Why YSK: People seem to, on average, think that a car takes a lot of fuel to start up. In reality, it takes on the order of a few millilitres of fuel to start an engine. That means if your car isn’t equipped with an automatic start/stop system to stop your engine instead of idling, it saves fuel to turn off your engine and start it back up when you need it.

Caveat: air conditioning and radio might not work with the engine turned off.

Scenarios where this might be useful include waiting for trains to pass at rail crossings, waiting for food at drive-throughs, dropping off or picking people up on the side of the road when they need to load stuff, etc. May not be a good idea to use this while waiting at a red light because starting the engine does take time which would annoy drivers behind you when the light turns green.

Some cars are equipped with systems that will automatically stop the engine when you are idling for a while (e.g. waiting for a red light). If yours is, then manually turning off your engine will probably result in reduced fuel savings compared to just relying on the car to do it for you.

  •  boonhet   ( @boonhet@lemm.ee ) 
    link
    fedilink
    79
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Caveat: For cars not equipped with automatic start/stop, the starter and possibly the battery might not be specced for it so it could cause additional wear. Cars with start/stop systems often assist the process with precise camshaft position measurements and the ability to squirt fuel pretty much right away so the starter doesn’t need to do as much work.

    Also don’t do it with a cold engine - it’s better to get the oil up to temp faster, it’ll also reduce fuel consumption as the engine heats up.

    • Cars with start/stop systems often assist the process with precise camshaft position measurements and the ability to squirt fuel pretty much right away so the starter doesn’t need to do as much work.

      I always wondered why hybrids could start their engines instantaneously, when many conventional cars couldn’t. This is why, isn’t it?

      • I can’t speak for other cars, but my Prius uses the electric assist motor as the starter motor as well. Compared to a regular ICE car that’s a massively stronger electric motor than average starting a smaller than average engine.

        My favorite thing about it though is I have the longer hatchback model and if you replace one of the back seats you can fully lie down for car camping. What about the heat you may ask? I can just leave the AC on overnight, the car will start up and use the engine like a generator to recharge the battery then turn back off autonomously. I always keep some spare gas in case but I’m always shocked how little it uses.

        • According to priuschat you can leave your prius “idling” with light duty power draws (a small lcd tv and a fan) for about 7 days on a full tank of gas.

          Also I think on the prius the starter motor-generator is also the one that bleeds excess engine power to charge the battery, but I’m not 100% sure on that one.

    • Thanks for reminding everyone of this. The gas savings over time will probably end up being the same, or less, than a starter on an older vehicle. Of course, if you’re not planning on keeping the vehicle until it dies, this is less of an issue for you.

      • Yeah, I wouldn’t recommend long idling*, but I also wouldn’t recommend shutting down the engine for short stops when it’s cold. Just keep it running if you’re stopping for less than 5 minutes.

        * Where I live, the winters can get to around -30C, though normally it won’t get colder than -25. You’ll want to let your car idle for a few minutes because otherwise it’s not going to be blowing any warm air at the windshield, and your visibility will be shit.

        • Yeah. When you’re down into those temps you’ve got to keep your car starting in a multitude of different ways if it stays outside anyway. But generally, just starting and rolling out instantly could cause wear. I’d not really say it’s anything to be worried about though.

  • Starting and stopping a car is the worst thing you can do to it, doing it repeatedly on purpose is just asking for expensive problems, like a burnt out starter, missing or worn teeth off the flywheel, broken stater mount on the block, dead batteries, coked up and worn out turbo bearings, bearing and knock issues due to lack of lubrication, soot buildup in diesel engines, failed emissions systems, etc.

    The few pennies you save in fuel is not worth it, upping the time to 5 minutes would make more sense.

    • Makes sense. The biggest takeaway from this post is that long idling is wasteful. If your vehicle isn’t designed with auto start / stop, then don’t turn it off and on in traffic. If you are waiting in a driveway for someone to come out, then turn it off.

    • In some cities in my country (maybe all) it is regulated and fined to idle your car over 1 min, the point of it I think is to make people used to turning off their cars for train crossings and bridge openings.

  • Life Pro-tip: don’t turn your car off unless you’re safely parked. Not only is it insanely unsafe, but you’re actively blocking traffic even if it’s stopped around you; in the event of a wreck involving your car in said inert state, you’re in legal trouble in a number of directions. Don’t be a dumbass.

    The infinitesimal amount of “saved” fuel is absolutely nothing compared to the mind-bogglingly enormous amount of commercial waste that pushes our civilization to the brink. You’re not “doing your part” in any way at all with this bullshit. Stop already and think, FFS. 🤦🏼‍♂️

    • Chiming in to agree that the scenarios listed are mostly ridiculous to think about turning your car off. Knowing that ~7 seconds of idle time is a reasonable threshold for just turning off your car is certainly useful, but how many times has someone turned the ignition key and the car hasn’t started due to battery drain or some other failure? Now imagine that happening at a stoplight, a drive-thru, or a rail crossing.

      • Seriously, this is some malinformed groupthink. How thafuq does anyone think that it’s safe at any point to be a stationary object in the middle of the damn road?! Assuming your car starts right back up again without any issue (non-zero chance of a wide array of complications there), why would you choose to add several seconds to your reaction time in an unforeseen emergency where a fraction of a single second could be the difference between life or death — and not just your own?! Fuck. This very notion is so disgustingly self-absorbed and short-sighted. Christ on a stick.

        • why would you choose to add several seconds to your reaction time in an unforeseen emergency where a fraction of a single second could be the difference between life or death — and not just your own?!

          In those situations, it’s not going to be a life-or-death situation. The surrounding traffic is going zero miles an hour. Even if someone hits you, they’re going to do it at a couple miles an hour. And since you’re surrounded by other vehicles going at most a couple miles an hour, you’d be hit anyway.

          How thafuq does anyone think that it’s safe at any point to be a stationary object in the middle of the damn road?!

          Well, generally, stopping for stoplights, school buses, flaggers, downed trees, or pedestrians is considered a good idea.

          • In those situations, it’s not going to be a life-or-death situation. The surrounding traffic is going zero miles an hour. Even if someone hits you, they’re going to do it at a couple miles an hour.

            Acquaintance of my dad’s was seriously injured a few decades ago when he was rear-ended at a stoplight. It was by a car that had its brakes out and had slammed into the back of his car. It’s a pretty rare chance, but to be fair the person above you is talking about non-zero chances here.

            Similar thing also (allegedly) happened to my driving instructor when I was in driving school except it was an 18-wheeler. He had the reaction time to drive out of the way and into the other lane. If his engine were off he likely would have died due to the time it would have taken to start it. I don’t know how real that one is though, it was a story he told all the time.

  • I don’t think that stopping and starting the engine a lot is a good idea, even if it is not unhealthy to the engine. In the situations you had as examples, it is just inconvenient to turn off the engine and have to start it up again.

  • Yeah new cars usually have the ability to do that themselves and also usually do it when safe.

    They auto start when power is needed or if the situation changes. Eg: touch the steering or gas pedal. Another example is my car will auto start it too many cars are around me.

    Shutting your non-auto starting car off and then having an emergency happen could land your ass in trouble with insurance and the law. If you’re on the road, your car should be running (unless it was designed this way). Of course people mentioned wear and tear, so that too.

    Cheers -Henry

  • Starting the engine puts as much wear on it as driving for 50 miles. Automatic start/stop hurts engine longevity by doing that unnecessarily and should always be turned off.

    My car uses 0.5l of fuel idling for an hour. There’s no way in hell that a start/stop system would even save 10$ a year, so there’s no benefit to using it.

      • What about the fact that the oil drains to the pan in those few seconds that the engine is stopped?

        This is my real concern. Sure you can upgrade starter motors and batteries to handle the extra cycles, but you can’t do anything about increased scoring and wear on cylinders in the milliseconds before the fluids start to circulate again.

        • Some start stop engines have auxiliary oil pumps. I don’t know much about them besides random research I have done in the past out of curiosity.

          Napa also claims some vehicles have auxiliary water and transmission pumps as well.

          • That might be true, I’m not a mechanical engineer but despite that, my understanding is that within the engine block itself, cylinders are primarily lubricated via the system holding pressure. This pressure starts to drop the second the engine ceases.

            You can notice the effect on cars that have realtime oil temp monitors. Mine does, and it’s digital. My stable oil temp is around 216 degrees Fahrenheit. After a start-stop cycle, even for only 5-10 seconds or so, the temp drops about 5-8 degrees. After a minute, the temp is down 25 degrees. That’s significant. Essentially the engine is no longer “at temp” for the first 30 seconds or so after it resumes. That’s 30 seconds of additional semi-cold, under pressure wear each cycle.

              • Well I think I can answer that. It is more efficient for fuel consumption. They all have the systems because it allows them to hit better EPA fuel economy numbers. But better fuel consumption doesn’t mean there’s no effect on the engine.

                I’m not saying I’m 100% correct btw, I’m waiting for a mechanical engineer to explain why I’m wrong. But my limited understanding hasn’t found an answer for my concerns yet.

    • Believe it or not, they thought of that when they created start/stop systems.

      In cars with these systems, the back pressure in the engine’s cylinders is greatly reduced via a variety of strategies including selective alteration of valve timing and purpose-built secondary valves. What this means in effect is that the torque required to re-start the engine is a fraction of a dead cold start, and even a fraction of a normal warm start. This should serve to minimize additional destructive wear on components.

      In effect, well-designed start-stop systems do not create any additional wear on vital engine components versus the engine running for that same period of time.

      • The difference in wear might be too small to measure, but what we can measure is how much fuel it saves. And that’s usually less than 50l over the lifespan of a vehicle. Those systems don’t even offset their own cost unless you spend all day at railroad crossings.

        They are there for two reasons: Getting better results in unrealistic tests and decreasing the amount of control that owners have over their vehicles.

  • The whole world has weighed in and explained why more starts and stops lead to excessive wear, but I’d like to take a moment and bring a little attention to the environmental damage that having to do a bunch of work to your car because you turn it off at every opportunity does.

    Let’s say you need a new starter motor early. That’s copper, aluminum, iron, steel and a handful of rare earths for the solenoid. Melt em, smelt em, form and mold em, that’s more carbon from building the replacement part than you’d have kept out of the atmosphere by shutting off the car at stoplights.

    The greenest car parts are the ones already in it.

  • I’ve always wondered where the line is that makes turning the car off more optimal than idling. Another poster talked about upping the time to 5 minutes because of the wear and tear on the engine from starting which I think sounds reasonable although 5 minutes at an idle is a pretty long time lol. The other thing I’ve always wondered is when it’s more efficient to use your AC rather than just roll the windows down cause at a certain speed having the windows down slows the car down more than the energy it saves in not using the AC I would assume.