EPA deregulation to kill Auto Start Stop (ASS)?

[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.

Sponsored

 

[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!

 

[MilesTeg]

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.

You're misrepresenting the linked materials. Please don't do that. The Edmunds test does BOTH with A/C off and A/C on. Even with a car with a tiny motor (a Mini Cooper), they still showed a 3% increase in mileage (and, they also saw gains of up to 11% with it off). And, both tests are valid and indeed "real world", because the vast majority of vehicles don't use A/C all the time. Most people (in the U.S.) live in drive in places where it's only needed about 1/4 of the year and even in that time not always needed (like at night).

Of course, I only include the AAA and Edmonds tests as a supplement to the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) test, which is done much more rigorously.

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

You are trying to spin that statement to mean something it doesn't. Of course SOME driving styles won't see any benefit. Do you only drive your vehicle on the highway and rarely ever see a stop light? Not gunna see any improvement, for obvious reasons.

That does not mean that if you drive your vehicle in a more statistically average way that you won't see savings.

I didn't buy my Bronco to sweat fractional percentages.

More misrepresentation. It ain't 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...

I don't really care if you use it or not. I am only participating here because there's lot of disinformation about it. Like the misrepresentations I've noted from you.

Personally, I like being out in nature, and I like being able to have bigger engines but still minimizing the environmental impact I have on nature and the impact on my wallet. If you have the factual information and still decide it's not for you.. well that's your choice.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Jeff P]

I am more hopeful that manufactures have $learned$ what has been a very expensive lesson that has been regulation, incentives, and top-down political pressure of the last 10 years or so, and are going to be very cautious about future implementations of this or that "technology".

There is nothing in it for them to go through the expense/support of help customers disable ASS in their current cars, but I expect to not see it in future products and even with the inevitable change of administrations, I expect them to be less willing to follow this or that "directive", fleet EPA regulation - for example, in the future they will be willing to pay $1 billion (or more) in fines through the tenure of said administration rather then waste $10 or $20 billion tooling up and building products the public does not actually want.

Good old fashioned Capitalist self interest and long term planning is making a roaring comeback in corporate board rooms after the utter debacle of the EV "revolution"...

“Debacle” is an odd word to describe EV sales…

 

[MilesTeg]

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.

This is a non-issue.

A warm start of an engine only seconds to minutes from running will still have oil throughout the engine, and oil delivery and pressure resumes within a fraction of a second.

It's, again, COLD starts that cause a problem. With a COLD start, the engine is dry, the oil is cold, the pump may no longer even be primed. All this means it may take several minutes for oil to actually reach every part of the engine where it's needed. And, of course, on a cold start the various contact surfaces in your engine will not be at temp and may not "fit" correctly causing orders of magnitude more wear until they warm up and fit right.

Nothing you do to an engine results in zero wear. A warm start certainly adds some wear, but one cold start of the engine will incur thousands of times the wear as one warm start. The wear from a warm start is effectively meaningless.

90%+ of the wear your engine will ever take is during a cold start. Most of the rest happens during hard accelerations or due to poor maintenance.

 

[Roger123]

I love the ASS Virtue Signaling. I drive a vehicle that gets 16-22 MPG, 90% of the time by myself but I ALWAYS use ASS, look at ME, I'm saving the planet. Too funny.

 

[MilesTeg]

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!

As I've told others: I don't really care if you use ASS. I frequently disable it myself. I do care about people actually having facts about it so they can make a decision based on facts, not lies.

Sponsored