Good! Now we need a rule that allows up to get rid of it and make tpms cheaper to repair on old models.
this post was submitted on 30 May 2025
34 points (81.5% liked)
United States | News & Politics
2897 readers
893 users here now
Welcome to [email protected], where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.
If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.
Rules
Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.
Post anything related to the United States.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The EPA hits the brakes Now, after years of research, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin stated that the system barely reduces emissions and causes premature wear on the starter motor (which makes sense, it starts more often, even several times within an hour).
Although many tons of CO₂ savings have been estimated annually, the reality is that this system had many shortcomings, starting with the fact that it’s uncomfortable and annoying. And honestly… the fuel savings weren’t that great, estimated between 4% and 5%.
Wait what the fuck? So because it's annoying, then stop doing it?
If anything, fix the annoyance.
This article is bullshit and full of thoughts and feelings.
4-5% is massive for such a cheap feature to implement, and it should be a no-brainer standard feature. Sure, allow the owner to disable it if they choose, but I actually like it. My car is climate-control conscious and turns the engine on if the cabin gets too warm. My car also has a manual transmission, and the auto-start turns the engine on as soon as I start pushing the clutch in. I find it super unobtrusive in my case. Don't know how annoying it is in an automatic.
It depends on the implementation. Subaru's is janky. It will shutoff soon as you pull into a parking spot and restart soon as you put into park, when you want it to just stay off.
Was there ever enough data to get the offset for increases to starter replacements or the cost for heavier duty starters (that would be replaced at the same intervals in similar models without auto-stop/start?
Us older drivers are conditioned to think something is wrong when the engine dies without the driver's intervention. I'd rather not have the mild panic attack every stoplight, so I kept my old vehicles going until I eventually switched to electric. If i had to daily drive my mom's Ford Escape, I'd probably need medication.
If you can used to driving electric, I’m confident you could get used to a vehicle with start-stop.
I was used to driving electric before I bought my Bolt. From power wheels as a kid to electric pallet jacks and forklifts in jobs, I had plenty of experience with them and the sounds and feels they make. With ice vehicles, not feeling the normal rumble and vibrations convey the need to stop and figure out what is wrong before I or the vehicle breaks itself further.
Besides I never bought the whole premise of auto-stop/start because of extra wear and tear that comes with it on the starter. As someone who manages a fleet of vehicles, I know from experience that replacing a starter in the field wipes out any cost saved on fuel idling at stop lights.
5% fuel savings on an average vehicle driven an average number of miles at an average gasoline cost is $120 per year.
A new starter for a Ford escape runs around $150. Depending on where it is when it breaks down in the field, AAA membership can range from $55/year towing up to 3 miles and as much as $114/year for one 200 mile tow. That 200 mile tow wouldn't even be able to make it from Miami to Daytona. For the fleet I have and the distances we cover, it makes more sense to keep a tow truck guy on payroll. Personally, I'd rather eat the $6-65 in cost and know that I'm not intentionally imposing more wear and tear on a critical part of a car's operation. The ultimate solution though is switch to electric, which is why I skipped all that nonsense from the 2010s and on ice vehicles. I'll make what I have run forever before buying into an intentionally inferior design.
As far as stress goes, breaking down locally is one thing. Breaking down hours from home base is a much bigger deal both logistically for business vehicles and mentally for personal vehicles.
The mechanics of starters for auto stop-start models are beefier. They rated for several times the cycles of a traditional starter. So realistically they will last just as long as a standard starter. Now, the question why manufacturers cheap out and not install the beefier starters as standard...
Probably why the OEM starter for a Ford Escape is $330. 1 replacement wipes out nearly 3 years of savings. Either way, I'd love to see numbers on failure rates for vehicles with and without and calculate with the cost of replacement for starters (parts, labor, and downtime) and see where the break even would be.
So the cost of a tow or mobile mechanic + cost of a replacement starter + cost from alternate transport or loss of wages would take years to make up for, each.
You’d think the “gas is too expensive” crowd would welcome a 5% decrease.
The vocal minority complaining about gas prices and start stop systems don't want to use less gas, they want to use more gas, they just want it to be magically cheaper.
Making these systems available to everyone is great.
Taking away people’s ability to turn them off makes them hated.
The picture used in this article is literally the button to turn the feature off.
Yeah not all cars have those, and even if there’s a button, it turns itself back on every time you turn the car on.
Allowing the driver to permanently turn it off is literally illegal.
Allowing the driver to permanently turn it off is literally illegal.
Doubt. My car has a configurable personalized drive mode. One of the options in that mode is whether idle stop defaults on or off.
Citation needed. What law specifies that?
It’s not literally illegal, at worst it may void your warranty.
Most cars with the disable button can have the function inverted so you press it to turn it on and it defaults off.
I'm not sure it is illegal to disable it entirely, certainly depends on state law, but Start-Stop systems are not required and can be disabled under federal law because they are supplemental emissions reduction systems.
It almost certainly voids your warranty.
Mine doesn't turn itself back on.
Haven't you heard? We're living in a "feelings" world now.
Especially now that we’re moving closer to an electric future, something that would make this system obsolete and unnecessary.
I'm willing to bet that the people looking to get rid of stop-start systems also hate electric cars.
I would absolutely drive a non Tesla electric car ..but seriously fuck those auto start modes, it's not a golf cart
This article is useless. The only source hyperlink links to another article on this site. The two articles disagree on whether the feature saves fuel or not with neither linking a source. Both spend a lot of time whinging about the feature being annoying.
This. Sounds like opinion article at best.
But in cars with start-stop systems the starter motor as well as the electrical system are kinda made to do … multiple start-stops…. I kinda like it tbh. The car is also smart enough to know when to continue doing so based on a plethora of sensors and environmental factors.
The U.S. is becoming less relevant in the world market, thanks to Individual 1. If car manufacturers want to maximize profits, they’re not particularly concerned with the regulations of his dying corner of the world.
I’m all for making sure government spend (in the form of mileage credits) are proportional to fuel savings in reality.
I’m just not sure this government is unbiased here.