- Banned
- #76
You too buddyhahaha
i'm good on that.
have a good one.
Sponsored
You too buddyhahaha
i'm good on that.
have a good one.
Never realized. I just sit in the jeep and wait for the family to come and go. It stays off until I press the clutch pedal. I just happen to shut the power off when leaving. Go figure. I'll try opening the door.That is not true. When the engine is stopped in start/stop mode, as soon as you open the driver’s door, it fires up. Try it.
If you're going to correct others' spelling, at least do it correctly.youre*
and "own" - credit aint for everyone...
Wouldn’t that be grammar, not spellingIf you're going to correct others' spelling, at least do it correctly.
Actually, its yoursIf you're going to correct others' spelling, at least do it correctly.
Okay, Internet keyboard catfighting aside, let’s bring this back to the realm of seriousness because it’s actually a really interesting topic with serious implications (spoiler: I’m going to bring up Anton Yelchin).
Earlier in this thread someone said something about how it’s our responsibility to operate the vehicles safely, not Jeep’s. Thanks for posting this because it brings up the interesting philosophical question I’m going to raise with regard to design: what obligation does the manufacturer have to design a car that is safe to operate? Where’s the line between intuitive, familiar design and innovative design that is needlessly changed for no measurable benefit? Is there a point where change for change’s sake can be harmful?
Let’s set aside key fobs for a moment and examine the automatic transmission selector lever. For decades, automatic transmissions tied the physical location of the shifter to the gear you’re in (Park, reverse, neutral or drive, most commonly). With your eyes closed you could grab the shifter, push it forward, feel it move through the gates and hit the limit of advance- park. You could then exit the car with your eyes still closed and be certain it wouldn’t roll nowhere. The design communicated something to you and you naturally can operate it without thought, much like the entire process of a daily commute. Then FCA engineers changed that and removed the physical connection to the gear you’re putting the car in. A Grand Cherokee was erroneously left in Neutral and killed Chekov.
Could this tragedy theoretically have happened with a traditionally-gated shifter? Sure. Is that likely? Hell no. To be fair, this wasn’t likely either- but it was enabled by a needless design change. FCA quickly changed the GC’s shifter design (if memory serves).
Bring the topic back around to key fobs and it gets a little muddied. There IS a measurable benefit to not having to remove a key from your pocket or purse, insert it in the ignition, and turn it. Pushing a button IS faster. That’s fine. But then you add the “feature” of ESS and it muddies the water again: you park your car, the engine shuts off, and maybe you even touch the push-start button, but not hard enough for it to register and your car is still on. Later the engine kicks back in to maintain the HVAC temp, and your garage fills with CO. Once again, removing the physical act of twisting a key counter-clockwise and pulling it to the right- something you can do with your eyes closed and be sure you did it and be sure it registered- removes an analog step and replaces it with a digital one that must be verified with your eyes and a conscious thought.
Is it worth the time saved by not having to remove the key from your pocket? I’ll let you decide.
Oh I’m sorry, I didn’t realize you paid for these forums’ servers and that the server host charges by the kilobyte, making my long post a waste of forum resources."Is it worth the time saved by not having to remove the key from your pocket? I’ll let you decide."
...time saved?? To take a key out to start the car.
Weee oooo, weee oooo, weeee ooooo....
Do us a favor and dont write long drawn out posts...save us the waste of time and space
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GrammarWouldn’t that be grammar, not spelling
But it won’t restart for the temperature. If your vehicle is off by auto stop, and you place vehicle in park, it restarts immediately. Assuming the vehicle is in park, and the system is working correctly, the vehicle will never restart by itself without input from either the remote start, or the push button.Okay, Internet keyboard catfighting aside, let’s bring this back to the realm of seriousness because it’s actually a really interesting topic with serious implications (spoiler: I’m going to bring up Anton Yelchin).
Earlier in this thread someone said something about how it’s our responsibility to operate the vehicles safely, not Jeep’s. Thanks for posting this because it brings up the interesting philosophical question I’m going to raise with regard to design: what obligation does the manufacturer have to design a car that is safe to operate? Where’s the line between intuitive, familiar design and innovative design that is needlessly changed for no measurable benefit? Is there a point where change for change’s sake can be harmful?
Let’s set aside key fobs for a moment and examine the automatic transmission selector lever. For decades, automatic transmissions tied the physical location of the shifter to the gear you’re in (Park, reverse, neutral or drive, most commonly). With your eyes closed you could grab the shifter, push it forward, feel it move through the gates and hit the limit of advance- park. You could then exit the car with your eyes still closed and be certain it wouldn’t roll nowhere. The design communicated something to you and you naturally can operate it without thought, much like the entire process of a daily commute. Then FCA engineers changed that and removed the physical connection to the gear you’re putting the car in. A Grand Cherokee was erroneously left in Neutral and killed Chekov.
Could this tragedy theoretically have happened with a traditionally-gated shifter? Sure. Is that likely? Hell no. To be fair, this wasn’t likely either- but it was enabled by a needless design change. FCA quickly changed the GC’s shifter design (if memory serves).
Bring the topic back around to key fobs and it gets a little muddied. There IS a measurable benefit to not having to remove a key from your pocket or purse, insert it in the ignition, and turn it. Pushing a button IS faster. That’s fine. But then you add the “feature” of ESS and it muddies the water again: you park your car, the engine shuts off, and maybe you even touch the push-start button, but not hard enough for it to register and your car is still on. Later the engine kicks back in to maintain the HVAC temp, and your garage fills with CO. Once again, removing the physical act of twisting a key counter-clockwise and pulling it to the right- something you can do with your eyes closed and be sure you did it and be sure it registered- removes an analog step and replaces it with a digital one that must be verified with your eyes and a conscious thought.
Is it worth the time saved by not having to remove the key from your pocket? I’ll let you decide.
New round of troll additions.JLwranglerforums is quickly turning into Pirate4x4. Lol
It'll also restart as soon as you lift your foot off the brake if for some reason you forgot to put it in park. What happened here not caused by Jeep's design. The same thing would have likely happened with a key in the ignition as this was failure to notice a running vehicle.But it won’t restart for the temperature. If your vehicle is off by auto stop, and you place vehicle in park, it restarts immediately. Assuming the vehicle is in park, and the system is working correctly, the vehicle will never restart by itself without input from either the remote start, or the push button.
To me, that’s the most annoying thing about ess. I’ll press the brake on to park, the engine stops. Put it in park and it restarts, and I then have to shut it off again.