Automatic stop start warning light wont turn off

[Ratbert]

So they get credits for having start stop,but not required to have it.

Yep, that's pretty clear due to a handful of vehicles that don't have it, including some Wranglers.

Sponsored

 

[Ratbert]

The hybrid variant im sure will get tomatoes thrown at me but i know someone who bought one who never bothers to even use the battery because she says its a pain in the ass and too weak.

She doesn't use the battery every time she uses the extra 105 horsepower and 175 lb-ft of torque?

 

[mwilk012]

She doesn't use the battery every time she uses the extra 105 horsepower and 175 lb-ft of torque?

Too many people believe their opinions can alter reality.

 

[Brad Hearing]

She doesn't use the battery every time she uses the extra 105 horsepower and 175 lb-ft of torque?

all I know is that she said she doesnt turn on the mode that uses the battery (i dont drive hybrid i have no idea what that specifically means) and that she plans to trade it in for a 3.6

 

[Brad Hearing]

Yep, that's pretty clear due to a handful of vehicles that don't have it, including some Wranglers.

you know it just occured to me the absurdity of ESS if its not required. to wit:

"Hey guys, we need to do something that looks like were saving the environment. I know! lets put in a feature that we know right off the top is so unpopular that we have to include a button just to shut it off, and in the process create a mini industry of people selling items that disable it"

"ok but we dont actually have to do that. we have other means of...."

"Nah put in the ESS anyway"


Im actually kinda mad now. not because of this subject but because my wife keeps nagging me to mow the lawn.

 

[mwilk012]

all I know is that she said she doesnt turn on the mode that uses the battery (i dont drive hybrid i have no idea what that specifically means) and that she plans to trade it in for a 3.6

She’s 100% wrong in every way, the battery is always in use.

 

[Brad Hearing]

She’s 100% wrong in every way, the battery is always in use.

• eSave Mode:
  When you need to conserve battery power for later use, eSave Mode is the way to go. It prioritizes the gasoline engine, saving the battery charge for situations where you might need electric power, like off-roading or entering low-emission zones.

 

[Ratbert]

you know it just occured to me the absurdity of ESS if its not required. to wit:

"Hey guys, we need to do something that looks like were saving the environment. I know! lets put in a feature that we know right off the top is so unpopular that we have to include a button just to shut it off, and in the process create a mini industry of people selling items that disable it"

"ok but we dont actually have to do that. we have other means of...."

"Nah put in the ESS anyway"


Im actually kinda mad now. not because of this subject but because my wife keeps nagging me to mow the lawn.

Yet in city driving it's been proven to be effective at increasing mileage and reducing emissions. Research it if you don't believe me.

 

[Brad Hearing]

Yet in city driving it's been proven to be effective at increasing mileage and reducing emissions. Research it if you don't believe me.

well - the last thing im going to do is pick (another) fight with you, but it seems to me that:

- starting the engine needs more fuel than just running it, and doing that 40 times a day probably adds up

- starting the engine 40 times a day probably wears down parts that will need to be replaced, mitigating at least in part any money saved on gas, as well as the environmental cost of producing another part so emissions are also mitigated there

- I am not of the belief that carbon dioxide is a poison since all plants use it to exist, so emissions arguments fall flat with me

ahh sh*t were gonna fight now arent we?

 

[mwilk012]

• eSave Mode:
  When you need to conserve battery power for later use, eSave Mode is the way to go. It prioritizes the gasoline engine, saving the battery charge for situations where you might need electric power, like off-roading or entering low-emission zones.

Yes, it PRIOROTIZES engine power, maintaining the battery charge level high. It’s still used, this option does nothing for you other than waste fuel.

 

[AndySpill]

Before the current administration--I say as a matter of fact, leaving politics out, automobile manufacturers selling in the US were required by the EPA/government to achieve an ever more stringent MPG rating average over time (CAFE or corporate average fuel economy standards) on their overall fleet offering of ICE engine vehicles.

Under this policy, manufacturers of such ICE vehicles were allowed to report the improvement to MPG ratings that come from testing their vehicles with their start stop systems engaged, allowing these manufacturers to more easily meet these standards. Those that didn't were forced to buy carbon credits to offset their deficiency (often from Tesla): a deficiency often reduced by engine start stop systems, or pay enormous fines.

"Hey guys, we need to do something that looks like were saving the environment. I know! lets put in a feature that we know right off the top is so unpopular that we have to include a button just to shut it off, and in the process create a mini industry of people selling items that disable it"

"ok but we dont actually have to do that. we have other means of...."

"Nah put in the ESS anyway"

It's not purely this. While ESS systems save appreciable amounts of fuel, and CO2 and smog, you're right, they're just a drop in the bucket towards carbon neutrality or negativity. And even more to your point, it is only fair to consider the green footprint to manufacture an electric vehicles and the potential pollution their used up unrecyclable battery components create due to ground, instead of air pollution.

Rather, ESS implementation is meant to be a stop gap measure to allow automobile manufacturers to transition away from ICE power plants, as EPA belt tightening raises the cost of these vehicles in a controlled manner over time, relative to those of electric ones, which in theory, as more of those electric vehicles make their way to market, economies of scale further reduce their cost of production relative to ICE ones. And one of the EPA requirements on ESS systems is that the ESS off button be "non latching," defaulting each cold crank to allow ESS to engage.

ICE vehicle manufactures spend millions on engineering for that extra gallon of gas they can report saving on Malroney stickers. There are not great alternatives to mileage improvements that don't cost more than ESS implementations else manufacturers would use them.

Now: if you want to say that Stellantis' dual dissimilar size AGM battery implementation of same leaves much to be desired, I'll champion that. It's been said that that motorcycle Aux battery, apt to cause more trouble than its worth, was a product of quality assurance testing problems with the vehicle's entertainment system when the voltage drops of running ESS on a single battery effected its performance. It seems to me, given all the other manufacturers running ESS on one battery, that the solution here comes in Stellantis getting its stereo vendor to produce a "better mousetrap" less voltage sensitive sound system, not throw a battery at it.

Still more, if you want to argue that the EPA completely screwed up the language of this standard (much as they have to appease many competing institutions here) I'll champion that too. A fairer standard would require ESS to be able to still engage 3, 5, 7 years after ownership. Not crap out a week after you drive your JL off the lot because its Aux battery can't handle it.

But all this said, it shocks me the number of complaints, not of failing ESS batteries and the damage that causes, but the inconvenience of turning off ESS. It's a silly little button. So too buttons operate climate control or the radio, right? You can buy tech to have this ESS button pressed for you. And if you feel it too much of a burden, consider this inconvenient truth that you're not going to like:

We pay a whoppingly discounted price for gasoline. How? If we were to fairly factory in the cost of remediation of the green houses gases it produces, I imagine it would be North of $10/gallon.

That's of course if you believe in global warming and climate change. The US averaged 9 violent weather events per year from 1980 to 2024, but the annual average for the most recent 5 years is 23. Coincidence, other (what?) factors? I think not.

I don't mean to be that arm chair warrior advocating for such price increases that while I could afford, many good Americans can't, as they struggle to make ends meet earning an income that having a vehicle provides them. That's where the controlled EPA transition is suppose to ease the change, and if not make it easy, make it easier than the "ripping off the band aid approach" of implementing the mileage standards we really need to be at today, today.

All I'm saying is relatively speaking, pressing a dang button if you're so opposed to ESS isn't that hard.

 

[Brad Hearing]

Before the current administration--I say as a matter of fact, leaving politics out, automobile manufacturers selling in the US were required by the EPA/government to achieve an ever more stringent MPG rating average over time (CAFE or corporate average fuel economy standards) on their overall fleet offering of ICE engine vehicles.

Under this policy, manufacturers of such ICE vehicles were allowed to report the improvement to MPG ratings that come from testing their vehicles with their start stop systems engaged, allowing these manufacturers to more easily meet these standards. Those that didn't were forced to buy carbon credits to offset their deficiency (often from Tesla): a deficiency often reduced by engine start stop systems, or pay enormous fines.



It's not purely this. While ESS systems save appreciable amounts of fuel, and CO2 and smog, you're right, they're just a drop in the bucket towards carbon neutrality or negativity. And even more to your point, it is only fair to consider the green footprint to manufacture an electric vehicles and the potential pollution their used up unrecyclable battery components create due to ground, instead of air pollution.

Rather, ESS implementation is meant to be a stop gap measure to allow automobile manufacturers to transition away from ICE power plants, as EPA belt tightening raises the cost of these vehicles in a controlled manner over time, relative to those of electric ones, which in theory, as more of those electric vehicles make their way to market, economies of scale further reduce their cost of production relative to ICE ones. And one of the EPA requirements on ESS systems is that the ESS off button be "non latching," defaulting each cold crank to allow ESS to engage.

ICE vehicle manufactures spend millions on engineering for that extra gallon of gas they can report saving on Malroney stickers. There are not great alternatives to mileage improvements that don't cost more than ESS implementations else manufacturers would use them.

Now: if you want to say that Stellantis' dual dissimilar size AGM battery implementation of same leaves much to be desired, I'll champion that. It's been said that that motorcycle Aux battery, apt to cause more trouble than its worth, was a product of quality assurance testing problems with the vehicle's entertainment system when the voltage drops of running ESS on a single battery effected its performance. It seems to me, given all the other manufacturers running ESS on one battery, that the solution here comes in Stellantis getting its stereo vendor to produce a "better mousetrap" less voltage sensitive sound system, not throw a battery at it.

Still more, if you want to argue that the EPA completely screwed up the language of this standard (much as they have to appease many competing institutions here) I'll champion that too. A fairer standard would require ESS to be able to still engage 3, 5, 7 years after ownership. Not crap out a week after you drive your JL off the lot because its Aux battery can't handle it.

But all this said, it shocks me the number of complaints, not of failing ESS batteries and the damage that causes, but the inconvenience of turning off ESS. It's a silly little button. So too buttons operate climate control or the radio, right? You can buy tech to have this ESS button pressed for you. And if you feel it too much of a burden, consider this inconvenient truth that you're not going to like:

We pay a whoppingly discounted price for gasoline. How? If we were to fairly factory in the cost of remediation of the green houses gases it produces, I imagine it would be North of $10/gallon.

That's of course if you believe in global warming and climate change. The US averaged 9 violent weather events per year from 1980 to 2024, but the annual average for the most recent 5 years is 23. Coincidence, other (what?) factors? I think not.

I don't mean to be that arm chair warrior advocating for such price increases that while I could afford, many good Americans can't, as they struggle to make ends meet earning an income that having a vehicle provides them. That's where the controlled EPA transition is suppose to ease the change, and if not make it easy, make it easier than the "ripping off the band aid approach" of implementing the mileage standards we really need to be at today, today.

All I'm saying is relatively speaking, pressing a dang button if you're so opposed to ESS isn't that hard.

right but the fact that the button is there speaks volumes.

thanks for the comments though - I actually read it. I was struck by:

"Those that didn't were forced to buy carbon credits to offset their deficiency (often from Tesla):"

what a great way to subsidise EV's without actually doing it

 

[Brad Hearing]

Yes, it PRIOROTIZES engine power, maintaining the battery charge level high. It’s still used, this option does nothing for you other than waste fuel.

so is the battery always 100% in use like you claimed earlier or not?

because it specifically saying the battery isnt in use

 

[mwilk012]

so is the battery always 100% in use like you claimed earlier or not?

because it specifically saying the battery isnt in use

Look, I’m going to try to engage you in good faith here but my patience for a certain type of stupidity is very short.

Placing a 4xE in e-save mode will prioritize maintaining a high battery charge level, consuming fuel to run the engine at higher RPM to output a higher current from the motor generator unit. I’m assuming you’ve never driven a 4xE, or any other plug in hybrid. The battery is maintained at ~1% if never plugged in, and the selection of save simply changes that threshold from 1 to 100%. It prevents the engine from fully shutting off, but the electric motor is ALWAYS functioning.

 

[Brad Hearing]

Look, I’m going to try to engage you in good faith here but my patience for a certain type of stupidity is very short.

Placing a 4xE in e-save mode will prioritize maintaining a high battery charge level, consuming fuel to run the engine at higher RPM to output a higher current from the motor generator unit. I’m assuming you’ve never driven a 4xE, or any other plug in hybrid. The battery is maintained at ~1% if never plugged in, and the selection of save simply changes that threshold from 1 to 100%. It prevents the engine from fully shutting off, but the electric motor is ALWAYS functioning.

Thank you for your input.

Sponsored