ESS: The Heart of the Matter

[RussJeep1]

Your missing the point and holding a distinction. ESS is because of fuel stds which are because of regulation. As you said implementation is however the manufacturer decides, none the less, right now to meet the .gov std ess is required until better technologies come about. Therefore Ess is essentially mandatory

I'd buy this point @Badweissenbier if other means of gas savings failed to (practically exist.)

In fairness to your thoughts, sure, practically speaking it's probably much easier and cheaper for a manufacturer to develop an ESS system than take its rig hybrid. But these same standards have motivated other manufacturers in the direction of non-ESS gas savings systems, as it will FCA, on the JL, with both regenerative braking (i.e. their promised mild hybrid system) and truly hybrid Wranglers.

I will concede that government fuel standards and ESS are by no means independent events. But government isn't, nor should be in the business of telling a business what propriety systems to develop to achieve a legally mandated mpg objective, only to be clear what that standard is, how it will be determined, and enforce it honestly and uniformly.

FCA had 10 years to develop the Wrangler JL while other manufacturers released hybrids. I'm not by any means faulting FCA for their decision to not take the 2018 JL hybrid or 100% electric--a vehicle I love--just holding them accountable for the decisions they make.

Sponsored

 

[RussJeep1]

Oh I do "get" and "appreciate" the reasoning behind gas conservation and I applaud all efforts to save our planet. If there was a better way to do so in my jeep, rather than the constant on and off again every few minutes, I would be happy... but the current answer doesnt work for me, and I only speak for myself. No hard feelings and I certainly am not looking to change anyone opinions or get in a debate over opinions. Getting stuck behind a black cloud of exhaust is a pet peeve of mine and surely that isnt helping the planet or my lungs either!

Brains, beauty, and sensitivity to the world around her: the trifecta. Thanks for your thoughts Jenne.

 

[Badweissenbier]

One other point- I never said I disagreed with it. I just pointed out that ess is pretty much regulated in by our govs requirements and to say otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
Regulation drives more changes(emissions and mpg) than would probably come about naturally in the same time frame. My complaint is the cost it imposes upon us the buyer and being forced into sub par fixes to meet a requirement that is beyond manufacturing capabilities at the time of implementation.

 

[RussJeep1]

Here's something I think we can all agree on.

ESS can be a sensitive subject. And why: the implications of its implementation touch upon so many aspects of daily existence from

* how government should make policy,
* the rights of people to not be told to save gas if they're will to pay all the costs associated with using it,
* the rights of a fair number of people, albeit a minority that find it doesn't save them gas, or certainly not to the degree that the wear and tear the system costs on moving parts, and its costs to maintain and purchase, even when not wanted.
* the rights of society to mandate that individuals do their part to lower the tax burden we all pay for, for things like pollution remediation
* the degree to which people can tolerate imposition, be it pushing the button each time they start their rigs, to spending money on technology to defeat it (CANBUS solutions, e.g. Tazer JL) to dealing with meaningless warning lights associate with defeating the technology through hacks (e.g. hood ajar switches)
* the degree to which they had to pay for technology they feel will ultimately fail them as engines needing tuneups my not start as fast, starters wear out, or ESS batteries (IMHO the JLs "Achilles Heel") wear out or become deenergized.
* the degree to which FCA might have done a better job implementing this system. For starters (pun intended) not designing the system such that making the rig's startup conditional on the ESS battery having juice.

I'm glad, if it must be implemented, that it does have an off button, even if its setting couldn't be the default if FCA was to claim it as an mpg savings device to Uncle Sam.

 

[RussJeep1]

One other point- I never said I disagreed with it. I just pointed out that ess is pretty much regulated in by our govs requirements and to say otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
Regulation drives more changes(emissions and mpg) than would probably come about naturally in the same time frame. My complaint is the cost it imposes upon us the buyer and being forced into sub par fixes to meet a requirement that is beyond manufacturing capabilities at the time of implementation.

And it's a fair point at that. Failing to recognize link between mpg regulation and ESS, if not perfect correlation (as there are other fuel savings options) would, as you say, be dishonest.

One stipulation. Regulation drives change faster than the market adapts it on its own in situations where the market is not paying the true costs of a transaction. Economists call this negative externalities.

Say we paid $7.50 for a gallon of fuel, (mind you I don't wish it) where most of this cost wetn not to the energy, but the negative side effects of the pollution it causes and its remediation.

In that case the market would react no slower than policy..

And since I feel that FCA could have done a better job on the ESS system, I'm not sure I feel as strongly as you that the technology being forced down manufacturer's throats is one that they can't handle.

But thank you for making solid points, really. It's so refreshing over wrong eugenic ideas by others to have drunk driving clean the gene pool.

 

[Badweissenbier]

I have and am living through the goat roping called tier 4(diesel). Everyone thinks ess is bad should try regeneration , dpf ,scr ,def and all the crap in that system. The emissions package is the same size as the engine. Another .gov mandate that cost a fortune and leaves so much to be desired.

 

[TxJeeper]

Im in Austin...hot here too. I plan on negating the situation with a Tazer JL soon. Getting used to hitting the button after the first stop but it is one of the perks of The Tazer

 

[Martindfletcher]

So ESS is an effective way to increase fuel efficiency? So effective in fact, that you’re arguing that without it, current standards could not be met? Fascinating.

The ess helps to pass the fuel usage standard testing more than it helps in the real world.

 

[RussJeep1]

The ess helps to pass the fuel usage standard testing more than it helps in the real world.

This may be a fair statement Martin. @Martindfletcher . I hope you'll concede that ESS systems have though been shown to reduce fuel consumption, which is a good thing for many reasons. I've taken the liberty of underlining one of your words.

Another benefit they have, although this is the painful one that only economists talk of, is that some of the cost of the ESS system, and I'm talking about at purchase--forget maintenance--is passed on to the consumer.

Sure, nobody likes to pay more, but the economists cite this as a good thing because it reduces the relative price of alternative less polluting propulsion systems and incentivizes the market towards them. And these alternative systems are more capable than ESS at reducing the negative outcomes of combusting hydrocarbons.

I hear the battery dislikers talk of their disposal and pollution--a fair point. To it I reply that the powers that be seem to think pollution buried in the ground may be the lessor of two evils than pollution sent to the skies.

Are they right? Beats me!

 

[Jebiruph]

Does anyone else see the similarities between the implementation of ESS to comply with current government regulations and the smog/air pumps added to cars of the mid seventies to meet the government regulations back then? Those of us old enough to remember know how well that worked out. This seems to be a theoretical discussion regarding the concept of ESS with not much mention of the poor implementation of the current system. As is, there is an over dependence on the frail Aux battery. It seems when it fails, your electronics flake out and you need to get towed to the dealer for a replacement. And not using ESS doesn't save the battery, it participates in the normal operation also. What is the environmental impact of stalling at an intersection and blocking traffic while you wait to be towed by an un-environmentally friendly tow truck.

 

[RussJeep1]

Does anyone else see the similarities between the implementation of ESS to comply with current government regulations and the smog/air pumps added to cars of the mid seventies to meet the government regulations back then?

Both added cost, one was before unleaded fuels or ethanol blends correct, FWIW, if anything?

ESS saves gas on the whole, which reduces pollution. Did the features you describe of the 70's do anything positive? What phased them out? The fuel shortage that wasn't? The lack of greenhouse gas advocates at the tiem, unleaded gas? The emergence of the Asian market of vehicles?

This seems to be a theoretical discussion regarding the concept of ESS with not much mention of the poor implementation of the current system.

I agree on both counts Jerry. There are other excellent threads here that discuss the ESS system's engineering, which I'd like to point out that it seems even the best on the forum (I'm certainly not one of them) admit to not completely understanding yet, I agree that FCA could have done better in its design--not the least of whose flaws are its "Achilles Heel" of a UPS (uninterruptible power supply) type/size battery whose energization holds the rig's ability to crank hostage--not to even mention what a pain in the arse it is to get to and service/swap out.

"A thread goes where a thread goes." Let's talk for a while on its engineering if you or others wish. It could not only help to make us better understand the system, but how to circumvent it if the ESS battery's lack of charge keeps us from starting our rigs.

As is, there is an over dependence on the frail Aux battery.

I concur. While I admit ignorance here, how hard might it have been to hook up the two batteries in parallel to effect a crank and run the rig (not engaging ESS thereafter and engaging warning lights) if, and only upon the condition that the ESS battery was dead (I ask in frustration)? Doesn't this connect of the two batteries for the purposes of charging happen after successful crank anyway?

It seems when it fails, your electronics flake out and you need to get towed to the dealer for a replacement.

There appear times that when its dead, but capable of holding charge that trickle charging the rig from the conventional battery's terminals will work, but to your point Jerry, all were talking about is relative degrees of inconvenience. From bad to worse we have: a) trickle charge at home and maybe wait, b) call a tow truck for a charge either at home or on the road, and c) have that tow truck take you to the dealer if the prior steps proves non-helpful.

I admit to not having near the grasp on other rig's ESS systems as I do on the JLs, for which I'd like to point out again the same or greater knowledge gaps on its intricacies that even the best of us here on the forum seem to have. I'm all ears if you can speak to the relative pros and cons in FCAs JL implementation of this system, or in the way other manufacturers have implemented this system.

(Can you imagine with such knowledge what the aftermarket could produce to improve FCA's implementation that people would buy and gravitate to like "flies to poop?!" Imagine taking the JK's aftermarket dual battery mods and allowing either or both, or alternating these two full size batteries to not only do the ESS job, but power electric demanding mods as was its sole purpose under the JK.)

And not using ESS doesn't save the battery, it participates in the normal operation also. What is the environmental impact of stalling at an intersection and blocking traffic while you wait to be towed by an un-environmentally friendly tow truck.

None, as much as we'd hope and likely see this more the exception than the rule: although time will tell as it, and cold weather, take its toll on ESS batteries in what still is a very relatively new model vehicle.

Biases: I like the ideas and motivations which inspired ESS systems came to be: saving gas. I am no fan of FCA's implementation of it on the JL.

 

[Jebiruph]

The smog/air pumps were required to meet emission regulations. They pumped air into the exhaust which cut down on emissions as well as horse power and mpg. Eventually improved design eliminated the need for them.

There are technical discussions in the technical section under 3.6L 6-Cylinder Pentastar Engine & Exhaust for those interested. And Genesis Offroad is coming out with the dual full size battery system you described.

ESS has been available Cherokees, Pacifics, Grand Cherokees and others for longer than the JL , check out some of those forums to see how it's doing for them.

And if my Aux battery dies at an intersection, which happens when it can't start from an auto stop, there is the potential for a traffic jam with much negative environmental impact.

 

[RussJeep1]

The smog/air pumps were required to meet emission regulations. They pumped air into the exhaust which cut down on emissions as well as horse power and mpg. Eventually improved design eliminated the need for them.

There are technical discussions in the technical section under 3.6L 6-Cylinder Pentastar Engine & Exhaust for those interested. And Genesis Offroad is coming out with the dual full size battery system you described.

ESS has been available Cherokees, Pacifics, Grand Cherokees and others for longer than the JL , check out some of those forums to see how it's doing for them.

And if my Aux battery dies at an intersection, which happens when it can't start from an auto stop, there is the potential for a traffic jam with much negative environmental impact.

Never to be the kind of owner to buy such a device to run gear say while camping (my girls: as if!) I'll be one of the first to at least consider acquiring it if, as I've read thanks to your heads up, it (and simply because it) replaces the ESS battery.

Thanks.

 

[SilverSahara]

But it’s not. The government set fuel
efficiency goals. Car companies are working to meet those goals. ESS is one such means to that end. This has nothing to do with eco-warriors or Al Gore. Jesus. An alternative would be to stop producing the less fuel efficient vehicles entirely, or to roll back fuel efficiency goals...which has already started.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/en...s-us-vows-to-ditch-car-fuel-efficiency-rules/
Problem with that option is that other nations (you know, where people also buy fords and chevys and Chryslers) they’re not so keen on rolling their goals back. The net effect is less American cars meeting regulatory requirements in foreign markets while foreign cars continuing to sell here without such constraints. It’s not a sustainable business model.

F foreign markets. American Jeep owners shouldn’t have to have this climate nut job crap forced into American rigs.

 

[Biscuit]

Amazed at all the pissing and moaning over technology that's 35 years old.

Sponsored