Auto StartStop

[Zig]

At some point you're going to need to put up evidence, and not speculation, that it's harmful for our specific engines.

Simply acknowledging the more robust parts requirements infers the potential for increased wear and tear.

Sponsored

 

[Gregs24]

Didn’t need to fiddle with the settings to recognize the enhancement

It will work of course, but long term the charging of an AGM battery is different to SLI which is why the BMS has different settings available to use. They wouldn't be there if it didn't matter, but how much it matters is the gamble you take.

 

[GrabThatBlue]

Here an article in The Netherlands and Germany, research by ADAC that Start Stop is bad for your car.

Is that what it actually says?

Research has shown that wear on the crankshaft's main bearings is more common in modern models than before, and this is thought to be due to the start/stop system. - according to a single person

Toyota don't seem to be having any problems with crankshaft wear in the Prius that does way more stop start cycles with a longer duration than older S/S systems such as on the Mustang. And we all know the sort of stratospheric mileages the Prius can do on the original engine.

Just like I said, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that something that is used more, will wear and tear faster. An engine has many parts. Shutting the car on and off takes many parts to work. You don't need any degree to see that making these parts work more, will wear and tear faster.

So you can defend the opposite just like you want. Without the system is always better than with the system. Even if the system does not destroy the engine, it willl wear and tear quicker, that'st just the logic.

Why do people upgrade many car parts when putting a super charger? So the car can handle the wear and tear more. That's how literally every part works. Want more power? Make the car stronger? You want SS system? Build the car that can handle it. You have a car that handles it but you don't use the system? Your car is then even better. Voila.

Just like upgrading all car parts to put a supercharger on it, but you don't put a supercharger on it. You just built the car that can handle more.

So love the system, defend the system, but logic is not on your side.

 

[rijndael]

Simply acknowledging the more robust parts requirements infers the potential for increased wear and tear.

If they are engineered properly, it just means different parts were needed.

 

[Gregs24]

Simply acknowledging the more robust parts requirements infers the potential for increased wear and tear.

The different parts or systems are to meet the different requirements. You design the vehicle for the systems it has. Sometimes that results in a better and simpler setup as with the ISG v starter and alternator.

If the vehicle is designed for the job it has to do then there is no problem.

 

[Zig]

It will work of course, but long term the charging of an AGM battery is different to SLI which is why the BMS has different settings available to use. They wouldn't be there if it didn't matter, but how much it matters is the gamble you take.

I guess you didn’t read the link that was included and seems like you might have even glossed over my reply re the red top.

 

[Cz_Ziemniak]

I guess you didn’t read the link that was included and seems like you might have even glossed over my reply re the red top.

my balls

 

[Zig]

The different parts or systems are to meet the different requirements. You design the vehicle for the systems it has. Sometimes that results in a better and simpler setup as with the ISG v starter and alternator.

If the vehicle is designed for the job it has to do then there is no problem.

Although violation of the k.i.s.s. principle doesn’t make it simpler. A more robust requirement indicates a stronger need.

 

[AZ_Ryan]

An OCI interval for each. 5K miles.

I wouldn't expect to see a difference after just 5k.

 

[Zig]

my balls

Are wet? Talk about random. Lol.

 

[Cz_Ziemniak]

Are wet? Talk about random. Lol.

no

 

[CrossCajunMustang]

And that's my point. I'm not saying it destroys your engine or causes significantly more wear. But you can't possibly argue the engine isn't better off without it. And the average 1 mpg trade off simply isn't worth it. I didnt buy a Mustang for gas mileage. Not to mention it's just annoying as hell. So glad I don't have to deal with it.

Definitely should watch Carlos Tavares interview about government pressure on automakers. I really believe that Dodge could have kept making gas vehicles because they were providing police forces with them. I think that power belongs to Ford now because they selling Mustangs to the government agencies for recruiting.

 

[Gregs24]

Just like I said, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to know that something that is used more, will wear and tear faster. An engine has many parts. Shutting the car on and off takes many parts to work. You don't need any degree to see that making these parts work more, will wear and tear faster.

So you can defend the opposite just like you want. Without the system is always better than with the system. Even if the system does not destroy the engine, it willl wear and tear quicker, that'st just the logic.

Why do people upgrade many car parts when putting a super charger? So the car can handle the wear and tear more. That's how literally every part works. Want more power? Make the car stronger? You want SS system? Build the car that can handle it. You have a car that handles it but you don't use the system? Your car is then even better. Voila.

Just like upgrading all car parts to put a supercharger on it, but you don't put a supercharger on it. You just built the car that can handle more.

So love the system, defend the system, but logic is not on your side.

More use of a system designed to cope with that additional use obviates the problem. S/S systems are 'designed in' not bolted on. As I said pages back if you put S/S on a 1980's car it would be awful but it isn't, it is a 2025 car designed to work that way with suitable engineering enhancements (including the oil technology). Of course over-engineering is also pointless and a waste.

The logic is very much on my side - it is designed for S/S

Common sense and rocket science don't come into it, engineering knowledge and data do. Common sense relies on the person having the detailed knowledge of the subject involved or you end up with Donald Rumsfeld's 'unknown unknowns'.

I know supersonic airflow definitely doesn't follow 'common sense' hence why it was so difficult to develop supersonic planes.

 

[Gregs24]

I guess you didn’t read the link that was included and seems like you might have even glossed over my reply re the red top.

I read it - it says the red Top is an AGM type battery?

It really is no skin off my nose what you do with it I was just trying to be helpful.

 

[Cz_Ziemniak]

More use of a system designed to cope with that additional use obviates the problem. S/S systems are 'designed in' not bolted on. As I said pages back if you put S/S on a 1980's car it would be awful but it isn't, it is a 2025 car designed to work that way with suitable engineering enhancements (including the oil technology). Of course over-engineering is also pointless and a waste.

The logic is very much on my side - it is designed for S/S

Common sense and rocket science don't come into it, engineering knowledge and data do. Common sense relies on the person having the detailed knowledge of the subject involved or you end up with Donald Rumsfeld's 'unknown unknowns'.

I know supersonic airflow definitely doesn't follow 'common sense' hence why it was so difficult to develop supersonic planes.

You two are arguing different points.

You're correct that modern cars are designed with S/S in mind, and thus can handle it

GTB is correct that it is still better to avoid using it, as it is less wear and tear.

Now kiss and make up

Sponsored