Comments on: Chrysler to offer engine start/stop on select models

By: Melissa L

Melissa L — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:14:17 +0000

I don’t think this is a good idea.

By: BLISS

BLISS — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 02:05:48 +0000

more exclusive

By: Bryce

Bryce — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 14:33:26 +0000

It makes sense from a marketing perspective. A 29 mpg car would get 30 mpg with this technology.

johnnycanuck, there’s no feasible method of running an engine half it’s cylinders at high RPMs. Might as well purchase a vehicle with a smaller engine.

By: Commodore

Commodore — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 19:20:09 +0000

Yea, and a 20MPG car becomes a 21MPG with a 5% increase. That is nothing.

GM’s SUVs with their full hybrid tech went from 12MPG to 18MPG (50% increase)

By: 1c3d0g

1c3d0g — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 13:59:37 +0000

5% is not worth it to implement, IMO. Come on, Chrysler, you can do better than this!

By: jdasch1

jdasch1 — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 05:37:44 +0000

I have drove a few cars/suv’s with this option and I will have to admit it is quite nice to have the engine off at a stop light. Many cars can simply use a better battery to withstand the start/stop mechanism. It really is not that expensive and is worth it.

By: DeansterTJ

DeansterTJ — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 02:50:11 +0000

For 5% better mpg, doesn’t sound worth it. Just the added cost to implement…

By: jackjimturkey

jackjimturkey — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:14:23 +0000

autonut: yeah, I even bought a hyperexpensive new starter.

By: CTS DRIVER

CTS DRIVER — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 23:07:17 +0000

how about 30 times in 5 minutes with so cal traffic

By: autonut

autonut — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:49:36 +0000

jjt, did you look at solenoid?

By: autonut

autonut — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:48:44 +0000

It can be useful in city traffic. If engine will start again.

By: jackjimturkey

jackjimturkey — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:46:04 +0000

j-cat: that happened a lot with my honda. I’d park somewhere, and turn the key, and there’d be no power. Replaced the battery seveal times, looked at evey other component …

By: jonnycat

jonnycat — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:35:32 +0000

The last thing I’d want is my engine to turn off at redlights in the middle of winter.

By: CA36GTP

CA36GTP — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:24:59 +0000

Cylinder deactivation is far better than this start/stop garbage. I don’t care what anyone says, forcing your engine to stop and get going again 30 times a trip ain’t good.

By: jackjimturkey

jackjimturkey — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 20:14:29 +0000

cookie: all those cylinder-deactivation models seem to work smoothly. I thought the Jeep should’ve had a light that could tell you wven it was only using four cylinders

By: neko

neko — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 20:01:08 +0000

dl_caldwell,

There are a few automakers that use this technology and it works. Even though it does not provide drastic increases in fuel efficiency, what it does do is save fuel in idling, as well as decreases emmissions, as the car’s emmissions reduction systems do not run effectively when the car is idling. This technology is benifical in the long run, and will only add to the appeal once Chrysler moves from its current line-up of heavy cars to a much lighter line-up.

By: SwerveEarly

SwerveEarly — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:23:45 +0000

The systems keep the oil circulating w/electric motor, so starting your engine is not the worst thing you can do to your engine. Like it would say on the slick-50 commercial.

By: dl_caldwell

dl_caldwell — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:14:38 +0000

I would NOT want to be one of the first people to buy one if these. Imagine if the system fails it will leave you stranded at each traffic light. Chrysler engines have enough problems with stalling, gee lets build them to do it on purpose! If Chrysler wants to improve fuel economy they need to put their cars on a diet of low-weight composites.

By: cookie4me

cookie4me — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:06:05 +0000

good point Johnny. I drove my dad’s Honda Odyssey this weekend and when it went into “eco” mode when half the cylinders shut down I would have never have known the difference had it not been for the indicator light.

By: cookie4me

cookie4me — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:03:50 +0000

I wonder what this technology does to shorten an engine’s lifespan? If an engine can go 200,000 miles no problem without this technology surely this technology will cause more wear on the engine but how much? 10%? 20%? At some point, the cost of replacing an engine more quickly and the carbon output associated with manufacturing more engines would surely offset any carbon gains in fuel economy. I could be wrong and maybe the engineers have figured this out. Has anyone seen any test results on this?

By: johnnycanuck

johnnycanuck — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:00:03 +0000

Except what wears out the internal components of an engine more quickly- idling at a stoplight or restarting it 10 times just to go to the corner store. In aviation the cycles on a powerplant are equally if not more so important than the hours. Why not just further the existing technology of shutting down half the cylinders at idle as well as on the highway?

By: SwerveEarly

SwerveEarly — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:52:20 +0000

Im not one for Govt regs but if they made air-bags and cat-converters std, why not this?
It seems like the cheapest way to increase mpg quickly.

By: philsshon

philsshon — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:49:26 +0000

in ortherwords 30mpg=32mpg not too bad. it’s a start no pun inteded