General Stop start - all 500c's?
- Thread starter downhuman
- Start date
Currently reading:
General Stop start - all 500c's?
6 gears would make it less efficient tbh.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 833
- Points
- 191
Our SS works perfectly on our 1.2 lounge but as the manual states there are times when the SS won't operate, the most notable being when the engine is not up to running temperature. We find our 500 takes very little time to warm up.
The operation of the radio or the fan should not affect the SS unless they are running the battery so low that point 2 (battery not sufficiently charged) applies.
The other circumstances when it won't normally kick in are (direct from the FIAT SS supplement) -
NO ENGINE CUT
OUT CONDITIONS
With the device activated, for reasons of comfort, limiting emissions and safety, the power unit does not stop in certain conditions, including:
❒ engine still cold;
❒ battery not sufficiently charged;
❒ heated rear windscreen activated;
❒ windscreen wipers working at maximum
speed;
❒ particulate filter regeneration in progress
(diesel engines only);
❒ driver’s door not shut;
❒ driver’s seat belt not fastened;
❒ reverse gear engaged (for example, for parking manoeuvres);
❒ automatic climate control, if a suitable thermal comfort level has not yet been reached.
❒ during the first period of use, to initialize the
system
In practice I reckon SS works around 90-95% of the time we are driving.
Last edited:
In a way, I'm a little surprised that a car fitted with S&S should have an override facility. The most obvious reason for the system's development seems to me to push a car's reported emissions below a certain figure in order to reduce taxation payable upon the vehicle. I'll hazard a guess that I'm in the majority in saying that it's a pain in the bottom, and have it permanently switched off in my car.
As the system is there, supposedly out of environmental concerns, should it not be permanently engaged beyond the control of the owner? At the risk of sparking controversy, should the same not apply to the DPFs fitted to diesels, making their removal an offence? The spirit in which these devices was fitted was not really specifically in the interests of the car buyer/owner.
BJM
As the system is there, supposedly out of environmental concerns, should it not be permanently engaged beyond the control of the owner? At the risk of sparking controversy, should the same not apply to the DPFs fitted to diesels, making their removal an offence? The spirit in which these devices was fitted was not really specifically in the interests of the car buyer/owner.
BJM
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2012
- Messages
- 833
- Points
- 191
The problem is that there are certain driving conditions where the constant stop starting is a nuisance, such as a slow moving motorway crawl.
It's also nice to be able to override it when driving in extremely hot conditions like we were doing in France this year, we find the air con struggles in extreme temperatures to keep the car interior cool enough when the engine is not running, I guess because with the engine off the unit that chills the air is either not working at all or working on a reduced capacity.
It was so hot that when stationary and the engine off the car interior was starting to warm up after 15 to 30 seconds.
Last edited:
The air con compressor is engine driven, so if the engine is off then the only cooling will be from the residual coldness in the system
<begin rant>
DPF's remove around 95% of the carcinogenic particulates from the exhaust. With something like 2000 lung cancer deaths per year being directly attributable to diesel exhaust emissions, I'd say anyone caught running a car from which the DPF has been deliberately removed should have the car immediately confiscated & crushed.
The current MOT test only tests for smoke under heavy load (not particulates) and is hopelessly out of date when it comes to catching the antisocial b*****s who risk condemning innocent folks to a grim and painful death to save a few quid.
<rant over>
The fundamental problem with systems like S&S and DPF is that they'll never show a nett benefit to the vehicle's owner and/or the environment in every case.
Our choice of a 1.2 petrol was governed by cost and practicality - doing only about 5000 miles per year would make it hard to justify a TwinAir or MultiJet just on cost grounds. Also, given that apart from the odd long distance Ebay mission or pilgrimage to see family in deepest darkest Scotland, the car only does about 50 miles per week tops, I reckon one of yon fancy-dan common-rail diesels would likely make some kind of mechanical protest with such disuse. We have hundreds of Fiat-powered Vauxhall Combo diesels in our works fleet, and our garage tells me they're beset with injector problems.
If S&S on the 500 is as smart as the documentation suggests, then it would probably not be very active in our car since the battery would struggle to maintain sufficient charge...? As the engine scarcely warms up, I doubt we'll see the touted 10% fuel saving.
BJM
I can't disagree with a single word.
Has anyone else noticed that you don't seem to get so much soot on the inside of your windscreen these days, in spite of the increasing number of diesels on the road? Love 'em or loathe 'em, DPFs are a big positive for the environment and our health.
I used to work in a haulage yard back in the days before any kind of emissions control, it was hell.
BJM
Completely agree! I have veeeery mild asthma which only really became a problem when I moved to the UK in 2006, now that dpf's are more common, my asthma is hardly ever an issue.
Removal of dpf should be an mot fail and a fine for the pollution.
Removal of dpf should be an mot fail and a fine for the pollution.
