Auto or manual
- Thread starter Mr mondeo
- Start date
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
I wonder if they applied less aggressive timings over time to it if yours isnt infuriating. My X3 stop/start is so quick to switch the engine out. It must be a few seconds after being stationary when on auto hold, or just sitting on the brakes. This results in the engine stopping and starting over and over again when going light to light in a city, or when in heavy traffic which causes you to be stationary over and over, but for say 5-10 seconds each and every time.
Just to be clear, I do like it, it is nice to sit at lights with the engine off, it's purely the implementation on our car which I think could do with some improvement. It's never bothered me enough that I disable it or anything.
How is it a bodge? It means cars use less fuel, and are less polluting in terms of emissions and noise, when sitting doing nothing in traffic. Surely those are all good things, no?
Mine is not a 'stupid bodge' - I roll to a stop at a set of lights and just as I come to a halt the start stop kicks in and the engine falls silent. I sit peacefully at the lights until its time for me to move off, and when I do, the engine restarts quickly and conveniently and off we go. I wouldn't want a car without it now.
The G series BMWs are even better - it uses the camera in the front to start the engine when the car in front moves off or when the lights change.
There was some revision to the start stop functionality at the F10 5 facelift:
Similar tweaks etc were made to improve starting refinement as well.
This argument has been done to death, and I'm pretty sure it's not true. On startup an engine consumes about the same amount of fuel as it would idling for about 7 seconds or so, according to the last experiment I saw done with it.
And also last longer than normal batteries, as I understand. Even normal batteries aren't something I expect to replace regularly. But until you define "loads", I guess we can't really work out whether this is a big issue or not.
Don't bite. It's the usual Nasher BS.
Engineering Explained did a very thorough analysis of fuel consumption variance in stop/start situations and concluded that whilst it's true that restarting the engine does use more fuel, it's equivalent to the amount of fuel consumed in 7 seconds of idling, so as long as you're stationary for 7+ seconds it's beneficial by every measure (not to mention sitting there, vibration free, in silence is also nice.
That's the very video I was thinking of when I replied, but I didn't actually bother to go and search for the link, because let's be honest, he's not interested in actually learning anything, so I thought I'd save myself the effort.
It’s ok. Caymans have bore scoring issues now according to Nasher too and whatever one liners he drops into posts like fact.
This is a new one though. A well known method to reduce co2 emissions is called a co2 bodge. Massive benefit to air quality on cars sat in traffic or at red lights.
This is a new one though. A well known method to reduce co2 emissions is called a co2 bodge. Massive benefit to air quality on cars sat in traffic or at red lights.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,712
How is that safer?
Your brake lights dazzle drivers coming up behind, affecting their depth perception and possibly leading to more crashes... but more importantly, it hampers their ability to see around that glare to the sides, where pedestrians and cyclists often tend to nip through.
I can see you're stopped - Your car is getting bigger and your rear lights wider. I don't need three additional brighter lights to tell me this, and if I did then I shouldn't be on the road to begin with.
As for all the car-decided auto-handbraking stuff, that just goes against all the training where you're supposed to control what the car does/doesn't do based on the circumstances.
If I had any tinfoil for a hat, I'd say it's just one more step toward them taking all the driving and fun out of human hands...
It’s proven that autos have less rear ended accidents as the brake lights are on all the time rather than a manual which is put into neutral when waiting at lights.
the fact you complain about the light being bright shows they are more obvious.
I’d go to the doctors too. Sounds like you have meningitis or something if you find brake lights to be that bright.
the fact you complain about the light being bright shows they are more obvious.
I’d go to the doctors too. Sounds like you have meningitis or something if you find brake lights to be that bright.
I am controlling what the car does or doesn't do. I press the brake pedal, then press the button which sets auto hold, so I don't have to keep my foot on the brake pedal. Physically, it's not really any different to putting a manual car in neutral and pulling the handbrake at the lights.
If, on my own car, I pull the handbrake up, let go of the ratchet button so it locks, then remove my hand from it, would you also say I'm not controlling the car? That's essentially what the auto-hold function is...just a way to lock the brakes on without applying constant pressure to the controls. It's hardly a fundamental removal of vehicle control.
Yeah, whatever will I do without the endorphin kick I get from holding my brake pedal down while sitting in traffic.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 9,480
You could just use the car in manual mode as that deactivates start stop. Last time I checked agm batteries cost more than double a normal one, wiping out any savings. That's a bosch battery too, not a cheap one. My e92 has a good way of holding the brake on, I don't know if it's to do with the gearbox though, as I had a 330d as a courtesy car and it didn't seem to do it and was constantly trying to creep, even when the handbrake was on.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,712
Fewer. I'd also like to see the data that proves your auto assertion, given that neither putting a car into manual nor applying the handbrake will affect the brake lights.
It's not just about your rear end, though. Many modern brake lights have enough glare that you can completely lose a bicycle in them, and the recovery from that dazzle can take a good 5 seconds or even longer for the average person. How safely can you drive for 5-10 seconds at 30/40/50/60/70mph without being able to see?
'More obvious' doesn't mean it's a good thing, especially if the previous version was perfectly adequate and more so if 'more obvious' means it presents a problem for other drivers.
One of my previous employers was well-known for its fluorescent orange vehicles. Combined with bright lights, no human on the planet could say that vehicle was not obvious, yet they still had as many rear-enders as any other vehicle... because no amount of 'obvious' matters if someone just isn't looking.
I can see perfectly well in dark situations. I don't need ten thousand lumens blasting out the front and back of my car to see clearly, and I certainly don't need them coming out of your car in order to see you.
My eyes aren't the ones at fault, so if you really need that much light then maybe you should be going to the doctor...
Since 2014, I've been seeing more and more studies from the likes of the RAC, ROSPA, etc, that attribute excessively bright head and brake lights as the cause of increasing accident numbers. Something like 65% of drivers surveyed seem to think modern vehicle lights are too bright. Is there that much meningitis going round, do you think? Should we be wearing masks while driving, now?
Or is everyone but you just going blind?
Then why (or even how) is it 'auto' hold if you're controlling it?
Bearing in mind you yourself were mentioning a few posts back how you were doing one thing, while your car decided to do another... That doesn't sound completely in control of the decision process.
Except that you're not the one deciding when they do or don't happen, or when they get released/turned off... That is, after all, the point of auto functions - For the car to detect something and reckon it should be doing X, even if you're trying to do Y or Z.
Who decides when Auto-Hold activates? You or the car?
What are you doing holding the brake pedal while sat in traffic? If you're stationary for any period longer than a few seconds, you should be using the handbrake and keeping your foot of the brake anyway.
Unfortunately I think it varies from car to car, and on my 2016 Mondeo it certainly feels more like a stupid bodge than your description. I have the 2 litre petrol with the powershift auto and I find the start stop implementation a real pain. If I use your example, I roll to a stop at a set of lights, foot on the brake, and just as you say the engine stops. Other than the fact that as soon as I take my foot of the brake the engine instantly restarts. The only way I can prevent this is to leave my foot on the brake, knock the gearbox into neutral, then I can take my foot off. It then sort of works ok for setting off as it turns the engine back on as soon as I move from N to D but ultimately I find the implementation a faff. It effectively turns my automatic into "mostly an auto but you need to change gear every time you stop".
Ultimately I've learned to live with it, but it's certainly not the way I want it to work.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,712
Then I hope you're the next **** that gets crashed into when your lights blind someone.
Seriously, if you don't care enough to even consider other peoples' perspectives on things, and how you might be causing a serious problem, then that is the sort of fate you deserve.
Classy