I've recently noticed more and more drivers turning off their engines at red lights, or even when traffic is slightly congested. I always thought it's a myth and it actually consumes more power and petrol to restart the car. Do you do it and if so, why?
Turning off Engine at Lights. Why?
BargainCowboy on 22/06/2017 - 09:34
Poll Options
- 28I always do it
- 117I've noticed others doing it, but have never done it myself
- 58I have no idea what you're talking about
Comments
how is your DSG? is it shit as everyone puts it or is it just the perception?
Well from my direct experience with a 2011 golf wagon with the DSG in 4 years it required a new clutch assembly every year they just went yep your mechatronics need replacing a fancy name for the DSG clutch system.
@rave75:
How do you drive a dual clutch?
I only drove my dads VW for a week or less but I couldn't bear with diesel + DSG, unless I had the auto coasting function on.
@ATangk: Basically you treat it a little more like a manual, ie. never riding the clutch by creeping forwards on your brakes, and then the DSG clutch doesn't wear out.
Still can be painful though when you're slowing down and need to accelerate, mainly at lower speeds.
At higher speeds it's flawless until the clutch pack wears (my daily driver clutch pack worn now at about 150,000km)
Bluemotion actually refers to 4 features not just the stop-start.
The stop-start is called "stop-start".
I'm pretty sure in Japan they used to do this from memory, manually before cars had this function. I think it was to try and help reduce pollution.
This is also a thing in Europe if you are near schools/public places you must turn off your car whilst at traffic lights.
Pretty hilarious that they make that law, yet you can go to a Westfield underground car park and inhale pollution worse than in a capital city of a developing country.
Indeed. According to the WHO large amounts of people die each year due to car exhaust. The number is rather larger than you might expect.
If you thought smoking was terrible 20 years ago then you really need to stop driving because you're killing people.
And what about this little gem.
"Burning 1 Mosquito Coil as Harmful as Smoking 100 Cigarettes!"
http://fbme.utm.my/nasrulhumaimi/2013/05/08/burning-1-mosqui…
I've seen this before in Japan, China, India and other parts of Asia but to lesser extent. We're talking about over 10 years though.
that would be the manual one you are talking about, I've seen people stop the engine and drive on neutral over slopes to save fuel
That's why I thought the same is implemented here too.
@BargainCowboy: yeah, no, I think you'll be in trouble if you crawl in neutral with engine off here ;)
The 2 cars I rented in Japan last week had this. At first I was like "WTF" and then "oh…OK". The fuel efficiency of the vehicles was pretty excellent.
I've seen people opening their car windows without moving their arms much, it's as if they are pushing a button or something?
People aren't manually cranking their cars either!
They're just turning the key like they do on a door or something!
sorcery!
Car makers are putting this feature into a lot of their new cars. It benefits the car makers because it helps them meet emission and fuel consumption targets. Depending on driving habits it can save you a little bit of fuel, however these cars require much higher spec batteries which cost 2-4 times a regular battery, and starter motors and alternators take more wear and tear. So while it may make the cars more marketable and save a little in fuel it is likely to cost owners much more over the life of the vehicle.
Exactly this. It isnt really saving people money. It exists in the cars because it's a way to get lower emission reading for compliance reasons. You can make something pollute less simply by turning it off.
As for fuel saving, it isn't. Cars use very little fuel while idling at stop lights. So, let's say, on average, a 2lt engine will use about 1lt of fuel/hr of idle time. Your daily commute would have to have to stopped at lights for about 30 worth in the morning and 30 mins going home. That is a lot of sitting in traffic, stationary. But all that sitting in traffic cost you 1lt of fuel. That's about $1.30(ish) and about $6 to $7 per week. Over a year, around $350 to $450 saving… IF you spend 1hr idling every day, 5 days a week on your commute, but not many people do. Actual idle times, even on a shite commute to work would be closer to 15 or 20 mins of "idle" time for your average user.
Emissions, good idea, not running, can't make pollution. Fuel saving, good idea, but not really of any massive benefit…
it's a way to get lower emission reading for compliance reasons.
Given the previous long, sorry history of vehicle makers cheating tests there's no reason to believe them that it uses less fuel.
Its a jeep thing, They cant help it. Once ive seen one actually turn on
don't do it. stop-start is a gimmick.
Can you add a new voting box
My car does it Automatically depending on driving Mode and it Drives me Nuts
So is it better to turn fluorescent lights off or does that consume more power than leaving them on all the time?
What does fluorescent lights have to do with engines?
Same basic idea, are the savings from turning the lights off when I leave the room negated by higher startup power usage along with increased wear & tear when I turn it back on?
Came from people who didn't understand inrush current.
There's a brief power spike (inrush current) when electronics are first powered up, often many times the devices standard operating current. It does cause stress on the components (can weaken fuses, pop old-style incandescent bulbs) but usually not an issue.
This 'higher startup power' became 'OMG turning it on costs heaps!'.
Various people have tried to test this with varying levels of enthusiasm over the years, the verdict has always been 'turn the lights off' as the additional power used is equivalent to a fraction of a second of normal power consumption. (LEDs make this a bit of a 'why bother' situation anyway.)
I'd wager the same applies to vehicles (start-stop uses less fuel) but very difficult to test in the real world, and the difference is probably 'why bother' in many cases.
A modern 2 litre engine will use about 0.6L per hour idling. Not much. People who buy these cars may save maybe $50 every few years, but then are stung for an expensive deep cycle battery that's much more expensive than a standard battery.
Stop/start is designed to game emissions and fuel efficiency testing, rather than deliver real world savings to the end user. Hybrids are a different matter, as the engine is restarted in a different manner and more efficiently with no jerking.
I thought it is to be environment friendly by not generating more air pollution.
I thought it is to be environment friendly by not generating more air pollution.
Green technology isn't always as friendly as the greenies wants us to believe.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-my…
The article you linked talks about how hybrid cars are good for the environment overall, even though they take more energy to produce.
Not sure how that's relevant to your statement
I dislike the start stop system in a car I tried because the AC was severely affected when the engine was killed. Not ideal when in traffic on a hot day.
My Subaru won't turn off if the AC is cooling. But it will turn off if the car is already at the temperature that has been set. It turns back on if it goes 2 degrees over the set temperature.
I really like the current Subaru range. What model do you have? How's your experiences so far?
2015 Impreza. Its a good car but the 2008 Impreza I had before this was a much better drivers car. Its still class above everything else.
Buying today I will go with the new Honda Civic. Its a bit under powered but amazing cabin and good handling. Also they don't have start stop in this one. They also have a feature where you can pess a button for the car to but roll at red lights if you lift your foot off the brakes. Apple and Android Carplay?
I like the Civic too not just in terms of appearance. Not really keen on buying new so might wait it out a few years and buy one maybe a few years old (with some warranty left).
Wait for the rude shock with the Subaru service. Those batteries are $400 plus and not covered by fixed price service.
Just had it serviced yesterday. Cheapest service is $349 for an Impreza. Corolla on the other hand is $120?
I used to hate the stop-start systems. I've driven quite a few cars (I rent a lot due to travel). Fiats and Citroens are the worst, there is a huge lag between taking your foot off the brake, pressing the accelerator and the engine starting. I would always turn it off.
My current car seems to have the engine started before my foot is even off the brake, almost instant. On hot days when the AC is pumping it won't turn the engine off at the lights.
It's to prevent attracting Zombies. Don't you lot know anything?! :-)
I've done this on motorbikes for years when I know I'm going to be stopped for a couple of minutes or more. Can't say I've noticed anything bad happening from it.
As to why, sometimes you just feel like waving your arms around, and sometimes you need both hands to scratch something.
Never thought of it on bikes and yes, I can confirm, I have done it on my bikes. I own a Ducati and a Harley and both are air cooled and don't like sitting at lights or train crossings on really hot days just idling. So I have turned them off while I wait. Nothing to do with fuel economy or emissions though. :D
when you have a Ducati or a Harley, fuel economy is the last thing on your mind hehe :D
Always tell people that my Harley turns fuel directly into noise without the byproduct of horsepower :D
Bikies
No. just bike riders
Most cars that have this auto stop thing can have it disabled via a switch or special initial start-up process, but it normally resets next time you get into the car. I heard it was a short term solution to help meet Californian fuel regs (not sure if that's true), and is likely to go away as the saving is minimal on newer cars and there are issues with safety (cars not starting and being hit) as well as wear on starter and engine.
maybe it was just a ploy from a really smart engineer who couldn't drive and stalled his car at the lights constantly so he shifted the blame from his bad driving to fuel economy (i didn't stall it i'm saving fuel)
BMW have used this since about 2008. A few years ago they allowed service departments to disable it as so many customers were complaining about it.
I put my car into neutral at the lights, because it sounds like the engine is straining when in drive. But maybe I am 'Nuts'!
I HATE my start stop on my Nissan Xtrail. There is a button to turn it off, but you have to remember to do it cause its not located in sight view. The reason why I will be getting rid of it.
My Impreza (MY17) has it, and it bugs me cause I have to turn it off every time I get in the car. And if I forget, it scares the crap out of me at the lights.
I turn it off mostly because I spend too much time in stop-start traffic. The dealer even agreed that it probably wouldn't be a good idea to leave it on for that. Traffic lights is one thing, heavy duty traffic jams is another.
edit
50% rego discount on all vehicles less than 5 years old. Pollution solved.
Nice. So the people that can least afford it get taxed the hardest. Because I know everyone can afford a new or near brand new car every 5 years.
How about we add incentives to electric vehicles to make them more affordable? Or, the cleaner running a car is, the less stamp duty you have to pay. Put the onus back on car makers to make cleaner vehicles. You want a 7lt V8, then pay the pollution tax. You want a 1.6lt turbo diesel, then you get a discount. But saying any car over 5 years old needs to be taxed more would not fix the problem and potentially make it worse. Cars would be worth nothing after 5 years. This model you suggest would only line the pockets of car makers and give them no incentive to make cleaner vehicles.
Stop and go back and watch the John Cadogan YouTube video someone posted earlier, it explains the reduction in pollution from euro 4 to 5 specs.
The onus already is on car makers to make cleaner vehicles, but the video states Australia has one of the oldest automotive fleets.
And no a 50% rego discount on new cars is a incentive not a extra tax on older polluting vehicles.
"Cars would be worth nothing after 5 years" - omg if you really believe this.
"Cars would be worth nothing after 5 years" - omg if you really believe this.
Believe? It's fact. Japan is a classic example of what happens when you implement strict standards on older cars. Used cars in Japan that are over 3~5 years years old are virtually given away or sent to junk yards for scrapping. Why do you think Australia ends up with so many used JDM cars? Because they are so cheap to buy and are usually only a few years old. The only people benefiting from this type of system is car companies and mechanics.
How much do you think a car yard would trade your 5 year old car in for if they knew that there was a good chance they could not sell it because the government punished people for buying or owning cars over 5 years old?
Things that would improve pollution issues around cars is incentives on buying electric and hybrid vehicles. Stricter laws on vehicles being sold to meet emissions testing. Tighter laws for re-registration compliance (like NSW where cars older than 5 years have to be inspected every 12months for rego. In Vic, it was once when I bought it and never again until I sold it.)
If you think that taxing the buyer into buying a new car every 5 years will fix pollution and that cars older than 5 years will continue to hold their value in that type of market, all I can say is…
omg if you really believe this.
five years is a bit short.
the end of life should be closer to ten years or 250,000km, whatever comes last. increase the motor vehicle tax every year by 10% for every year beyond ten or 15,000km / pa.
Things that would improve pollution issues around cars is incentives on buying electric and hybrid vehicles.
that isn't going to change in terms of reducing pollution. electric and hybrid vehicles requires energy just like combustion engine vehicles. we're basically trading petroleum fossil fuel for coal fossil fuel. 73% of electricity generated in australia is from coal. ms rinehart (amongst others) would personally thank you if that ever happen.
https://www.originenergy.com.au/blog/about-energy/energy-in-…
In Europe they did the upgrading with incentives to get old cars off the road not by taxing more making it worthwhile to change up to a newer model.
there was actually a full report done on this somewhere, forget about rating systems, cleaner vehicles and look at manufacturer's. The report concluded that vehicles as they stand on the factory floor are made to last 5 years, there were numerous parts that were incentivising people to upgrade because it was going to cost quite a bit to due to the total number of parts that were prone to fail by this time.
That was the design spec for the components must reliably perform as expected for 5 years. limitations are built into almost everything because businesses would fail if they can't keep selling products.
Australia's climate has a huge factor to play with the longevity of cars in the country.
A lot of other developed countries that have severe weather to deal with, age the car quicker than here
Take countries that get regular dumps of snow, sleet and quite a lot of black ice. they generally use salt based products to help clear the way and this just destroys cars.
Japan had the best way of dealing with this but a large percentage got turned off after the tsunami that killed the nuclear reactor they had an abundance of energy available and have heated roads for winter.
While I agree that shifting the problem is not the solution, there is a gaping chasm between petroleum powered vehicles and electric power when you compare how much power an electric car uses to charge itself. Yes, it still relies on dirty, coal powered electricity, the amount used by no means is anywhere near that of a petrol powered car. And the way power prices are tipped to increase this year, I would say that solar power is going to make bigger impact over the next few years.
Hybrids would even be a better idea (real hybrids, not the "our car is green" electric assist cars), but the price at the moment is prohibitively high. Incentives should be based around making these cars cheaper and driving innovation and investment instead of taxing consumers.
I don't know what the best answer is, but I just know it won't be an overnight fix. It's going to take a long time to find an equally easy energy source as petrol or diesel. I have been following supercapactitors for a few years and it looks promising.
50% rego discount on all vehicles less than 5 years old. Pollution solved.
Pollution generated in producing a new vehicle for everyone every 5 years…priceless!!!
My bad, I thought vehicle manufacturing was ending in Australia late 2017.
My bad, I thought pollution was a global problem, not a local one. I assume there are car makers outside Australia?
So are you suggesting the Australian Government dictate environmental policies to other countries. LOL
@t_c:
huh? How you got that from what I posted is beyond me.
What I think maxi was trying to say was;
Vehicle manufacture would have to increase to meet demand. And I can assure you, that cars made in China/Japan/Korea/Thailand/Germany/Spain/USA/South Africa/etc etc… would contribute to "global" pollution. Just because it wasn't "made" in Australia, doesn't mean it doesn't affect us.
Here's how your idea works. Force people to buy a new car every 5 years means that car manufacturers would need to ramp up production. Upping production would cause more pollution. Cars over 5 years old become virtually worthless and no one wants to buy them because of the resale value and increased costs. The majority of them end up at recyclers and need to be stripped and melted back down. More pollution.
Or do what Japan does, and just dump them on other countries, so that these cars can continue to contribute to "global" pollution… just not in their country, because moving them offshore solves the pollution issues…
Thankyou I now see the error in my ways, my suggestion was childish illconcieved and poorly thought out, I thankyou for bringing this to my attention.
I have a Mazda 3 SP25 GT with the I-stop feature
i-stop
Mazda's i-stop substantially improves fuel economy while maintaining a natural driving feel. The latest control technologies achieve a rapid engine restart and an operational feel that is barely noticeable. The system improves fuel economy by approximately eight percent (under Japan's JC08 mode test cycle.).
I call BS on 8%. It doesn't make sense. Idling at a set of lights and turning the engine off is saving fuel when the vehicle has the least demand for it.
For it to be of any benefit, you would need a commute to actually contain stop-start driving conditions. In Japan, that may be so. In Sydney, Melb, etcetera, it may save you something, but 8% would only be under ideal laboratory conditions. For every hours worth of idling, you would need the engine turned off for 5 mins or more. Not impossible, but that saved fuel is blown right out the tail pipe as soon as you accelerate away. If you consider it against a full drive cycle and the amount of fuel consumed in an every day type of commute, take 8% of that and work out how long it would take an idling engine to burn off that much fuel, that's how long your car would need to be stopped for on that drive.
It all starts to sound like marketing bullshit to me. You can save more fuel by changing your driving habits than what stop-start engine management software can accomplish.
Meh I just got the information from the Mazda website.
It really doesn't phase me as it's a feature that only activates if I put my foot right down on the brake for it to kick in, the majority of the time I don't unless I'm stopped at lights for a period of time etc. I was answering the OP's question in relation to why do some cars do it and stating it's a feature of my specific car 👍🏻This is exactly how 99.9% of the population thinks and how bullshit policy like this stop-start technology get's through!
Ignorance is not bliss.
Not 100% sure, but doesn't most auto transmissions keep stirring the fluid when stopped in gear? i.e spending more energy than just the engine idling alone… There is a significant engine rpm change for a second or two, before ECU compensates by changing fuel amount, when changing between P and D, while brake pedal fully depressed: change on engine load.
to save a little bit of fuel and less emission for the environment. Most likely it is an automated start/stop system. Cars that use it will have more robust part (the starter etc).
Mazda call their's i-stop. There are times when I curse it eg noticing a gap just as you're stopping and instead of gunning it, the engine cuts. (heavy brake activates i-stop, light brake doesn't)
"The steering wheel needs to be reasonably straight, if you turn the wheel significantly when pulling up i-stop wont cut the engine out."
When you see that gap I assume you'll be pulling on the steering wheel already before coming to a complete stop? Also, why the need to brake so hard if you're planning to stop?
No, you should never turn your steering wheel if you're planning to stop. Always stop with straight wheels. You should never be turning your steering wheel if the car isn't moving. So your assumption is wrong. Why would you be turning already crossing a T-intersection?! You have to stop straight and continue.
Here's further dope from Mazda on how they do it. I only use the stop start on my Mazda SP25 GT when I know the traffic light is long. Basically anywhere where I know i will be stopping for more than 30 seconds. I average around 6.5l per 100 on my SP25 GT commuting.
http://www.mazda.com/en/innovation/technology/env/i-stop/Mazda SP25 GT driver (2.5L engine). My first car with stop-start technology. Before I bought the car (late last year) I thought I will totally hate the i-stop. After driving it for a while now, I actually love it. You can easily control it and you only need to activate it when you think it's actually worth doing it (ie. long traffic wait at lights or train crossing). It is a very complicated system and dependent on many things before it actually enables. The brake pedal is perfect and it can be easily controlled. If your habits are to brake at the last second and push the brake pedal to the floor each time you stop, then stop-start is not for you. I assume not many people do that though. The wear and tear that people talk about is nonsense. These days everything under the bonnet is designed with stop-start in mind (especially on Mazda). The only problem I have with the stop start is the battery. Perfectly designed to handle stop-start but way to expensive to replace. I'm sure with time they will come down in price but at the moment they are ridiculously expensive.
Some info about Mazda's I-stop system:http://www.mazda.com/en/innovation/technology/env/i-stop/
Mazda's i-stop substantially improves fuel economy while maintaining a natural driving feel. The latest control technologies achieve a rapid engine restart and an operational feel that is barely noticeable. The system improves fuel economy by approximately eight percent (under Japan's JC08 mode test cycle.).
While conventional idling stop systems rely on a starter motor to restart the engine, Mazda's i-stop restarts the engine through combustion; fuel is directly injected into a cylinder while the engine is stopped and ignited to generate downward piston force. The result is a quick and quiet engine re-start compared to other systems and a significant saving in fuel.To restart the engine by combustion, the compression-stroke and expansion-stroke pistons need to be stopped at exactly the correct positions to create the right balance of air volumes. Mazda's i-stop ensures precise control over the piston positions during engine shutdown. With all the pistons stopped at the optimum positions, the system then identifies the initial cylinder for fuel injection. It injects fuel and ignites it to restart the engine. Even at extremely low rpm, cylinders are identified for sequential ignition, making the engine quickly pick up to idling speed.
These technologies enable the system to restart the engine with exactly the same timing every time, to enhance fuel economy, and to deliver smooth and comfortable acceleration for the driver at restart. The restart takes place in a mere 0.35 seconds (internal measurement on vehicle with automatic transmission), which is about half of the time taken by conventional starter-motor idling stop systems.
And here is a visual representation of the Mazda's combustion engine during i-stop.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjNANDsAfe0&feature=youtu.be
Also a stop-start mileage test done by Fifth Gear:
I drive across a sort of drawbridge every day and the only time I turn the engine off is when it has opened to let boats through, since it's like a 10-15min wait.
It saves a lot of fuel. I cut the engine manually on my motorcycle when I don't need power and get about 50% more km out of a tank
Lol wut?
Do you mean like start-stop engines just at traffic lights, or do you mean any time you can? Coasting down a hill, turn it off. Slowing down, turn it off. Changing down a speed zone, turn it off?
So, one of my bikes currently gets 320km from a tank. Now you are telling me I can blow that out to 480+ km with your method? Do I need a hiclone, fuel polarising magnets or a plug in black box for this wizardry or do I just call BS right now?
Or maybe, like me, you own an old Harley and it spends 50% of its time being towed around on a trailer after it breaks down :D
Yep. I used to get 270 to 290 out of a tank suburban/city riding on my ZX9R. Started flicking the kill switch just at red lights and iirc went up to about 340 km. Then started flicking the kill switch when coasting and went up to 410 to 420 km. It's much easier to do it on a motorcycle than a car because of the handy kill switch. In my cars I kill the engine only at red lights.
Of course when coasting you don't need the starter motor to restart the engine unless you come to a complete stopThen started flicking the kill switch
how annoying. killing the engine like that is like switching the lights on and off every time one enters or leaves a room, or turning the pc off for toilet/lunch/smokos.
@whooah1979:
Completely different. The kill switch on a motorcycle is right beside where your thumb rests and the start button at the other thumb. Less inconvenient than changing gears and saves you 33% of your fuel billThe kill switch on a motorcycle is right beside where your thumb rests and the start button at the other thumb.
The rider still have to use their thumbs to turn the engine on and off. It's no more different than using any other finger to turn the lights on and off. It may be convenient for a rider such a yourself, but it sounds like an inconvenience to me.
saves you 33% of your fuel bill
How big of a fuel tank are we talking about? 33% is what, four litres of petrol? That is about five or six dollars of saving for every 400km. So two cups of coffee.
@whooah1979: You've never ridden a bike, have you?
The kill switch and start button are literally right under your thumb, it's almost zero effort to flick kill switch, flick it back on and restart. The entire point of them being where they are is you don't have to move your hand at all to reach them.
I've never seen this nor heard that this is a thing until this thread. Some people. If they want to waste more power, energy and petrol doing this, they can do what they want. As long as when the light turns green they move, I'm happy.
And what is the new craze of people putting on their lights throughout the day, even when the sun is shining? So stupid!
Daytime running lights. And you can thank new cars for that one as well. The new hilux at work doesn't even have an off setting for the lights, only "auto" where "off" used to be. So the lights are on all the time…
I agree, in my Corolla there are several confusingly marked lights' settings and it took me a long time to realise that it was impossible to turn them off fully :((
And what is the new craze of people putting on their lights throughout the day,
drl has been mandatory for new vehicle sold in euro since 2011.
http://www.caradvice.com.au/103267/daytime-running-lights-on…Interesting. I think that is because of so much fog etc there, and people forget to turn their lights on during these periods of poor visability.
Here these weather conditions don't happen that often, and so most of us instinctively know to turn on our lights.many (of not all) sports motorbikes have had one headlight on and one off for decades. other vehicle manufactures are catching up.
I think he's making a joke due to the DSG recall.