Fair.ESS is on most new vehicles. Its not just Jeep.
Also fair. After all, it's not as if ESS is some selling point that causes people to flock to vehicles that have it. It has to do with citizens of planet earth, some of which are drivers of vehicles with ESS in them.The whole idea of the ESS has nothing to do with the driver.
But the fact is that reliable studies have shown that the system does save gasoline; ok not tons of it for the individual driver, especially in highway driving, but some, and demonstrates more pronounced savings when spread across an entire make and model of vehicle.
IMHO the above needs a bit of tweaking. IMHO, let's say that the "motivation" rather than "purpose" for manufacturers to include it is to enjoy higher MPG ratings as the EPA will consider the MPGs the vehicle gets with ESS engaged if the button is non-latching (reverts back to ESS being engaged with each cold crank) or the average MPG (I am told) between ESS being engaged and not if the ESS button is latching.The purpose is to save a little bit of fuel when the vehicle is tested for emissions. That is it. Full stop.
Additionally, ESS helps vehicle makers achieve better fleet MPG averages, for which there are stiff penalties for not meeting those objectives: penalties passed in large part on to the consumer in purchase price.
The "purpose" of ESS is to save gasoline. The "purpose" of ESS is for manufacturers to not have to raise prices owner's pay for vehicles and to start positioning/incentivizing manufacturers away from ICE.
This said, I'm no great fan of some aspects of ESS standards. Take for example the vehicle's engine getting cranked when placed into park during an ESS event--an issue for the OP. That crank seems silly. It seems to make more sense to crank the engine if the vehicle is taken out of park, not into it. And yet someone on the forum--on think on this thread, pointed out that the system is designed this way to allow EPA testers to run/test the A/C with the vehicle in park with no changes to the engine state during the time the vehicle is in park, as per EPA rules.
It's ironic to me, although I don't know the entirety of the rationale behind the testing standard, that this EPA testing standard may result in the wasting of fuel.
Well, out of warranty, you're right--and certainly the more a starter (and other components in the engine start process) is engaged the more wear and tear it experiences. The thing of it is though that many manufacturers have compensated for this with heavier duty starters, etc. Sure, that costs more and that cost is past on to the owner.The components used in the start up procedure wear out faster. The user pays for repairs.
Bottom line: and I don't know the answer to this question in part because the tech in the States is relatively new: are we seeing faster MTBF's (mean time between failure: how long it takes a component to fail) on the components that experience wear when the engine is cranked?
Well, I suppose their is a marginal increase in carbon footprint in outfitting a vehicle with more robust components like starters, and the computer tech to control the operation, etc. (e.g. the 2nd battery in the 3.6L ) but here's the big picture:Manufacturing the items produces emissions.
ESS will have a historic shelf life of the 1970's pet rock. It is a temporary measure to incentivize automobile manufacturers to retool towards electric vehicles. And sure, those electric vehicles emit plenty of CO2 in their production with ICE based tech. But as the price of electric vehicles goes down with more produced and innovation, the machinery to make them will also move away from ICE towards electric, given natural market forces.
There's some truth in that but important points are missing. ESS does save gas for the owner; again, not a lot, especially in highway driving.ESS does nothing for the owner. it does everything for the manufacturer.
But as mentioned prior, owners are also, well, citizens of this planet which is being affected, at least I believe and many others agree, by global warming. ESS is the beginning of government imposed and increasing reductions in freedom that will get more stringent: no doubt. But their intent, and I believe also their ultimate outcome, is preservation of the ultimate higher freedom: the right for our species to continue in a habitable planet.
As far as ESS doing everything for the manufacturer---I don't agree. Manufacturers use ESS as the least expensive way right now to address EPA CAFE standards. By no means do they like them. These restrictions raise the cost of making vehicles: costs that cause higher vehicle prices and possibly less people buying them. At least in the case of the Wrangler, FCA has had to service under warranty many JLs with ESS based problems, which causes bad blood with owners, even though the service is free, in the time and inconvenience of getting the vehicle to a dealer and being without it for a while, and reduced consumer confidence in the brand.
My start up procedure is: Push button start - push button radio - push button ESS. I always feel that I am starting up a rocket ship in a 1950's movie!