We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
The MSE Forum Team would like to wish you all a very Happy New Year. However, we know this time of year can be difficult for some. If you're struggling during the festive period, here's a list of organisations that might be able to help
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Has MSE helped you to save or reclaim money this year? Share your 2025 MoneySaving success stories!
How to get more MPG out of a Ford Fiesta Ecoboost
Comments
-
The clues in the name. Stop start. The efficiency comes from having a stopped engine. Zero emissions, zero fuel use and of course zero miles driven. Then at the end of that you have the inefficient aspect of starting the engine. A friend of mine on another firum has calculated it's only worth him using stop start if he is stopped for 3 minutes or more. Seems a bit long to me but I take his word for it as it's his vehicle and he's done the real world testing. Something not granted here but I know what's what and everyone else is guessing.You’ve just said it yourself. “It does improve emissions and VED tax bands reflect this on certain models seeing as no emissions are produced while an engine is off”.
Emphasis on the “engine is off” part.
If it improves emissions, then quite clearly it improves efficiency.0 -
No...So you are saying the manufacturers data collected for many years, 26 no less, is, even with its stringent rules and checks, is widely accepted to be incorrect
Whose "real world environment"? That's the whole point. There is no one "real world environment". The ONLY way that you can ever perform any kind of test that gives any kind of repeatable and directly comparable result between cars is to have a tightly-defined cycle.or at least unreplicateable in the real world environment.
The plural of anecdote is not data.Yet my findings of minor efficiency gains are hokum
How do emissions improve?I've not seen (not saying it doesn't exist) a manufacturer advertise stop start as improving mileage. It does improve emissions
There are only two ways... Improved combustion efficiency, and using less fuel.
Which of those is affected by turning the engine off when it'd otherwise be idling?0 -
The clues in the name. Stop start. The efficiency comes from having a stopped engine. Zero emissions, zero fuel use and of course zero miles driven. Then at the end of that you have the inefficient aspect of starting the engine. A friend of mine on another firum has calculated it's only worth him using stop start if he is stopped for 3 minutes or more. Seems a bit long to me but I take his word for it as it's his vehicle and he's done the real world testing. Something not granted here but I know what's what and everyone else is guessing.
3 minutes! :rotfl: so you’re seriously suggesting that starting a modern, fuel injected car engine uses the same amount of fuel as if it was sat idling for 3 whole minutes? :rotfl: Whatever ounce of credibility you had, and believe me, it wasn’t much, has just been lost with that statement.0 -
Idle speed of 800rpm in a four cylinder four stroke engine for three minutes =3 minutes! :rotfl: so you’re seriously suggesting that starting a modern, fuel injected car engine uses the same amount of fuel as if it was sat idling for 3 whole minutes? :rotfl: Whatever ounce of credibility you had, and believe me, it wasn’t much, has just been lost with that statement.
4,800 individual combustion cycles...
I wonder how much fuel is actually injected for each combustion cycle at idle. Not much, but multiply by nearly 5,000... Shove all that in to one cylinder at once, and I suspect you'd hydraulic lock it, especially with diesel compression ratios.0 -
Oh I see. You didn't read the post. Or failed to understand. Lack of credibility right there. I didn't say my car over 3 minutes, I've not looked into it that much. The guy that did made a good case but I was sceptical. All of which I said in the post that you didn't comprehend. I sugest you watch a YouTube vid, maybe reading isn't for you.3 minutes! :rotfl: so you’re seriously suggesting that starting a modern, fuel injected car engine uses the same amount of fuel as if it was sat idling for 3 whole minutes? :rotfl: Whatever ounce of credibility you had, and believe me, it wasn’t much, has just been lost with that statement.0 -
You might be "sceptical", but you clearly believe it's feasible, and trust him as a source.Oh I see. You didn't read the post. Or failed to understand. Lack of credibility right there. I didn't say my car over 3 minutes, I've not looked into it that much. The guy that did made a good case but I was sceptical. All of which I said in the post that you didn't comprehend. I sugest you watch a YouTube vid, maybe reading isn't for you.0 -
I'd argue that less, ie none, fuel is burnt the whole time the engine is off-surely you agree? I also believe that when restarting there is more fuel used than a short term idle. I can't tell you the length of that term, id imagine it to be seconds. Haven't looked into it enough to say but can say with no doubt the driving I do more efficient with the stop start offNo...
Whose "real world environment"? That's the whole point. There is no one "real world environment". The ONLY way that you can ever perform any kind of test that gives any kind of repeatable and directly comparable result between cars is to have a tightly-defined cycle.
[COLOR="b[COLOR="Red"]my real world environment. The tests are repeated in so far as ive driven the same route to work for a decade and the conditions are pretty much the same.
As replicated as you'll get in a real world scenario, most pf the variables are constant or as near as can be. "][/COLOR][/COLOR]
The plural of anecdote is not data.
but testing is. Repeated testing is of course better data. 4 years sufficient enough?
How do emissions improve?
There are only two ways... Improved combustion efficiency, and using less fuel.
Which of those is affected by turning the engine off when it'd otherwise be idling?0 -
But your "testing" is not based on any kind of vaguely scientific environment or methodology. It is not even vaguely repeatable. You are taking zero account of traffic changes, ambient temperature changes, driver behavioural changes, or any of a myriad of other variables.
my real world environment. The tests are repeated in so far as ive driven the same route to work for a decade and the conditions are pretty much the same.AdrianC wrote:No...
Whose "real world environment"? That's the whole point. There is no one "real world environment". The ONLY way that you can ever perform any kind of test that gives any kind of repeatable and directly comparable result between cars is to have a tightly-defined cycle.
As replicated as you'll get in a real world scenario, most pf the variables are constant or as near as can be.
As I said...
You clearly don't understand the basics of "testing".
but testing is. Repeated testing is of course better data. 4 years sufficient enough?The plural of anecdote is not data.
<slow hand-clap>
I'd argue that less, ie none, fuel is burnt the whole time the engine is off-surely you agree?How do emissions improve?
There are only two ways... Improved combustion efficiency, and using less fuel.
Which of those is affected by turning the engine off when it'd otherwise be idling?
Do you find "three minutes" to be vaguely credible?I also believe that when restarting there is more fuel used than a short term idle. I can't tell you the length of that term, id imagine it to be seconds.
A conclusion you've come to from a preconception, via extremely mediocre methodology.Haven't looked into it enough to say but can say with no doubt the driving I do more efficient with the stop start off
Despite basic logic screaming "this is complete codswallop".Yep. He's legit regarding other things and has looked into it. I've no reason to doubt him other than personal experience in my own vehicles.0 -
Oh I see. You didn't read the post. Or failed to understand. Lack of credibility right there. I didn't say my car over 3 minutes, I've not looked into it that much. The guy that did made a good case but I was sceptical. All of which I said in the post that you didn't comprehend. I sugest you watch a YouTube vid, maybe reading isn't for you.
You were right to be sceptical. Because it’s absolute tosh. And my reading is fine matey. Don’t worry, I’ll continue to watch YouTube videos. Honestly you should try it. You might actually learn something. It’s not all crap content. There’s some really interesting and educational stuff.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.8K Spending & Discounts
- 246.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 602.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.8K Life & Family
- 260K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards