In praise (or not) of ESS? **NO POLITICS**

[JAY]

Reminder to all:

No politics discussions outside of the Politics / Firearms / Weapons / Religion forum, please.

Please report all instances of politics outside of the politics forum.

Sponsored

 

[Archer85]

Dang, anyone making this political should be booted. Personally i hated the ESS when i first got the JL. Now i actually like it, but if i know it'll be a short light i hit the switch to turn it off, seems like too much wear and tear if its stopping for just an instant and then turning on. So if i know ill be stopped for at least 20 seconds or so ill utilize it and really like it.

 

[Jeep your tips up]

ESS - loving it on this side of the 49th.
Gas is taxed to hell up here. With a US gallon of the of the good stuff for the 2.0 running around $3.50 US ($1.20 CDN / liter) - you do the math....EVERY little bit helps.

 

[Obone]

When it was an option to add, no one would add it this is why the gov't had to mandate it. I hate it. I wish that once turned off I would never have to turn it off again. That would be an option like on other high end vehicle. Then all could find their happy place. I rarely sit around not moving and do not need this. The gov't has confirmed over the years that what they state as fact today will often be considered to be false in just a few years.

 

[Archer85]

ESS - loving it on this side of the 49th.
Gas is taxed to hell up here. With a US gallon of the of the good stuff for the 2.0 running around $3.50 US ($1.20 CDN / liter) - you do the math....EVERY little bit helps.

Agreed ,and although im skeptical the constant start/stop might put too much wear and tear on the vehicle and starter............im assuming all these car companies with this feature have done their research and have made sure your starter isnt going to go out a lot quicker b/c of this feature.

 

[ThirtyOne]

If I am sitting in a car not going anywhere why should my motor be running? That seems like a design flaw that started 100 years ago because the technology was not there to avoid it. Shouldn't it work that if the car is not moving the engine doesn't run? Doesn't that make more sense? I am sure if they could have figured out how to do it back then they would have done it that way.

And I am not saying ESS is a particularly good implementation and that it is not annoying and that you shouldn't be able to turn it off if you want to. For me, I control it with my clutch and when I decide that the engine shouldn't be running it doesn't run. It is quieter. It is more pleasant with the top down. Maybe it saves gas or pollutants I don't know. I wouldn't pay more for it but I like it.

 

[ThirtyOne]

So...I am a very MPG aware individual and I do love my JL... it's worth double the gas bill of my civic to enjoy driving. I just today was mentioning to my wife that my mpg with ess turned off is 22 mpg and with it on i'm getting 19 mpg. I was getting on here to ask fellow JL lovers if they had any ideas as to why the fuel economy has increased with no change in the variables(environmental, driving style, traffic, fuel grade, etc)? This is a bone stock 2018 Wrangler Rubicon JL.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[ViperJon]

Amazing that people can use a U-Connect touchscreen with it's myriad features and menus and sub menus to listen to music, navigate, change sources etc and yet pressing the ESS disable button once....is just one step.....too.....far.......I wonder if when it rains they refuse to turn the windshield wipers on because it's asking too much.

 

[Blu bi Kong]

You only have to go back and look at post #2 in this thread to see this was gonna go bad!!

 

[TimmH]

Amazing that people can use a U-Connect touchscreen with it's myriad features and menus and sub menus to listen to music, navigate, change sources etc and yet pressing the ESS disable button once....is just one step.....too.....far.......I wonder if when it rains they refuse to turn the windshield wipers on because it's asking too much.

This is the first vehicle in a while that I've needed to turn on my wipers in a light to medium rain.

I've always coated my windshield with Rain-X or a good wax and light rain rolled right up and over better than using the wipers. But the flat vertical windshield doesn't do that as well.

 

[jellis4148]

I really don't understand the issue. It's on the vehicle. If you don't want it, hit the button. If it doesn't bother you, then just drive the Jeep. I, for one, have no complaints with it. Almost every manufacturer has it on the vehicles that get the worst fuel economy. That way they can boost the city MPG. The great news is, they allow you to shut it off, if you want. I leave it on, and just enjoy driving my Jeep. If I go offload, I shut it off. Other than that, I leave it on. Hey, great news, it might save you a few dollars, if you drive in the city a lot. Then again, if you have an unlimited supply of cash, why would you care. Point is, why complain about it. Leave it on, or push the little button, and shut it off. It's on the Jeep, and it's not coming off, regardless of how much you bitch.

 

[mrhumble1]

Lol all automotive companies are pushing ESS. It's funny that some of you guys think you are smarter than the collective automotive engineers of this planet.

It's sad, really, that so many under-educated people think they know more about extremely complicated scientific subjects than those who have spent their lifetime studying, gathering data, and using that data to come to logical conclusions.

Because everytime you start a motor it uses more fuel to fire it up than than just letting it idle for a few seconds at a stop light.

Ess is non sense

This statement is patently false. ESS systems are designed to stop the engine at the exact point where pistons are placed so it will take little effort to turn it over again. Starter motor effort is minimal. As for fuel, modern engines with modern fuel delivery systems don't take much fuel to start. Also, "a few seconds" might work where you live but lights on the way to work for me can last 15-25 seconds EACH.

I have owned a brand new JLR for about a month. 1200 miles in and I can say the ESS is virtually imperceptible. I have a manual transmission, so I can control when the ESS engages by when I use the clutch. If I am at a stop sign and going to move along in short order, I just keep the clutch in and the engnie never stops. If I am at a red light with the engine stopped, I am ready to go well before the cars in front of me have moved on. I touch the clutch the engine has started even before the shifter reaches first gear.

Simple logic shows this will benefit me by lowering fuel costs. I drive 20 miles to work each way. I added it up. I spend maybe 1.5 minutes stopped each way. That's at least 3 minutes a day when I'm driving somewhere but the engine is not running at all. That's 15 minutes (again, at least) a week of driving time when the engine is not running. That's over an HOUR every month of driving time with the engine using ZERO fuel. You think that won't matter over a 4-year lease?? Over the life of the vehicle?? How much fuel does the engine drink at idle that is not being used because the engine is stopped?? Enough to matter. Even if it is a little money saved, it's still money saved. I'll take a little free money over zero free money any day.

 

[Jebiruph]

If I am sitting in a car not going anywhere why should my motor be running? That seems like a design flaw that started 100 years ago because the technology was not there to avoid it. Shouldn't it work that if the car is not moving the engine doesn't run? Doesn't that make more sense? I am sure if they could have figured out how to do it back then they would have done it that way.

And I am not saying ESS is a particularly good implementation and that it is not annoying and that you shouldn't be able to turn it off if you want to. For me, I control it with my clutch and when I decide that the engine shouldn't be running it doesn't run. It is quieter. It is more pleasant with the top down. Maybe it saves gas or pollutants I don't know. I wouldn't pay more for it but I like it.

Somehow implementing technology that does the thing that should have been logical in the first place is some kind of Democrat plot to ruin America? I don't get it.

If you are keeping the clutch in just to stop the engine from shutting down, you are adding extra wear to your throwout hearing. I've not heard that the throw out was beefed up for ESS.

 

[AnnDee4444]

I bet more 3.6 owners are dissatisfied with ESS then 2.0 owners are. The ESS is a different system for each motor. For now anyway until the 3.6 gets the eTorque. The ESS in the 3.6 is a LOT more noticeable and less refined. The 3.6 ESS is annoying to me, to the point where I would turn it off. The 2.0 eTorque ESS is a non issue for me, It works very well in my opinion. I leave it on. The 2.0 turbo has eTorque which is a mild hybrid. The eTorque system has electric assist and instant torque to get the JL moving from a stop. The electric assist makes the 2.0 ESS a LOT less noticeable compared to the 3.6 ESS in daily stop and go traffic. It is by far the lesser of 2 evils between the 2 ESS systems. And by a pretty good margin. Some will have a opinion about the added complexity of the eTorque but that is a different conversation. This thread is about ESS.

Agreed.


If this thread is going to have any meaningful conversation, I think it is best to state your engine/transmission.

I have a 2.0 and only find the ESS annoying while parking. I have found a way to park and not have it re-start, but it is far too complicated to get right every time (stop --> ESS shuts motor off --> without putting transmission in park, open door --> take foot off of brake --> shift to park --> push ignition button until off). Like I said, too complicated.

If I need to pull-out quickly on a crowded or fast moving road, I either turn ESS it off with the button, or wiggle my foot on the brake so that the motor starts. The foot method took me a few days to figure out, but now I don't even realize I do it.

The longevity obviously is yet to be seen, but I don't think killing & restarting a warm engine has nearly the same wear as a cold start, and ESS is not active until the engine is up to operating temperature (in the 2.0 at least). I am not 100% familiar with all the mechanical bits on the 2.0, but I do like that ESS provides the possibility of less parts (12V battery, alternator, & starter should not needed with the right design).

I have not noticed any fuel mileage increases, but I haven't driven for an extended period of time with ESS disabled. I don't think that the ESS starting the ICS motor uses more fuel than an idling engine, because the ESS is never a cold start. My thoughts on why: During normal driving, a fuel injected engine cuts all fuel when decelerating, and seamlessly restarts the fuel flow when needed. No fuel is used when decelerating. If you shift into neutral while decelerating, the fuel injection will use more fuel than if you just left the vehicle in gear. Now my theory is that the ESS electric motor has enough power to spin the ICE engine back up to idling speed, where the fuel injection can regain control again. No additional fuel is used in getting the motor back up to idling speed. A traditional ICE engine starter probably does not get the engine to idling speed, and additional fuel is needed to help get to idling speed. This is probably also why the 3.6 ESS is not as smooth as the 2.0.

 

[Jebiruph]

It's sad, really, that so many under-educated people think they know more about extremely complicated scientific subjects than those who have spent their lifetime studying, gathering data, and using that data to come to logical conclusions.



This statement is patently false. ESS systems are designed to stop the engine at the exact point where pistons are placed so it will take little effort to turn it over again. Starter motor effort is minimal. As for fuel, modern engines with modern fuel delivery systems don't take much fuel to start. Also, "a few seconds" might work where you live but lights on the way to work for me can last 15-25 seconds EACH.

I have owned a brand new JLR for about a month. 1200 miles in and I can say the ESS is virtually imperceptible. I have a manual transmission, so I can control when the ESS engages by when I use the clutch. If I am at a stop sign and going to move along in short order, I just keep the clutch in and the engnie never stops. If I am at a red light with the engine stopped, I am ready to go well before the cars in front of me have moved on. I touch the clutch the engine has started even before the shifter reaches first gear.

Simple logic shows this will benefit me by lowering fuel costs. I drive 20 miles to work each way. I added it up. I spend maybe 1.5 minutes stopped each way. That's at least 3 minutes a day when I'm driving somewhere but the engine is not running at all. That's 15 minutes (again, at least) a week of driving time when the engine is not running. That's over an HOUR every month of driving time with the engine using ZERO fuel. You think that won't matter over a 4-year lease?? Over the life of the vehicle?? How much fuel does the engine drink at idle that is not being used because the engine is stopped?? Enough to matter. Even if it is a little money saved, it's still money saved. I'll take a little free money over zero free money any day.

Don't know which you have, but restart is different on the direct injection 2.0 than it is in the 3.6. Regardless of where the 3.6 stops, it takes a least a full rotation to restart.

Sponsored