DIY Start-Stop
Author
Discussion

OSGrooves

Original Poster:

38 posts

250 months

Tuesday 6th April 2010
quotequote all
So I was travelling in a car with someone yesterday who turns their engine off at traffic lights. I didn't think this was a great idea for safety reasons. However, it got me wondering.

Does turning your engine off at traffic lights actually save you any fuel? I was under the impression that when a car started up, it fed a lot of fuel into the engine and therefore negated any benefit from turning the engine off. I know that Start-Stop systems leave most of the car's systems running.

Can anyone provide me with any evidence to back up my theory that turning your engine off for small periods of time doesn't save you any fuel?

Ean218

2,046 posts

281 months

Tuesday 6th April 2010
quotequote all
OSGrooves said:
So I was travelling in a car with someone yesterday who turns their engine off at traffic lights. I didn't think this was a great idea for safety reasons.
I can think of lots of reasons why this is a poor idea but safety would not be one of them!

OSGrooves

Original Poster:

38 posts

250 months

Tuesday 6th April 2010
quotequote all
Ok, lets hear your top 5.

hairykrishna

14,539 posts

234 months

Tuesday 6th April 2010
quotequote all
We had a whole thread debating this. As I recall we pretty much concluded that the amount you'd spend on new starter motors etc would cancel out the small petrol savings.

John MacK

3,170 posts

237 months

Tuesday 6th April 2010
quotequote all
I'm sure I read or heard somewhere recently that the engine would need to be off for something like 3 minutes to save any fuel, due to the increased use of fuel at, prior to and immediatly after ignition.

This was in relation to maually turning the engine off. I would imagine a manufacturer would be able to adjust the ECU etc to allow them to make a saving.

Or else their figures are fudged to make it look like there is a saving. rolleyes

hairykrishna

14,539 posts

234 months

Tuesday 6th April 2010
quotequote all
Not so. Modern engines, if they're already warm, don't use any significant amount of 'extra' fuel on start up.

TonyHetherington

32,091 posts

281 months

Tuesday 6th April 2010
quotequote all
Ean218 said:
I can think of lots of reasons why this is a poor idea but safety would not be one of them!
The inability for a "quick" move would probably be key - namely emergency vehicles coming up behind you.

poo at Paul's

14,621 posts

206 months

Tuesday 6th April 2010
quotequote all
just dont move through a red if there is a camera there...

Torquey

1,961 posts

259 months

Tuesday 6th April 2010
quotequote all
I remember it being said that in the last thread that:

-Normal batteries were not up to the job.
-normal starting motors are not up to the job.

bazking69

8,620 posts

221 months

Tuesday 6th April 2010
quotequote all
They'll wonder why they need a starter motor more often than a service...

Jimbo_vx

334 posts

267 months

Tuesday 6th April 2010
quotequote all
This idea that you need 3 minutes of fuel to start a car is barking.

Where does all the additional fuel go then? I remember my driving instructor trying to kid me, 15 years ago and the idea is still daft.

Start stop cars have slightly different starter motors that are beefed up. Batteries stay the same.
So if you are really looking for a good reason then the starter motor may be a week point, but i guess 90% of them would be perfectly up to it.

There are two good reasons not to do it though, it would be tedious and i'd get in the way of the car behind.

On a completely seperate note you probably do more expensive damage by keeping your car in gear with your foot on the clutch waiting for green.


esselte

14,626 posts

298 months

Tuesday 6th April 2010
quotequote all
The fuel computer on my car says I'm using less than a tenth of a litre of fuel per hour at idle...I'd have to be stood a long time to notice any difference in fuel economy...

Dr.Doofenshmirtz

16,952 posts

231 months

Tuesday 6th April 2010
quotequote all
I doubt you'll see any significant savings to be honest.
Extra wear and tear on the starter motor, extra alternator load whilst recharging the battery etc.

Fordo

1,572 posts

255 months

Tuesday 6th April 2010
quotequote all
last summer i was bored and tested the theory over three days worth of commuting. - mpg increased by 4mpg, compared to the mpg i usually got on the same commute. (i do a lot of city driving) . I was also very aware of my driving during the experiement, so some mpg increase could have been due to driving smoother, reading road ahead far more than normal, and concentrating very hard.

apparently the start up thing is a bit of a myth. If your stopped for more than 10 secs, switching off the engine does save fuel. but, as mentioned, you.d ruin your started motor / battery pretty quickly

snoopstah

391 posts

254 months

Tuesday 6th April 2010
quotequote all
Out of interest, do *all* cars with this functionality have the option to disable it? (I know some do).

If not, in 10-15 years the roads are going to be cluttered with cars that stopped the engine but can't restart it...

Republik

4,525 posts

221 months

Tuesday 6th April 2010
quotequote all
Play it by ear. Turning on and off at every set of lights can't be good. Turning the engine off whilst in traffic waiting for a train crossing is a good idea in my opinion.

redstu

2,287 posts

270 months

Tuesday 6th April 2010
quotequote all
Isn't start stop technology more about getting a low emmissions figure for the car on the government cycles rather than a real saving?

SClarke

546 posts

222 months

Tuesday 6th April 2010
quotequote all
I think start stop is pretty good technology really. It doesn't stop you having a powerful, petrol engined car yet it lowers fuel economy around town. It should be fairly PH friendly in principle.

Turning off normal starter motor cars all the time is probably a bad idea though. Start stop tech uses completely different ECU setup and reversible alternators etc.

sunbeam_alpine

7,250 posts

219 months

Tuesday 6th April 2010
quotequote all
snoopstah said:
Out of interest, do *all* cars with this functionality have the option to disable it? (I know some do).

If not, in 10-15 years the roads are going to be cluttered with cars that stopped the engine but can't restart it...
We've got an Audi A5 with the start stop. It can be turned off, but once you're used to it, it's fine. My wife mostly uses the A5, and she is used to it. It still surprises me when it cuts out at traffic lights.

durbster

12,138 posts

253 months

Tuesday 6th April 2010
quotequote all
I'm pretty sure you'd save a lot more fuel by judging the traffic lights so you lose as little momentum as possible.

I turn mine off when I know I won't be going anywhere for quite a long time, e.g. level crossings and queuing for fuel, but it seems an unecessary strain on the car and I would rather have full control should anything unexpected happen.