Slashdot Mirror
Ford To Offer Fuel-Saving 'Start-Stop' System
Ponca City writes "The Detroit Free Press reports that Ford plans to offer start-stop systems on many cars in 2012 that save fuel by turning an engine off when the vehicle is idling and quickly restart it when the driver releases the brake or steps on the gas pedal, improving fuel economy by 4% to 10%, depending on driving conditions. The system, common in Europe on cars with manual transmissions, is already in use in the US on gasoline-electric hybrids, including the Ford Fusion Hybrid. Automakers have been reluctant to add the feature to cars in the US because the testing method that the Environmental Protection Agency uses to determine fuel efficiency ratings doesn't include many stops and thus doesn't recognize the technology's effectiveness."
Buy a Ford!
How does this system behave in cold weather? Sometimes, I want the car running for a while, either to power the heater or to just warm up the engine before I take it on the road?
I've always heard that starting a car uses more gas than a couple minutes on idle. Is that a myth? Mythbusters, wherefore art thou?
a lot of things like driving habits and terrain when considering the efficiency of the car. The EPA isn't in the business of doing the right thing, its in business.
... "If it's not being tested or measured, it's not worth doing".
How many cycles will a flywheel driving starter motor / solenoid setup last?
TFA doesn't mention what will be used, but a spring / torsion system that captured the rotational inertia of the engine to stop it, and then used that stored energy to restart the engine would be great for warm restarts.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
Particularly outside fast food restaurants or supermarkets, sometimes it seems that there are drivers in most of the "parked" cars, eating meals, talking on the phone, or waiting for the passenger to emerge from the store. And usually the car is idling. That's a fair amount of cash going out the tailpipe right there.
Automakers have been reluctant to add the feature to cars in the U.S. because the testing method that the Environmental Protection Agency uses to determine fuel efficiency ratings doesn't include many stops and thus doesn't recognize the technology's effectiveness.
When I asked the question several years ago, a Ford engineer told me that they didn't implement it because non-hybrid cars didn't have enough battery capacity. I know that each start drains a car battery, and then the battery recharges as you drive (even in standard, all-gas-powered, non-hybrid cars). I inferred from his statement that standard car batteries wouldn't recharge quickly enough to provide capacity for frequent restarts. That would make sense; designing that much capacity into standard batteries would be a waste.
Does anyone know the truth? Was the engineer full of it? Is Ford using higher-capacity and/or faster-charging batteries? Don't tell me to RTFA, because I did and know enough not to take everything at face value.
It is a known fact (maybe not widely known) that a very large propotion of engine wear occurs in the first few seconds after startup. When the engine is stopped, gravity pulls oil back down to the sump, and the oil pump takes thise seconds after startup to redistribute oil around the engine to vital moving parts. I also suspect that will increse the thermal shock loading on the engine, especially as the O rings will suffer a much greater number of heating/cooling cycles than in a regular engine.
The conspiracy theorist in me says that this is just a way for manufacturers to increase their revenues for ongoing maintenance (as these engines WILL need far more regular maintenance cycles) while selling it to consumers as being environmentally friendly. I doubt Ford will let anyone aside from their dealers touch these engines.
A far better solution would be to make the engines super efficient at idle (whether this is by shutting down cylinder firing or by other low friction means). This would keep the oil in the engine moving, and would keep the engine relatively warm.
What is the real goal of this? Is it really to decrease fossil fuel consumption, or is it planned obsolescence, considering that most engine wear occurs during engine start up when oil has drained back into the crankcase? Will all vehicles with this feature be equipped with electrically-driven dry sump systems so the bearings and lifters are already pressurized at start-up?
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I'd think it should be possible to rig up the flywheel so it can be used to store momentum to restart the engine after a short stop. An electric clutch - normally engaged to keep the engine running when said clutch has broken down - with a soft engage mechanism so the flywheel can smoothly get the crank turning. A modern engine generally starts in the first two or three rotations of the crank, especially when it is already warmed up. Stop the engine while keeping the flywheel running, wait for the lights to turn, engage the flywheel to the crank and start the engine.
--frank[at]unternet.org
It will have a nice round blue logo and when you press it, you can either start your car or select "sleep"...
Privacy is terrorism.
This may work on a small engine but not on a typical american gas guzzler, You would have to use a huge alternator to guarantee the battery stays charged or use a voltage sensor to disable the system to guarantee there is enough cranking power.
There would have to be a temperature controlled override built into the climate controls to insure the car gets warmed up on those cold days.
There will have to be an override if the air conditioning is used.
Excessive wear and tear on the engine and starting system will result.
There are safety concerns too, More than once i have been able to stomp on the gas to get the hell out of the way of some careless idiot about to rear end me.
Personally, i pass on this idea.
All the issues you list apply no matter what the engine size.
Starter motor/battery/alternator is already scaled with the engine.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
How many cycles will a flywheel driving starter motor / solenoid setup last?
The extra starts will be with a HOT engine, with the lubrication already circulated, cylinders and coolant warmed, fuel pressurized, etc. This is a MUCH lighter load on the starter, flywheel gear teeth, and bearings.
TFA doesn't mention what will be used, but a spring / torsion system that captured the rotational inertia of the engine to stop it, and then used that stored energy to restart the engine would be great for warm restarts.
And would be a real bummer if the engine happened to misfire on the start - at which point it would have to be cranked anyhow.
Ford once worked on such a system, using block of rubber as the spring. This got the internal nickname "the rubber band engine". That was back before computerized engine control and it was retired undeployed due to a lack of reliability.
Computer-controlled start was a holy grail among the engineers working on the first four generations of engine control computers (back when I was among them). But it's a hard problem to get reliable. So it only started appearing on cars within the last few years - perhaps after hybrids made solving the problem mandatory.
I'm betting on the system being based on the regular starter motor for non-hybrids. The starter is already there, so only software (and maybe materials upgrade for longer life) is required, rather than the addition of a new mechanism. But it would be interesting if the RBE finally makes it to the big time.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
This may work on a small engine but not on a typical american gas guzzler
Once again: If you're driving a gas guzzler, you don't care about 5-10% saving.
It's a bit like saying "This is stupid, because the Formula 1 car I'm driving is seldom at a complete halt".
If you wish to drive in a gas guzzler, go ahead. If you wish to be sensible and save a few bucks, you probably are not driving a gas guzzler and you would probably like another 5-10% saving.
First Owner Returned Defective
Found On Road Dead
Fast Only Rolling Downhill
Driver Returns On Foot
That's all I can think of for now.
When left in park the engine can idle. This provides a simple way of giving the driver control - perfect for warming up a car. When placed in drive, the start-stop system can do it's thing. Of course this is just an example of a simple fix to the problem. More complex fixes utilizing interior, exterior, and engine thermometers could also be implemented. Long story short - it should not be a problem.
Hell, even the article description indicates that the start-stop system is activated when the bake is pressed. The brake is not pressed when idle and in park..
What has me interested is seeing electrification of all the accessories (power steering/brakes/AC compressor/etc) that are currently typically driven by belts off of the engine. Besides being more efficient, removing them from the motor reduces drag on the motor and enables higher RPMs, thus more power density. Hopefully, even on 'normal' cars, we'll get to the point where the only things driven from the motor will be the output shaft and the starternator (starter/alternator combo unit, possibly integrated in-line between the engine output shaft and transmission input).
Hopefully this will help reduce the cost of these components due to economies of scale.
Who knows, perhaps the early '00s "mild" hybridization will morph into something that's standard across all non-dedicated hybrid vehicles, perhaps even reducing weight overall (starternator, lithium battery replacing lead-acid).
In my area a car AC has to work hard almost all year. A 30 second shutdown would be enough to turn the driver and passengers into a very wet ball of sweat.
Right now, you are lucky to get 4 to 6 cars through a light before it turns red again. The problem isn't necessarily because the lights are too short, but more often, the hesitation from one driver to the next in starting to move. What happens when those cars now take a fraction of a second longer just to start up again?
Will the extra fuel used to start multiple times still offset the original idle time fuel usage?
This may work on a small engine but not on a typical american gas guzzler
Once again: If you're driving a gas guzzler, you don't care about 5-10% saving.
It's a bit like saying "This is stupid, because the Formula 1 car I'm driving is seldom at a complete halt".
If you wish to drive in a gas guzzler, go ahead. If you wish to be sensible and save a few bucks, you probably are not driving a gas guzzler and you would probably like another 5-10% saving.
If you are truly sensible, you won't be spending $20,000-$30,000 to get a new car that will save you at most 2mpg from idling (and that is only if the 10% figure is reached).
I've got a better solution, one that will save gas whether city driving or highway. Do the same thing they did in the 70s. Build smaller, lighter cars. The Honda Civic in the 70s and early 80s got mileage close to what some of the hybrids get today. Why, they did have high horse power engines that are needed to haul all the extra weight around. Today's civic is closer to a full size car of the 70s than a compact.
Today, we have cars that are over-powered, over-weight and over-priced. I have 1972 Volkswagen Beetle that I drive most days. It gets actual 27mpg city and 32 highway. I am not suggesting that everyone drive an old Beetle. It is frustrating, though that a 38 year old vehicle gets better mileage than most of today's fuel efficient vehicles.
I turn my engine off at many of the lights on my way to work just by turning the key. Doing that for years in both cars. There's one particularly long light that if you hit it as it's just turned red you wait two and a half minutes before you get the green again. I once did a test over two weeks and I'd average more than 70 minutes a week idling my car just waiting at lights. No reason not to just turn it off at reds instead of wasting more than an hours gas/week idling. The car doesn't get overly hot or cold regardless of it being off. And saves me lots of gas and $ in the long run. YMMV (pun not intended).
DaveyJJ
Bad idea. 90% of engine wear happens on startup and shutdown. Journal bearings take a minimum rotational speed for the shaft to start "levitating" --until that speed is reached, they rub against the journal and wear it down. I imagine this technology would decrease reliability.
seems like a bad idea.. the startup is the most wear and tear on an engine, and requires more fuel than idling
They already do....and have been for several years.
Given that it is Ford I'd suggest that all they are thinking is 'Start-Stop' will be better then 'Stop-break-leak-fall apart-blow smoke-rust'.
You're badly out of date. The Ford family threw out the outside CEO and his cronies some time back and have turned the company around big-time, especially on quality issues.
Ford now produces some of the best stuff on the road (including the highest mileage hybrid), and does better than even the best Japanese cars on reliability (even BEFORE Toyota started having speed control issues).
They're also the only one of the big three that didn't need a government bailout/confiscation to stay open - let alone thrive.
And no I haven't worked for them for over a quarter century, nor do I own their stock. But since their turnaround I sure as hell buy their products.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The Porsche Panameras here in the United States have this technology as well and it works pretty damn well. You can also turn this option off and have the engine run when stopped however.
That last sentence frustrates me to no end.
Balls.
on the test are to artificially inflate the car makers mpg numbers.
Hillarious to see that their previous "fixes" to the test are now biting them in the ass now.
An easter egg in the O2 sensor at 120,000 miles allowed my car to take full advantage of sudden engine turn off at low RPMs, while idling at stop lights and making the occasional left turn. The bonus round involved finding someone to turn the key while I beat on the starter with a jack handle to get the engine to turn over every 10 starts.
Start stop is not the answer. An SUV that currently gets 14mpg in town, would only get, at most 15.4mpg and that is only if the maximum 10% efficiency is reached. At the more realistic 4%, it would be 14.6mpg. Either of those are still crappy mileage.
If the US is serious about reducing fuel consumption, lowering the speed limit has the largest impact, because it touches every car in existence, not just new ones. Face it, cars burn less fuel at 55-60mph than they do at 70mph (let alone the 80-90mph a lot of freeway drivers seem to drive). There is also more time to react to problems and less wear and tear on the highways. Once the speed limit is reduced, then new cars can be manufactured for that standard, making them even more efficient since they won't need all the horsepower they have today.
Studies show that the average vehicle, on the road today, would increase mpg 12% at 60mph versus 70mph and 15% at 55mph. That same SUV, would go from 14mpg to 16.1mpg at a 55mph speed limit. Better yet, a sedan would go from 25mpg to 28+mpg.
The device that most effects fuel efficiency is the connection from the seat to the throttle.
Most of the concerns in this thread have been answered many times in hybrid vehicle and hypermiling forums. But just to address a couple...
Car batteries are sized for a cycle of rapid discharge (seconds), followed by moderate recharge while driving (minutes to hours), followed by very slow discharge when the engine is off (hours to weeks). The details are the secret sauce of electrical system design, hard to find out even from inside the auto industry. One would expect an engine start-stop car to have a larger battery and alternator than a conventional car. One consequence of this typical charge-discharge pattern is that any vehicle driven only on ten-minute trips is guaranteed to have battery problems.
Other facts of life (analysis available from EPA, no less) are that cruising at a steady speed is the highest-mileage mode of any car, while stop-and-go traffic gives the lowest mileage. Successful hybrids have features to deal with both of these extremes of fuel consumption. The start-stop system obviously deals with one aspect of the latter.
Alfred P. Sloan has been dead for 44 years.
You have to understand how batteries fail down here in the high heat.
I used to live in the midwest. There they failed when trying to start a cold engine. It would crank really slow and then maybe not start. Once the engine was warm they would start agin as it was less work to start with a warm engine and battery.
Here in the heat, the battery just goes away. You can start the car with no problems and then drive for 30 miles. Stop for gas. When you try to start it, you don't even get a click.
If we had cars shutting down like this, they would have them stopped on the freeway and in the drive through lane. Not a big deal with a hybrid as you have multiple batteries, but not good for conventional cars.
start-stop cars have batteries with glass-fiber mats that are 90% drained with battery acid around the lead plates. This gives them the ability to deep-cycle the batteries. Also, the alternators have more power and in most European cars with this system, the alternators only deliver power when the batteries need charging. The preferred method is even to only charge when the car is decelerating, so it brakes the car, in stead of using power that could also be used to accelerate or propel the car.
These batteries and intelligent charging systems cost money. That is why it hasn't been done before.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
Mazda invented it over a year ago but Ford takes the credit as usual (they took credit for blind spot reducing mirrors not too long ago which were invented by European automakers 10 years ago too).
The Mazda3 in Europe and Japan already has this feature for a year now, but it's not here because of the retarded EPA testing methods. FYI, the 3 is not available in a hybrid, so it isn't using the usual quick start/stop system used in the Prius, etc. Mazda invented a system where the cylinders are precisely positioned ("staged" if you will call it that) so that a restart is quick/effortless.
This isn't Ford bashing, but it irritates me when credit isn't given where it's due; especially to the underling companies that the general public still believe produces poor cars or innovates nothing.
It depends hugely on your driving patterns. My father has a long commute (50+ miles each way) that's almost entirely highway driving and conceivably a single stop, so he'd get almost nothing out of this. On the other hand, I have a very short (3 miles, less if I skip coffee) commute through mostly residential areas so I could easily stop ten times in that short space. I consistently get at least the claimed 37MPG on the highway, but my commute is so stop-and-go that I get about 26MPG during the week instead of the claimed 32 city (which I tend to get on the weekends during more typical city driving). As it is, I still only have to fill up once every 4-6 weeks and have a small tank so it's not much of a problem. Still, it's a bit of a shame that I don't have the English version of my car, which has this feature already.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Ford: inventing today what VW put into production 8 years ago.
I drove a SMART with this a few weeks ago. The engine starts up when you take your foot off the brake.
No sig today...
You armchair engineers...you're so predictable in threads like this.
No sig today...
Armchair engineers: They come up with some largely imagined problem, assume the engine won't be modified in any way to compensate by the people with proper qualifications in engineering and engine design ... then they cry "It'll never work!".
Threads like this always bring them out.
No sig today...
After buying one of these cars, stop by the parts counter for a spare six-pack of ring gears and starter motors.
And I must say that I hated it, at least as implemented.
The problem was that in the car I was driving (a Smart car) it was far too active. If you can to a stop at a sign instead of a light, it would blip off. It made any sort of reliable acceleration very unnerving. When I'm pulling into a lane I want to know that the car is going to go as soon as I put my foot on the gas, not a second later after it's started back up again. Perhaps some kind of timer? I have no problem with the idea - I don't really need my engine running at a long light, as long as the car is ready to go again quickly. Thankfully, this car had the ability to switch the system off, and so I drove it that way after the first fifteen minutes. Of course, if you have to fiddle with that, you might as well turn the car on and off manually.
My first car was a 94 Ford Tempo coupe. I hated that thing, it got worse fuel efficiency than my mom's Caravan, had a terrible transmission, and leaked just about every fluid it had. Changing the coolant was a pain, you needed three buckets cause there was a bar right beneath the drain that the coolant would run along and spill out in three places. On the bright side it did teach me how to repair cars. I must have replaced every component in the engine over the four years I drove it. Started died twice, Oxygen sensor died, had to replace the transmission fluid pan, belt wore out, alternator died. Replaced the gas tank once, the entire muffler system twice, the stupid automatic seat belt motor twice! The car finally died when the rear shock broke off its mounting and punched through the trunk.
I swore I'd never buy a Ford after that.
Fast forward to 2010, and Ford refuses to take bail-out money, earning them some respect in my book. Then I hear about Ford's SYNC and think, "Wow, that is really cool." Then my Suzuki Aero decides to take a dirt nap. I end up buying a 2010 Ford Focus SE. I love this car, its the sportiest thing I've ever owned, gets good fuel economy and SYNC is just amazing. And Ford is updating SYNC to be able to control applications on your phone soon.
Ford has turned itself around in my opinion. They are actually innovating, and so they have won me over, even after the nightmare that was my Tempo. Congrats Ford.
A couple of years ago a friend and I went to a concert on a night it got to about -25F. We took side streets home due to black ice issues on the freeway (and slightly too much to drink..).
We noticed that at stoplights his Honda Odyssey's temperature guage actually went *down* at stoplights. We were at a particularly long light and noticed the heater air getting cooler; it changed quickly once we got moving again, but I think you can lose heat faster than you think in extreme temperatures.
10 MPG: $.32/mi
12 MPG: $.27/mi
Savings: $.05/mi
42 MPG: $.076/mi
44 MPG: $.073
Savings: $.003/mi
To put these in perspective, for my instance, to save $100 in gas, I would have to drive only 2000 miles in the truck while pulling my trailer. So in my case I'd save about $100/yr. with a 2 MPG increase in towing MPG in the truck.
To save $100 with a 2 MPG increase on the bike, it would take 33,333 miles. Assuming about 4000 miles/yr on the bike, it would take over 8 years to save $100 from a 2 MPG increase, or alternatively I'd save $12/yr.
Assuming a different scenario, driving each vehicle exclusively for a year that an average American supposedly drive 12,000 miles. A 2 MPG increase on a 10 MPG vehicle would save $600. A 2 MPG increase on a 42 MPG vehicle would save $36. The numbers speak for themselves.
Factor in a few extra starters over the life of the vehicle at anywhere from $75-$150/each and those savings in fuel economy might actually cost you money.
But apparently they sold their tractor division to Fiat in the 90s.
I am looking for something good to say about Fords.
But it has to be honest.
I know far to many mechanics to believe your line.
Initial quality is pure un-adulterated bullshit.
You can't measure car quality by counting minor defects on delivery and just call that it.
Fords sucked balls 25+ years ago too.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
One question: Why?
Fords are so poorly designed inside and out, technically and ergonomically, I can't understand why anyone would buy one when there are alternatives like Honda and Toyota available. The quality of workmanship is also so poor compared to brands like Honda and Toyota--again, why? One can buy a good, used Honda for less money than a new Ford and come away with a better car, one that's more reliable, more durable, better performing, and more pleasant to operate.
Is it just a matter of poor taste? Not realizing that there are great alternatives? Masochism?
I would love to support an all-American auto company with my business, but I won't reward shoddy engineering, design, workmanship, and service with my money. Besides, Hondas have been built in the U.S. for a long time now, so they provide plenty of American jobs.
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34612834
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34647708
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34665368
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1924664&cid=34669668
ROTFLMAO, I wouldn't listen to "professor hairyfeet" guys, he's only an ITT Tech student.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34612834
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34647708
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34665368
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1924664&cid=34669668
ROTFLMAO - I wouldn't listen to "professor hairyfeet" guys (he's only an ITT Tech student).
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34612834
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34647708
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1922942&cid=34665368
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1924664&cid=34669668
ROTFLMAO!
I wouldn't seriously listen to "professor hairyfeet" guys, he's only an ITT Tech student.