Subaru Outback Forums banner

How do you REALLY feel about the Start/Stop System?

  • It is great, I love it!

    Votes: 90 12.8%
  • I don't care, indifferent.

    Votes: 133 18.9%
  • I don't like it but I can live with it.

    Votes: 174 24.8%
  • I hate it, I wish I could disable it permanently.

    Votes: 305 43.4%

  • Total voters
    702
181 - 200 of 1603 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,389 Posts
Why is it a problem?
 

·
Registered
2016 2.5i Premium / 2020 2.5i Premium
Joined
·
1,886 Posts
On the turbo engine you save almost 0.5 gallons of fuel for every hour the engine is turned off.
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?
 

·
Registered
2020 Outback Onyx XT
Joined
·
2,232 Posts
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?
According to:

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.
 

·
Registered
2016 2.5i Premium / 2020 2.5i Premium
Joined
·
1,886 Posts
According to:
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?
 

·
Registered
2016 2.5i Premium / 2020 2.5i Premium
Joined
·
1,886 Posts
This link says starting the engine takes a half teaspoon:
A half gallon per hour idling means 384 teaspoons per hour. That's about a teaspoon for every 10 seconds of idling, or a half teaspoon for every 5 seconds. So at 5 secs you would cut even in terms of gas consumed only.
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.
 

·
Registered
2020 Outback Onyx XT
Joined
·
2,232 Posts
This link says starting the engine takes a half teaspoon:
A half gallon per hour idling means 384 teaspoons per hour. That's about a teaspoon for every 10 seconds of idling, or a half teaspoon for every 5 seconds. So at 5 secs you would cut even in terms of gas consumed only.
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.
From your link:

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.
 

·
Registered
2020 Outback Touring XT
Joined
·
184 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
2016 2.5i Premium / 2020 2.5i Premium
Joined
·
1,886 Posts
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.
I am surprised I haven't seen any real life efficiency tests of these start stop systems.
 

·
Registered
2016 2.5i Premium / 2020 2.5i Premium
Joined
·
1,886 Posts
The start stop is not really for the individuals gas conservation but for the collective conservation. I don’t like the idea of it but will give it a try.
but if it's not worth it individually, it can't save collectively either.
 

·
Registered
2016 2.5i Premium / 2020 2.5i Premium
Joined
·
1,886 Posts
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.
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. :)
 

·
Registered
2020 Outback Onyx XT
Joined
·
2,232 Posts
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. :)
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.
 

·
Registered
White 2020 Touring XT
Joined
·
580 Posts
This is a prime example of the government driving change vs. the free market driving change.
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! :)
 

·
Registered
2016 2.5i Premium / 2020 2.5i Premium
Joined
·
1,886 Posts
Also nowhere does it says that S/S uses more fuel on average.
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).
I do agree though that it's all speculation unless somebody has solid data - from both sides.
Hey, where are the Mythbusters? :)
 

·
Registered
2020 Outback Touring XT
Joined
·
184 Posts
The overall effect is much more than what the fuel savings breaks down into, but you can certainly look at each individual car where the start/stop is implemented, and make projections based on that. And then the overall effect is multiplies by the thousands.

The thing is that in order to implement start/stop, there are a lot of other things going on. Now, I am not an expert, so I'm really just making observations and what seem to me to be logical assumptions. The battery is different, certainly more expensive. What all goes into the process of making batteries, I can promise you that isn't an environmentally friendly process. We do OK in the Subaru because we still only have one battery, but what is the environmental impact of any of these special batteries vs. the standard ones all the normal cars use? Someone also mentioned starter motors, and really all of the components required to start the car. They generally will have a service life estimated in cycles. Start/stop will increase the cycles in any time period and the result is that you will likely have shorter lifespans on those components. Manufacturing or rebuilding those parts will also have an impact on the environment.

This reminds me of some time back when governments started providing incentives to install motion sensors on lights. Back in those days the places that took advantage of those savings were often commercial or industrial customers. So they had offices with electronic ballast fluorescent lamps. They installed $50 motion sensor light switches to replace the $2.50 regular light switches. It was not uncommon for people to leave their office, and have the lights turn off just before they walked back in. Now, electronic ballasts were pretty good at restarting, the older thermal ignitors used a lot of electricity to restart the lights, but the electronic ones really did not have that surge, so you did save a few minutes worth of electricity when that happened. However, the bulbs & ballasts also had life cycles, so now they started failing more often. Was there really any savings? I can't imagine. But the Government gave rebates (our tax money) to these folks for taking this great initiative.

Start/stop is the same thing. It's the world leaders telling us what we never knew we wanted.
 
181 - 200 of 1603 Posts
Top