Sponsored

ESS: The Heart of the Matter

Badweissenbier

Well-Known Member
First Name
Bad
Joined
Aug 6, 2018
Threads
7
Messages
280
Reaction score
301
Location
WV
Vehicle(s)
2018 Billet JLUR
Ah......the old government regulation, laws that aren't laws but are laws :headbang:

I will throw in my .02, Because "Jeep"

You that believe are kidding yourself, deliberately or not, or maybe just don't understand, but a starter has a lifespan, starts= wear=death at lifespan. More starts in a given timeframe = sooner death.(rolling eyes at heavy duty starter, yes they all claim that, they have to sell the system)
Time will tell if we go back to the old days of replacing starters on a regular basis

ESS does save gas- sorta, maybe, well.....
ESS does reduce emissions-sorta, maybe, well.....

Both these last two statements can be fought all over the place. But it wouldn't be on there if someone(funny how this works) didn't want it on there

Fact- Government regulation cost US(that be you n me) more money.
Fact- until the next revolution we are stuck with it, like it or not.

Fact(Ok opinion) My stick rubi does it pretty well, my company truck not so much. The truck gets it turned off
Sponsored

 

Chinarider

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2018
Threads
1
Messages
52
Reaction score
28
Location
California
Vehicle(s)
2012 JKU Sahara, 2018 JLU Rubicon,
I know I’m in the minority, but I actually like the ESS feature. Big caveat is that my JLUR is a manual, and I think having a clutch makes it both easier to control and engagement/disengagement almost unnoticeable. Curious to what degree the “like it”/“don’t like it” thoughts correlate to transmission type?

I live on the CA coast, so never have much of a need for either AC or heat, but I can understand how this would be a factor in other climates. I have my concerns about premature wear on the starter, but having had many Jeeps over the years, I now buy them all with the FCA lifetime warranty, so I know at least it’s covered.

I like the quiet & lack of engine vibration at stoplights, and I appreciate the steps towards lowered emissions & fuel savings. Small, sure, but maybe more noticeable over time. My only real complaint is that I sometimes find ESS doesn’t kick in fast enough at lights & I have my engine still idling for a while after I’ve stopped. All in all, though, yeah, I like it & can appreciate the fact that FCA added the disable button, though I haven’t used it yet.
 

SilverSahara

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 22, 2018
Threads
6
Messages
123
Reaction score
369
Location
Western Washington
Vehicle(s)
2018 JLU Sahara
ESS is government regulated BS. The additional resources that went into engineering and manufacturing the extra battery, the wiring and even the button itself will be more of a detriment to the environment than what little benefit, if any, the "turn my jeep off all the time" feature accomplishes. They want to push this Al Gore eco-warrior garbage on a vehicle then do it to a Subaru and leave my Jeep alone.
 

theplankeye

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2017
Threads
9
Messages
476
Reaction score
481
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
2018 Rubicon Unlimited
I am thankful to have the ESS button! I usually forget to push it until I stop and it turns off the motor. When I start driving again I find myself looking at all the buttons to find the the right one to turn off the ESS. What if the ESS button did not exist?
If it did not exist, I would not have bought a JLUR.

For those saying society choses to implement emissions reductions, I say not so fast. It is politicians. The majority of the voting population is not asking for this. It is the elites influencing politicians and a certain party that does this.
 

Jjirish

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jenne
Joined
Feb 9, 2018
Threads
20
Messages
1,594
Reaction score
3,534
Location
Florida
Vehicle(s)
2021 Jeep 392, 2024 Jeep 392, 2023 BMW X7C
Occupation
Lurking the forum
I respect it all. Jenne: you're not looking to conserve gas or [your] wallet. Society believes though it should...whether that's to reduce emissions, green house gases, conserve fuel--at least until alternative energy sources come along, or reduce it's expenditure on remediating the harm of auto emissions.

I'm not suggesting you don't get or appreciate that. In fact you're my standard. The feature wasn't for you, you disabled it, done.

And yet it's not that simple. True, gas savings isn't your personal goal...but paying more in taxes to help clear the pollution: nobody wants more taxes. So, in our own ways we do look to converse gas (read: reduce the pollution expense.)

Or...and this is fair, you may say, "I am willing to pay my fair share for pollution remediation in exchange for my driving choices." And that's cool too.
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!
 

Sponsored

Todkavonic

Well-Known Member
First Name
Nate
Joined
Sep 11, 2018
Threads
7
Messages
182
Reaction score
230
Location
Onalaska, WI
Vehicle(s)
Moto Guzzi, Ducati, BMW, Lincoln, Land Rover
ESS is government regulated BS. The additional resources that went into engineering and manufacturing the extra battery, the wiring and even the button itself will be more of a detriment to the environment than what little benefit, if any, the "turn my jeep off all the time" feature accomplishes. They want to push this Al Gore eco-warrior garbage on a vehicle then do it to a Subaru and leave my Jeep alone.

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.
 

twisty

Well-Known Member
First Name
bob
Joined
Jul 22, 2018
Threads
9
Messages
1,083
Reaction score
811
Location
Fountain Hills, Arizona
Vehicle(s)
2018 JL Rubicon White
Bob, I write "in large sample size testing," and you write "for me," "for someone."

Agreed: by no means does ESS save gas for everyone--just as certain as it saves gas "in large sample size testing."

ESS programs save gasoline on the whole. If your experiences and maintenance forecasts (some of which may not come to pass) were the norm, if the city driving you describe were everyone's norm, ESS programs might not save gas. The very fact that in large, ESS programs do save gas, mandates by math that you talk of relative aberrations.

I'm talking big picture: the kind of stuff policy decision are, and should be made from. No government program is one size fits all. Life, law, medicine, everything is a compromise based upon the overall good outweighing the bad.

Still more, ESS isn't a government program so much as it's a manufacturer response to government programs that mandate better gas mileage: a goal that can and should be addressed with multiple factors, ESS being one of them: as manufacturers do. From hybrid systems, to more fuel efficient engines, to mild hybrid systems whose electric generators are powered by and help vehicles brake, government here is more about what it wants vehicle manufacturers to accomplish in mpg stats, more than the means by which the do it.

Your anecdotes (which policy isn't made from nor should be) is like you arguing that appendectomies, which save so many more lives than those who perish from the risks of surgery, are bad because "1 in every 15,000" say (I made the numbers up) die from the surgery, especially when morbidity from sepsis is a probable outcome if nothing is done or just antibiotics are used--which may be insufficient or have the own bad side effects.

I respect your right to turn off ESS or not like it. So does FCA (I even respect that you don't like how FCA implemented it--I'm no fan.) It may not work for you. But appreciate that laws can't be tailored around you or I, or anyone if we're an exception, although provisions can be amended to them when it makes sense.

Another balance law faces is between simplicity and fairness. For example, with the best of intentions on addressing fairness, the IRS has complex rules that are hard to follow and enforce.

Look, I don't like all the delays at airports. I know I'm a safe and cooperative passenger. But I respect the rules and am glad for them even if they cause me personally unnecessary delays. And I do so because they serve a greater good: safety.

Don't trust government, but don't hate it either.
You're saying what everyone knows and at length. ;) Bottom line and very few words, I dont care about any of those (known) reasons, all I care about is me. It sucks and it is implemented very stupidly. Not by jeep, by the gov. Dont get cute by saying it's jeeps fault. ;)

What will happen is most who think it is stupid will just shut it off in some cheaper way (then currently) and it will stay off even when it might be nice to turn it back on when it makes more sense. So it will end up burning gas needlessly anyway. And we will STILL need to replace an ESSS battery in our future.

ESSS=government program. ;)
 

twisty

Well-Known Member
First Name
bob
Joined
Jul 22, 2018
Threads
9
Messages
1,083
Reaction score
811
Location
Fountain Hills, Arizona
Vehicle(s)
2018 JL Rubicon White
I always forgot to press the button so when I stopped off went the ac. That's what irratated me. Driving around town (even topless) I like the ac on low and having the compressor switching on and off at every stop light (which is every 2 minutes in my little town) can not be good for it. Say what you will, but you wont convince me that it's not putting strain on my ac system. So yeah, I pulled the hood sensor, my remote start still works, which I like in the "winter month mornings" which still turn to ac days in the afternoon and I blacked out the idiot light that reminds me it isnt functional. It's a jeep. I get 17mpg and I am happy with that. I'm not looking to conserve gas or my wallet bc I'm a second generation jeep girl on her 8th jeep and I love jeeps for being jeeps, just like I loved my jag & amg for luxury and speed, my mini for the go cart on steroid feel, and my guys raptor for performance. I do think the jeep should have a memory to the button and stay disengaged... that IMO was a thought that should've been followed thru on but hey, I live to tinker on things, my jeep being my fav patient, so pulling the hood sensor was just another 10 seconds of jeep quality time in the sun!!!!
Excellent post. I've said it before, anyone wringing their hands over MPG or saving the planet and buys a jeep is living is la la land or is just talking the talking and not the walk. lol
 

twisty

Well-Known Member
First Name
bob
Joined
Jul 22, 2018
Threads
9
Messages
1,083
Reaction score
811
Location
Fountain Hills, Arizona
Vehicle(s)
2018 JL Rubicon White
Poor analogy. Look up the DOT and Snell test standards. They're drop tests, not collision tests. Generally speaking, a helmet might allow you to have an open-casket funeral, and it will protect you if you fall on your head while stationary or at parking lot speed.

I'm not anti-helmet, but the benefits are often over-stated and exaggerated.
Dont know how they are tested but the protections they offer are considerably more then what your stating. As a dirt bike guy I can tell you we would all be in trouble if we didnt have them.

Thinking they should drop test ESS. ;)
 

Badweissenbier

Well-Known Member
First Name
Bad
Joined
Aug 6, 2018
Threads
7
Messages
280
Reaction score
301
Location
WV
Vehicle(s)
2018 Billet JLUR
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.
Sorry to say but Your first sentence makes his point all while you contradict yourself. Ie fuel standards are what forced this on us and they are a .gov requirement. The market dictates what’s on a car. Except what .gov dictates or mandates. People don’t care as much about fuel economy ie look at all the SUVs and trucks that only mall crawl. Regulation drives emissions and economy ......because average people won’t.
 

Sponsored

Dadawada

Well-Known Member
First Name
Barrett
Joined
Jul 10, 2018
Threads
24
Messages
175
Reaction score
100
Location
Raleigh, NC
Vehicle(s)
2018 Rubicon Unlimited, 2020 Honda Goldwing Bagger
Occupation
Network Technology Executive
Vehicle Showcase
1
I am not seeking a fight; rather understanding.

...

I would hope that vehicles that have it also have more heavy duty starters to handle the strain on moving parts associated with the additional cranking. But if not, I'd see your point there.

...

Thanks.
The problem is after the warranty, it is no longer FCA's problem...it's mine. They don't build parts to last forever. It is common sense that if you keep starting and stopping a motor there is more wear on parts. There used to be wording to that effect in Owner Manuals..."avoid driving the car for short distances".
 

Todkavonic

Well-Known Member
First Name
Nate
Joined
Sep 11, 2018
Threads
7
Messages
182
Reaction score
230
Location
Onalaska, WI
Vehicle(s)
Moto Guzzi, Ducati, BMW, Lincoln, Land Rover
Sorry to say but Your first sentence makes his point all while you contradict yourself. Ie fuel standards are what forced this on us and they are a .gov requirement. The market dictates what’s on a car. Except what .gov dictates or mandates. People don’t care as much about fuel economy ie look at all the SUVs and trucks that only mall crawl. Regulation drives emissions and economy ......because average people won’t.
Not true. Show me the law that says cars must have ESS. The fuel standards are implemented federally but how a company chooses to get there is not. It’s entirely up to FCA. They can change up motors or add hybrids or change tire types or any number of tweaks to get there.
 

Badweissenbier

Well-Known Member
First Name
Bad
Joined
Aug 6, 2018
Threads
7
Messages
280
Reaction score
301
Location
WV
Vehicle(s)
2018 Billet JLUR
Not true. Show me the law that says cars must have ESS. The fuel standards are implemented federally but how a company chooses to get there is not. It’s entirely up to FCA. They can change up motors or add hybrids or change tire types or any number of tweaks to get there.
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
 
OP
OP

RussJeep1

Banned
Banned
Banned
Joined
Oct 12, 2016
Threads
139
Messages
2,544
Reaction score
2,057
Location
Westchester, NY
Vehicle(s)
JLU Sahara
Poor analogy. Look up the DOT and Snell test standards. They're drop tests, not collision tests. Generally speaking, a helmet might allow you to have an open-casket funeral, and it will protect you if you fall on your head while stationary or at parking lot speed.

I'm not anti-helmet, but the benefits are often over-stated and exaggerated.
I think what you're saying is that collision testing is lacking, not that zero correlation necessarily exists between helmets and collision injury mitigation.

I'm with @Sean L : if it saves lives at slower speeds that's good enough for me. But I will certainly concede that at fast enough speeds it won't make a difference.

I'll even offer an example. Race car drivers can be dead from hitting an immovable object before you take them out of the car, despite not having a scratch on them. If your brain, which floats inside your head, hits the inside of your skull at 120 mpg, you will perish from such injuries. Motorcycle helmets and the laws that mandate them are far from perfect, not that perfection this is the litmus test upon which good policy is forged.

Good policy is forged when the limits to the individual are not so great as to counteract the benefits to society in the reduction of and severity of injury States often end up picking up the bill for in medical expenses, lost taxes, etc., especially when States often mandate nothing more than a "brain bucket" type helmet over one that maximizes protection.

I appreciate that you must get this @Biscuit as you're not anti-helmet. But I don't think the analogy is poor. Helmets, like mileage standards, are rules that government imposes because the imposition to society in having to wear them, or paying more for gas guzzling vehicles as manufacturers of them are force to pass some of their cost on to consumers when they bring down their fleet's overall MPG ratings, are both seen as acceptable costs in reduced liberty to individuals, that are offset by the benefit to society in reduced taxes to fund care to motorcycle accident victims, or pollution remediation expenses.
 
Last edited:

Todkavonic

Well-Known Member
First Name
Nate
Joined
Sep 11, 2018
Threads
7
Messages
182
Reaction score
230
Location
Onalaska, WI
Vehicle(s)
Moto Guzzi, Ducati, BMW, Lincoln, Land Rover
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
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.
Sponsored

 
 



Top