How to take advantage of ESS effectively.

[Sean L]

From the Jeep Informant

Hello, I'm trying to help people use ESS Effectively not permanently disable it.

Sponsored

 

[misanthrope]

Hello, I'm trying to help people use ESS Effectively not permanently disable it.

Yeah, Jay put up a separate thread for this, but the trollers keep leaking over...

 

[Sean L]

Yeah, Jay put up a separate thread for this, but the trollers keep leaking over...

I don't know why but whenever someone just posts a Jeepinformant video as their entire post it just rubs me the wrong way... I haven't watched any of his videos but at least use it to supplement your point instead of having someone else do your talking for you...

 

[misanthrope]

I don't know why but whenever someone just posts a Jeepinformant video as their entire post it just rubs me the wrong way... I haven't watched any of his videos but at least use it to supplement your point instead of having someone else do your talking for you...

You should try teaching that to high school seniors sometime. It's so rewarding...

 

[Sean L]

You should try teaching that to high school seniors sometime. It's so rewarding...

Iol I can imagine getting reports in and its just a link to some guys youtube video on the assigned subject. Now if the student took the time to make a well researched video of their own I completely understand that.

 

[PatrickKiser]

You'll note how I said to disable it in heavy stop and go traffic? I'm not saying let it go constantly every two seconds, I'm trying to help people live with something that isn't going away. I'm getting much better fuel economy than my old vehicle now and part of that is taking advantage of the ESS at stop lights rather than just sit and complain about it.

I have ESS on my 2018 Ford Escape (still waiting for my 18 Rubicon to be built!) and all those tips about applying brake pressure are true and you will get to the point where it is second nature and a no brainer to use. My new Escape averages 29 mpg and that's with the 245 hp 2.0 turbo which is very good mileage. My utility vehicle that keeps on going forever, and the most reliable vehicle I've ever owned, a 2005 Mercury Mariner with the 200 hp 3.0 v6, is lucky to see 23 mpg on the highway. A huge difference. I know that the autostart has a positive impact on my mpg because in Chicago you have traffic and stop lights everywhere. I've actually noticed that more and more vehicles have ESS and it's kind of cool when we are sitting at a stoplight and all the vehicles are silent.
My escape had a note included in all the warranty info, owners manual, etc., that said that the ESS will not damage your engine or anything else and that an upgraded battery and heavy duty starter was part of the technology.

 

[ThirtyOne]

Can we all at least agree that having an engine running while you are at a full stop is idiotic and basically a design flaw with automobiles?

Now, the implementation of the solution may leave something to be desired but the goal is the right goal.

I can't understand why I should fight for my freedom to have an engine running in a stopped vehicle. That is asinine.

 

[Sean L]

Can we all at least agree that having an engine running while you are at a full stop is idiotic and basically a design flaw with automobiles?

Now, the implementation of the solution may leave something to be desired but the goal is the right goal.

I can't understand why I should fight for my freedom to have an engine running in a stopped vehicle. That is asinine.

I think some people just make it a matter of pride to get the worst fuel economy possible. Much like a Coal Roller blowing as much smoke as possible at someone driving a Prius. Now I like diesel trucks, and I seriously considered the Titan XD and the Ram 2500 trucks before settling on the Wrangler, but I would not waste my money on all of these delete kits and chips to just blow smoke and get 10 MPG...

I will also refuse to waste my money on these Tazer programmers to permanently disable ESS. If I find myself in a situation where ESS will become annoying, like heavy stop and go traffic on I-40 through Winston, I just push the button... simple as that. Otherwise I will enjoy not constantly needing gas like I used to with my old truck.

 

[ThirtyOne]

I think some people just make it a matter of pride to get the worst fuel economy possible. Much like a Coal Roller blowing as much smoke as possible at someone driving a Prius. Now I like diesel trucks, and I seriously considered the Titan XD and the Ram 2500 trucks before settling on the Wrangler, but I would not waste my money on all of these delete kits and chips to just blow smoke and get 10 MPG...

I will also refuse to waste my money on these Tazer programmers to permanently disable ESS. If I find myself in a situation where ESS will become annoying, like heavy stop and go traffic on I-40 through Winston, I just push the button... simple as that. Otherwise I will enjoy not constantly needing gas like I used to with my old truck.

Well I agree with all that.

But even beside fuel economy and emissions, if I were to design how a car works without any preconceived notions of how ICE works or anything I think it would be like a golf cart. It is powered when you are moving and not when you aren't. It just doesn't make sense to run an engine that doesn't do anything. Now because we have 100 years of cars running when they don't need to we think that it is intuitive. It isn't. It is a hack.

 

[WXman]

Nuclear power plants cause water vapor (think steam) to rise in the atmosphere. Interestingly the physics of water vapor has a positive correlation with airborne pollutants. The more CO2 in the air the more water vapor can be stored in the air. Water vapor is the engine driving climate change but it’s a byproduct of pollution. If you read my other posts I couldn’t agree with you more on the waste material from nuclear energy. Little known fact nuclear is not a renewable resource also.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/ShipTracks/ship_tracks_2.php

I apologize if this comes across as obnoxious. I have the privilege of taking courses at The Ohio State University (most universities allow older folks like me to take courses for free) and I just took an Environmental Science course on Climate Change. I’ll admit I was skeptical but I learned way more than I ever thought I would. The peer vetted scientific data is overwhelming.

Water vapor is water in gas form, i.e., we can't see it with the human eye. When you walk outside on a summer day and it feels "sticky", that's water vapor. You can't see it, but you know it's there. Water in any form has absolutely nothing to do with so called "climate change". There is X amount of water (in any of the three forms) on Earth and that's all there's ever been and that's all there ever will be. Hence, the water cycle. It should be noted that in the 1970s headlines read "ICE AGE!" and the scare tactic was that glaciers were going to reform and we were going to die. That didn't pan out so by the 1990s it became "GLOBAL WARMING!" and the scare tactic was that the polar caps were going to melt, oceans would rise into cities, and we would die. That didn't pan out either. So now the liberals are using "CLIMATE CHANGE!" because that terminology covers all the bases and they can't be wrong, or so they think.

Problem is, using a <1% sample size (we only have 125-150 years of actual, recorded, documented worldwide weather records) to describe the whole is crap science and cannot be relied upon. It's all politically driven horse s*** that will not pan out because it's simply not true in the way they are pushing it. Scientific law proves that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, and human beings cannot cause Earth to cease to exist when we had no power to create it to begin with. We're just here to live...and live we should. Which is why if you want to drive a Jeep on 35" tires, you should enjoy every second of it.

Can we all at least agree that having an engine running while you are at a full stop is idiotic and basically a design flaw with automobiles?

Now, the implementation of the solution may leave something to be desired but the goal is the right goal.

I can't understand why I should fight for my freedom to have an engine running in a stopped vehicle. That is asinine.

It is kind of stupid. It's like turning on the water in the bathroom and leaving it running until you're finished getting ready for work. Does anybody do that? Or do you just turn the water on when you need to rinse the toothpaste out of your mouth and maybe take a shower? Why don't we only use gas when the vehicle is moving? Makes sense to me.

We SHOULD be good stewards of our environment. There's a fine line between not caring about the environment, and being so scared of ruining it that you don't even enjoy your life. We should look for that medium between the two and try to stay there.

 

[Sean L]

Water vapor is water in gas form, i.e., we can't see it with the human eye. When you walk outside on a summer day and it feels "sticky", that's water vapor. You can't see it, but you know it's there. Water in any form has absolutely nothing to do with so called "climate change". There is X amount of water (in any of the three forms) on Earth and that's all there's ever been and that's all there ever will be. Hence, the water cycle. It should be noted that in the 1970s headlines read "ICE AGE!" and the scare tactic was that glaciers were going to reform and we were going to die. That didn't pan out so by the 1990s it became "GLOBAL WARMING!" and the scare tactic was that the polar caps were going to melt, oceans would rise into cities, and we would die. That didn't pan out either. So now the liberals are using "CLIMATE CHANGE!" because that terminology covers all the bases and they can't be wrong, or so they think.

Problem is, using a <1% sample size (we only have 125-150 years of actual, recorded, documented worldwide weather records) to describe the whole is crap science and cannot be relied upon. It's all politically driven horse s*** that will not pan out because it's simply not true in the way they are pushing it. Scientific law proves that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, and human beings cannot cause Earth to cease to exist when we had no power to create it to begin with. We're just here to live...and live we should. Which is why if you want to drive a Jeep on 35" tires, you should enjoy every second of it.



It is kind of stupid. It's like turning on the water in the bathroom and leaving it running until you're finished getting ready for work. Does anybody do that? Or do you just turn the water on when you need to rinse the toothpaste out of your mouth and maybe take a shower? Why don't we only use gas when the vehicle is moving? Makes sense to me.

We SHOULD be good stewards of our environment. There's a fine line between not caring about the environment, and being so scared of ruining it that you don't even enjoy your life. We should look for that medium between the two and try to stay there.

I'm pretty sure someone will try to blame the new Kilauea eruption on Climate Change...

 

[Sean L]

Well I agree with all that.

But even beside fuel economy and emissions, if I were to design how a car works without any preconceived notions of how ICE works or anything I think it would be like a golf cart. It is powered when you are moving and not when you aren't. It just doesn't make sense to run an engine that doesn't do anything. Now because we have 100 years of cars running when they don't need to we think that it is intuitive. It isn't. It is a hack.

I agree that it's a logical progression of how vehicles should develop and evolve, its just peoples minds are so hardened.

We no longer use carburetors on cars but some people still insist on warming up their engine for 10 minutes before driving even one inch. They also act like an ESS restart burns as much fuel as a cold start on a 1968 Plymouth Roadrunner with a 383 big block.

 

[Kysport]

Love the video. Thanks for posting.

 

[BumpyTrail]

Let's all agree to disagree.
The liberal commie environmentalist will never convince the neanderthal gun totting consevaticon Nazis of anything and vice versa.
Secondarily the commies enjoy the Obama mandate to make the Libertarian wackos submit to living under ESS.
Those weathy conservatives will seamingly win as the pay a few bucks to flash their eproms. But the environmental wackos will ultimately win the decades lasting strugle to rid the planet of all autos.

I’ve got to ask. What is the flag in your profile pic? Haha
I’ve tried to find it online with no luck and apparently you can’t do a reverse image search on google if you’re using a crApple iPad

I have ESS on my 2018 Ford Escape (still waiting for my 18 Rubicon to be built!) and all those tips about applying brake pressure are true and you will get to the point where it is second nature and a no brainer to use. My new Escape averages 29 mpg and that's with the 245 hp 2.0 turbo which is very good mileage. My utility vehicle that keeps on going forever, and the most reliable vehicle I've ever owned, a 2005 Mercury Mariner with the 200 hp 3.0 v6, is lucky to see 23 mpg on the highway. A huge difference. I know that the autostart has a positive impact on my mpg because in Chicago you have traffic and stop lights everywhere. I've actually noticed that more and more vehicles have ESS and it's kind of cool when we are sitting at a stoplight and all the vehicles are silent.
My escape had a note included in all the warranty info, owners manual, etc., that said that the ESS will not damage your engine or anything else and that an upgraded battery and heavy duty starter was part of the technology.

I just pictured you in Chicago traffic with a bunch of other ESS equipped vehicles and a NASCAR announcer saying “Start your engines” when the light turns green and you take your foot off the break pedal! Haha

 

[BumpyTrail]

Water vapor is water in gas form, i.e., we can't see it with the human eye. When you walk outside on a summer day and it feels "sticky", that's water vapor. You can't see it, but you know it's there. Water in any form has absolutely nothing to do with so called "climate change". There is X amount of water (in any of the three forms) on Earth and that's all there's ever been and that's all there ever will be. Hence, the water cycle. It should be noted that in the 1970s headlines read "ICE AGE!" and the scare tactic was that glaciers were going to reform and we were going to die. That didn't pan out so by the 1990s it became "GLOBAL WARMING!" and the scare tactic was that the polar caps were going to melt, oceans would rise into cities, and we would die. That didn't pan out either. So now the liberals are using "CLIMATE CHANGE!" because that terminology covers all the bases and they can't be wrong, or so they think.

Problem is, using a <1% sample size (we only have 125-150 years of actual, recorded, documented worldwide weather records) to describe the whole is crap science and cannot be relied upon. It's all politically driven horse s*** that will not pan out because it's simply not true in the way they are pushing it. Scientific law proves that matter cannot be created nor destroyed, and human beings cannot cause Earth to cease to exist when we had no power to create it to begin with. We're just here to live...and live we should. Which is why if you want to drive a Jeep on 35" tires, you should enjoy every second of it.



It is kind of stupid. It's like turning on the water in the bathroom and leaving it running until you're finished getting ready for work. Does anybody do that? Or do you just turn the water on when you need to rinse the toothpaste out of your mouth and maybe take a shower? Why don't we only use gas when the vehicle is moving? Makes sense to me.

We SHOULD be good stewards of our environment. There's a fine line between not caring about the environment, and being so scared of ruining it that you don't even enjoy your life. We should look for that medium between the two and try to stay there.

You’re obviously a smart person but I have a feeling you have heard this from “somewhere” and haven’t looked into it yourself. The reason I believe you’ve heard this is it is scripted. Believe it or not cigarette companies used to say cigarettes do not cause cancer, while it has been proven they know the whole time. The reason I bring this up is the same (literally the exact same) people who the cigarette industry used to spread this misinformation are now working for climate change deniers.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...poses-slick-us-industry-behind-climate-denial

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2010/feb/19/climate-change-sceptics-science

On your water vapor theory:

What you’re referring to is called humidity. Humidity is the cause of the “sticky” feeling you’re describing. Humidity is water vapor at or near the surface of the planet. The peer vetted scientific facts on water vapor’s affect on climate change I was referring to concerns the troposphere, which is much higher, and something called “feedback process”. Here is some information if you care to research (look into) it yourself.

https://www.yaleclimateconnections....te-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/

https://climatechangeconnection.org/science/what-about-water-vapour/

https://www.skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas.htm

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

On “crap science”:

I believe in science. It has a torture test called the “scientific process”. What this means is everything begins as a theory. Once a theory can be proven it has to be reviewed by others. This is my favorite part, scientists love to prove others wrong and try to by every way possible. Even if someone believes something to be true they play “devil’s advocate” just in case. My posts contain scientifically proven peer reviewed information. To further my point I have included references and sources which are required in any claim made during higher education. I believe we should never stop learning and become content with what we believe to be true. So I would be open to review any sources or references you may have regarding your opinion.

Sponsored