EPA deregulation to kill Auto Start Stop (ASS)?

[CarmeloS]

A.S.S. should have been an option you could have opted out of for custom sales, like dealer ordered vehicles have it but when I placed my reserve/deposit, should have asked in a wink and nudge kinda way if I wanted it

If I were concerned about Fuel Economy, I wouldn't be driving a 2 and half ton brick on wheels

Sponsored

 

[KT_bronco]

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.

Virtue signaling in a bronco forum filled with dudes who are interested in trucks and off-roading? Doubt it, just some common sense discussions on the pros and cons of a system.

 

[KT_bronco]

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.

Facts are a hard sell these days. You have to go for emotion and tribalism.

 

[crenca]

Virtue signaling in a bronco forum filled with dudes who are interested in trucks and off-roading? Doubt it, just some common sense discussions on the pros and cons of a system.

That is just it, ASS makes no sense - common or otherwise. It is lipstick on a med/heavy SUV brick. If what it does is of actual interest, then discussing it in relation to a Bronco or any of the majority of vehicle's American's actually purchase is irrational. The "facts" of lipstick on pigs just reveals the absurdity of even thinking the idea is worth pursuing in the first place.

It only exists because of ideology, and any discussion of the "facts" is irrelevant outside of said ideology.

Edit: Also, more starts (and thus more time at zero oil pressure) is harder on parts then ASS activists realize, warm or not. Finally, AC when ASS kicks in SUUUCCKKKKKSSSS. Here in the desert SW it is a total non starter (no pun intended).

 

[KT_bronco]

That is just it, ASS makes no sense - common or otherwise. It is lipstick on a med/heavy SUV brick. If what it does is of actual interest, then discussing it in relation to a Bronco or any of the majority of vehicle's American's actually purchase is irrational. The "facts" of lipstick on pigs just reveals the absurdity of even thinking the idea is worth pursuing in the first place.

It only exists because of ideology, and any discussion of the "facts" is irrelevant outside of said ideology.

First off, it doesn't only apply to med/heavy suv bricks, it's works on most new vehicles small or large. Which means it was done to reduce overall fuel usage not just the bricks you and I chose to buy.

As for it existing because of an ideology. Believe it or not most things exist because of an ideology, just like the the great United States of America exists because of an ideology.

A system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
"the ideology of democracy"


I get why you are upset though, you most likely don't like environmentalist and think the they have gone too far with regulation and you blame their ideology. But the question you should be asking is is the regulation good or bad. The other poster gave you a ton of info which you ignored because of "ideology" and only applied it to our own very narrow situation of owning a brick bronco.

You know, I remember very well my uncle swore up and down that seat belts were the stupidest thing for the idiots to use and something "liberals" of the time were pushing. Then he flew through the windshield of his car suffering life changing injuries.

Now, not everyone has a serendipitous bout with reality but if we don't try and make some changes to our energy consumption then that reality will come crashing in.

 

[crenca]

I get why you are upset though, you most likely don't like environmentalist and think the they have gone too far with regulation and you blame their ideology. But the question you should be asking is is the regulation good or bad.

Good or bad is irrelevant - this is the reality of this and many other questions. Without a common set of presuppositions, nothing can be divided into "good" or "bad". A fractured culture (a multi-culture) is one that does not agree on any ground to determine "good" or "bad", or even more basic assertions. "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" is a more rational question then yours about good and evil.

Outside of the philosophical question, the topic is irrelevant in a more immediate sense: the consumer, the market, the "we the people" have spoken: ASS (and the ideology behind it) is rejected in all the ways listed in this thread.

The majority of American's, and all of us on this forum, drive SUVs/trucks. ASS and similar regulation is literally a non-nonsensical question/position in the face of this.

We are consumers, we consume and our desire is what is "good" in any meaningful sense of the term. If one "consumes" a certain ideology, then visit the Prius forum where the Liturgy and rituals of ASS are practiced with appreciation and its 'goods' are acknowledged.

ASS is dead, good riddance ASS...

 

[MilesTeg]

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

If only every "debacle" resulted in 25% worldwide market share in a century old, established market within a decade or so.. lol

 

[KT_bronco]

Good or bad is irrelevant - this is the reality of this and many other questions. Without a common set of presuppositions, nothing can be divided into "good" or "bad". A fractured culture (a multi-culture) is one that does not agree on any ground to determine "good" or "bad", or even more basic assertions. "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" is a more rational question then yours about good and evil.

Outside of the philosophical question, the topic is irrelevant in a more immediate sense: the consumer, the market, the "we the people" have spoken: ASS (and the ideology behind it) is rejected in all the ways listed in this thread.

The majority of American's, and all of us on this forum, drive SUVs/trucks. ASS and similar regulation is literally a non-nonsensical question/position in the face of this.

We are consumers, we consume and our desire is what is "good" in any meaningful sense of the term. If one "consumes" a certain ideology, then visit the Prius forum where the Liturgy and rituals of ASS are practiced with appreciation and its 'goods' are acknowledged.

ASS is dead, good riddance ASS...

See I'm a fairly dense man and I appreciate that technology exists to help interpret what people are saying whether in a different language or sometimes the same. In your case I frankly didn't understand what you were saying so I had to put it into one of those new genius Ais and here is what it came up with. Apologies in advance if this isn't your view. I'm really tying to get an understanding here. Just as in other forums some members couldn't understand why so much hate for electric vehicles. This seems like in the same vein. Anyways, I put your comments into ai as such.



I asked : "can you interpret this to me, i'm a bit dense."
------------------------



Alright brother — let’s unpack this calmly and translate it into normal human language.

First, the tone:

This person is being dismissive and a bit dramatic. There’s philosophy mixed with cultural frustration and some sarcasm.

Now let’s break it down piece by piece.

“Good or bad is irrelevant…”
He’s saying:

You can’t call something good or bad unless everyone agrees on the basic rules for judging it.

He’s arguing that in a divided culture (what he calls a “fractured culture”), people don’t share the same values — so debates about “good” vs “bad” don’t even make sense because there’s no shared moral baseline.

When he says:

“How many angels can dance on the head of a pin is more rational…”

That’s a sarcastic way of saying:

Your question is meaningless because there’s no shared framework to answer it.

It’s a rhetorical flex — not actual logic.

“Outside of the philosophical question…”

Now he shifts from philosophy to politics/consumer behavior.
He says:

The market has spoken. Consumers rejected ASS and the ideology behind it.

So he’s arguing that regardless of whether it’s morally good or bad:

• People don’t want it.
• They buy SUVs and trucks.
• Therefore, it’s dead.

This is basically “consumer preference = reality.”

“We are consumers… our desire is what is ‘good’…”

This is the key ideological statement.
He’s saying:

What people want is what’s good.

Market demand defines value.

That’s a very libertarian / market-driven worldview.

He’s rejecting moral, environmental, or regulatory arguments and saying:

If people don’t buy it, it’s irrelevant.

The Prius forum comment

That’s just tribal sarcasm.
He’s saying:

If you like this ideology, go hang out with like-minded people somewhere else.

It’s cultural signaling.

“ASS is dead, good riddance…”

This is emotional rhetoric.

He’s celebrating what he believes is the failure of whatever “ASS” represents (likely Auto Start-Stop or similar regulation, depending on context).

What He’s Actually Doing
He’s not making a technical argument.
He’s making:

• A cultural argument
• A market-based argument
• A “majority wins” argument
• A tribal identity argument

And he’s wrapping it in pseudo-philosophical language to sound deeper.


The Core Idea in Simple Terms
He believes:

• There’s no shared moral standard anymore.
• Therefore “good/bad” debates are pointless.
• What consumers buy determines reality.
• SUVs dominate.
• Therefore the regulation/technology is irrelevant.
• If you like it, go somewhere else.

That’s it.


Important Observation


Notice something subtle:

He says good/bad doesn’t exist without shared presuppositions…

Then immediately defines “good” as what consumers desire.

So he actually does have a presupposition:

Market preference = good.

He just doesn’t admit it.


If you want, tell me the context of what ASS stands for in that thread, and I can break down whether his argument actually holds water or if it’s just forum chest-thumping.

Sorry I've polluted the forum with more AI crap but thought it might help others who aren't as versed in these views.

 

[crenca]

Sorry I've polluted the forum with more AI crap but thought it might help others who aren't as versed in these views.

Apology accepted!

ASS is dead, good riddance ASS

 

[KT_bronco]

Apology accepted!

ASS is dead, good riddance ASS

But you didn't answer the question, is the Ai right in its interpretation?

 

[michelle227]

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.



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.



More misrepresentation. It ain't fractional percentages.



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]
There was no 'misrepresentation' in there. I went and looked at the links. They simply don't support many of your claims.

I would go and pull direct quotes, but you wouldn't pay attention to them as it gets in the way of virtue signaling.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, buys certain vehicles like a Bronco for fuel mileage. And yes, the 'savings' (where they MIGHT exist, but who is buying a Bronco to drive in the inner-city anyhow) ARE de minimis.

Maybe a small percentage of people in places where fuel remains insane, partly due to State tax, might save a few bucks. But trying to claim ASS is some huge money saver is even worse than those that were doing the calculus on the F-Series almost 30 years ago to find the break-even point on paying the premium for the PowerStroke over the V10.

I'd dare opine that even those here whose use case is mall crawling daily driver simply don't care if they get 18mpg instead of 17 (which allows for perhaps a 5.x% increase). I'm generally paying about two bucks a gallon if I fill up in Amarillo vs a quarter more here in my rural part of north Texas. Even ethanol-free 91 is barely three bucks...I get better mileage in the Spider with it, but sometimes the spread vis up to 10% means it isn't the prudent fiscal decision. But a few bucks a month doesn't move the needle, just like it won't once the Bronco arrives in a few weeks.

My daily drive is less than 25 miles with four or five lights and speeds anywhere from 35 to 75. I don't expect the brick to win fuel mileage awards and I don't like the nanny intrusions...at least in the now-departed F-Type, owners could simple remove the ASS battery (moot point on the manual anyhow since it didn't work on them to begin with).

Bronco customers should not have to risk breaking the dash to installation bypass for something that never should have been there unless a customer ordered it. And there is zero reason, given computer controls, for it NOT to remember a setting just as the radio remembers the station you had it set to.

Like I said before, tree-huggers are free to use it but their desires should never be forced upon others...for the rest of us, it isn't the money-saver you assert it to be, and anyone else that reads the links you posted will arrive at similar conclusions!

 

[CarmeloS]

There was no 'misrepresentation' in there. I went and looked at the links. They simply don't support many of your claims.

I would go and pull direct quotes, but you wouldn't pay attention to them as it gets in the way of virtue signaling.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, buys certain vehicles like a Bronco for fuel mileage. And yes, the 'savings' (where they MIGHT exist, but who is buying a Bronco to drive in the inner-city anyhow) ARE de minimis.

Maybe a small percentage of people in places where fuel remains insane, partly due to State tax, might save a few bucks. But trying to claim ASS is some huge money saver is even worse than those that were doing the calculus on the F-Series almost 30 years ago to find the break-even point on paying the premium for the PowerStroke over the V10.

I'd dare opine that even those here whose use case is mall crawling daily driver simply don't care if they get 18mpg instead of 17 (which allows for perhaps a 5.x% increase). I'm generally paying about two bucks a gallon if I fill up in Amarillo vs a quarter more here in my rural part of north Texas. Even ethanol-free 91 is barely three bucks...I get better mileage in the Spider with it, but sometimes the spread vis up to 10% means it isn't the prudent fiscal decision. But a few bucks a month doesn't move the needle, just like it won't once the Bronco arrives in a few weeks.

My daily drive is less than 25 miles with four or five lights and speeds anywhere from 35 to 75. I don't expect the brick to win fuel mileage awards and I don't like the nanny intrusions...at least in the now-departed F-Type, owners could simple remove the ASS battery (moot point on the manual anyhow since it didn't work on them to begin with).

Bronco customers should not have to risk breaking the dash to installation bypass for something that never should have been there unless a customer ordered it. And there is zero reason, given computer controls, for it NOT to remember a setting just as the radio remembers the station you had it set to.

Like I said before, tree-huggers are free to use it but their desires should never be forced upon others...for the rest of us, it isn't the money-saver you assert it to be, and anyone else that reads the links you posted will arrive at similar conclusions!
[/QUOTE]

And as I said, should be something we’re asked if we want or the dealer quietly deletes for us

only vehicles A.S.S. Makes sense are sissy hybrids anyway

 

[MilesTeg]

There was no 'misrepresentation' in there. I went and looked at the links. They simply don't support many of your claims.

I would go and pull direct quotes, but you wouldn't pay attention to them as it gets in the way of virtue signaling.

Here's your direct quotes from the sources you are so clearly desperate to misrepresent: Here's what the author of the Edmonds paper summarizes their own work: "

The engineers we asked about potential fuel savings always spoke in terms of a range of 3-10 percent, with some venturing as high as 12 percent. The wide span accounts for the variety of driving conditions out there. People who pause briefly at four-way stops have less to gain than those who sit idle at numerous long signals. The longer you sit, the more you save.

It boils down to this. If your car usually manages 20 mpg in the city, it could earn 22 or 23 mpg if it had a stop-start system."

The specific findings were (summarized):

* Small/turbo engine vehicles saw a 9.5% increase with no A/C
* The Large engine (V8 Jag) saw a 10.9% increase with no A/C
* Only one very small engine (1.5L Turbo, 3 cylinder) was tested with A/C, and got 2.9%. Of course a tiny hampster engine (that's already EXTEMELY efficient for a gas engine and will struggle to run an A/C compressor at idle) is going to have much lower benefit in that scenario.

AAA,'s, which is much lighter on details, summary of its findings:

" New research from AAA shows that automatic stop-start automotive technology delivers a significant fuel economy benefit. Test results indicated that automatic stop-start systems provide a five percent to seven percent improvement in fuel economy and reduction in carbon dioxide emissions compared with tests conducted on the same vehicle with the automatic stop-start system disabled. "

AAA also used two small car engines and one V8.

Those two sources are from more than a decade ago and is skewed heavily toward small engine vehicles. The SAE test, conducted in 2023, provides a more rigorous test using systems with a decade of refinements. It's conclusions were:

Four vehicles were tested both with and without the feature enabled under three test cycles: the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) city fuel economy test, the US06 high acceleration aggressive driving schedule that is often identified as the “Supplemental FTP” driving schedule, and the EPA New York City Cycle (NYCC). The results were compared to measure the fuel economy and consumption effects of using the auto stop-start feature. 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.

Nothing there to hide. As I've already readily agreed to, your individual benefit will vary depending on your driving style and the vehicle you are driving, but the statistically average driver, who drives a medium size engine vehicle in a city, is going to see about 10%.

Now, you can argue about my napkin math estimate there, but for the average driver in the average vehicle your claim that it's "a fractional percentage" is nothing but a gross misrepresentation of reality (aka: a lie).

...

The rest of your post is a boatload of highly emotionally charged strawmen & red herrings served up with a side ad hominem attacks. At no point have I moralized or virtue signaled about ASS, nor have I claimed that the benefit is universal. Hell, I even have agreed that I don't particularly like it and that it should definitely be a persistent choice.

Since you have proven entirely incapable of conducting yourself in a respectful manner and with even basic integrity, I will be putting you on ignore. Goodbye.

 

[michelle227]

'THE LARGEST' does not mean 'average' or 'common.'

And you hand-wave away that many of us live where the A/C will be used more than 300 days a year.

Go find a tree to hug. ASS is NOT the fuel-saver you wish it was when it comes to the Bronco and most real-world use cases.

 

[Roger123]

* Small/turbo engine vehicles saw a 9.5% increase with no A/C
* The Large engine (V8 Jag) saw a 10.9% increase with no A/C

Seems to me that they were looking for a specific result in not using the AC. I live in VA, my AC is NEVER off (12 months of the year it is on).

What were they trying to hide, why not run with the AC to get an actual result? Not having the AC on my opinion invalidates the test. Why not run both ways unless there was an agenda?

Run that "test" here in Aug and your savings is exactly 0% but that wouldn't "prove" the authors point would it?

Sponsored