5 ms·

Honestly, everytime I hear about the latest new-and-shiny that car manufacturers try to put in new cars (such as stop-start, keyless ignition) I can't help but

by _nedR 11y ago

Honestly, everytime I hear about the latest new-and-shiny that car manufacturers try to put in new cars (such as stop-start, keyless ignition) I can't help but roll my eyes at the inevitable fail that this is going to bring. Sure these knick-knacks might look cool now, but what happens eight years down the line, when your electric system goes belly up in middle of the highway or at a traffic signal? VW is one of the worst offenders in this regard. They are quick to implement useless features without giving any regard to reliability or the idea of graceful failure. The greatest achievement of VW marketing has been in perpetuating the myth about the infallibility of German Engineering. German cars seem to have some of the worst electrical problems which is at least in part due to all the electric and electronic equipment they cram into their cars. I would put greater confidence in the reliability of Japanese or even Korean engineering over them (although even the usually conservative Japs have been tempted to follow these fads of late). One less button on the dash of your bland Toyota, means one less thing that is going to break five years down the line.

Johnny555 11y ago
I don't think start/stop belongs in your list of useless knick-knacks that are prone to failure -- the Prius has been in production for about 18 years, and it's used start/stop from the beginning to save fuel. But you don't hear of large numbers of Priuses stuck at red lights when their engine computer forgot how to start the engine. Start-stop can save significant fuel - 3% - 12% by some estimates, and it comes at very little cost and complexity.
- _nedR 11y ago
  True. stop-start might have not been the best example in this case. But still, i would be quite apprehensive of buying a 10-year old european car that has stop-start built in - Much more than an equivalent toyota. Japanese are quite slow to follow in implementing new features and as a result (IMO) their implementations seem to be more reliable. I have experienced European cars to develop serious electrical issues over the years. Couple that with a stop-start system, and you are looking at an undrivable car. edit: In the past couple of years things seemed to have mixed up a bit in the industry (for example American cars have quite improved in quality). So who knows, maybe today's cars might hold up much better 10 years into their life , than their predecessors. But increasing incorporation of software and electronics into these probably will not help them get there.
  - frik 11y ago
    The continuous start-stop wears out the engine faster, so it won't last as long as an identical model with the same engine that hasn't that feature. It's like switching a traditional light bulb on and off in a continuous way - it won't last years (some 100+ old light bulbs still work fine, but the were powered-off just a handful times).
    - _nedR 11y ago
      >The continuous start-stop wears out the engine faster, so it won't last as long as an identical model with the same engine that hasn't that feature. Yes, that too. Although I imagine it would wear out certain components of the engine (such as starter-motor, and crankshaft?) and battery rather than the engine as a whole. Total-Cost-of-Ownership-wise, a stop-start might save more in fuel than it would cost in increased repairs (Or it may not, depending on make and model among other things).
    - Johnny555 11y ago
      Do you have a reference for that? Cold engine starts cause a lot of wear, but warm engine starts should cause very little wear, especially in an engine designed for start stop. http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/stop-start-long-term-impact-your-car-s-engine http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/stop-start-long-t... While a home light bulb may not stand up to continuous on/off cycles, a bulb that's designed to do so (like a low-voltage bulb with a heavy filament) can last for a very long time. So I wouldn't retrofit an existing car with a start-stop system, but I wouldn't have any qualms about purchasing a car with a start-stop engine as it would have been designed for the purpose.
  - blub 11y ago
    Toyota is a bad example, they made the news when their code was reviewed by experts and it was evaluated as really poor quality. See for yourself: http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nvs/pdf/NASA_FR_Appendix_A_Software.pdf http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nvs/pdf/NASA_FR_Appendix_A_...

by _nedR 11y ago

Johnny555 11y ago

I don't think start/stop belongs in your list of useless knick-knacks that are prone to failure -- the Prius has been in production for about 18 years, and it's used start/stop from the beginning to save fuel. But you don't hear of large numbers of Priuses stuck at red lights when their engine computer forgot how to start the engine. Start-stop can save significant fuel - 3% - 12% by some estimates, and it comes at very little cost and complexity.

_nedR 11y ago
True. stop-start might have not been the best example in this case. But still, i would be quite apprehensive of buying a 10-year old european car that has stop-start built in - Much more than an equivalent toyota. Japanese are quite slow to follow in implementing new features and as a result (IMO) their implementations seem to be more reliable. I have experienced European cars to develop serious electrical issues over the years. Couple that with a stop-start system, and you are looking at an undrivable car. edit: In the past couple of years things seemed to have mixed up a bit in the industry (for example American cars have quite improved in quality). So who knows, maybe today's cars might hold up much better 10 years into their life , than their predecessors. But increasing incorporation of software and electronics into these probably will not help them get there.
- frik 11y ago
  The continuous start-stop wears out the engine faster, so it won't last as long as an identical model with the same engine that hasn't that feature. It's like switching a traditional light bulb on and off in a continuous way - it won't last years (some 100+ old light bulbs still work fine, but the were powered-off just a handful times).
  - _nedR 11y ago
    >The continuous start-stop wears out the engine faster, so it won't last as long as an identical model with the same engine that hasn't that feature. Yes, that too. Although I imagine it would wear out certain components of the engine (such as starter-motor, and crankshaft?) and battery rather than the engine as a whole. Total-Cost-of-Ownership-wise, a stop-start might save more in fuel than it would cost in increased repairs (Or it may not, depending on make and model among other things).
  - Johnny555 11y ago
    Do you have a reference for that? Cold engine starts cause a lot of wear, but warm engine starts should cause very little wear, especially in an engine designed for start stop. http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/stop-start-long-term-impact-your-car-s-engine http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/new-cars/stop-start-long-t... While a home light bulb may not stand up to continuous on/off cycles, a bulb that's designed to do so (like a low-voltage bulb with a heavy filament) can last for a very long time. So I wouldn't retrofit an existing car with a start-stop system, but I wouldn't have any qualms about purchasing a car with a start-stop engine as it would have been designed for the purpose.
- blub 11y ago
  Toyota is a bad example, they made the news when their code was reviewed by experts and it was evaluated as really poor quality. See for yourself: http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nvs/pdf/NASA_FR_Appendix_A_Software.pdf http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nvs/pdf/NASA_FR_Appendix_A_...