It's wild to me that folks think that owner costs should be consumables only (oil/brake pads, yadda yadda) on a 10 year old vehicle and that a starter is something someone buying a new car today should have concerns about 10 years down the road. There are plenty of mid-90s Camrys still around for those folks. At 10 years old, all bets are off if I decided to keep a vehicle that long.
Start/stop feature - the worst function ever?
- Thread starter grampi
- Start date
- Status
The stop start functionality on our RX is seamless. You might not even know it is there. Wifey sez she feels it, but I guess I just don't pay enough attention.
My 68 Vette's 427 used to eat a starter every year. Big blocks like a little lead; the starter doesn't.
Finally a high torque mini starter fixed that...
My 68 Vette's 427 used to eat a starter every year. Big blocks like a little lead; the starter doesn't.
Finally a high torque mini starter fixed that...
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2021
- Messages
- 744
I like it in my F150. Several long traffic lights on my commute, and it makes me smile when the engine shuts off to save fuel. Sometimes I push the button to turn the feature off if it is hot or if I just have a 1 second stop. Honestly most people probably don't even notice or care. On forums it is WW III though lol.
VW implementation the climate control needing full ac or heat it disables the feature of start/stop until cabin temp is moderated and the HVAC is not running full tilt.
Wild?
Then you are the problem, trying to suggest we should keep building crap with more and more problems added on, instead of fixing existing ones.
No, a vehicle is crap if the non-consumables can't even last past 10 years for regular duty use.
All bets are off, only if people think like you, to keep adding on more and more, unreliable crap instead of refining and fixing existing lifespan issues.
Last edited:
I'm not sure what this is all about. Nobody wanted it. Just that if they built it, it would improve their CAFE numbers and it was also required that it not be permanently disabled. It was done by government regulation. There is some cost/benefit ratio that gets calculated into these days. Just like how backup cameras are now standard. Standard accounting would be how much gas gets saved with this tech vs the cost and if it comes out higher at one end then it gets done even if a percentage gets stuck with a higher bill for maintenance. However I asked the question early and no one has really answered. Just how many starters have really failed? On the other hand you save 3-10% in gas. Cost of the system vs gas saved says break even is about 2 years. And if you have failure at the tail end of 10+ years or more, well that's just the nature of cars.
It doesn't really save much fuel at all if you are the average driver instead of their test scenario where stopped at red lights/traffic half the time.
It's a step backwards to introduce more shorter lived components instead of making the existing ones last longer.
10 years? No. That's not the nature of cars unless you make excuses for adding more short-lived crap.
It's a step backwards to introduce more shorter lived components instead of making the existing ones last longer.
10 years? No. That's not the nature of cars unless you make excuses for adding more short-lived crap.
Last edited:
The real problem is that you can't back up any of your claims. What components are shorter lived, what cars? How do you know the existing ones aren't lasting longer? As mentioned earlier, starters don't seem to be going. Also if you're in the middle of nowhere, then maybe you don't have too much traffic to contend with, but I've gone through a whole tank of gas and averaged about 15 mph, that's just lots of slow city traffic.
Yes, starters are a "thing" or else they wouldn't be sold for replacement.
You don't have to be in the middle of nowhere to not have 50% time stopped. FAR FAR from it.
Care to come back to reality?
15 MPG. It doesn't seem like stop start was the right solution.
You might have a special scenario, which is not a reason to impose nonsense on everyone else, or you might have just picked the wrong vehicle to sit around in traffic, in.
What components are short lived? Easy one there, any that fall under the argument of "if it's 10 years old we expect failures". No, no, NO!
All I can say is…my Prius has 227K and obviously has start/stop. The engine has no issues with abnormal wear.
Still can't back up your claims. What's the greater failure rate now that we have start/stop? Is it greater than before? Starters were always available as replacement parts. You claim that start/stop leads to greater starter failure. But can't name any.
I just mentioned that is what I end up getting in the city where there's lots of traffic. I don't have start/stop in my car, would probably get higher gas mileage if I did. I didn't impose this on anyone, just trying to explain to you why it's there. But of course your mind's made up, don't want to confuse you with facts. The fact that you have none. Name the components and the cars.
^ So you have no argument and just want to take a position that I have to prove something that you can't either?
The greater failure rate is something you conceded already with your ridiculous claim that it's a 10 year issue, that you can't even come to terms with getting rid of bad tech that cause that low a failure rate.
It is all cars, based on your assertion, that 10 years is a factor for. You made that ridiculous claim that this is the point of concern, only based on adding crap lower lifespan features.
Sorry, no, you can't win an argument when you started out pretending that at 10 years, there's some crap storm of expected failures which is only true if we keep adding crap to vehicles instead of resolving early failure points.
You really, don't, GET, it, do you?
I would probably laugh my arse off at what your TCO for vehicles is, over the long term.
Backing up a bit, do whatever works for you, but it seems far more like you are trying to defend bad decisions instead, or pretending that everyone else has the high costs that you seem to, if 10 years is some kind of threshold for $$$$ due to bad choices.
Why would anyone else want to repeat the bad choices that had to be necessary for you to arrive at your conclusion? Just no!
The greater failure rate is something you conceded already with your ridiculous claim that it's a 10 year issue, that you can't even come to terms with getting rid of bad tech that cause that low a failure rate.
It is all cars, based on your assertion, that 10 years is a factor for. You made that ridiculous claim that this is the point of concern, only based on adding crap lower lifespan features.
Sorry, no, you can't win an argument when you started out pretending that at 10 years, there's some crap storm of expected failures which is only true if we keep adding crap to vehicles instead of resolving early failure points.
You really, don't, GET, it, do you?
I would probably laugh my arse off at what your TCO for vehicles is, over the long term.
Backing up a bit, do whatever works for you, but it seems far more like you are trying to defend bad decisions instead, or pretending that everyone else has the high costs that you seem to, if 10 years is some kind of threshold for $$$$ due to bad choices.
Why would anyone else want to repeat the bad choices that had to be necessary for you to arrive at your conclusion? Just no!
Last edited:
- Status
