problem that never was forced upon the masses without our consent. The Animosity is real and it should have only been in hybrids and electric vehicles for the sisses driving them

 

[MilesTeg]

Interesting articles... SAE and AAA indicated up to 7.x % depending on driving conditions.

SAE (the most reliable source) indicates up to 26.4%, depending on driving conditions.

"It was found that the fuel economy improvement varied significantly between drive cycles depending on the amount and percentage of idle time during the test. The largest fuel economy improvements were 7.27% and 26.4% for the FTP and NYCC, respectively. "

Edmunds I'd question their testing & results but that's not the point. All stipulated as I previously indicated... the longer you sit at traffic lights, etc the higher the benefit. The shorter the stoped interval, the less the savings. If you do more short interval (traffic congestion, parking lot exits, etc) that percentage shrinks even more. Counting the ASS Stops on a Weekend errand drive can be well over 100 short interval cycles.

It's, of course, going to vary a lot based on your driving situation. MOST cars/drivers (statistically), drive in conditions where it's going to help significantly. That is: driving in a city with lots of stop lights, rail crossings and other pauses in driving where the engine just idles for minutes at a time.

As my post above says, even though I don't live in a big city and don't drive my truck daily and it's mostly a long trip vehicle, it's spent 25% of its engine time idling (300/1200 engine hours).

Not arguing it's a savings... like anything adds up over a year, 2, 3... savings looks even better.
But it's also wearing on components, and that has higher costs than many realize.

Those parts that wear more (mainly starter), are also built better to able to take the extra use. And like I said: car companies have done a lot more crazy and expensive things to get much smaller efficiency gains that to put a better starter in a vehicle...

No doubt some shitty car companies did not do this and let customers eat the problem, but this is not intrinsic to the ASS system.

 

[Lcubed]

You can always tell the guys in favor of ASS (saving gas the world and all) have zero clue the role that operating oil pressure plays in their engine.

some of us even did well in the tribology class back in grad school

 

[Rydfree]

Those parts that wear more (mainly starter), are also built better to able to take the extra use. And like I said: car companies have done a lot more crazy and expensive things to get much smaller efficiency gains that to put a better starter in a vehicle...

No doubt some shitty car companies did not do this and let customers eat the problem, but this is not intrinsic to the ASS system.

So I might save a reasonable amount or not over the life of the vehicle depending on how I drive, but I definitely paid up front for a heavier duty starter/alternator and other beefed up parts. At least those beefed up parts should now out live the vehicle since I disabled the ASS. That's a for sure savings in my book, lol.

 

[dougcjohn]

SAE (the most reliable source) indicates up to 26.4%, depending on driving conditions.

"It was found that the fuel economy improvement varied significantly between drive cycles depending on the amount and percentage of idle time during the test. The largest fuel economy improvements were 7.27% and 26.4% for the FTP and NYCC, respectively. "



It's, of course, going to vary a lot based on your driving situation. MOST cars/drivers (statistically), drive in conditions where it's going to help significantly. That is: driving in a city with lots of stop lights, rail crossings and other pauses in driving where the engine just idles for minutes at a time.

As my post above says, even though I don't live in a big city and don't drive my truck daily and it's mostly a long trip vehicle, it's spent 25% of its engine time idling (300/1200 engine hours).



Those parts that wear more (mainly starter), are also built better to able to take the extra use. And like I said: car companies have done a lot more crazy and expensive things to get much smaller efficiency gains that to put a better starter in a vehicle...

No doubt some shitty car companies did not do this and let customers eat the problem, but this is not intrinsic to the ASS system.

Informative, we agree on some aspects not all.
Confidence in parts isn’t high no matter the brand. Just heard on the News today that there’s been several reports (collected over time) being stuck in traffic or intersection due to failed components… primarily starter.

Purchased the BRaptor to enjoy in a capacity it provides, fuel savings wasn’t one.

I’ll consider my loss in fuel savings as I add the ProCal4 Tune, S&B CAI, Whipple Intercooler, Charge Pipes, Ported Throttle Body, etc. These are supposed to return a net gain in MPG too… but I’m not adding for MPG.

My Draggy Runs testing everything will pretty much shoot my fuel saving for the year…. Maybe 2.
But I’ll enjoy the BRaptor!

Sponsored