# Auto stop/start



## chevrasaki (May 1, 2015)

I know the auto stop/start technology is controversial, and I want to know what everyone thinks about it. I'm personally quite skeptical of the technology and would still prefer that my vehicles didn't have stop/start. I'm always weary of new technology until it's been tested extensively by the general population and all of the possible negatives have been discovered and the bugs have been worked out. Like what happens if your battery is dead and you had to pop-start it? How does it affect vehicle reliability, and other components like the turbo and starter? I'm a huge fan of simplicity, the less stuff, especially electronic stuff, the less likely something is to go wrong 10-20 years down the road. 

What do you think about auto stop/start systems?


----------



## chevrasaki (May 1, 2015)

Stop/start just seems like a lot of extra parts and programming for not a lot of benefit. Especially on an engine so tiny like the 1.4T which turns over at barely 700 rpm at idle.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

A wonderous thing when applied properly. 

Don't care for the vibration it causes in the cabin of the gen 2 Cruze. 

Want to try it in the '17 lacrosse, where they've made valve timing adjustments to the engine to lower the vibration upon activation.


----------



## chevrasaki (May 1, 2015)

Tomko said:


> A wonderous thing when applied properly.
> 
> Don't care for the vibration it causes in the cabin of the gen 2 Cruze.
> 
> Want to try it in the '17 lacrosse, where they've made valve timing adjustments to the engine to lower the vibration upon activation.


I'm sure as time goes on the technology will improve. 

There should at least be a button to disable it in case you're trying to recharge your battery, if your starter isn't working, or any other reasons you may not want it activated at the moment.


----------



## sparkman (Oct 15, 2015)

chevrasaki said:


> I'm sure as time goes on the technology will improve.
> 
> There should at least be a button to disable it in case you're trying to recharge your battery, if your starter isn't working, or any other reasons you may not want it activated at the moment.


I completely agree. If you enjoy that technology and want to use it, by all means have it enabled. But for those of us who don't care to use it and hate it, we would love a switch.

Deal breaker for me in buying a new Cruze/Malibu/etc. 

Having one of these switches would help end the debate of this crap. I read about it all the time on other forums and it's almost as bad as the AMD vs. Intel debate, lol.


----------



## Greggul8r (Apr 20, 2016)

I have had my Cruze for almost 6 months now and i honestly don't even notice it 85% of the time. the max it is going to shut the car off for is 2 minutes and if you have the ac on it is even shorter and most of the traffic lights here are about 2 minutes long it seams like it starts back up a second before you are going to need it so take offs are rarely an issue. 

what happens if your battery is dead and you had to pop-start it?

the auto/stop feature is not on the manual transmissions that i know of so pop starting isn't an option if you have this new technology.

if any one has questions about this technology being i work at a dealer i have access to info on it that may be harder to find elsewhere and i can give my real life 6 month experience as it is my daily driver and i use it for Uber so i am in it a lot. you are welcome to pm if you want but if you have a question someone here might too.


----------



## Camcruse (Oct 4, 2011)

I've got it my 2017 Impala loaner.

Car shakes a little when starting...don't like it.

Would like to see the damage to the engine some years down the road.


----------



## guitargain (Jul 19, 2016)

I have the Trifecta Tune for my 2016 Cruze and with the performance tune on (Cruise Control off) it disables it. I know most would prefer a way to disable being built in but the tune is a good alternative way to disable it. Truthfully I don't have a problem with it and like others have said after a week or so you don't really notice it anymore.


----------



## UpstateNYBill (Jan 14, 2012)

Ask me again in 5 years? lol

For now, anything that saves me money in gas is good. How much will it save me over 200,000 miles vs. how much the technology cost me to buy? I have no idea.


----------



## obermd (Mar 3, 2012)

The Cruze Premier I drove in Detroit had start/stop technology. Even when I knew it was active I couldn't tell except by watching the tach.


----------



## jsusanka (Jan 31, 2011)

The owner of the car should be able to turn it off. Period end of story. Still have doubts about the money you save on gas versus the wear and tear it will cause. 

You can keep push button start too. I see no benefit to push button start. Just something more expensive to fix. Love the remote start though. Will always try to have a car with remote start. I even like the back up cameras too. I just cannot for the life of me think of a benefit of the push button start.


----------



## dhpnet (Mar 2, 2014)

No, thank you!!!

The more components you add to anything, the more likely something will break. Start-stop adds a lot of components, and a lot of wear. The probability of failure increases, and there is not enough information to know how much yet. Why not offer it as an option? Then, those who want it can have it, and those who don't can choose to not to have it. And, why not let me turn it off? 

There seems to be a lot of people today who think they must force everyone else to live according to their will. That is the most anti-American philosophy ever. Free will is critical for a free society. Stop trying to force me to live the way you want. I realize that start-stop is a product choice, but it still feels wrong to force consumers to accept it. I am sick of companies doing this. Like Apple telling me that I no longer need an earphone jack. Or Windows telling me that I cannot turn off automatic updates anymore. These things are so annoying. Let me choose what I want and stop telling me that I just have to accept your way.


----------



## Rudeboy13668 (Sep 6, 2016)

Unless there's something I'm not understanding, how does stop/start add a lot of components and wear and tear? A chip, a couple sensors and a heavy duty starter. I didn't know that starting a car causes a lot of wear and tear on the engine.


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

Rudeboy13668 said:


> Unless there's something I'm not understanding, how does stop/start add a lot of components and wear and tear? A chip, a couple sensors and a heavy duty starter. I didn't know that starting a car causes a lot of wear and tear on the engine.


Heavy duty starter doesn't mean it's 2 times the longevity of the normal starter. Plenty of us have racked 60k 70k.......*cough* 200k 300k on our cars in a fairly small window. You also have to add that this brand new non turn off technology is tossed in with the 100k warranty gone unless you have the vehicle marked fleet. I had all kinds of stuff break at 50-60-70k that's well into the price of the extended warranty at the signing of the loan not counting loaners hourly tech rate and misc shop materials.


----------



## _MerF_ (Mar 24, 2015)

A lot of complaints are "I don't like technology that's new, it's scary." or futurecasting that "it will cause wear and tear damage". Those are both irrational emotive thoughts. Your evidence that it is bad is either based on how you feel, or that the lack of any evidence is somehow evidence to your feelings.

Is it a gimmick? Yeah, I think it might be. I haven't personally seen a study that convinces me it's the next great thing in fuel efficiency. However, there also isn't anything that proves that it's harmful or worse for the engine.

Great example is merc6's post right above this (sorry for singling you out). His "evidence" that the starter will wear out quicker on S&S cars is that people rack up enormous miles in short amounts of time. Logic dictates that in order to do that (and not live in your car 18 hours a day) you would have to be driving long-haul highway miles...which would be using the starter....none...because you're traveling above 0. So it's an irrational argument that lacks logic.

Anyway, my $0.02.


----------



## dhpnet (Mar 2, 2014)

Rudeboy13668 said:


> Unless there's something I'm not understanding, how does stop/start add a lot of components and wear and tear? A chip, a couple sensors and a heavy duty starter. I didn't know that starting a car causes a lot of wear and tear on the engine.


I think it is good for people on the forum to learn the facts about start-stop technology. It is not just as simple as turning off the car and then restarting it when you're ready to go. The technology is similar to what is used in hybrid cars. 

To incorporate start-stop, the car must have a special battery (a normal battery will overheat), a more robust alternator, a special and larger starter motor and additional charging components. All of these will cost you more money when they do fail because you can't just get a standard battery or alternator anymore. Think about at least doubling the cost when your battery dies. 

The car must also have additional sensors, switches and electronics to run, monitor and control the starting and charging system. And the battery is in the trunk, so when your battery cable has problems, it's not just as simple as unscrewing the old one and putting in a new one. It has to be rerouted through the body of the car. 

You also need to keep the engine coolant circulating, especially now that the Cruze has an aluminum block and turbo. This requires an electric water pump with additional hoses, sensors and circuitry to make it work.

And, you need to maintain hydraulic pressure in the transmission, so you have an electric transmission fluid pump, along with all the additional hoses, sensors and circuitry. 

And, people like to have heating and air conditioning while stopped at a light. This means that you now need electric HVAC components with all the switches, sensors, hoses and circuitry required. And, you expect that the radio and other systems don't reset every time the engine starts, which requires additional components.

On top of all of that, the engine requires additional or stronger mechanical parts. For example, it requires stronger pistons, stronger crank shaft bearings and additional sensors and circuitry so that it stops at the right time and starts quickly. 

I am not saying that any of these things are bad or scary. I am actually sick of hearing people talk about being afraid of new technologies or afraid of the future. That is not the case. These things can be great if you can afford them. If you can afford a new Cadillac or Mercedes then you can afford start-stop. However, if you bought an economy car because you want to save money, then all of these things increase the probability of failure and the cost of repairs with only a very small decrease in the amount of fuel used. I Googled it, and one site estimates that your fuel savings will be between $285 and $1600 over 10 years. That won't even come close to the cost of your first repair on this system. But, GM is OK with that.


----------



## guitargain (Jul 19, 2016)

From what i understand, soon ALL cars will have this. It's what the manufacturers have to do to conform to new standard of emissions and whatnot.


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

If I buy a car with it it will get trashed and disabled. I don't like and see zero benefit for me, if something aggravates me and it is an expensive item I should have the choice to use it or not. I could give two craps about saving a dollar a fill up if it is even that.


----------



## beaurrr (Aug 27, 2016)

I don't really care, so long as a) it works well, and b) I can disable it if I feel like it.


----------



## NickD (Dec 10, 2011)

You mean when the vehicle comes to a complete stop, the engine dies, hit the gas, and it starts up again?

What about a city street where there is a stop sign on every block, do a quick check for traffic, start up again. Is there a delay? Or does the engine stop instantly, if it does, sounds stupid, every time the engine needs to start, the injectors have to enrich the fuel, and with a cold cat, would certainly increase emissions. If the fuel is not enriched, the engine won't start.

Warm up time will be slower, bad enough have to put up with this stupid oxygenated winter gas, fuel economy is terrible, just because the idiots at the EPA think this is better. What about a 300 mile trip? And the price at the pump is the same if not more. Even in cold weather, may only take a minute or so to warm up to operating temperature.

The way you become head of the EPA is to help the president become elected, so not only have an idiot for president, but another idiot that doesn't know crap about automotive.


----------



## IndyDiesel (May 24, 2015)

NickD said:


> You mean when the vehicle comes to a complete stop, the engine dies, hit the gas, and it starts up again?
> 
> What about a city street where there is a stop sign on every block, do a quick check for traffic, start up again. Is there a delay? Or does the engine stop instantly, if it does, sounds stupid, every time the engine needs to start, the injectors have to enrich the fuel, and with a cold cat, would certainly increase emissions. If the fuel is not enriched, the engine won't start.
> 
> ...



Been awhile since i drove drove one nick, but as I recall there is a short delay, it is just annoying and not necessary in my opinion, to each his own. If I spend 25 to 30k on a car, or more, in my opinion I shouldn't have something that aggravates me.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

IndyDiesel said:


> Been awhile since i drove drove one nick, but as I recall there is a short delay, it is just annoying and not necessary in my opinion, to each his own. If I spend 25 to 30k on a car, or more, in my opinion I shouldn't have something that aggravates me.


The Cruze and Malibu are near instantaneous. There is no delay.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

-Engine doesn't shut off when cold. Warm-up time isn't affected.
-Engine restarts to run the AC compressor, but runs fan for a short while while the evaporator is still cold. Doesn't shut off in "max ac" mode.


----------



## chevrasaki (May 1, 2015)

There has been a lot of interesting information and opinions here. My personal conclusion is: I'd still rather not have it on my economy car that already ranks as one of the most fuel efficient vehicles. It makes a little more sense for vehicles with V8s. But it's still going to add cost to the initial price and service. My fear is caused by knowing how many other sensors and components fail. If this system goes wrong, it won't just light up a CEL, it won't just run rich until it's fixed. The consequence for the stop/start system failing is it will leave you stranded. The dollar or two you save per fill up isn't worth the risk in my opinion. 

It's still new technology, and it might be just fine, maybe the engineers got it right the first time. But often that isn't the case. Call me crazy for being skeptical, but I'm just not the type of person to want the latest, greatest, and newest thing. I'd rather wait until it's been out for awhile and other people have tested it and revealed any weaknesses, then it's been redesigned for the next generation. The dispute could all be avoided by having a button to turn it off, those who want it can have it, and if it goes wrong, or you don't want it, you can turn it off.


----------



## au201 (May 18, 2013)

chevrasaki said:


> There has been a lot of interesting information and opinions here. My personal conclusion is: I'd still rather not have it on my economy car that already ranks as one of the most fuel efficient vehicles. It makes a little more sense for vehicles with V8s. But it's still going to add cost to the initial price and service. My fear is caused by knowing how many other sensors and components fail. If this system goes wrong, it won't just light up a CEL, it won't just run rich until it's fixed. The consequence for the stop/start system failing is it will leave you stranded. The dollar or two you save per fill up isn't worth the risk in my opinion.
> 
> It's still new technology, and it might be just fine, maybe the engineers got it right the first time. But often that isn't the case. Call me crazy for being skeptical, but I'm just not the type of person to want the latest, greatest, and newest thing. I'd rather wait until it's been out for awhile and other people have tested it and revealed any weaknesses, then it's been redesigned for the next generation. The dispute could all be avoided by having a button to turn it off, those who want it can have it, and if it goes wrong, or you don't want it, you can turn it off.


I read somewhere that supposedly if something goes wrong with a sensor or what have you, it simply disables the system and lets the car run like normal. So I would suppose you don't have to get it fixed if it breaks and you didn't like it in the first place. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## pontiacgt (Jan 12, 2011)

I had my 2016 for almost a month now and its no big deal. If have the air going on high it will not turn off, a lot has to do with outside temperature if. If its below 32 degrees I believe it never turns off. Also its very easy to get to restart just let off the brake a little and it starts right back up. If your in stop and go traffic it will only do it the first time so if your creeping along it won't turn off. I also found if you come to a stop and don't full press the brake pedal it doesn't always turn off either.

Every component for this to work has been upgraded and designed to do this. The engine starts so fast the starter has very little stress on it. There is a larger battery in the trunk also. 

Regarding not being able to restart because of a low battery should not be a issue. The car won't turn off if the battery is not at a certain voltage. Anyone who has this car read the owners manual it has a lot of information about the start/stop.


----------



## chevrasaki (May 1, 2015)

pontiacgt said:


> I had my 2016 for almost a month now and its no big deal. If have the air going on high it will not turn off, a lot has to do with outside temperature if. If its below 32 degrees I believe it never turns off. Also its very easy to get to restart just let off the brake a little and it starts right back up. If your in stop and go traffic it will only do it the first time so if your creeping along it won't turn off. I also found if you come to a stop and don't full press the brake pedal it doesn't always turn off either.
> 
> Every component for this to work has been upgraded and designed to do this. The engine starts so fast the starter has very little stress on it. There is a larger battery in the trunk also.
> 
> Regarding not being able to restart because of a low battery should not be a issue. The car won't turn off if the battery is not at a certain voltage. Anyone who has this car read the owners manual it has a lot of information about the start/stop.


Yeah I don't doubt it works fine now, in fact I'd be shocked if after only a month it started to go wrong. But will it still function properly 10-20 years from now? Only time will tell.



NickD said:


> First vehicle I had with an AT was a 49 Olds, GM actually introduced an AT in the 39 Olds, but extremely rare. Was 15 years old had to learn about these things.
> 
> Use a torque converter, a driving turbine with a driven one coupled by AT fluid, when stopped, slips like crazy, compresses and generates a lot of heat when in gear, also puts a load on the engine to even burn more fuel. With these smaller displacement engines had to add an idle control valve, or the darn things would stall, this even applies more gas to the engine that is effectively wasted.
> 
> ...


That's one of the many reasons I prefer the good ole manual transmission. You have to be in neutral when you're stopped, and you're in control of the decisions for the transmission.


----------



## Greggul8r (Apr 20, 2016)

jblackburn said:


> -Engine doesn't shut off when cold. Warm-up time isn't affected.
> -Engine restarts to run the AC compressor, but runs fan for a short while while the evaporator is still cold. Doesn't shut off in "max ac" mode.


the engine does shut off in Max AC mode. what it does is not stay off for the full 2 minutes it uses sensors to read the inside temp and if it gets a certain amount of difference between the setting on the AC and the actual temp it turns the car back on.


----------



## pontiacgt (Jan 12, 2011)

If your shifting a AT transmission in and out of neutral that is bad habit. AT transmission are designed to stay in gear. Going from neutral to drive is not a good idea. This auto/stop feature actually keeps pressure on the transmission lines so they are ready to go.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Greggul8r said:


> the engine does shut off in Max AC mode. what it does is not stay off for the full 2 minutes it uses sensors to read the inside temp and if it gets a certain amount of difference between the setting on the AC and the actual temp it turns the car back on.


Sorry, I meant max fan speed. When you really need it to cool down the car.

Do they have a "max A/C" mode like they used to? 1st gen didn't have that.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

jblackburn said:


> Do they have a "max A/C" mode like they used to? 1st gen didn't have that.


Not that I see.


----------



## _MerF_ (Mar 24, 2015)

I love that without fail, every person that has experience with cars that have the technology are pointing out how transparent it is, and everyone who doesn't is saying how bad it is.

I felt like pointing out all the terrible ignorant "what-ifs" that are flying around, but not enough time.


----------



## pontiacgt (Jan 12, 2011)

It does have a max and eco on mine. Which is premier. If you push the AC button it goes from Max to Eco.


----------



## chevrasaki (May 1, 2015)

_MerF_ said:


> I love that without fail, every person that has experience with cars that have the technology are pointing out how transparent it is, and everyone who doesn't is saying how bad it is.
> 
> I felt like pointing out all the terrible ignorant "what-ifs" that are flying around, but not enough time.


This is America, I'm allowed to not like something without any experience or factual evidence. I can be skeptical about something just because I want to.


----------



## chevrasaki (May 1, 2015)

chevrasaki said:


> This is America, I'm allowed to not like something without any experience or factual evidence. I can be skeptical about something just because I want to.


Maybe this was a little too sarcastic, I haven't had any caffeine yet. 

I've previously discussed the reasons I'd prefer not to have it. It does add weight and complication for a very minimal return so it just seems completely unnecessary to me, if it does go wrong the consequences will be a vehicle that won't start so the risk is high and there's no easy way to turn it off, and personally I think it sounds goofy at stop lights. The reliability claims are difficult to back up from either side for/against since it hasn't been out in large numbers for very long. Based on all other electrical components it will fail at some point, but when is the question. It may work for 5 years it may work for 50 years; and it may prove to be harmful to other vehicle components or it may not, only time will tell. I'll feel different in a few years after it proves to be reliable, but right now I'm just unconvinced that it'll be the next big thing.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

chevrasaki said:


> Maybe this was a little too sarcastic, I haven't had any caffeine yet.
> 
> I've previously discussed the reasons I'd prefer not to have it. It does add weight and complication for a very minimal return so it just seems completely unnecessary to me, if it does go wrong the consequences will be a vehicle that won't start so the risk is high and there's no easy way to turn it off, and personally I think it sounds goofy at stop lights. The reliability claims are difficult to back up from either side for/against since it hasn't been out in large numbers for very long. Based on all other electrical components it will fail at some point, but when is the question. It may work for 5 years it may work for 50 years; and it may prove to be harmful to other vehicle components or it may not, only time will tell. I'll feel different in a few years after it proves to be reliable, but right now I'm just unconvinced that it'll be the next big thing.


Hybrids have been using similar systems for many years without many issues. From any manufacturer, really.

The only real difference is that they're already rolling and don't need to use the starter every time.


----------



## pontiacgt (Jan 12, 2011)

Even if fails it appears it will be set to keep the car on so the only failure is going to be the car won't turn off.


----------



## _MerF_ (Mar 24, 2015)

chevrasaki said:


> The reliability claims are difficult to back up from either side for/against since it hasn't been out in large numbers for very long.


And that hits my point. Of course you are entitled to your uninformed decision (I'm not being snarky, we are all relatively uninformed due to a lack of a large data sets on the tech), my remark was how absolutely sure some folks are that this tech is the end-of-days, and everyone should hate it, just because they think it might not work how they maybe guessed it could possibly work.


----------



## Merc6 (Jun 8, 2013)

The some of us who are skeptical are people who have been legit left stranded on the side of the road in their cars for a vast array of mechanical or electric reasons. I had soo much go wrong in my car that adding new tech and then lessening the powertrain is where I don't see logic.


----------



## dhpnet (Mar 2, 2014)

This entire argument would go away if GM would just make it an option instead of a standard feature that can't be turned off. It's human nature to be skeptical of things like this, especially if past experience has taught you that adding a ton of new components and technology can cause problems. Give people the option and a lot will take it. Over time more people will buy-in. And, if it proves to be a useful and reliable feature, then eventually almost everyone will accept it as normal. That, too, is human nature. Take away the option and people who are unconvinced will be angry and resentful and will look for alternatives or find workarounds - sometimes just because they weren't given the option. 

If they had just put an off switch on this system, I imagine that very few people would have used it, but they also wouldn't have made a large percentage of their customers unhappy. Sometimes a 10 cent switch is worth a lot more than 10 cents.


----------



## grs1961 (Oct 23, 2012)

Just a minor point - automatic stop/start has been in use in the real^Wrest of the world for more than five years now.

Like diesels, it's pretty well understood out here, and only the drongos who moaned about unleaded sucking their souls out through the catalytic converters whinge about it.


----------



## au201 (May 18, 2013)

dhpnet said:


> This entire argument would go away if GM would just make it an option instead of a standard feature that can't be turned off. It's human nature to be skeptical of things like this, especially if past experience has taught you that adding a ton of new components and technology can cause problems. Give people the option and a lot will take it. Over time more people will buy-in. And, if it proves to be a useful and reliable feature, then eventually almost everyone will accept it as normal. That, too, is human nature. Take away the option and people who are unconvinced will be angry and resentful and will look for alternatives or find workarounds - sometimes just because they weren't given the option.
> 
> If they had just put an off switch on this system, I imagine that very few people would have used it, but they also wouldn't have made a large percentage of their customers unhappy. Sometimes a 10 cent switch is worth a lot more than 10 cents.


All of that is true, but I read somewhere that if GM included an off button, they would not be able to claim the higher mpg number that it gets with it on. Basically, if it can be defeated, it is fuel economy tested with it off. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

au201 said:


> All of that is true, but I read somewhere that if GM included an off button, they would not be able to claim the higher mpg number that it gets with it on. Basically, if it can be defeated, it is fuel economy tested with it off.


The way that works is that you can have a button - as long as the mode is enabled every time the vehicle is started, it is allowed. 

That is the reason the C7 Stingray is not rated at the 31 mpg it can get in Eco mode - because they chose not to force Eco mode on every start (unlike Porsche, or other competitors). If they forced Eco, it would allow the highway rating to be 31.


----------



## Tomko (Jun 1, 2013)

I had a Malibu rental yesterday. I think it was a 2016. Overall I was not impressed with it - but it was a lower trim model. But the start stop on it was less intrusive than the one in the Cruze rental I had a few weeks ago.


----------



## beaurrr (Aug 27, 2016)

I'm a little surprised at the hand-wringing over a pretty simple and proven technology that adds negligibly in cost, weight, and complexity. On its own, it's not the Next Big Thing with promises of huge efficiency benefits. Instead, it's part of a collection of small things that when taken together, do result in pretty significant efficiency gains.


----------



## au201 (May 18, 2013)

MP81 said:


> The way that works is that you can have a button - as long as the mode is enabled every time the vehicle is started, it is allowed.
> 
> That is the reason the C7 Stingray is not rated at the 31 mpg it can get in Eco mode - because they chose not to force Eco mode on every start (unlike Porsche, or other competitors). If they forced Eco, it would allow the highway rating to be 31.


Ahhh gotcha. Thanks for the correction. That makes sense. And it really is a shame GM doesn't get to claim their 31mpg for the corvette. Could run the commercial like Ford did when the 3.7 mustang came out: "305 horsepower and over 30mpg."
That said, I'm glad they don't force eco mode every time the vehicle starts. 


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App


----------



## lucwolf (Oct 30, 2017)

I've had my new Cruze two days and have found out a way to avoid stop/start. ( Not that I am any smarter than anyone!) As I pull up to a stop sign/traffic light, I let up slightly on the brake so that you so not get that final "jerk" as the vehicle comes to a stop. The system does not stop the car and it does not roll forward. You can control it by your pressure on the brake pedal. It is that simple. You can feel the spot where the engine will stop by brake pedal feel. I just drove all across town, main road, many stoplights, and not one auto stop/start. Did it on purpose once on my street to make sure it was working. As I said, it is all about brake pedal pressure.


----------



## Booger (Oct 18, 2020)

beaurrr said:


> I'm a little surprised at the hand-wringing over a pretty simple and proven technology that adds negligibly in cost, weight, and complexity. On its own, it's not the Next Big Thing with promises of huge efficiency benefits. Instead, it's part of a collection of small things that when taken together, do result in pretty significant efficiency gains.


Because we don't want to be at a stop and have it NOT restart. And yes this happens all the time. Complaints about it all over the internet. I guess if you lease and get a new car every few years, no big deal. But for anyone else who owns their car and wants to keep it for a long time, yes you would want to disable stop-start.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Booger said:


> Because we don't want to be at a stop and have it NOT restart. And yes this happens all the time. Complaints about it all over the internet. I guess if you lease and get a new car every few years, no big deal. But for anyone else who owns their car and wants to keep it for a long time, yes you would want to disable stop-start.


Owned mine 4 years and it's never failed to restart. Zero desire to disable it.


----------



## Diamond193 (Jul 28, 2019)

Is there actually any advantages to having this though ? I would think it's more wear and tear on the motor and it would use more gas.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Diamond193 said:


> Is there actually any advantages to having this though ? I would think it's more wear and tear on the motor and it would use more gas.


Starter's designed for it. As are the transmission (addition of an accumulator), and engine. Multiple independent studies have been done that prove it saves gas vs idling for as little as 7-10 seconds.

So yes, in my experience, it saves gas when I'm sitting at a stoplight for 2+ minutes. Lights here can be quite long.


----------



## MP81 (Jul 20, 2015)

jblackburn said:


> So yes, in my experience, it saves gas when I'm sitting at a stoplight for 2+ minutes. Lights here can be quite long.


The only issue I run into is that people can't seem to ever stop where they actually want to stop. They all stop, and then ******* idle forward to where they actually should have stopped in the first place. If we have a loaner with start-stop, I stay put, even if it leads to a big gap. Engine is off, saving fuel, why would I want to restart it? 

It drives me even more insane when I'm driving the Camaro, since it's a stick. Well, that, and people taking off, and continuing on, so slowly that I end up lugging the engine in first gear.


----------



## UpstateNYBill (Jan 14, 2012)

I've put over 150,000 miles on Gen 2 cars with auto start/stop, and not a single failure or problem.


----------



## Booger (Oct 18, 2020)

UpstateNYBill said:


> I've put over 150,000 miles on Gen 2 cars with auto start/stop, and not a single failure or problem.


My last car I kept for 25 years and 262,300 miles. Stop start isn't going to last that long. Where you live cars are going to rust out before that.


----------



## snowwy66 (Nov 5, 2017)

And people still drive model A's and studebakers.


----------



## UpstateNYBill (Jan 14, 2012)

Booger said:


> My last car I kept for 25 years and 262,300 miles. Stop start isn't going to last that long. Where you live cars are going to rust out before that.


Before I bought my first Cruze in 2012, I had a 2002 Impala with 268,000 miles, but then, it had an aluminum frame. 

I moved to Florida earlier this year anyway, so I'm all set now.


----------



## jblackburn (Apr 14, 2012)

Booger said:


> My last car I kept for 25 years and 262,300 miles. Stop start isn't going to last that long. Where you live cars are going to rust out before that.


Most of my Honda starters didn't make it much past 100k. The Cruze is already halfway there, and I reckon will probably outlast them in that respect since the starter's so beefed up to begin with.


----------



## TeckyWalla (Aug 30, 2019)

When I first got the V2 Cruze, I used the shift to manual method to prevent the auto-stop, i.e. put it in manual and set it up to 6 and it operates as a normal auto trans.
Now for the last 6 months I have found that for some reason, now when l use it in D posn. it has not auto-stopped once.
Maybe I taught it new tricks? .


----------

