No more cars that die at red lights.

EPA Proposes Rollback of ‘Hated’ Feature in New Cars

For those who have ever stopped at an intersection only for their car to fall silent and then jolt back to life moments later, relief may be on the horizon.

Some government rules are so pointless or counterproductive, the goal seems to be to punish us or keep us mildly irritated.

It makes no difference to a car engine if it runs for a half-hour or a half-day.  Everything is turning, fluids are circulating and the temperatures have all stabilized.  Starting an engine is difficult because initially, nothing is turning, fluids are not circulating, and everything has cooled down.

Anyone with an unreliable car is relieved when it starts.  The engine may run rough or stall before it’s warmed up, but after that, it’s likely to keep running.

Automatic start-stop technology became popular in large part due to fuel economy and emissions regulations introduced during the Obama administration.

This feature was never popular with any car owner.  There is that “will it start?” feeling, but also the second or two lag to get moving.  If it was an extended stop do to traffic, in hot weather, the lack of air conditioning could get uncomfortable.

To start an engine, a large amount of current is pulled from the battery to power an electric starter motor.  The motor has to turn the rotating parts of the engine until the internal combustion takes over.  That is easier to do on a warmed-up engine, but the starter motor and battery are still doing much more work.

When I bought my first car in the early 80’s, several parts routinely started to fail when a car was five or six years old.  Those items were the starter motor, battery, alternator and radiator.  Now, a starter can last for 10 years and a 100,000 miles.  Of course it depends on how the car is used.

If a car has to be restarted after every red light, the starter motor may get used 5 or 10 times more.  That is more wear on the battery and the starter motor.

According to tests by the Society of Automotive Engineers, the feature can reduce fuel consumption by anywhere from 7 to 26 percent, depending on traffic patterns.

I don’t believe it.  Those tests are not credible because they are too precise.  Any reduction in fuel consumption entirely depends on the assumptions made about how the car is used.

People driving the same route on the highway would have vastly different results.  At rush hour, there may be long stops, saving fuel.  At other hours, when traffic is moving freely, there would be negligible fuel savings.

The SAE did not consider the reduction in lifespan of the starter motor. 

A person who drives 10,000 miles per year in a car that gets 25 mpg, might spend $1200 per year on gas. A 7% improvement saves $84 per year.

Getting a starter motor replaced runs about $600.  If the starter only lasts five years, instead of ten, then there is no financial savings, and since energy is needed to manufacture a starter, no environmental savings either.

My numbers are arguable, but it’s not clear that start-stop technology has any environmental or financial benefit.  Customer opinion ranges from neutral to strongly opposed.  I would not buy a vehicle that required the use of start-stop technology.

The federal government should eliminate all regulations and incentives that are not obviously beneficial.  Car manufacturers can offer start-stop technology for the customers who prefer it.

Good on President Trump’s EPA for picking this low hanging fruit.