Is Stop-Start system costly on the long run?

nobby24

Think of all those extra opportunities for your car NOT to start! It's a feature I wouldn't entertain.

alleycat`

pgilc1 wrote: »

Its not a gimmick - it works. Its about making cars more efficient - that is good for the environment, good for the manufacturer and good for the buyer. And its part of a suite of functions that does that.

I am 100% certain that the system is designed to meet legislation and nothing else.
The DPF debacle is a classic example of meeting regulations and hang the consequences for the owner.
If you want to save the environment buy an old car and look after it.
Most of the environmental impact from cars is in production and extraction of the raw materials.
The prius (and it's friends) would be seen as the environmental disaster they are if the BBC actually bothered to educate the population on nickel mining and the "disposal" of heavy metals after use.

It saves you money in the short term - i suspect it'll cost a lot more in the long term in wear and tear on the car.

Anyway i'll pop my soapbox away now

jaydeeuk1

I don't give a stuff if it helps environment. All I know is mine saves fuel and is a useful gadget, in the same way electric windows are over manual ones, central locking over manual locking. Does exactly what it says on the tin. And if it causes wear and tear, again I couldn't care less, its a 3 year PCP.

alleycat`

jaydeeuk1 wrote: »

I don't give a stuff if it helps environment. All I know is mine saves fuel and is a useful gadget, in the same way electric windows are over manual ones, central locking over manual locking. Does exactly what it says on the tin. And if it causes wear and tear, again I couldn't care less, its a 3 year PCP.

Different argument.
If you are just interested in it saving you cash over a few years then fair play.

I was commenting on people deluding themselves these things are designed with their, and the environments best interest in mind over the longer term.

Things that don't wear out don't allow "repeat money" after all.

motorguy

alleycat` wrote: »

I am 100% certain that the system is designed to meet legislation and nothing else.
The DPF debacle is a classic example of meeting regulations and hang the consequences for the owner.
If you want to save the environment buy an old car and look after it.
Most of the environmental impact from cars is in production and extraction of the raw materials.
The prius (and it's friends) would be seen as the environmental disaster they are if the BBC actually bothered to educate the population on nickel mining and the "disposal" of heavy metals after use.

It saves you money in the short term - i suspect it'll cost a lot more in the long term in wear and tear on the car.

Anyway i'll pop my soapbox away now

Well, i'm 100% certain you're wrong then.

As someone who is actually experiencing it, as opposed to someone just talking about it, i can confirm that it and the raft of economy driven refinements make a significant difference to the fuel consumption of my car.

That is what is important to me. I paid less for the Passat Bluemotion than i would have for a regular 110 CR TDI S Passat, and i get an easy 20% more fuel economy than of the regular car. I cant see how thats not a win win.

Also i did not change some old car for a brand new shiny eco car for the sole purpose of saving fuel. I was going to buy a new car anyway for the raft of other benefits it offers me. the fact that i got the eco version for less is merely an added bonus.

It *might* cause issues down the line, but so might the air conditioning, or the ECU or the turbo - where do you draw the line? Cars are already laden with gadgets, why pick on this one in particular?

motorguy

alleycat` wrote: »

Different argument.
If you are just interested in it saving you cash over a few years then fair play.

I was commenting on people deluding themselves these things are designed with their, and the environments best interest in mind over the longer term.

Things that don't wear out don't allow "repeat money" after all.

I'm not deluding myself into thinking this was designed with my best interest in mind. What i do know is that the car saves me money over a regular passat when combining this and other technology.

That is FACT.

alleycat`

I wasn't overly interested in arguing about it.
In the long term more complex tech (that is relatively new) will cost more to put right.
You can't factually state that the cost saved in fuel is going to be cheaper than what might go wrong with the car right now.

At the moment it saves money and if you don't own the car then it has saved you money (in fuel costs).

The oddity for me in this entire mess is that my "53 plate" passat did better mpg than the current 2010 (equivalent) passat does.
It was 15% cheaper list price than the current (equivalent model).
It only produced 10 more CO2's and judging by the one i test drove a few months ago better built too.

How is fuel economy going backwards on cars?

vaio

alleycat` wrote: »

I wasn't overly interested in arguing about it.
In the long term more complex tech (that is relatively new) will cost more to put right.
You can't factually state that the cost saved in fuel is going to be cheaper than what might go wrong with the car right now.

At the moment it saves money and if you don't own the car then it has saved you money (in fuel costs).

The oddity for me in this entire mess is that my "53 plate" passat did better mpg than the current 2010 (equivalent) passat does.
It was 15% cheaper list price than the current (equivalent model).
It only produced 10 more CO2's and judging by the one i test drove a few months ago better built too.

How is fuel economy going backwards on cars?

Generally because they are getting bigger and heavier

motorguy

vaio wrote: »

Generally because they are getting bigger and heavier

+1

You would imagine someone with an engineering slant would have twigged that.

motorguy

alleycat` wrote: »

I wasn't overly interested in arguing about it.
In the long term more complex tech (that is relatively new) will cost more to put right.

How do you know that (a) it will fail and (b) it will cost a lot of money to fix? (c) that when its universally applied to all cars - which it will be - that the parts arent dirt cheap in 10 years time? There is an on / off switch for it anyway, so if it fails on a 15 year old car, what odds?

alleycat` wrote: »

You can't factually state that the cost saved in fuel is going to be cheaper than what might go wrong with the car right now.

No, in the same way as you cant factually state that it *will* cause a problem some years down the line - yet you seem to be doing that?

alleycat` wrote: »

At the moment it saves money and if you don't own the car then it has saved you money (in fuel costs).

Yup.