3 ms·
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
by 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 agoDo 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.