Why is it a problem?
According to:That would translate to about a half cent for every 10 second stop. But wait, doesn't every start actually take some extra gas in itself?
Remember when Uncle Bill used to insist with absolute certainty that starting an engine burns more gasoline than idling for an hour? Yeah, well, he was as wrong about that as he was about Plymouth. Yes, a cold engine runs rich, consuming more fuel than normal. For an engine already at optimum temperature, though, stopping and starting does not use an excessive amount of fuel.
Nobody said an hour, and what's quoted here says "stopping and starting does not use an excessive amount of fuel". So what's non-excessive, and how does "not excessive" compare to the consumption of 10 seconds of idling?
From your link:This link says starting the engine takes a half teaspoon:
This doesn't account for the extra cost and energy used for this system, the $200 extra per battery, etc.
Not sure its really worth it.
The number varies, but if you are idling the car anywhere from 30 seconds to a minute, you are burning more fuel than is used for the initial ignition. Again, the time range is dependent on the size of the engine. Four-cylinder engines would be closer to 30 seconds, and eight cylinder engines would be closer to the one-minute limit. That means if you are going to sit still for more than a minute, it uses less fuel just to restart the engine. Remember that the next time you are sitting in traffic and not moving.
I am surprised I haven't seen any real life efficiency tests of these start stop systems.Of course it isn't worth it. This is a prime example of the government driving change vs. the free market driving change. The government thinks that cutting emissions is the most important thing, so they implement a bunch of standards that allow manufacturers to gain "green energy credits" by meeting, or whatever. The reality of the end result is irrelevant, it's the thought that you are doing something important. Like the little girl that sailed over here from Norway or wherever she came from on some fancy boat, but they had to fly sailors over to sail the boat back such that it would have been less air travel if the little girl would have just flown over here to yell at us about ruining the planet and not sailed the boat. This is all out of control. We would all be much better off without auto start/stop, it would be much more affordable and energy efficient, but somewhere, someone feels much better about the fact that we all have to suffer with it. BTW, I haven't disabled my start/stop yet, so I'm not just a bitter hater of the implementation of it, I'm just a bitter hater of the concept of it.
In the end, it comes down to a percentage. That number will remain small.The numbers of gas “saved” become much more clear and much larger when you multiply by 10’s of thoudpsands to hundreds of thousands of cars.
I think that's wrong. It's like the saying that drops combine to form an ocean. Also nowhere does it says that S/S uses more fuel on average.In the end, it comes down to a percentage. That number will remain small.
And if the individual savings are negative (as we suspect), then the collective number will be an even larger negative. So no good, really.
Like satellites, space travel, the internet, cryptography, and -- if you count government-sanctioned monopolies like 1940s Bell Labs -- the integrated circuit? My government doesn't have such a bad track record. Please, take my money!This is a prime example of the government driving change vs. the free market driving change.
I haven't seen any real life experiments showing that it does in fact save anything, especially once you factor in the overhead (bigger battery, beefed up components, R&D, etc - all of which consumes energy and pollutes).Also nowhere does it says that S/S uses more fuel on average.