Any engine with ESS

[scottijohn63]

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.

Love Etorque on my 2.0 Sahara!

Sponsored

 

[jdubya421]

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

I just want you to know that averagely this statement "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" is straight up wrong.

I will let Jason explain it: Youtube

(Please watch the entire video and possibly some of his others on the topic. You can go to the alternative fuels data center website and even change which state you are charging your EV in and you will see some states it is pretty bad, but averagely it isn't)

He has many videos on this topic and you will see time and time again that EVs are still less polluting than ICE vehicles.

 

[jeepoch]

Andy, et.al.,

No I'm not trying to make any over-reaching statement on the state of the universe or anything that profound. Yes, I do realize that ICE machines pollute (not just carbon byproducts but also nitrous and other poisonous petroleum-combustion related emissions as well). And yes we must do the common-sense things in order to mitigate any environmental damage we can. That is as long as the cure is not worse than the disease.

I must give you full disclosure that I'm not an innocent bystander here either. In a previous life I was a Powertrain Control Engineer with Chrysler in Auburn Hills Mi during the 1990's and early 2000's. I was on the team that developed and calibrated all OBD2 Federally (and CA) mandated emission monitors including software, all it's corresponding algorithms, and the necessary closed-loop control processes for the entire engine controller.

That was a really great gig and I'd likely still be there if it wasn't for the Daimler merger. It was stated at that time that the new owners wanted to move all of powertrain engineering to Germany. I floated my resume and landed in other really cool tech around Boulder Co.

While I had left well before Electronic Start Stop (ESS) was even a concept, I must admit that I am rather impressed with it's implementation by my former colleagues. Starting the engine within a revolution or two of the crankshaft is no small feat. And what people fail to realize that oil is indeed viscous (having relatively high resistance to flow). That is, after all, its primary purpose. It adheres to surfaces for quite a while. No I don't know the exact scientific time in latency for all warm oil to drain back into the pan, but it clearly isn't instantaneous. As long as the engine temperature remains warm and sufficient time has not elapsed, adequate lubrication is most likely (depending of course on the quality and wear characterization of the oil itself) is doing its job. The currently specified 0W-20 (especially synthetic) oil spec for JL's likely meets all requisite conditions to keep a warm engine lubricated for most all routine stopping scenarios while driving. I'm guessing here, but likely several minutes. I'm also very confident that a fair amount of engineering was involved in the restart conditions in order to prevent (or even get close to) a problematic situation.

Wear and tear comes from cold cranking, where there is not yet sufficient oil pumped up from the pan onto non-sufficiently lubricated surfaces. There is a big difference between cold and warm cranking lubrication. ESS will therefore not detrimentally wear the internal surfaces of the engine. As for starter wear, that's a matter that time will tell whether the components involved were spec'd properly. My bet is that they took this into account. However, I have also been in month long review meetings trying to thrift pennies out of engine components. Recall, the art of engineering is to make something work for as practical (cheap) as possible. So we will see if they selected the right (long-term) functionality for everything else. Again, and I'm being very candid, the goal is not forever, but within warranty time plus some fair margin.

I am not however at all pleased with the reasons in how and why ESS came to be implimented (at least politically). But I'm not an ideologue either. My belief is that if you innovate and create a product that is naturally demanded (rather than artificially subsidized) it will be widely adopted. Take smart-phones for example. How many people do you know that can go through their daily routine without one? Can you give up yours as easily as enabling (or disabling) ESS?

Our task then is to find a way to lower emissions WHILE researching for similar or superior alternatives. So then more to your point; are internal cumbustion engines flawed, certainly yes. Are current electric replacement attempts any better, perhaps but not really. They are still nowhere near practical or as an affordable alternative to ICE technology (yet). Meybe when we can either charge (or replace) a battery in the same amount of time as filling up at a pump, we'll be closer to making electric cars a better reality. That and a battery that can deliver the same range of travel as a typical tank of gas. We are still a long way away from both of these metrics.

Some may argue that keep taxing (raising the cost of) the old technology in order to force adoption of the new. This unfortunately does seem like the political motivation towards our current direction forward. Said in another way 'hurt' those using the old, in order to make the alternative more appealing.

I'm antithetically opposed to economically hurting anyone (or anything) no matter what the virtuous cause may be. I'd rather achieve the end goal through accepted rather than forced implementation. So then how do we get everyone to want to use something like ESS. I would venture to guess that the clear majority of people dislike (if not outright hate) ESS and would do anything in their power to make it disappear (rip it entirely out of their rigs) altogether. Unfortunately, we have a political class more willing to shove it down our throats and make us deal with it rather than finding the proper way to achieve the same results. That is, getting everyone to want it (like smart phones). The proper answer must always be based on merit (not ideological will, via government mandate). Answers must come from desire, not EPA dictates, un-legislated rules and all the multiple layers (and layers) of bureaucratic red tape.

So to answer your question, the solution is never from the left, or from the right but rather from something in between. We have to find a way to get people to realize the overall good (not just for the collective whole) but also for the individual's benefit as well.

I'd start by allowing it to be default disabled, (rather than enabled) with a tactile feedback mechanism showing the value of it's use. Maybe a cumulative emissions gauge (sort of like a Docimeter for radioactivity) that indicates the amount of total emissions generated per tank. Average volume of noxious output per some reasonable metric. Perhaps total stops per trip (key-on to key-off). Then let the consumer see for themselves the impact between using it (or not). Win the argument through science not politics.

Maybe revise the fuel consumption gauge to also report back amount of fuel saved (estimated) per tank when using ESS. I have read (but don't recall the source off the top of my head) that as long as you're stopped longer than seven (7) seconds, you've saved over the amount of fuel sat there idling (even with the subsequent crankshaft startup). So, use this single metric and determine how many minutes per day, per month or per year you sit idle at red lights alone, it shouldn't take any mathematical genius to realize all the potential fuel (or output emissions) that can be conserved by each and every driver (every outing). The trick is to convice everyone that this is indeed beneficial to both the planet as well as their wallets.

I'm sure I could think of more ideas, care to hire me as a consultant?

Jay

 

[INCRHULK]

That is already done by effectively making the convicted and non convicted (those still waiting on trials but incarcerated) slaves.

 

[INCRHULK]

Andy, et.al.,

No I'm not trying to make any over-reaching statement on the state of the universe or anything that profound. Yes, I do realize that ICE machines pollute (not just carbon byproducts but also nitrous and other poisonous petroleum-combustion related emissions as well). And yes we must do the common-sense things in order to mitigate any environmental damage we can. That is as long as the cure is not worse than the disease.

I must give you full disclosure that I'm not an innocent bystander here either. In a previous life I was a Powertrain Control Engineer with Chrysler in Auburn Hills Mi during the 1990's and early 2000's. I was on the team that developed and calibrated all OBD2 Federally (and CA) mandated emission monitors including software, all it's corresponding algorithms, and the necessary closed-loop control processes for the entire engine controller.

That was a really great gig and I'd likely still be there if it wasn't for the Daimler merger. It was stated at that time that the new owners wanted to move all of powertrain engineering to Germany. I floated my resume and landed in other really cool tech around Boulder Co.

While I had left well before Electronic Start Stop (ESS) was even a concept, I must admit that I am rather impressed with it's implementation by my former colleagues. Starting the engine within a revolution or two of the crankshaft is no small feat. And what people fail to realize that oil is indeed viscous (having relatively high resistance to flow). That is, after all, its primary purpose. It adheres to surfaces for quite a while. No I don't know the exact scientific time in latency for all warm oil to drain back into the pan, but it clearly isn't instantaneous. As long as the engine temperature remains warm and sufficient time has not elapsed, adequate lubrication is most likely (depending of course on the quality and wear characterization of the oil itself) is doing its job. The currently specified 0W-20 (especially synthetic) oil spec for JL's likely meets all requisite conditions to keep a warm engine lubricated for most all routine stopping scenarios while driving. I'm guessing here, but likely several minutes. I'm also very confident that a fair amount of engineering was involved in the restart conditions in order to prevent (or even get close to) a problematic situation.

Wear and tear comes from cold cranking, where there is not yet sufficient oil pumped up from the pan onto non-sufficiently lubricated surfaces. There is a big difference between cold and warm cranking lubrication. ESS will therefore not detrimentally wear the internal surfaces of the engine. As for starter wear, that's a matter that time will tell whether the components involved were spec'd properly. My bet is that they took this into account. However, I have also been in month long review meetings trying to thrift pennies out of engine components. Recall, the art of engineering is to make something work for as practical (cheap) as possible. So we will see if they selected the right (long-term) functionality for everything else. Again, and I'm being very candid, the goal is not forever, but within warranty time plus some fair margin.

I am not however at all pleased with the reasons in how and why ESS came to be implimented (at least politically). But I'm not an ideologue either. My belief is that if you innovate and create a product that is naturally demanded (rather than artificially subsidized) it will be widely adopted. Take smart-phones for example. How many people do you know that can go through their daily routine without one? Can you give up yours as easily as enabling (or disabling) ESS?

Our task then is to find a way to lower emissions WHILE researching for similar or superior alternatives. So then more to your point; are internal cumbustion engines flawed, certainly yes. Are current electric replacement attempts any better, perhaps but not really. They are still nowhere near practical or as an affordable alternative to ICE technology (yet). Meybe when we can either charge (or replace) a battery in the same amount of time as filling up at a pump, we'll be closer to making electric cars a better reality. That and a battery that can deliver the same range of travel as a typical tank of gas. We are still a long way away from both of these metrics.

Some may argue that keep taxing (raising the cost of) the old technology in order to force adoption of the new. This unfortunately does seem like the political motivation towards our current direction forward. Said in another way 'hurt' those using the old, in order to make the alternative more appealing.

I'm antithetically opposed to economically hurting anyone (or anything) no matter what the virtuous cause may be. I'd rather achieve the end goal through accepted rather than forced implementation. So then how do we get everyone to want to use something like ESS. I would venture to guess that the clear majority of people dislike (if not outright hate) ESS and would do anything in their power to make it disappear (rip it entirely out of their rigs) altogether. Unfortunately, we have a political class more willing to shove it down our throats and make us deal with it rather than finding the proper way to achieve the same results. That is, getting everyone to want it (like smart phones). The proper answer must always be based on merit (not ideological will, via government mandate). Answers must come from desire, not EPA dictates, un-legislated rules and all the multiple layers (and layers) of bureaucratic red tape.

So to answer your question, the solution is never from the left, or from the right but rather from something in between. We have to find a way to get people to realize the overall good (not just for the collective whole) but also for the individual's benefit as well.

I'd start by allowing it to be default disabled, (rather than enabled) with a tactile feedback mechanism showing the value of it's use. Maybe a cumulative emissions gauge (sort of like a Docimeter for radioactivity) that indicates the amount of total emissions generated per tank. Average volume of noxious output per some reasonable metric. Perhaps total stops per trip (key-on to key-off). Then let the consumer see for themselves the impact between using it (or not). Win the argument through science not politics.

Maybe revise the fuel consumption gauge to also report back amount of fuel saved (estimated) per tank when using ESS. I have read (but don't recall the source off the top of my head) that as long as you're stopped longer than seven (7) seconds, you've saved over the amount of fuel sat there idling (even with the subsequent crankshaft startup). So, use this single metric and determine how many minutes per day, per month or per year you sit idle at red lights alone, it shouldn't take any mathematical genius to realize all the potential fuel (or output emissions) that can be conserved by each and every driver (every outing). The trick is to convice everyone that this is indeed beneficial to both the planet as well as their wallets.

I'm sure I could think of more ideas, care to hire me as a consultant?

Jay

Thank you for your input, the technical information is welcomed. Gamification of the pollution systems might help, but modeling still shows that economic incentives still offer the best outcomes.

 

[sf5211]

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.

I hear you Andy, I guess I never thought of the pollution aspect. Thanks for the heads up buddy.

 

[jeepoch]

I just want you to know that averagely this statement "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" is straight up wrong.

I will let Jason explain it: Youtube

(Please watch the entire video and possibly some of his others on the topic. You can go to the alternative fuels data center website and even change which state you are charging your EV in and you will see some states it is pretty bad, but averagely it isn't)

He has many videos on this topic and you will see time and time again that EVs are still less polluting than ICE vehicles.

Jakob,

I concur with your point. Obviously any battery powered vehicle will over time be less polluting taking both production and battery manufacture into account. Once manufactured, clearly the only pollution source for the electric vehicle is the source of the energy used to charge it's battery.

Also, I will concede that the overall power grid per kilowatt hour produced will be more efficient than any vehicle sized ICE powerplant producing the same output (normalized to the same arbitrarily small unit of measured power). In other words, stacking all the necessary vehicles together (in some hypothetical way in order to produce the same output of the coal-fired powerplant) will clearly never be as efficient. So there is certainly an efficiency due the economy of scale for the grid connected powerplant that the electrical vehicle's charging input power is benefiting from.

My point however was not in any comparison between which is better (obviously electric on so many different levels), but rather the lemmings of the world who could not even fathom how their car works in the first place. Just the simple belief that they are blissfully unaware of all the underlying physics involved and just believing that they are emitting zero emissions because that's the badge (or sticker) that the vehicle manufacturer put on the trunk lid. Zero emission vehicle branding is (in my opinion) very false advertizing.

How many people do you suppose now believe that their individual electrical vehicle's emission footprint is identically (or almost) zero?

Regardless, they are indeed helping the planet overall by not driving an ICE vehicle. No debate.

Kudos to the manufacturers for producing vehicles such that no one really has to think about the squirrels under the hood. But we shouldn't be expecting people to blindly make personal transportation choices based on false and misleading information either.

The, momentum of replacing all ICE vehicles with electric ones won't happen (without resistence) until people can just get in their car and be able to drive coast-to-coast without any concern of being stranded. Electric cars woefully lack the range to drive anywhere close to that of a current tank of gas. Furthermore, if we had charging stations as prolific as gas stations, how many will simply happily wait with a smile on their face waiting several hours to drive another couple hundred miles (and wait to recharge yet again). Calculate the travel time for that trip. Guarantee you'll certainly favor airfare, train tickets or even a greyhound bus.

Clearly electric cars (as of right this instant) are not worthy of anything more than simple short-haul commute capabilities. I (for one) still deem this to be most unacceptable.

Overcome these hurdles and I (along with probably everyone else) will likekly (and gladly) make the switch. But do NOT punish us all by over-taxing the snot out of gasoline and ICE vehicles in order to subsidize electrical use before they're even remotely capable of competing across-the-board with the capabilities of any ICE vehicle today. Especially my Jeep.

One last point that most people don't consider is that damaged batteries in collisions yield another whole layer of issues... Manufacturers must be doing a pretty bang-up job (pun intended) in mitigating that particular risk. The power density in current batteries (even with all their limitations) is still quite an impressive bomb. One can argue so is a gas tank. Either way pick your poison. Even yet more dimensions to consider.

I'll happily stick with ESS for the foreseeable future (thank you very much).

Jay

 

[Gee-pah]

Jay, your write extremely well and make solid points.

I'd be lying to say this isn't true. There is though one paragraph of yours I'd like to discuss:

Jakob,

Overcome these hurdles

..and everyone you mention Jay is spot on...

and I (along with probably everyone else) will likekly (and gladly) make the switch. But do NOT punish us all by over-taxing the snot out of gasoline and ICE vehicles in order to subsidize electrical use before they're even remotely capable of competing across-the-board with the capabilities of any ICE vehicle today. Especially my Jeep.

Don't we need to incentivize people though to make the switch to electric, such that more production and economies of scale lower prices and up capabilities?

I agree, it would be nice if the market could do so on its own for us to then make the switch out of consumer choice as you describe, but sometimes we need to kick start something (and sometimes that kick hurts) first, at higher costs, to reach competitive value.

Second, are we really being "punished" for ICE transportation, or have we previously gotten away with artificially low prices for gasoline that didn't factor in the environmental costs?

Sure, you could fit into a phone booth (remember those?) the number of people who complain that gasoline is too cheap (even in our COVID-19 lockdown environment), me included, but if government is charged with cleaning up the mess ICE brings, for all of government's screwups and ineffciencies, don't they have to collect to funds to do so from us perpetrators of acts that add to the pollution?

Sponsored