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?
Since it's already been deployed in Europe with great success (although the silence when you stand still at a red light is ominous) Mythbusters seems redundant.
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.
I don't remember if Mythbusters did an episode on starting/stopping the engine, but I do know it's a myth that starting and stopping the engine uses more gas than idling. It may have been true once, but electronic engine starters are pretty efficient these days.
On fuel injected cars you pay the penalty on a cold start - until the engine and exhaust / emissions systems are warmed up, the car runs rich (open loop).
Once the car is warmed up, the ECU (engine control unit) will go into a more efficient closed loop operation, using O2 sensor output to set more efficient fuel levels. Shutting off the engine for a moment will not send the system back to the less efficient open loop.
__ Someday, but not this morning, I'll finally learn to use the preview button.
That's a great way. I wish more people - especially politicians - would require actual measurable results, rather than simply latching onto an ideology and basing all their decisions on that, no matter what the results are.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
That was not what he meant. The technology is tried and testes. Maybe half of the cars around me use it. It works, it's reliable, and it undeniably saves gas/emissions. The problem here is that it doesn't save so much gas on the EPA test track. As such, it's not worth it - no matter the environmental benefits in the real world.
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)
When was the last time you sold a car because the engine had worn out? As opposed to selling it because the body rattles, the upholstery is worn, the doors leak water when it rains, the paint is scratched, the windshield is cracked, plastic parts are broken, the dashboard is crumbling?
RTFA. It says American car makers haven't implemented the technology, because it isn't tested by the EPA when rating the efficiency.
Everybody knows it improves efficiency. But because it isn't a part of the test, it's not implemented.
Um, unless you're running zero weight oil in your car (you're not) ... it doesn't run like water back to the sump in 60 seconds.
Your "known fact" is sort of correct when a car has been parked for some time (say, overnight) and you're cold starting it. But even that's a bit of a stretch these days with modern synthetic oils. Tear a motor down even after it's been sitting for weeks and you'll still find oil clinging to the bearing surfaces and pistons/cylinders.
I've seen this covered time and time again. In a modern vehicle, if you know you're going to be idling more than 30 seconds or so, it's better for fuel economy to shut it off. The Car Talk guys even mention it (little over halfway down).
Supposedly, with older carbuerated vehicles, you could waste a fair bit of fuel with frequent starts. Modern fuel injection systems don't have that problem, unless you have seriously leaky injectors.
Program Intellivision!
Dry sump systems make a hell of a lot more sense, considering that in a "normal wet-sump system" the pump is bolted to the engine block and is driven by the engine, costing power, not to mention the power loss by having the crankshaft slosh around in a pool of oil stored in the sump (oil pan).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_sump
Yes, ideally it would be an electric pump in either case, but it doesn't make sense for a conventional configuration to be electrically driven if the goal is to increase efficiency. If you're going to put an electric pump in, you may as well as eliminate the large capacity sump (oil pan) and move it into an auxiliary tank which will be a) easier to drain b) decrease engine assembly size and c) make it overall much, much easier to service the oiling system. It also makes it easier to install oil coolers, better oil filter systems, and so on.
A better oil filter system would be a big win for engine longevity and long-term efficiency. Conventional "oil filters" actually don't "filter" oil like a fuel filter does; the bypass is nearly always open (they typically begin open at like 12psi and by typical pressure at cruising RPM, oil can't flow through the paper substrate at all so the bypass fully opens) so the sludge and particulates are not "filtered" out but deposited as they flow alongside the filter substrate. I've seen filters dissected by race crews and it's amazing what oil filter manufacturers have gotten away with for so long.
If they made one of these stainless steel filters for my Saab, I'd have put one in already: http://www.gopurepower.com/site/products/default.asp#FILTERS - They actually filter the oil. Unfortunately they don't have a model that fits my 2.0t but when I put my ZR-1 back on the road after it's restored, I'm definitely switching to these oil filters in that car.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
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).
Yes, it's a myth. According to this article, the break-even point is somewhere around 10 seconds.
Have you read my blog lately?
Ford: inventing today what VW put into production 8 years ago.
Cars have not had a Cold Start injector for 20 years. current cars made withing the past 8 years have not done what you say either. This is true of older cars or cars that have a carb though.
Honestly, ECM systems in cars are way way smarter than you are used to, any modern car are within closed loop in 3 seconds, most cars have heated O2 sensors that are there instantly and the open loop is adjusted based on sensors that can be read instantly.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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.