Technical Fiat 500 Start Stop System

[bgunn]

You know, bgunn, it's bad when the mods start siding with the trolls...

I got sick of messing with points and such like at the side of motorways.

But you said that the older cars were better because they didn't have 'redundant kit'? Sorry, but surely you can see you're being a hypocrite here?

Oh, and I side with myself. Daniel and I have had plenty of arguments in the past.

The whole point I'm trying to put across is, S&S is a wholly redundant bit of kit for any driver with common sense. If you're stopped in traffic, you stop the engine. Similarly, common sense tells you that, if you keep doing that, you'll screw up the battery.

I take umbrage with what you're saying about lacking common sense and think you're somehow of 'higher order', on behalf of myself and many others who have no problem with S&S doing what it's designed to do.

It's funny, but common sense would tell you to do some research in that the battery on a micro-hybrid car is not the same as a standard car. So it is designed for the higher demands placed upon it, it has a greater charge acceptance rate, and can stand greater discharge demands without failing like a standard lead/acid cell.

Equally, the starter has a higher duty cycle, with a different drive gear - i.e. it's 'better engineered' for those of you with more common sense.

Also, the engine management software has been improved to learn the crankshaft and sensor tooth pattern to such precision that it actually can see the different 'shape' of each tooth (in terms of how it's machined and the difference in magnetic flux generation in the relevant sensor) ensuring that the exact position of the engine can be determined within only two to three teeth passing the sensor tip. So the engine management can fire the coils and injectors with less rotation of the engine at start up, meaning less fuel is wasted and the engine starts more quickly. Sounds rather like 'common sense' to me.

Oh, and should the electrical demands still be too great, common sense dictates the S&S turns itself off!

Those of us *with common sense* keep S&S turned off...and put up with the annoying little amber light.

BJM

I now actually find the thought of my engine idling whilst I'm in traffic quite an alien and rather backward concept. I mean, you would leave a kettle boiling all day on the off-chance you want a hot cup of water three times a day, would you? The S&S is hardly intrusive, is it? The engine stops when you disengage gear and de-clutch - which you should be doing when you're going to stop for more than a few seconds, right? So it's common sense, isn't it?

I don't wish to be rude or cast aspersions, but I just don't see what the issue is. But each to their own.

 

[306maxi]

I WISH my 500 had S&S, i have to turn the key like a bloody peasant at the lights.

 

[scout]

My 500 came with reverse sensors, I don't see the logic of putting them in a car that I can reach the back window from the drivers seat of, but they are there. Common sense says if its there use it, so I haven't disconnected it, the same logic applies to the SS system, common sense says if its there use it. I don't even notice it shutting off anymore and only realise when I go to put the car in gear and it starts up.
Common sense says if technology is there, use it. You don't keep using a sharp stone when a knife is available do you. I wonder when I can get a car with kers fitted?

 

[Gardengnome]

Seem to be some strange behaviours. Why switch the SS off, if you're driving never accommodates it to kick in then why bother switching it off?

Why switch it on?

I've just done 2300miles miles in a courtesy 500 I had and cannot fault the SS system. I also fail to see the majority of people's issues with it.

I have absolutely no issues with it, I just don't use it.

It's like people who don't like apple products. Haters gonna hate.

OK, now it's really getting silly!

I originally commented in this thread merely to add another point of view to the discussion. In my very first sentence I stated that I used the SS for a couple of days before deciding it had no advantages for me and turned it off. Let me be clear; I studied the manual and used the SS system before making that choice!

Why do some people have such a problem with that? How, exactly, is it "strange behaviour"?

In my second sentence I went on to explain why I decided not to use it, but it seems some folk didn't even read that far - they just decided (because it suited their sense of superiority perhaps) that I was some sort of cretin who needed to be instructed in the mysteries of SS or disparaged for having an alternative point of view to theirs.


If this is an indication of the level of 'discussion' here, I'll leave you to it.

 

[Most Easterly Pandas]

Start & Stop, and DPF in diesels, seem to me (regardless of marque) to be very cynically designed devices which cost a car's first buyer very dear. As I said earlier, their intended function is to shoe-horn the car into the lowest possible RFL bracket.

I wouldn't have a common-rail diesel car thrown at me, largely because of the woe that a DPF can cause.

BJM

As said by maxi it shows just how little you know about certain systems, DPFs are not just a tax reducing device. They actually work, and bloody well, just like CATs in petrol engines.

I bet 20 years ago you were saying 'ill never have a car with a CAT' as they were being introduced.

DPFs on the whole are very reliable and trouble free devices. Where issues occur is often where people aren't maintaining their vehicles properly.

 

[scout]

OK, now it's really getting silly!

I originally commented in this thread merely to add another point of view to the discussion. In my very first sentence I stated that I used the SS for a couple of days before deciding it had no advantages for me and turned it off. Let me be clear; I studied the manual and used the SS system before making that choice!

Why do some people have such a problem with that? How, exactly, is it "strange behaviour"?

In my second sentence I went on to explain why I decided not to use it, but it seems some folk didn't even read that far - they just decided (because it suited their sense of superiority perhaps) that I was some sort of cretin who needed to be instructed in the mysteries of SS or disparaged for having an alternative point of view to theirs.


If this is an indication of the level of 'discussion' here, I'll leave you to it.

Your entitled to your opinion but I do beg to differ on the 'no advantage to me' bit. Try this experiment, clear your average mpg reading and drive a reasonable distance without too many stops, say 20mins, note the mpg. Then sit with the engine running for five minutes and see what it drops too. Its very crude but gives some indication of the effect of SS (and yes I know you'd make less saving as you have to factor in starting the engine)

 

[UFI]

The great thing about s&s is that you don't need to turn the key.....

Why does no one bitch about having to use the key resulting in premature ignition barrel failure?

 

[306maxi]

Why does no one bitch about having to use the key resulting in premature ignition barrel failure?

Keys and immobilisers are just there to reduce insurance costs, personally I'd rather have my car without!

 

[varesecrazy]

I wouldn't have a common-rail diesel car thrown at me, largely because of the woe that a DPF can cause.

BJM

quite different things

akin to saying " I wouldn't buy an internal combustion engine - because those catalytic converters get too hot",

FIAT designed + built the 1st Common-rail Diesel Production car,
Marea 105 JTD,
I drove mine for 150K faultless miles,
AND it gave Fantastic fuel economy - NO DPF and no problems.
YES I'm aware that DPF's were introduced YEARS later,
but that's a different story.

 

[bjm38]

Why do I get the idea that you're all missing the main points that I'm trying to make here? I really don't need a detailed explanation how S&S works, but I would like answers to the following:

1: How much extra are we paying on the price of a new car for S&S?

2: Just what contribution does it make to the "official" CO2 figures that determine RFL?

3: What percentage of users are going to get a nett benefit from S&S?

This third question is key - a certain proportion of cars are driven in an environment where S&S might make a difference, but I believe, pending a detailed explanation of why I am wrong, that they are a minority.

"Up to 10% fuel savings" is the most meaningless marketing guff I ever heard.

BJM

 

[bjm38]

As said by maxi it shows just how little you know about certain systems, DPFs are not just a tax reducing device. They actually work, and bloody well, just like CATs in petrol engines.

I bet 20 years ago you were saying 'ill never have a car with a CAT' as they were being introduced.

DPFs on the whole are very reliable and trouble free devices. Where issues occur is often where people aren't maintaining their vehicles properly.

Read my other posts - I fully understand the environmental benefits of DPFs. But they can be problematic, sometimes disastrously so, and the temptation is there to remove them. Diesels have evolved to the point where they're an economic liability.

Oh, and we bought one of the earliest catalysed cars in the late 80s, simply on environmental grounds, and lived to regret it.

BJM

 

[306maxi]

1) I seem to think S&S was about a £250 option back in 2009.
2) Probably fairly small, maybe 3 or 4 percent.
3) Unless you're a knuckledragger who simply MUST have their foot on the clutch pedal at all times, their hand resting on the shift knob or you're unable to operate a handbrake, then I'd say about 100% or so.

 

[306maxi]

Read my other posts - I fully understand the environmental benefits of DPFs. But they can be problematic, sometimes disastrously so, and the temptation is there to remove them. Diesels have evolved to the point where they're an economic liability.

Oh, and we bought one of the earliest catalysed cars in the late 80s, simply on environmental grounds, and lived to regret it.

BJM

Usually only if a car is used in a manner which it wasn't designed for such as driving around town doing very short journeys, only a very small percentage of people on here have issues with the DPF and I can only think of grimwau who had issues which were seemingly unexplained.

 

[bgunn]

Why do I get the idea that you're all missing the main points that I'm trying to make here? I really don't need a detailed explanation how S&S works, but I would like answers to the following:

1: How much extra are we paying on the price of a new car for S&S?

Dunno. Ask FIAT. Or Bosch. They won't tell you.

2: Just what contribution does it make to the "official" CO2 figures that determine RFL?

You can do the research for yourself. Google 'New European Driving Cycle test procedure'.

3: What percentage of users are going to get a nett benefit from S&S?

This third question is key - a certain proportion of cars are driven in an environment where S&S might make a difference, but I believe, pending a detailed explanation of why I am wrong, that they are a minority.

"Up to 10% fuel savings" is the most meaningless marketing guff I ever heard.

BJM

Well, Based upon extrapolation of time spent on journeys in my car in 'stop' mode from S&S, I've saved just shy of £30 of petrol in the 2.5 years I've been driving the car from new. That equates to approx 52Kgs of CO2. So given that my car already needed:

• A Starter Motor
• A Battery
• An engine management ECU (this controls the S&S)

...to be useable as a car anyway - and the S&S means those parts are slightly different, why *wouldn't* I want to save a bit of money, not burn fuel when I don't need to and have a bit of peace and quiet when sitting in a traffic queue?

If that isn't spelling it out in clear and logical ways, I don't know what is. I believe you're a luddite, however, and not going to see any sort of justification for technological progress - even when, essentially, it's not such a radical move forward, just intelligent use of existing components.

 

[bjm38]

quite different things

akin to saying " I wouldn't buy an internal combustion engine - because those catalytic converters get too hot",

FIAT designed + built the 1st Common-rail Diesel Production car,
Marea 105 JTD,
I drove mine for 150K faultless miles,
AND it gave Fantastic fuel economy - NO DPF and no problems.
YES I'm aware that DPF's were introduced YEARS later,
but that's a different story.

All diesels built today, unless I'm mistaken, employ common-rail and DPFs. Both would be a liability for me since I don't do many miles in my car, and it would not be cost-effective even if the technology were reliable. I have a two-year old diesel van for work, with a FIAT 1.3 diesel unit, and it's bl**dy awful.

BJM

 

[306maxi]

All diesels built today, unless I'm mistaken, employ common-rail and DPFs. Both would be a liability for me since I don't do many miles in my car, and it would not be cost-effective even if the technology were reliable. I have a two-year old diesel van for work, with a FIAT 1.3 diesel unit, and it's bl**dy awful.

BJM

That's like saying that a wife would be a liability for a gay man. Of course it is! Diesels were never great cars for short journeys anyway, yes this makes them worse, but the health benefits are great. If you do short journeys then a petrol car is a good option, in fact Fiat do 2 petrol engines which are quite fuel efficient, maybe you should get one of them?

 

[UFI]

3: What percentage of users are going to get a nett benefit from S&S?

This third question is key - a certain proportion of cars are driven in an environment where S&S might make a difference, but I believe, pending a detailed explanation of why I am wrong, that they are a minority.

"Up to 10% fuel savings" is the most meaningless marketing guff I ever heard.

Do your own sums, the car uses 0.6 l/ hour at idle. Re-starting uses an immesurable amount of fuel (I will measure it someday though).

For a typical driver, that's 30l saved for every 10,000 km travelled.

Now that I drive through the CBD daily, for me it would be 60l/ 10,000km. If you drive in a big city that figure could double again.

 

[306maxi]

Do your own sums, the car uses 0.6 l/ hour at idle. Re-starting uses an immesurable amount of fuel (I will measure it someday though).

For a typical driver, that's 30l saved for every 10,000 km travelled.

Now that I drive through the CBD daily, for me it would be 60l/ 10,000km. If you drive in a big city that figure could double again.

Exactly, I think Britain is probably not the country which S&S is designed for, a lot of people like myself live in small towns out in the countryside and generally don't have to stop much, in fact there are some days where I won't come to a complete on my way to and from work, but I would still happily have S&S on my car because there are times when I go to places like Chester and I don't fancy sitting at the lights burning money for no reason at all.

 

[306maxi]

Do your own sums, the car uses 0.6 l/ hour at idle. Re-starting uses an immesurable amount of fuel (I will measure it someday though).

I suspect that the amount of fuel used on a restart is a bit of a myth, like how my mum always told me that it used more energy to turn a light on and off all the time rather than just leaving it on.

 

[bgunn]

in fact Fiat do 2 petrol engines which are quite fuel efficient, maybe you should get one of them?

But he already has? So I fail to see the whinge about technology in cars when you've bought a small car with quite a lot of tech.

As I say, go and buy a Moggie then? Oh, but you don't want to be resetting points at the side of the road. Oh, but technology is the antichrist, right? Just conjured up by greedy car manufacturers and eurocrats for no benefit? I'm sure I remember reading 'readers letters' about those sorts of arguments when electronic engine management was becoming mandated by emissions regulations in the 70s and 80s because governments were fed up of seeing death tolls rising constantly in cities due to pollution from cars.

The more I read of your posts, the more I find people like you endlessly frustrating. You're the 'I'll stay in my cave, I'm happy' type, rather than the one pushing the envelope going to discover new things.