Engine stop start systems when at idle won't save the planet | Auto Expert John Cadogan | Australia
Welcome to another ‘What the FAQ’ - where questions and comments, sometimes, as in this case, completely without rational thought, need the briefest application of samurai sword to the knees, by way of adjustment.
This is also good for the jihad on bullshit - and as the fake god is my witness, there’s certainly enough of that to keep one busy for quite some time to some.
And now, let’s meet the A-holes. Butt-plug #1 is Ian P:
“What this clown doesn't mention is that thousands of cars idling at the lights churn out heaps of disgusting polluting gases, completely unnecessarily. Try walking around your average city at an intersection and you'll see exactly how much. Suspicious about his assertion about idling cars using bugger all fuel. Until I see actual numbers I remain unconvinced about how 'expert' Cadogan really is.
Dear fuckhead, the gasses coming out the exhaust pipe are transparent. Or did being dropped on your head as a child give you strange visual acquity, in addition to the things you lost?
A walking bag of fake-named dicktips named Eskolowski continued:
"It reduces emissions, if you sit in city traffic with 100's of cars it makes a huge difference! I am an ex automotive engineer and I worked on incorporating stop start feature on premium cars. The fuel savings are minimal yes but it's about reducing emissions."
I wonder why you’re an ex automotive engineer. What offences did you commit to get them all hyped up to the point of excommunication? And then there’s Bernard W:
"Dinosaurs didn't like change either, but they still became extinct. I've had a few stop/start cars over the last half decade - the first being an Audi and the most recent a Merc, and I miss the stop/start feature if I drive a car without it now! Change with the times John or you'll be as relevant as the carburettor you talk about!"
Bernard - please point me in the direction of this research on the emotional state of dinosaurs: What they liked and didn’t like. I’ve always wondered how the T-Rex felt about its Thalidomide arms… And about the universal opprobrium of the other dinosaurs. I bet that gave it thick skin...
Not everyone disagreed with me on stop-start, though. MrJTGriffin chimed in thus:
"I'm a mechanical engineer and I will attest that his points are actually valid. This technology is pure marketing and any true engineer will tell you the same. It sounds great until you dig into the numbers."
Let’s deal with these issues: Exhaust pollution in our major cities is a significant public health problem. But the reality is: Pollution is a function of fuel burned, plus combustion and and exhaust management.
In an ideal world, the only things making it out of the exhaust pipe would be nitrogen, which is the main constituent of air and is really only along for the ride through the engine (with a significant warm-up) plus the two major combustion byproducts: water (as steam) and CO2.
None of which you can see or smell, incidentally. And which will not affect you as you walk from A to B close by, breaching the motoring journalist’s code of ethics by moving through space-time without burning any hydrocarbons.
I agree that cars that are not idling are not polluting, in the moment, but all you retards who trumpet on about this are failing to grasp the numbers. Cars simply do not use much fuel at idle. A modern 2.0-litre car: about 600 millilitres (or a pint in the old money) per hour.
That’s nothing, in comparison to the fuel cost of driving for an hour - which is 10 or 12 times higher, even when driving efficiently.
As a function of the total fuel being consumed - stopping an idling engine is insignificant. And therefore the effect of this technology on emissions and pollution is - by definition - also insignificant.