Why so much hate for MDS and auto stop/start?

[Ramgoose]

So, how do you really feel about it????

Lol

I do wish my AC compressor was electric so that it would still cool during an auto stop.

That would be cool and chill ! My salesman in 2018 when I purchased my 2019 ET Rebel actually told me it was going to work just like that. It didn’t seal the deal for me but sounded good.... Shame on me for not looking at the drive belt from the compressor to the crankshaft which would tell you he was full of it. I don’t think he was lying just lack of knowledge concerning the new technology.

 

[mikeru82]

I haven’t had mine that long, but so far it hasn’t kicked in with the AC running-probably because my climate setting is at 62, LOL.

Twice in the same day it started the engine while I was sitting at a light with my foot on the brake. Made the truck lurch a bit. That was about 2 weeks ago and it hasn’t happened again. Not sure what was up with that. I’m assuming it was related to cabin cooling, but not sure.

My previous truck also had eTorque. I made a few trips to the city last summer, and experienced what you described quite a bit. The the truck would auto stop, the AC stayed cool for a few seconds, but it would emit a slight odor after that and the air warmed up a little. Then the engine would restart (while still sitting at a red light) and the AC would start working again. I didn't experience any lurching when it restarted though. Maybe you weren't holding the brake pedal firmly enough.

 

[Ramjack]

On an infinite timeline, everything fails and on an infinite timeline, everything is more expensive. I'm pretty confident starters would cost double what they did in the 80s today with or without start/stop technology and eventually, everything will fail anyway.

..but I'm going to have to start asking the folks here against start/stop for hard numbers. 'common sense' isn't going to work for me. Do you have any data to back up that start/stop systems fail faster than a traditional starter? and by traditional, I mean manufactured in the last decade but not going through the extra thousands of cycles that are being added to a car with the start stop function?

I would be willing to bet $5 there are some automotive engineers from Bosch/Denso/etc who would take great offense to people here saying the requirements they engineered their starters to accounting for stop/start aren't good enough and they shipped you an inferior product that costs more and lasts less time. I tend to trust the engineers. They did the complex math that ensures these things last.

Speaking for myself, I have no issue with start/stop systems. I enjoy the quiet cabin they provide and If it saves $150 a year in fuel, that's even better. If I was a tree-hugger, I'd jump to the impact idling has on the ozone layer...idling that offers nothing but exhaust and a colder AC system but no propulsion since we're just sitting still in traffic. It's wasted energy to idle and these system eliminate that wasted energy. If the by-product is replacing a starter every 10 years instead of 15, I consider that a fine trade-off.

We're arguing over a function that saves about 30 gallons of fuel per year per average city-dwelling American per a 2009 study over a part that costs $150 - https://shop.advanceautoparts.com/find/dodge-ram-1500-starter
https://www.vanderbilt.edu/sustainability/wp-content/uploads/sites/69/carrico_costlymyths.pdf

its okay to not like start/stop because of the shudder / weaker AC cold air coming out / delay in starting the car when the light turns green / the noise, etc. Most people who are riding my car ask me to turn it off because they find the engine start vibration annoying & distracting..it takes about 5-7 start-stop actions when we're siting in traffic for them (friends/family) to go "please turn that off, it's annoying" or "why is your car doing that?" I believe most people just don't like it from the experience sort of like after a car-alarm has been going off for a minute, people start vacating the area or yelling 'turn it off' it's like fight or flight kicks in.

For people who don't mind start/stop, there's no denying the benefits outweigh the cost. The system adds about $200 to the sticker and saves 4-9% of your fuel usage annually.

Like most internet arguments, I'm not going to continue going back and forth. I've spoken my case here. I wouldn't not buy a car because 'in 10 years", a feature is going to stop working because getting 10 years out of blind spot monitoring or back up camera or carPlay before the thing breaks is okay for me. Starters aren't that expensive and Stellantis being a European company now, they are shipping 70-90% of their vehicles with this technology in it and they're as big or bigger than VW group. I would just find it impossible to believe their engineers didn't account for a feature that comes on nearly every vehicle they make.

It's okay for people here to just not like the feature because the shuddering / delay is annoying but to argue reliability and cost without numbers means we're all just going to be going around in circles and end up exactly where we started.

You can ask for whatever you want. How about this: You provide the data showing that there is no appreciable difference in vehicle longevity due to traditional (not eTorque) stop/start systems. And you can attempt to "wax poetic" all you want. Ten years is nowhere near an infinite timeline and some people wisely choose to keep their cars a long time to help make ends meet and provide a non-debt-laden future for their families. You can also choose to use $hitty replacement parts from Advance Auto in your vehicles.

Why would I ask engineers who design starters if their "enhanced" starters will fail prematurely in a start/stop-equipped vehicle? How could I possibly expect them to provide an unbiased answer. And why would I care if they take offense to my skepticism? You express a disdain for common sense, yet you "just find it impossible to believe their engineers didn't account for a feature that comes on nearly every vehicle they make." I tend to trust engineers as well, but not to provide an impartial opinion on something they design.

 

[BowDown]

You're right, that's a blunt statement. What you don't realize is that a lot of people like to keep their vehicles for 10+ years and 200k+ miles. The likelihood of having to replace starter (more than once) with a traditional start/stop vehicle (not eTorque) is much greater; just common sense. And the starters are more expensive. They my not fail in 3 years, but longer term, it's inevitable.

BTW, I can understand why you wouldn't want to sit around idling in a diesel, especially a Renault.

If your argument is over concerns of failures, then we really need to go back to one cylinder 1 gear transmissions, having 7 additional of each is 7 more oitmes to replace and whiles were at it, 4 wheels increases friction and just one more thning to fail then there's 4 wheel drive! More failures

 

[BowDown]

Ok, but that's still only one vehicle and that is very late adoption by Toyota for that technology. Toyota isn't stupid. They weren't avoiding it because they couldn't make it work. It likely wasn't working to their own quality standards.

Start/stop is a fuel mileage epa add-on. Toyotas CAFE numbers are low given the preponderance of 4 and 6 cylinder vehicles. They had no real need for it; I highly doubt it's because they couldnt get it to work. FCA on the other hand is heavily laden with V8 vehicles and very few 4 and 6 cylinder and has to buy carbon tax credits from Tesla

Between 2019 and 2021, FCA paid Tesla $2.4 billion (€2 billion) for emissions credits. The FCA deal was not Tesla's only source of regulatory credit income. In 2019, we reported that General Motors was also an emissions credit customer in the US. And in late 2020, Honda joined FCA in pooling with Tesla in Europe.

But FCA did represent the lion's share of Tesla's regulatory credit income—which earned the EV maker $594 million in 2019 and $1.58 billion in 2020—and Tesla's string of recent profitable quarters disappears if FCA's contributions to the balance sheets are removed.

Tesla loses huge customer for emissions credits in Europe and the US

Stellantis paid Tesla $2.4 billion for credits between 2019-2021.

arstechnica.com

Tesla sold greenhouse gas credits to Fiat and… GM?

As federal regulations get stricter, auto companies seek to buy credits.

arstechnica.com

 

[Ramjack]

If your argument is over concerns of failures, then we really need to go back to one cylinder 1 gear transmissions, having 7 additional of each is 7 more oitmes to replace and whiles were at it, 4 wheels increases friction and just one more thning to fail then there's 4 wheel drive! More failures

Um, no. All of those advances are just that, advances. They provide real enhancements in utility. Traditional start/stop is just stupid and annoying.

 

[BowDown]

On an infinite timeline, everything fails and on an infinite timeline, everything is more expensive. I'm pretty confident starters would cost double what they did in the 80s today with or without start/stop technology and eventually, everything will fail anyway.

..but I'm going to have to start asking the folks here against start/stop for hard numbers. 'common sense' isn't going to work for me. Do you have any data to back up that start/stop systems fail faster than a traditional starter? and by traditional, I mean manufactured in the last decade but not going through the extra thousands of cycles that are being added to a car with the start stop function?

I would be willing to bet $5 there are some automotive engineers from Bosch/Denso/etc who would take great offense to people here saying the requirements they engineered their starters to accounting for stop/start aren't good enough and they shipped you an inferior product that costs more and lasts less time. I tend to trust the engineers. They did the complex math that ensures these things last.

Speaking for myself, I have no issue with start/stop systems. I enjoy the quiet cabin they provide and If it saves $150 a year in fuel, that's even better. If I was a tree-hugger, I'd jump to the impact idling has on the ozone layer...idling that offers nothing but exhaust and a colder AC system but no propulsion since we're just sitting still in traffic. It's wasted energy to idle and these system eliminate that wasted energy. If the by-product is replacing a starter every 10 years instead of 15, I consider that a fine trade-off.

We're arguing over a function that saves about 30 gallons of fuel per year per average city-dwelling American per a 2009 study over a part that costs $150 - https://shop.advanceautoparts.com/find/dodge-ram-1500-starter
https://www.vanderbilt.edu/sustainability/wp-content/uploads/sites/69/carrico_costlymyths.pdf

its okay to not like start/stop because of the shudder / weaker AC cold air coming out / delay in starting the car when the light turns green / the noise, etc. Most people who are riding my car ask me to turn it off because they find the engine start vibration annoying & distracting..it takes about 5-7 start-stop actions when we're siting in traffic for them (friends/family) to go "please turn that off, it's annoying" or "why is your car doing that?" I believe most people just don't like it from the experience sort of like after a car-alarm has been going off for a minute, people start vacating the area or yelling 'turn it off' it's like fight or flight kicks in.

For people who don't mind start/stop, there's no denying the benefits outweigh the cost. The system adds about $200 to the sticker and saves 4-9% of your fuel usage annually.

Like most internet arguments, I'm not going to continue going back and forth. I've spoken my case here. I wouldn't not buy a car because 'in 10 years", a feature is going to stop working because getting 10 years out of blind spot monitoring or back up camera or carPlay before the thing breaks is okay for me. Starters aren't that expensive and Stellantis being a European company now, they are shipping 70-90% of their vehicles with this technology in it and they're as big or bigger than VW group. I would just find it impossible to believe their engineers didn't account for a feature that comes on nearly every vehicle they make.

It's okay for people here to just not like the feature because the shuddering / delay is annoying but to argue reliability and cost without numbers means we're all just going to be going around in circles and end up exactly where we started.

Word

 

[BowDown]

Um, no. All of those advances are just that, advances. They provide real enhancements in utility. Traditional start/stop is just stupid and annoying.

You can't be serious, start stop is an advancement, MDS is an advancement.
You finding it stupid and annoying is an opinion not based in fact but emotion

 

[BowDown]

^This! My main reason for disabling it was for the issue with the AC compressor not running. When the weather is cool enough to not need AC I usually don't disable stop/start.

As for fuel savings, unless I travel to a more populated area, any fuel savings I see is negligible. I might have to stop for one traffic light on my daily 30 mile commute. And that light is usually green for me. It stays red for maybe 30 seconds at the most if I do have to stop for it. It would take a long time for me to see any kind of accumulated savings. But I can see how it would be beneficial for people who do a lot of city driving.

Start stop was meant for use in heavily populated areas like city driving, it would have zero benefit outside those environments.

 

[Ramjack]

Toyotas CAFE numbers are low given the predominance of 4 and 6 cylinder vehicles.

I highly doubt it's because they could get it to work.

 

[Fuzznutz]

In that sense, I suppose the Toyota's engine is a spiritual descendent of GM's nearly-ubiquitous 5.7L V8.

Toyota and Rams 5.7 are descendents. At least the block is I mean. What's funny is I just found this out too. A gm fan boy at work was flipping me crap about running gm's washed up has been motor of the 90's. I couldn't believe when I googled it, he was partly right.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

 

[BowDown]

I haven’t had mine that long, but so far it hasn’t kicked in with the AC running-probably because my climate setting is at 62, LOL.

Twice in the same day it started the engine while I was sitting at a light with my foot on the brake. Made the truck lurch a bit. That was about 2 weeks ago and it hasn’t happened again. Not sure what was up with that. I’m assuming it was related to cabin cooling, but not sure.

It is, with the AC on, if the cabin gets to warm, it'll start the truck

 

[Ramjack]

You can't be serious, start stop is an advancement, MDS is an advancement.
You finding it stupid and annoying is an opinion not based in fact but emotion

MDS is an advancement. Traditional start/stop is a hack. Declaring anything as an advancement is also an opinion.

 

[BowDown]

Toyota and Rams 5.7 are descendents. At least the block is I mean. What's funny is I just found this out too. A gm fan boy at work was flipping me crap about running gm's washed up has been motor of the 90's. I couldn't believe when I googled it, he was partly right.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

What? How so?

 

[BowDown]

MDS is an advancement. Traditional start/stop is a hack.

Wrong, its a fuel saving advancement
But how about this, you asked @AdamChandler to provide the data showing that there is no appreciable difference in vehicle longevity due to traditional (not eTorque) stop/start systems.
Since you're making the claims, how about you provide proof validating what you're saying

 

[Ramjack]

Wrong, its a fuel saving advancement
But how about this, you asked @AdamChandler to provide the data showing that there is no appreciable difference in vehicle longevity due to traditional (not eTorque) stop/start systems.
Since you're making the claims, how about you provide proof validating what you're saying

Actually, he made a stronger claim than I did. I merely said they are more likely to fail. He said "they don't fail."

 

[Ramgoose]

Actually, he made a stronger claim than I did. I merely said they are more likely to fail. He said "they don't fail."

 

[Fuzznutz]

What? How so?

In 2002 GM signed leasing agreements to Daimler Chrysler for the 5.7L block for the new 2003 model 5.7L Hemi.

Im not sure if its true or not but there's definitely info out there to read and I don't mind stirring the pot lol.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

 

[Ramgoose]

In 2002 GM signed leasing agreements to Daimler Chrysler for the 5.7L block for the new 2003 model 5.7L Hemi.

Im not sure if its true or not but there's definitely info out there to read and I don't mind stirring the pot lol.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

I don’t see this as a negative. Plenty of Chevy 350’s pulled boats and campers all over this country for 40years. You don’t need a Cummins or Duramax to tow. Im talking trucks, station wagons and sedans towing boats and Airstreams.

 

[BowDown]

In 2002 GM signed leasing agreements to Daimler Chrysler for the 5.7L block for the new 2003 model 5.7L Hemi.

Im not sure if its true or not but there's definitely info out there to read and I don't mind stirring the pot lol.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

Its not, I don't even need to look it up, I'm a MOPAR guy, LA, B, RB and HEMI fan.
Other than having 8 cylinder bores, using a crank, rods, pistons , cylinder heads, intake manifold and burning fuel, there's nothing in common with GM's 5.7 other than displacement which isn't even accurate. The Gen 3 HEMI (actually 345 CI not 350 as the 70-90's GM 5.7 and the GM LS1 and 6 arent 350 ci either, they are 346 ci.) is a clean sheet of paper design, from is deep skirted 6 bolt mains the the hemispherical heads.

GM didnt license Chrysler or Toyota to use any variation of their block design, if you look at a GM small block and a Gen 3 HEMI you'd see they aren't even close in appearance

GM 350 block

Gen 3 HEMI block