Any engine with ESS

[huberro2]

Thanks !! Seems like what I'm looking for. Does not tie up the computer port for a SuperChips TrailDash2. I read the installation guide. Easy. No tearing apart the dash. Plug and Play. Discounted $20 off right now (regular price is $150). Purchased today, with PayPal. Will let everyone know how it goes, when it arrives in the mail.

Sponsored

 

[LawrenceR]

.... agreeing with some of you and also not agreeing...

Every time the starter motor needs to engage, every time the key is turned, every time the battery(s) system(s) is demanded to produce the extra charge - discharge to start a vehicle - you get my point, is one less time it can be used.

How much fuel does one actually save with the ESS system - who knows ??

If one compares the savings in fuel versus the cost of replacing a starter or battery, I believe one would find they are spending more on parts than what they are getting in fuel savings.

I don't really care that maybe the starter motor has been improve for the extra starts, I don't really care about the double battery system. The point again is, each time a system is used, it is one less time it can be used.

We have all seen over the years, batteries are build (in my opinion) with less quality parts and don't last as long. I feel the same towards starter motors, pistons, rings, seals, oil pumps, etc...

 

[BCalvin]

I used to build high performance engines in a race shop. All of your concerns are legitimate in my opinion and I plan to permanently disable ESS on my Jeep with a Tazar. Until then I try to remember to disable it at first start up.

 

[jeepoch]

.... agreeing with some of you and also not agreeing...

Every time the starter motor needs to engage, every time the key is turned, every time the battery(s) system(s) is demanded to produce the extra charge - discharge to start a vehicle - you get my point, is one less time it can be used.

How much fuel does one actually save with the ESS system - who knows ??

If one compares the savings in fuel versus the cost of replacing a starter or battery, I believe one would find they are spending more on parts than what they are getting in fuel savings.

I don't really care that maybe the starter motor has been improve for the extra starts, I don't really care about the double battery system. The point again is, each time a system is used, it is one less time it can be used.

We have all seen over the years, batteries are build (in my opinion) with less quality parts and don't last as long. I feel the same towards starter motors, pistons, rings, seals, oil pumps, etc...

Lawrence, et., al.,

I've posted before in this thread and while I don't disagree with your points, I'd like you to consider another angle. What do you value more, a starter motor or your engine?

Have you considered the extra life of the rings and pistons by a lower duty cycle due to the ICE powerplant is not spinning (at all) whenever the ESS is engaged?

Remember oil is viscous and will still lubricate at warm engine temps. It's the cold cranking that is detrimental due to higher friction from the lack of adequate oil on the cylinder walls (its all in the pan). A warm engine will still have oil in all the critical places. So a warm crank, especially with the crankshaft pre-positioned for a very quick startup, (typically within a single revolution) is very efficient. Thus helping to bring the oil pressure up rapidly with no real detrimental wear.

So I will GLADLY replace a starter or an AUX battery knowing full well my engine life is all that much longer because of their contribution.

In my very modest and humble opinion, ESS (while aggravating as hell especially to individuals that resist any kind of change) is indeed a necessary evil. If you don't want ESS period, then never vote for a leftist tree hugging, climate hysterical, environmentalist politician again.

It was indeed the previous administration's very progressive EPA mandates and carbon tax initiatives that forced higher Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Thus forcing all ICE vehicle manufacturers to come up with radical new ways to meet these heavy-handed bureaucratic mandates OR face severe penalties. I.E. purchase carbon tax credits from Elon Musk (thus subsidizing Teslas and Leafs) or pay huge carbon taxes (fines) which would simply be passed down to us poor consumers (like all corporate taxes are). Your Jeep may soon be $70K just for the Sport.

So if you really want to blame anyone, blame the people who vote for those who push these zero carbon policies (no matter how much pain is inflicted upon the poor individual consumer). After all, it is indeed truly for the greater good of the collective. To these over-the-top progressives, resistance is not only futile it is irrelevant.

Kind sir, you and I are simply being assimilated. I say thank God that there are brilliant engineers who are trying their very best at working at delaying the inevitable. The death of the internal combustion engine and all petroleum based energy sources is their overall goal. To the environmentalist (Borg), that outcome can't come soon enough.

So please enjoy your ability to disable ESS while you still can. If we don't change our political nosedive and honor your free market demand to rip ESS the hell out of your rig entirely, your wish will certainly come true. Jeep may soon be government mandated to only be manufactured by Tesla.

Sorry but I can be at times very brutally honest. And anyone who votes for big government, anti-free market, carbon-tax policies and has the audacity to bitch about ESS, can't then complain about kissing even this tiny little freedom goodbye.

Hopefully, the writing is not on the wall...

I'm not implying anything about your specific political bent, I really, truly don't care. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I will always champion your ability to say so. Always. Being a U.S. Marine veteran you can always count on that. Unfortunately, the current insane cancel culture lemmings (thugs) will do everything in their power to stifle and hush any opposing viewpoints.

Will ESS become one of these too sensitive to discuss snowflake triggering topics? Please consider all of this next time you hit that little disable switch. I hope that we as a common-sense society can keep it within your ability and right to do so.

So I love the genius of ESS even though I despise how it came about. Does that make me a conservative Jeepin tree-hugger? I suppose it does.

I'll wear that badge with honor.
Jay

 

[BCalvin]

My concern beyond just lubrication is valve/guide/head temperature fluctuations and stagnant oil coking on the valves and guides.

Jeep engineers know better than me, but i'm disabling it.

 

[SwissSteph]

I'm wondering a question. So an engine with a turbo has a turbine that rotates very fast for the turbo, how does it work when the engine is shut off (ESS), and logically also the oil pump should also be shut off, just to continue to lubricate the turbo bearing shaft (knowing that it's the engine oil that is used to lubricate this shaft).

It's a real question I'm asking myself and not at all to make a controversy.

If anyone has an idea !?

 

[zxd9]

Here's a good video on ESS and fuel savings.

 

[emptyminded42]

I'm wondering a question. So an engine with a turbo has a turbine that rotates very fast for the turbo, how does it work when the engine is shut off (ESS), and logically also the oil pump should also be shut off, just to continue to lubricate the turbo bearing shaft (knowing that it's the engine oil that is used to lubricate this shaft).

It's a real question I'm asking myself and not at all to make a controversy.

If anyone has an idea !?

The turbo doesn't spin when the engine is off. It runs off exhaust gases, so if there's no engine running, the turbo isn't spinning. There's enough oil in the system to lubricate the bearing in the meantime. And it's not off long enough to worry about coking the oil - same with the top end.

I really don't understand the paranoia around the ESS system. If it really were that bad for engines, it wouldn't be a widespread solution to improving fuel economy numbers. Disable if you dislike its effects on NVH and driveability, don't disable it if your only worry is your engine.

 

[DanFelix]

at first i wasnt crazy on the idea on the ess and when i test drove one for the first time, i was like ok still wasnt gamed on the feature. it didnt take long after getting the jl, i've became acustom to the ess and use it all the time. i did a fuel / mpg test with and without ess each with a full tank of gas ran the same amount of mileage and condition. the ess does have the advantage in saving gas and increasing the mpg. so i think its a good feature.

ESS does not improve miles per gallon. It improves gallons per hour, which is to say, emissions per hour. ESS has no influence on fuel mixture ratios.

 

[emptyminded42]

ESS does not improve miles per gallon. It improves gallons per hour, which is to say, emissions per hour. ESS has no influence on fuel mixture ratios.

Sure it does. When you're stopped with the engine running, you're effectively getting 0 mpg which pulls your average down pretty quickly.

 

[Will_Jeep]

I first came across ESS, many years ago, so I thought that I would do a quick google on ESS, and found this wiki page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Start-stop_system

Just a quick extract:

History
Carbon monoxide emissions and the fuel shortage/oil crisis of the 1970s pushed car manufacturers to find solutions to reduce gas consumption. The first vehicle to use the automatic on/off switch was the six-cylinder Toyota Crown in 1974[7][8] and was already claiming a 10-percent gas saving in traffic. In the 1980s, the Fiat Regata "ES" with the City-matic system[9][10] and Volkswagen Polo "Formel E"[citation needed] also used a similar technology. The Volkswagen Group also adopted it in the Golf Ecomatic in 1994 and in the Volkswagen Lupo "3L" and the Audi A2 "3L" in 1999. Though these early implementations were considered rather disconcerting by many drivers, and high pricing failed to yield these cars much commercial success, both the Volkswagen Lupo and the Audi A2 (in their "3 litre" leverage) were more efficient than any production car available in the US at the time of their release.[11]


Also I have seen people mentioning CAFE, (on other ESS threads) but again a quick google turns up this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_average_fuel_economy

History
Fuel economy regulations were first introduced in 1978, only for passenger vehicles. The next year, a second category was defined for light trucks. These were distinguished from heavy duty vehicles by a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 6000 pounds or less. The GVWR threshold was raised to 8500 pounds in 1980 and has remained at that level through 2010. Thus certain large trucks and SUV's were exempt, such as the Hummer and the Ford Excursion. From 1979 to 1991, separate standards were established for two-wheel drive (2WD) and four-wheel drive (4WD) light trucks, but for most of this period, car makers were allowed to choose between these separate standards or a combined standard to be applied to the entire fleet of light trucks they sold that model year. In 1980 and 1981, respectively, a manufacturer whose light truck fleet was powered exclusively by basic engines which were not also used in passenger cars could meet standards of 14 mpg and 14.5 mpg.


So it seems to me, that both ESS and CAFE have been around since the 70s, just some quick fact checking, as there is a lot of Fake News out there these days


Personally ESS doesn't bother me, I have had it on Mercedes Benz for a few years now, The Jeep implementation is pretty good IMO.

Sponsored