If I could counter your points:
The additional components do nothing but help increase the car's reliability, especially if you're so against S/S that you turn it off. Some components may be more robust. The added complexity is little more than some extra coding.
The intended task of S/S is to reduce the fuel wasted by sitting, and that's all it is. If S/S activates, you were wasting fuel. Perhaps some MFGs implement it poorly, but I have never owned a S/S car that left me hot or humid - they all facilitate passenger comfort by monitoring inside/outside temps.
The goal of S/S is not to necessarily save the owner money (even though it does) - it is to save the emissions generated when millions upon millions of cars sit idly, wasting fuel.
I guess I have to disagree, and you'll disagree with me. That's OK - it's not a taunt, but I don't understand how you can make some of these claims. So I'd ask if you can help me understand the reason on your side of the equation ...
How can more components "
do nothing but help increase the car's reliability"? More components = more opportunities for failures.
If you had a choice of using one 10' section of copper pipe, or 10 sections of 1' each joined with a coupling between each section, the more complex system creates more cost in parts, more potential failure points, etc. Please riddle me this; how does more parts = increasing reliability? What I could agree with you on is the fact that maybe to improve the reliability of the starter (expected to see perhaps 30x more starts with auto s/s), they build a much more robust starter. OK - so that adds a lot of cost. Kind of my point previously. They add cost to initially purchase, they add complexity which raises reliability concerns, and they add cost at time of repair. I'll ask you to explain how a more complex system with more expensive components is a desirable thing?
That you've not been in a car that's hot/humid with auto s/s doesn't mean my experiences are any less distasteful or true. The BMW with auto s/s I was in was annoyingly hot/humid, as was the Buick, as was the Ford, as was the Toyota. It's been my experience that it's common among several brands, not one brand. The fact is that it's not a brand issue; it's an environmental issue. Now, if the vehicle a/c system was able to run for 20 continuous minutes during a long duration drive, and therefore the car had cooled down nicely and the humidity was drawn out, and then you exit the interstate and you came upon a stop light where you had to wait for 20 seconds, perhaps the effect of auto s/s is well muted. But to the contrary, if you jump into a hot car on the campus of a midwest University in humid August, and sit in traffic for blocks and blocks and blocks, the a/c has not run long enough in succession to draw the humidity out of the air. The "defeat" button is there for a reason, after all. Some folks don't mind humidity; they love the deep south. Others like me cannot tolerate the humidity; we crave dry air. I tolerate living in the midwest because of a/c in my home and in my vehicles.
I understand why the auto s/s exists; it's a fuel savings thing. It's the same reason that thinner lubes are being utilized. And lighter vehicle materials. And the reason that charging systems are now monitored on/off rather than being "always on". And so on ...
I certainly realize that the technology is going to be better and better with every iteration. I agree that this will do nothing but proliferate into vehicles in the future. I also realize that folks like me will continue to defeat such systems, even if it means buying aftermarket solutions to do so. I also agree that there are some times when auto s/s may not be all that annoying, if you'll agree that there are times it's truly intrusive and uncomfortable.
I'm just as OK with wasting fuel (no auto s/s) as others are here wasting lubes and filters by changing them far too frequently.
Wasted beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
www.mazda.com
