Why YSK: People seem to, on average, think that a car takes a lot of fuel to start up. In reality, it takes on the order of a few millilitres of fuel to start an engine. That means if your car isn’t equipped with an automatic start/stop system to stop your engine instead of idling, it saves fuel to turn off your engine and start it back up when you need it.

Caveat: air conditioning and radio might not work with the engine turned off.

Scenarios where this might be useful include waiting for trains to pass at rail crossings, waiting for food at drive-throughs, dropping off or picking people up on the side of the road when they need to load stuff, etc. May not be a good idea to use this while waiting at a red light because starting the engine does take time which would annoy drivers behind you when the light turns green.

Some cars are equipped with systems that will automatically stop the engine when you are idling for a while (e.g. waiting for a red light). If yours is, then manually turning off your engine will probably result in reduced fuel savings compared to just relying on the car to do it for you.

  • The_iceman_cometh@partizle.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s not necessarily an issue of fuel, but the overall wear on the components and engine when you start a car. A starter motor only has so many “starts” it can do before dying. The battery too.

    Starter motors have gotten a lot better since the “bad old days” and engines start more smoothly thanks to fuel injection and computer control systems, so manufacturers have decided that it’s ok to start/stop engines as needed, but the reason for not doing it was never a matter of fuel savings.

  • boonhet@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Caveat: For cars not equipped with automatic start/stop, the starter and possibly the battery might not be specced for it so it could cause additional wear. Cars with start/stop systems often assist the process with precise camshaft position measurements and the ability to squirt fuel pretty much right away so the starter doesn’t need to do as much work.

    Also don’t do it with a cold engine - it’s better to get the oil up to temp faster, it’ll also reduce fuel consumption as the engine heats up.

  • bloodfart@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The whole world has weighed in and explained why more starts and stops lead to excessive wear, but I’d like to take a moment and bring a little attention to the environmental damage that having to do a bunch of work to your car because you turn it off at every opportunity does.

    Let’s say you need a new starter motor early. That’s copper, aluminum, iron, steel and a handful of rare earths for the solenoid. Melt em, smelt em, form and mold em, that’s more carbon from building the replacement part than you’d have kept out of the atmosphere by shutting off the car at stoplights.

    The greenest car parts are the ones already in it.

  • nottheengineer@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Starting the engine puts as much wear on it as driving for 50 miles. Automatic start/stop hurts engine longevity by doing that unnecessarily and should always be turned off.

    My car uses 0.5l of fuel idling for an hour. There’s no way in hell that a start/stop system would even save 10$ a year, so there’s no benefit to using it.

    • thekernel@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s not true, cold starts cause wear not warm starts.

      At most it’s starter motor and battery wear, start stop cars have agm batteries for that reason.