Any engine with ESS

[Gee-pah]

We pay for the heavier starter, extra battery and computer to shut the engine so to me there goes your 6 cents per trip you save.
I’m glad the OP brought this topic up because this has been my biggest complaint about ESS.
I plan to keep my Jeep a long time. I can’t see how it’s good for that hot/thinned out oil dropping back down into the oil pan at every red light and now has to be pumped up to the top of the engine being ok.
As far as the vehicle manufacturers, hey if your engine wears a little sooner that’s great. Come on down and spend (I guess in 10-15 years) 90-100k for another new Wrangler.

Steve. I like you. You're a nice guy on the board and I want to respond respectfully to you.

You're right. Many, but not all aspects of ESS are our costs as consumers to pay, shoved down our throats by auto manufacturers, whose throats are being grabbed by EPA rules. From the cost of the tech to install, to the wear and tear on the engine it causes, to the greater complexity that its breakdown can cost us, it's frustrating, and certainly as you say, not financially justified on our personal balance sheets by the gas savings.

The thing is though: the tech isn't by design suppose to help our individual balance sheets as much as that of society at large.

Somehow, I'll "guess" that makes nobody feel better.

Don't get me wrong, I feel your pain. But apolitical scientists and economists would tell us that you and I are not paying the full price of using gasoline on society, as costly as it can be.

To restate, if the true costs to all of using gasoline could be calculated, including pollution, and those who hate ESS were willing to pay it-I'll make an arbitrary figure, $21.50/gallon, your argument is entirely valid about having ESS forced on those who truly pay for their choices.

Instead, we pay another way, though accepting un-latchable ESS tech that saves some gasoline in aggregate across the fleet's users.

It's the lessor of two evils and a patch until ICE vehicles are mostly a thing of the past. EPA policy is riddled with flaws and at its best is the lessor of all evils.

Peace.

Sponsored

 

[Gee-pah]

I absolutely despise the environmental carbon credit (tax) socialism style politics behind why ESS is now mandated. If you really can't stand ESS and need to defeat it at all cost, then I really hope that you not vote for a liberal progressive politician again. The previous administration indirectly forced ESS implementation via its bureaucratic EPA rules increasing CAFE standards on the entire internal combustion industry.

Those manufacturers not able to comply with these higher standards would ultimately be forced into either buying carbon credits from Elon Musk (in order to subsidize the utopia of electric vehicles), or be hit with a carbon tax (i.e. governmental fines), which indeed like all corporate taxes would be passed directly down to us poor(er) consumers.

By the way, ask any of those California Tesla owners how efficient their cars were during the rolling blackouts last year? Many of them had to succumb to buying gas-powered generators in order to charge and drive them for their couple hundred mile range. I also wonder how many zero-emission vehicle drivers realize just how much they're polluting the planet by charging their super-toxic, heavy-metal batteries from coal-fired power plants? Most ignorantly smug in the thought that they're really making the world a better place.

I'm very (very) sorry for polluting this thread with politics, but this is exactly the reason why ESS is now a reality, and why you must always have to disable (rather than enable) it. Just be somewhat thankful that the government did not, or has not yet, mandated that it can't be bypassed (ever).

Regardless, independent on just how ESS came about, I'm a fan. I use it, never disable it and love the results (still hate the fact its mandated), go figure...

Jay

Hi Jay:

Is it correct for me to say that you agree that Internal Combustion Engines (ICE) contribute to environmental problems?

That would be my guess but I was left with no conclusions when I read your post.

Further, I think your issue may lie with how the costs of such environmental roles are allocated, and the system under which that currently operates.

If so, I'd agree that it's a highly flawed system that could use constructive change. But I feel that we have to deal with the environmental costs some way. If you agree, what, if you were in charge, would you implement?

My question comes truly from a place of wanting to hear better/alternative ideas, not to poke holes in your logic.

As for Tesla, you're right. Much pollution is made in their construction; even in disposal of their old batteries, etc. The company enjoys tax credits at the cost of some consumers who've effectively, as you described, powered their rigs thorough their own alternative ICE plants (generators); and that sucks.

But certainly Tesla doesn't walk away from that with their hands clean, right? Their not the only vehicle maker, let alone electrical vehicle maker on the block, with 10 more about "a mile" away, right?

 

[CaJLMetalHead]

If so, I'd agree that it's a highly flawed system that could use constructive change. But I feel that we have to deal with the environmental costs some way. If you agree, what, if you were in charge, would you implement?

I believe ESS is a good idea... it saves fuel... my complaint is how it was implemented on the 3.6 engine.. I couldn't get used to the rattling of my rig ... I have been on other cars with very smooth Auto Start Stop systems where you won't even notice it ... I have been on quite a few other JLs and the rattling is the same... also.. in general I believe ESS is silly to implement on a JLU like mine that only gets 11.5 MPG city drive after lift and big tires.. but well.. CAFE regulations ... FCA had no choice..

No idea what percentage of us disables ESS because:
a) is annoying
b) think it causes additional wear and tear of the engine..

I am not concerned about wear and tear .. ESS is well designed to minimize wear and tear... but with ESS active I had to crank up my stereo and listen to Death Metal to drown the ESS...

Gee-Pah... to answer your question.. a very smooth ESS would be necessary for me to adopt it...

Here is an interesting video from one of my favorite youtube channels... well worth watching it..

 

[INCRHULK]

Hi Jay:

Is it correct for me to say that you agree that Internal Combustion Engines (ICE) contribute to environmental problems?

That would be my guess but I was left with no conclusions when I read your post.

Further, I think your issue may lie with how the costs of such environmental roles are allocated, and the system under which that currently operates.

If so, I'd agree that it's a highly flawed system that could use constructive change. But I feel that we have to deal with the environmental costs some way. If you agree, what, if you were in charge, would you implement?

My question comes truly from a place of wanting to hear better/alternative ideas, not to poke holes in your logic.

As for Tesla, you're right. Much pollution is made in their construction; even in disposal of their old batteries, etc. The company enjoys tax credits at the cost of some consumers who've effectively, as you described, powered their rigs thorough their own alternative ICE plants (generators); and that sucks.

But certainly Tesla doesn't walk away from that with their hands clean, right? Their not the only vehicle maker, let alone electrical vehicle maker on the block, with 10 more about "a mile" away, right?

The simplest and easiest and most effective method of reducing the environmental effects of carbon pollution is economics. How do you make economics play in reducing carbon footprints? Carbon pricing, pure and simple. Make it increasingly expensive to put more carbon into the atmosphere, all through the chain. Will it hurt? Yes, and that's the point. I'm guessing lots of us remember the oil crisis in the 70's. Prices shot up, and buying habits and technology changed because of it.

ESS is a means of reducing the carbon footprint of the JL. When idling the engine is doing no work or almost no work. With the exponential impact of millions of cars (just in the US) not idling, carbon output drops.

We have to look at a carrot and stick approach to reducing our global climate impact and carbon emissions. Carbon pricing is the stick - make it increasingly costly to use fossil fuels and production means that put out more carbon. Incentives and rebates towards retrofitting or building new are the carrots. Give price reductions on buying LED lighting, retrofit homes to be carbon neutral or negative. Tax incentives for installing solar, wind and other renewables on local or grid-scale.

 

[INCRHULK]

Ah, so you're advocating the Thanos Solution, brilliant. There's plenty of options available for society to move forward and reduce carbon emissions. None of them have to be long term detrimental to the economy or society.

 

[Gee-pah]

The simplest and easiest and most effective method of reducing the environmental effects of carbon pollution is economics. How do you make economics play in reducing carbon footprints? Carbon pricing, pure and simple. Make it increasingly expensive to put more carbon into the atmosphere, all through the chain. Will it hurt? Yes, and that's the point. I'm guessing lots of us remember the oil crisis in the 70's. Prices shot up, and buying habits and technology changed because of it.

ESS is a means of reducing the carbon footprint of the JL. When idling the engine is doing no work or almost no work. With the exponential impact of millions of cars (just in the US) not idling, carbon output drops.

We have to look at a carrot and stick approach to reducing our global climate impact and carbon emissions. Carbon pricing is the stick - make it increasingly costly to use fossil fuels and production means that put out more carbon. Incentives and rebates towards retrofitting or building new are the carrots. Give price reductions on buying LED lighting, retrofit homes to be carbon neutral or negative. Tax incentives for installing solar, wind and other renewables on local or grid-scale.

So well said Lance.

I'm sure you'd agree that "Carbon pricing," as you put it, or Carbon Taxaction are really just different names for the same thing, and enacted for the same purpose, being:

to make Carbon Fuels comparitively more expensive to use so as to incentivize the marketplace to produce, and for consumers to buy, vehicles that are cleaner.

Without these taxes, *we.* who don't truly pay for all the costs associated with ICE engines would find such gasoline vehicles cheaper. Government hopes with more electric vehicles made, average cost will go down.

~~~~

I think though that some contributors have fair issue with who pays this tax (the *we*), along with the fact that electric vehicles also have polluting factors (e.g. dealing with old batteries) ….just ones that effect the air less. Still more, others differ on the methods of having the public pay this cost, or the extent of the damage.

In theory, as I bet you appreciate, tax is paid in part by both consumer and producer depending on product demand and competition. A desired product made by few has the consumer paying most of the tax; the opposite the case when product alternatives, limited demand, and lots of producers is the case.

 

[Gee-pah]

Hey @TEXGOAT:

I'm going to try, maybe poorly, to get to the spirit of some of the stuff you're saying. You've proposed no method of reducing human population size involving death, rather perhaps the ethically balanced one of future familes simply being smaller on average going forward.

And hate it though I do, you're right that more people is more energy consumption; population and usage being the closest linked two things here. Some will argue that the radioactivity below our earth has more energy than we can ever use, but with it comes costs we're all aware of.

But what's also true, not that you've advocated differently, is that there is enormous opportunity for us to use cleaner and more abundant forms of energy. So population isn't the only thing.

I'll bet you remember the true story of moths growing an adaptive advantage during the smaller population times of our polluting Industrial Revolution of becoming darker in color to hide in the smoot of our relatively dirty production of yesteryear.

So efficiency AND population play into this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

And when you advocate those unhappy with environmental costs of the so further advanced and enjoyable lives we live over North Koreans best move there I read that as people needing to accept that all society decisions come with pros and cons, not for us to hire moving vans.

But as you must also know, like COVID-19, global pollution has limited walls that can keep it in the polluting societies and out the cleaner ones.

What bothers me is that the green tax credit models we have domestically, for all their flaws, don't translate internationally with much force. Until goods produced cleaner are also cheaper, we can risk running at a competitive disadvantage to nations willing to produce goods cheaply today, mortgaging the true cost with the need to deal with future pollution that all nations will need to fight.

 

[Kizzo]

I hate ESS; but there are government mandated emissions and without it, there would be no more Wranglers on the road. However, I much prefer the Etorque version of it. I test drove a RAM 1500 with it; surprisingly very smooth, instant, and quiet.

Hopefully it returns to the 2021 Rubicon.

Sponsored