Auto start/stop rant

[Gee-pah]

ESS is on most new vehicles. Its not just Jeep.

Fair.

The whole idea of the ESS has nothing to do with the driver.

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.

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.

The purpose is to save a little bit of fuel when the vehicle is tested for emissions. That is it. Full stop.

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.

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.

The components used in the start up procedure wear out faster. The user pays for repairs.

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.

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?

Manufacturing the items produces emissions.

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:

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.

ESS does nothing for the owner. it does everything for the manufacturer.

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.

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!

Sponsored

 

[Gee-pah]

New approach. Make sure not to answer this because there is no good answer.

Scenario: a State enacts helmet laws for motorcyclists operating on public roads. Like all laws it limits freedom. Like all good laws it's benefits are seen as greater than the restrictions it imposes; dare I say it's even fair by most, albeit, subjective standards.

After all, if you're going to increase the chances of hurting yourself, permanently, (lying, say, in a vegetative state at the expense of the State) or kill yourself by not wearing a helmet, and leave your dependents in need of State funds to sustain themselves, that State has a fair vested interest in reducing the chances that you do that.

And sure, some accidents: your dead helmet or not. But some you aren't.

And that "State" is the taxes we all pay, which reduces our freedom to spend the money elsewhere, on things we want and need.

An imposition to motorcycle riders: yes. But is the State telling you that you can't eat burgers because everyone's medical insurance rates go up: no.

The State, run by the people, has limitations on what they ask, and many of us see the process of paying for and putting on a helmet as an acceptable restriction on freedom that many riders would do even if no laws requiring them to do so existed. Safety belts too. Does the State sometimes overreach: sure, but not here.

And then you step in with your insane posts. Commenting how the next thing you know, we will require the microorganisms affixed to our clothing to don similar protective gear, along with the whales and suburban mothers taking their kids to school.

No we won't. And the ridiculousness of your thoughts here at best get people to laugh, mostly at you, and have their limits about 20 posts ago, failing to convince anyone that some reasonable restrictions on bad human behavior are themselves bad.

Why?

 

[jeepoch]

Wow, what a thread. I have really enjoyed reading the banter (in all ways). Whether serious, lighthearted, spirited, cynical or just outright mean, which has all started over a simple little pushbutton. --- Wow.

First off I have no dog in this fight, other than just being concerned for our ability to contribute (even in just the smallest of ways) to help make the planet a better place to live.

I know, I know, what a very stupid thing to say. Most of us (I hope) believe my above statement to be plainly obvious.

Call me Captain Obvious... Or am I?

What I've learned here is that ESS is just a very subtle conduit to a much broader perspective. One that will certainly remain unanswered much longer than any of us will be around to debate it.

I've never formally studied philosophy, my major is physics. I personally never really had an interest with philosophical thought until perhaps just now.

To me, this topic, this thread, this debate clearly shows that this silly little pushbutton activates something way more than what it technically intends. It is literally the pushbutton that pushes people's buttons!

Think about this from a different angle. Why does this do so? This pushbutton (PB) appears to enable not only a technical behavior but also an emotional response.

Why is it we let this PB torture us so much?

It must come down to how it highlights exactly how we ourselves are wired. Give me some latitude here, the name of this thread is 'rant' after all.

What makes us either like or despise this PB and it's promise to make us happy or not?

Why are some of us concerned about the long term goals it's inventor's had envisioned or why do some not give a fickle finger of fate's pitute about it at all? Again, it's how we're wired.

What makes some of us liberal or conservative? What makes some of us stupid or smart? Why do we always differ in our paths towards enlightenment?

Why does this PB (whether pushed or not), elicit such controversy?

I now claim PB is really Political Bullshit!

Climate change is just the fantasy that the Political Elite are trying to push their socio-economic agenda. Sure there's science behind it, but is it really settled? Is science ever settled? Will Einstein's postulates forever remain static? Or will we one day determine he was a little deficient and General Relativity requires adjustment?

What's the magic behind every good joke? There's always some truth behind it.

I claim climate change is real but also a joke.

Clearly (and obviously) mankind is contributing to his (and her) environment. To what degree is the point. No model or consensus will likely ever agree, let alone converge towards one. This is entirely subjective because of it's overwhelming complexity. We can no more answer the climate question than answer why we're mortally here asking about it...

So do we punish a fraction of the people on this planet via political fiat over climate alarmism when the vast majority of the worlds population will continue to ignore and flaunt their intentional climate ignorance? Why is it that the world's worst polluters, even before Trump, never signed the Paris Climate Accord?

Why is it that we the American Consumer must fix all the sins of China, India and most other third world polluters? Do you believe for a minute the Communist Chinese will ever burden themselves with any type of economic hardship that this PB is now pushing on us?

This whole PB argument (in both my definitions) is just accedemic hot-air and will always be until all man-made pollution is accounted and consistently corrected for (everywhere). With all parties involved contributing to it's worldwide solution (not just us, the stupid american consumer).

Sure, you can argue that somebody must start somewhere, but at what cost? Our current approach is clearly going to try to bankrupt us all. Or at least burden us to the point of real economic hardship.

Any body care to venture a guess as to why Californians are suffering rolling blackouts? Hint, they're leading the charge to weaning themselves into non-reliable green energy. Hope those knuckleheads don't move to my state when they finally concede it's too damn painful. Or at least realize to stop voting the way that they do before moving.

Making the planet a better place to live means a lot more than just less CO2 content. It also means phycological and economic hapiness or at least the dream of the pursuit towards it.

I am completely OK with the PB (pushbutton) and what it's trying to do, but absolutely against with every fiber of my being in the PB (political bullshit) that put it there in the first place.

We have to find answers that are NOT shoved down our throats. Science is the correct approach but certainly not the currently settled 'politically-driven science' that is being forced by the heavy hand of government.

ESS is it Electronic Start Stop or Environmental Socialist Submission?

You know which way I'm wired. I'll follow the science in exactly the way it was intended. With the biggest possible picture in view. With the overall goal of a meaningful, universally accepted solution. Politics be damned.

Unfortunately this subject will remain forever outside of our control if the current political elitist class gets their way. We have to have the will to compromise our approach until better scientific solutions are found. Solutions that take economic, psychological, social (consumer desires), as well as atmospheric conditions into account.

I suppose I do have a dog in this fight but he is certainly leashed. Not much I can do except rant.

Jay

 

[Hitdog540]

I forget to disengage it...first red light reminds me. Just push the damn button and stop
bitching....geez. How many times are you hitting other buttons when you drive. ENOUGH!

 

[Gee-pah]

@jeepoch Jay, now THAT is the way to have discussion! That I don't agree with all you say--though much of it I do--is irrelevant. You're aloud to have dissenting opinions from mine, and your ideas are clearly well thought out and considered.

@TEXGOAT take notes. That's the way things best get done.

You're right that this stupid ESS button is, to paraphrase you, a metaphor to a whole range of social and personal issues much broader than merely it's presence.

Pressing the button isn't hard. If it were you'd hear people complain about the difficulties of effecting same for the comfort they get in the winter from the vehicle's heating system, having to wait until the engine is warmed up, just like for ESS, before engaging the button has purpose.

It's about being forced to do something (press a button, adopt a hack, buy tech) to alleviate a condition (ESS engaging) many people don't want. It's about the problems with how ESS works, particularly in the 3.6L JL and the fear of wear and tear it will cause. It's about resistance to change as we move off an ICE standard. It's about what people see as an overbearing government hell bent on dealing with a crisis that some see as fictional, or not man made, or not man resolved. It's about, "why pick on me, go talk to all these developing countries spewing CO2 into the atmosphere!" It's about, "do you really think that this stinking ESS button is going to make a difference," and much more.

And you're right that we have to find answers that are NOT shoved down our throats. But that takes time; time many think we don't have, when our response to this problem (by no means, as you point out, the only one, that itself comes with need to balance other priorities not the least of which being CO2 creation in the production of new tech vehicles) many believe we should have been more stringent about, let alone years ago.

And until that time, ESS is the first step. ESS haters will long for the days when it was only a button push to defeat it. It's more than the gas it saves. It's the first in many ever increasingly stringent steps that the EPA will force on citizenry via manufacturers, not to mention things outside the auto industry.

And like democracy, to almost quote Churchill, "it sucks," but for the other forms of (government) risks we may face if we do nothing about the CO2 in the air.

 

[mismith]

I’m not too worried about the idiotic ESS. The very first thing I will do to my new JL is purchase a device to permanently disable it. I won’t be annoyed with pushing a button. Maybe I’ll also find a replacement for the button on the dash? I don’t even want a nauseating reminder of the lunacy of the environmental nazi’s influence.

Man I love a good ol’ ICE and love the smell of raw diesel from my old 7.3L Powerstroke with NO CAT!!

 

[OminousSkitter]

If anyone got a Jeep Wrangler to save the planet, well....

What are you implying? I got a Jeep to carry sensitive equipment to remote areas to study sea level rise, waves, and coastal erosion. My Jeep is certainly doing its part to save the planet.

 

[Gee-pah]

You could have one too, which by the way has nothing to do with me.

You've had this right all along, just like all of us. I've suggested you exercise it. Instead, you've voluntarily chosen not to take it, instead writing stuff like this, which it is not an opinion:

"Scotty! The damned ESS is down again and Klingon boarders are putting TP rolls down the toilets, Kirkout!!!!!"

This, and stuff like it, is at best some metaphor that people are suppose to decipher so as to understand your intent. At worsed it's the rants of someone insane or trying to act that way that nobody should bother with.

You could make yourself clear (I think/hope) and yet you choose not to. At best people could conclude that you think aspects of some points made on this thread ludicrous and seek to act in kind; which got old 20 posts ago, if it even had some slight satirical value initially.

But hay, coming to the subject matter with dialogue, facts, and ideas sourced from multiple reliable sources...respecting other people's opinion even if you don't agree with it, this is the kind of stuff that could risk you getting shot down, held responsible for taking a position on and acting under the general idea of being an adult.

And who wants that?

 

[Gee-pah]

Every time I make a liberal upset, it reminds me that I’m still on the right side of history.

The Wicked hypocritical world powers that conceived “Global Warming” (and all that falls under that umbrella) don’t give a rip about your children or the planet! Ah, use the children to sell the great lie! They don’t call them “Bleeding Heart” liberals for nothing. It’s all about money and power!

If all the predictions about climate change and so forth I’ve heard since I was in grade school had come true, we wouldn’t be here now. The next ice age, ozone hole, and on and on.

The earth is cyclical, climate change will continue, its not man made. Man won’t destroy this earth....

Let's break this down. The world powers didn't conceive of "Global Warming." It arose out of irrefutable proof that things around us have changed for the worse with more urgency in the last 50 years than who knows who many years before it, by scientists in a system that, yes, has some bias, but is more objective than not, and a lot more objective than most other areas of interest in the matter.

I'm not sure, even if invented by the powers that be, exactly what you think they have to gain by it personally in terms of money and power. Getting people to change is a hard pill to swallow that much of the electorate does not take well to; even those believing change is necessary. It's not as if these powers that be will much earn the support of many very, very powerful lobbying groups who do have much to financially gain by preserving the status quo.

I concede that aspects of global warming theory may be wrong. And yet people like me are willing to make sacrifice precisely because we feel that not only is the evidence irrefutable, but being stewards of the planet and generations to follow were things that those who came came before us made great sacrifices to create and preserve, and that there's chance that our actions today can indeed effect our world's destiny. I don't think accepting such change will make me richer or more powerful--the opposite I'd guess.

Could we be idealistic and wrong: sure, but much less likely so than those who think that evidence of the lack of man's contribution to the problem is evidenced by the mere failure of the world to collapse in your lifetime Michael. The changes we speak of take much much longer to occur. And taken in its extreme form, I've heard people debunk global warming because they had a cold winter. It just doesn't work that way.

Could we also be experiencing climate change from natural forces: sure. Is it possible, even if man made that we as a race are just too dang selfish to do enough about the problem earlier enough to stop or remedy it, but could if we focused: sure.

Is it possible that you might be wrong, and we ought to at least take steps to work as if Global Warming is (in fair to large part) man made and man addressable: you bet.

You got to love the naysayers who say the predictions lack the credible evidence to support their conclusions, while this same opposition offers next to nothing concrete to refute it.

Have you ever considered that you might have bias, wishing (just like I could) that preserving the ICE way of things you're use to and comfortable with could continue, and that you fashion your narrative more in wishful thinking than science.

....it hasn't happened in your lifetime....i have to laugh as that being the rationale....hold your calls everyone we have a winner.....Michael has proven global warming a hoax because we're not killed off as a race yet.

 

[sleeper_s]

I use to hate it when I first got my Jeep but I've grown use to it and don't mind it now. Sometimes if it's too hot (Want to keep the AC Cold) I just lift off the brake for a split second and reapply it's pretty easy to do.

Sponsored