Who disables Auto Start-Stop when they drive?

[telluride]

Who else prefers Auto Start-Stop to be disabled when they drive?

 

[Dadsbadback]

I actually really enjoy having it

 

[Krug]

Same here I don't mind it as long as we're saving gas.

I actually really enjoy having it

 

[Chasingpiper]

I do! I don’t like that extra time it takes to get going again after sitting at a stop light.

 

[utmeep]

I do. I don't buy an suv to save gas...

 

[robdaride]

TBH I can't stand the feature even though Kia touts its very seamless.

 

[drizzt]

How would this feature affect the life of your starter? I don't think my wife's Rav4 Hybrid has a starter even though its doing it constantly, so it's no issue there.

 

[SX_Mary]

How would this feature affect the life of your starter? I don't think my wife's Rav4 Hybrid has a starter even though its doing it constantly, so it's no issue there.

I was wondering the same thing, I can't be good for it to start and stop the engine constantly.

 

[Smolenski7]

The engine and starter are engineered to take the extra stress. I'm not even close to an expert, so before I placed my order, I did a little research. I really couldn't find anything that says the stop/start hurts the engine at all. So, until this is proven wrong, I'll leave it on......once I get my Telluride delivered.

Sent from my SM-J320V using Tapatalk

 

[ucinn]

If they could engineer a starter that was built to last more starts, wouldn't they have been doing that before the ASG feature was around?..Did they just automatically find some magic pixie dust to sprinkle on it? Don't believe everything you read on the internet. I'm not risking my $500 starter to save $20 a year in gas.. If the starter lasts 20 years then I break even. It really makes no sense.

 

[scott88]

The starters aren't designed to take extra stress, but rather the engine is designed to handle the extra wear. Cars manufactures don't care about the longevity of the starters since they typically last beyond 100k miles, they care more about the EPA's fuel economy testing since that tends to be one of the selling points these days.

 

[DKiaGuy]

The starters aren't designed to take extra stress, but rather the engine is designed to handle the extra wear. Cars manufactures don't care about the longevity of the starters since they typically last beyond 100k miles, they care more about the EPA's fuel economy testing since that tends to be one of the selling points these days.

Actually, the starters today are designed to take extra stress. Starter motors from the 1990s were designed to handle around 50,000 start cycles compared with today’s starter motors that are capable of handling up to 500,000 cycles in its lifespan. All sorts of things are different, from the type of bearings used, to the long-life brushes, the way the solenoid works, the beefed up wiring. It may save you a few cents and maybe $20 per year if all you do is highway driving. But if you do groceries in town, stop behind a school bus when the red sign is flipped, pick up your breakfast and lunch doing a drive-thru, wash your ride at an auto spa once a week, drive through to withdraw from the ATM, stop at 10 red lights on your way going and coming from work and live in Cali where gas prices recently hit $4.50 per gallon then not only would you save significantly, you also do less to pollute the environment when your engine is idling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ucinn]

Well, the Stinger has the ISG and there's already been some starter replacements.... so, I'm not buying the "these are built better now" stories. It's just another hoop that the car manufacturers have to jump through to try and meet EPA standards.

 

[drizzt]

@DKiaGuy and @ucinn , thank you both for your sharing your knowledge, thoughts and input. I think both of your points are valid and just like shutter in DSLR, if may be rated to last 200K shutters, but some are unlucky and some go beyond the rated number. At the end, I guess it comes down to your personal preference...

 

[DKiaGuy]

@DKiaGuy and @ucinn , thank you both for your sharing your knowledge, thoughts and input. I think both of your points are valid and just like shutter in DSLR, if may be rated to last 200K shutters, but some are unlucky and some go beyond the rated number. At the end, I guess it comes down to your personal preference...

Absolutely. It’s the same with how folks protest CVT technology. I had to make that clarification because it is not a “don’t believe everything you read on the Internet” thing - it is actually science. You can’t compare starters in the pre-auto start stop era or ‘90s with the starters in today’s world whether some stingers had their starters replaced or not. For one, the gear ratio from the starter-drive pinion to the flywheel ring gear is now optimized to make the starter’s motor turn more slowly. Like I mentioned before, the composition of the carbon and copper brushes on a start-stop motor differs from its traditional counterparts. Today’s starters also no longer rely on oil soaked bushings but on needle bearings. The solenoid on start-stop starters also decouples the mechanical action of engaging the drive pinion into the flywheel which ultimately optimizes contact design and wear. The 50,000 start-stop lifecycle on old starters that has now jumped to 500,000 wasn’t a made up or arbitrary number.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DKiaGuy]

I should also add that while it boils down to personal preference, you’ll still have to turn it off every time you start the vehicle. Some detest it so much they want it permanently disabled but it appears like CVT, some new technologies are here to stay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[drizzt]

I should also add that while it boils down to personal preference, you’ll still have to turn it off every time you start the vehicle. Some detest it so much they want it permanently disabled but it appears like CVT, some new technologies are here to stay.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right. Some say the first thing they do after starting their car is to turn off auto start-stop and engage auto-hold. I'm starting to get used to slight lag in throttle response from auto start-stop, but I just cannot handle the added delay in acceleration from engaging the auto-hold. I end up stepping on accelerator harder since there's no response. Perhaps I'll get used to that too, but definitely not my cup of tea...

 

[ucinn]

I do that, it's my ritual immediately after starting, disable ISG and enable auto hold.. makes the car a lot more pleasant to drive IMO.

 

[JSchule]

Wait, are you saying there's a lag in acceleration with the auto-hold as it is when the car is started, or after pressing the button for auto-hold? I've noticed the lag when sitting at stoplights and it's go time, even if I've disabled the auto start/stop. I'm not looking for a drag race, but the car doesn't move, not even roll, until I press pretty hard on the gas. I don't find it very punchy at all, even in Sport mode. If there's a way to make this a lag better, I'd love to hear it. I haven't played with the auto-hold button at all. Thanks in advance.

 

[FireMartZ]

Wait, are you saying there's a lag in acceleration with the auto-hold as it is when the car is started, or after pressing the button for auto-hold? I've noticed the lag when sitting at stoplights and it's go time, even if I've disabled the auto start/stop. I'm not looking for a drag race, but the car doesn't move, not even roll, until I press pretty hard on the gas. I don't find it very punchy at all, even in Sport mode. If there's a way to make this a lag better, I'd love to hear it. I haven't played with the auto-hold button at all. Thanks in advance.

When auto-hold is OFF, with ISG, the engine will restart when you take your foot of the brake, but when auto-hold is ON, the engine will restart when you press the accelerator, introducing a very noticeable delay to actually start moving forward.