REPORT: Stop-start tech saves fuel, so why can't we get it in the States? Blame the E

Filed under: Hybrid, Government/Legal, Technology, Mazda

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog....stop-start.jpg

Are there any among us that wouldn't prefer a meaningful boost in fuel mileage from our current car or truck, all other things being equal? Sure. And the good news is that there are a couple of easy ways to achieve that laudable goal, starting with adding stop/start technology to the car's powerplant.

In case you're not familiar with the fuel-saving tech, we're basically just talking about automatically shutting off the engine when it's not needed, which requires little more than some computer controls along with a slightly more powerful battery and starter motor (though some systems are admittedly more complex). Not exactly rocket science, but at an estimated cost of $500 per vehicle, it does cost a rather substantial amount. Either way, it does sound pretty intriguing, right? So, why don't we see more of these cars in the States?

You can add head Mazda engineer Robert Davis to the list of those who think stop/start should spread throughout the States and according to Automotive News, and he's got a theory as to why it hasn't: the Environmental Protection Agency's fuel economy testing procedures. Naturally, an engine needs a chance to idle for the stop/start-equipped car's computer to switch it off, and the EPA's current test cycle only allows that to happen one single time.

We don't know about you... but our city driving patterns usually include way more than one single stop. By way of comparison, the Japanese city cycle is programmed to allow the engine to idle much more and cars with stop/start technology boast a significant mileage improvement - from seven to nine percent, according to Davis. Besides, most of the start/stop systems we've sampled on foreign-market cars include an override button for those who find the technology objectionable.

So, if there's a problem with the way the technology jibes with the government's testing methodology, what's the solution? The EPA is currently accepting public comment and is seeking input on how to modify its fuel mileage testing procedures. Davis is calling for an "industry wide" agreement on a procedure that would help highlight the benefits of stop/start technology. Is that the right direction to go? Feel free to sound off in the comments.

[Source: Automotive News - sub. req.]REPORT: Stop-start tech saves fuel, so why can't we get it in the States? Blame the EPA originally appeared on Autoblog on Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:58:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.



Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

More...

Still don't understand how it saves fuel. Whats the difference turning a key?

Its much quicker

Than turning the key? Much quicker on, much quicker off same same. Might be quicker to turn off and save fuel, but its much quicker to turn on also to use it :)

Just say it saves you $2 worth of fuel for every tank (and honestly I would say it would be closer to $1)
it would take you 250 tanks of fuel or approx 100,000km to make back the extra $500

hardly worth the effort I think

Also it is proven....that idling a car for an hour will only use about 1L of fuel.

SO...basically $1.50.

I have issues with stop/starting on the engine internals....as it is proven by oil companies that the major damage occurs on all cars during start up.

Im guessing their will also be some lag time from starting again at lights...even its it only 0.5 seconds.

Happy Motoring
duglet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by duglet

Also it is proven....that idling a car for an hour will only use about 1L of fuel.

SO...basically $1.50.

I have issues with stop/starting on the engine internals....as it is proven by oil companies that the major damage occurs on all cars during start up.

Im guessing their will also be some lag time from starting again at lights...even its it only 0.5 seconds.

Happy Motoring
duglet

---

Good point Doug! A few years back my mate had a food stand at a music festival and I was helping out, the only way we could keep the food cold was to keep his truck running 24/7 so the fridge worked properly over 2 1/2 days we used less than 10 litres of diesel keeping it idling.

For fuel saving manufacturers need to look at significant weight reduction technologies.

how about they work on cylinder cut off technology, this would save move fuel, say your car is at idle make it run on 2 cylinders not 4. i know this technology is here already out there, plus make ultimate fuel or premium cheaper than regluar after all they say its better for the enviroment, even supply more ron pectage to it. anyhow thats reckon :)

I guess they have to start somewhere. I read recently that theres no use going to Hydrogen cars either, as they seem to emit more gasses than standard fossel fuel cars...

DailyTech - Study Indicates Hydrogen Cars' Lifecycle Emits More Carbon Than Gas Cars

---------- Post added at 05:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:07 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by philbie13

how about they work on cylinder cut off technology, this would save move fuel, say your car is at idle make it run on 2 cylinders not 4. i know this technology is here already out there, plus make ultimate fuel or premium cheaper than regluar after all they say its better for the enviroment, even supply more ron pectage to it. anyhow thats reckon :)

---

Honda are doing this fairly successfully. There are many issues with cyclinder cut tech tho, as most cutout methods comprise of first cutting off the fuel supply to the cylinders and then, after a predefined waiting time, shutting off the gas exchange valves as well.

Unfortunately, cylinder cut tech currently suffers from the disadvantage that gas exchange losses occur for an unnecessary period of time. In addition, during the time when the fuel supply is cut off but air is still delivered through the cylinders that have been cut out, the exhaust is highly diluted and cooled, so that a catalytic converter connected to the internal combustion engine can no longer operate properly. If you have a look at Honda's specs, the CO2 emmissions for their engine cut range are the same as their normal range. The only saving being whats left in your fuel tank, not the environment..

I think its the right way to go though. Even a 4cyl car can be cut to 3, even 2 on the Hwy, and kick in when needed. Mind you, we could all just go buy that new ford fiesta and have 3.7ltrs / 100km on the hwy too :D

Problem with cylinder cut off is that Australia isn't flat enough.
Especially in a small 4 cyl car, they will be in full mode most of the time anyway.
I read once that Holden hadn't bothered introducing it in their v8s dispite the technology already being there. But they have now, but more as a marketing gimmik. The gains aren't that great in real world normal driving.

Just like the stop start technology, the extra cost to the car outweighs the fuel savings

if we want more fuel efficient cars the answer is simple, we need to stop wanting more and more in our cars. It's the weight that is making cars inefficient. Make cars lighter, they use less fuel
mazdas plan on reducing weight is the only sensible idea I have heard from any manufacturer in recent years

We should also loose a few more kgs... No more Mcdonalds :D that will improve fuel econ heaps!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wardski

We should also loose a few more kgs... No more Mcdonalds :D that will improve fuel econ heaps!!

---

Hold the phone im agreeing with Wardski !!!!! No i'm not sick, no i'm not sucking upto him .!!

WIEGHT is the enemy of performance an fuel economy. For my money all these other ideas are really just gimmicks designed to sell their cars.
Less car for more money ? Yes you can buy LIGHTEN'D versions of high performance cars Lambo's Mercedes Bentley the list goes on ,most of these light wieght cars are stripped of interior panels /rear seats/ air con/ stereos/ floorcarpet /sound deadening/ spare wheel /tools/ standard front seats replaced by racing kevlar seats with no or little padding.HOWEVER what you wll get on most of these specials is Kevlar body panels and roof inc doors perspex windows except for front windscreen lightweight mag wheels and titainium wheel nuts and r-spec tyres with a roll cage as a option . You will pay thousands of dollars more for these uncomfortable hot
exotic specials because they have less wieght hence more performance and if driven seadately would return much improved fuel economy over the standard car .
As Wardski states if we all lost 10 klo's or more like 30 in my case we would see a difference in fuel economy or performance.
Col :spin:

Exactly col

little Renault we have, with just 1 person in the car it's quite capable of cruising at 100km/h and has got 60MPG
with two people on board cruising drops to 90km/h and 45mpg and struggles a bit with hills
people often accuse car companies of not careing about economy. But in reality it's the consumers fault, they are trying and doing a good job. But we just want more and more features
my 1960 Mercedes is over 5 meters long it dwarfs a current model S class yet it only weighs 1350kg. Yet the current car is producing more power, and weighs 2000kg and gets better economy than mine. My old merc has everything you really need in a car, nothing you don't, it is more than comfortable enough to use regularly if desired. Imagine what the current s class would be like it it was more like mine