start / stop pressure sensitive - Page 3 - Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums

Go Back  Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums > Newer Light Duty Trucks > 2015+ F150
Reload this Page >

start / stop pressure sensitive

Notices
2015+ F150 Discuss the 2015 Ford F150
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

start / stop pressure sensitive

Reply

 
 
 
  #31  
Old 05-28-2018, 10:50 AM
soundwave's Avatar
soundwave
soundwave is offline
Elder User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Detroit 'burbs
Posts: 900
soundwave is starting off with a positive reputation.
I would really like to see some facts of long term fuel and money savings. I know it would vary from driver to driver, but an average and potential numbers would be nice.

To help maximize what I believe would be the most effective way to get your "savings" (if any), and to try to prolong the life of the starter, driving with the auto stop/start has become an art for me.
If I'm approaching a traffic light that I know is going to change soon, I will brake a little sooner then coast to the light, rather than come to a complete stop for 10 seconds just for the engine to cut out and have to turn back on. If I see a light is turning red and staying red for 30 seconds or more, I will position myself so that when the engine shuts off, I wont have to move up a few feet which would fire up the engine again. Of course, familiarity with the traffic lights in your city helps. Today I went through the drive through at Tim Hortons to get a coffee and the line was moving slow. I was in line for about 6-8 minutes. So auto start/stop kicked on and *could've* been effective in saving me gas and releasing emissions into the air. Incidents like this *could* save money on gas but again I would like some numbers from a study.
 
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-28-2018, 10:54 AM
soundwave's Avatar
soundwave
soundwave is offline
Elder User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Detroit 'burbs
Posts: 900
soundwave is starting off with a positive reputation.
Originally Posted by NewEnglandHerdsman View Post
Agree. That's why, for my set of calculations, I opted to use a savings value towards the low end of the quoted range.


Not a definitive answer, but I looked at Rock Auto for a stater for a 2018 F-150; for the 5.0 and the 3.5 eb they only list one starter each.

They were both Motorcraft, btw. $114 for the 3.5, $161 for the 5.0. I'm assuming these are rebuilts, but I didn't see that noted anywhere.

For reference I looked the 5.0 starter for a 2016 - it was less expensive by a little - $142.

Decide for yourself what that means.
So no price for the 2.7. And are there relays involved in the auto start/stop system leading to the starter that could have to be replaced as well? $$$$$
 
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-28-2018, 03:35 PM
NewEnglandHerdsman's Avatar
NewEnglandHerdsman
NewEnglandHerdsman is offline
Moderatee...
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: in the woods of MA
Posts: 5,627
NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.
Originally Posted by soundwave View Post
So no price for the 2.7. And are there relays involved in the auto start/stop system leading to the starter that could have to be replaced as well? $$$$$
I didn't check every engine, but for your 2.7 the Motorcraft starter is $154 (Rock Auto again)

If your vehicle has the push button start I doubt any more electrical components are needed - it's nothing but software. Not sure about the keyed ignition, but probably not, just have to let the computer tap into the starter circuits?
 
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-28-2018, 04:08 PM
Tedster9's Avatar
Tedster9
Tedster9 is online now
Post Fiend
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Waterloo, Iowa
Posts: 13,773
Tedster9 has a superb reputationTedster9 has a superb reputationTedster9 has a superb reputationTedster9 has a superb reputationTedster9 has a superb reputationTedster9 has a superb reputationTedster9 has a superb reputationTedster9 has a superb reputationTedster9 has a superb reputationTedster9 has a superb reputationTedster9 has a superb reputation
Starter cost isn't out of line compared with a conventional starter. Thing is, I was led to believe they were beefed up and intended to take the abuse inherent in the start/stop/start feature. Is this not the case?
 
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-28-2018, 05:16 PM
85e150six4mtod
85e150six4mtod is offline
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 20,751
85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation85e150six4mtod has a superb reputation
Originally Posted by soundwave View Post
I would really like to see some facts of long term fuel and money savings. I know it would vary from driver to driver, but an average and potential numbers would be nice.

To help maximize what I believe would be the most effective way to get your "savings" (if any), and to try to prolong the life of the starter, driving with the auto stop/start has become an art for me.
If I'm approaching a traffic light that I know is going to change soon, I will brake a little sooner then coast to the light, rather than come to a complete stop for 10 seconds just for the engine to cut out and have to turn back on. If I see a light is turning red and staying red for 30 seconds or more, I will position myself so that when the engine shuts off, I wont have to move up a few feet which would fire up the engine again. Of course, familiarity with the traffic lights in your city helps. Today I went through the drive through at Tim Hortons to get a coffee and the line was moving slow. I was in line for about 6-8 minutes. So auto start/stop kicked on and *could've* been effective in saving me gas and releasing emissions into the air. Incidents like this *could* save money on gas but again I would like some numbers from a study.
X2 on this, I have modified my driving to slow earlier and catch the change to green vs. sit at a short red. I also shut it off in stop and go traffic with those 2 or 3 second stops that trip the auto shutoff. It's an "overaggressive" system according to some.
 
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-28-2018, 05:16 PM
NewEnglandHerdsman's Avatar
NewEnglandHerdsman
NewEnglandHerdsman is offline
Moderatee...
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: in the woods of MA
Posts: 5,627
NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.
Originally Posted by Tedster9 View Post
Starter cost isn't out of line compared with a conventional starter. Thing is, I was led to believe they were beefed up and intended to take the abuse inherent in the start/stop/start feature. Is this not the case?
There's nothing unusual about the starts, just probably an increased number of them. So what would beefed up require? Maybe heavier bearings, an upgraded bendix, larger brushes? That's relatively easy, and probably would explain the few dollars more. THe component I'd most worry about would be the ring gear - definitely the most expensive part of the system to replace.
 
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-28-2018, 06:30 PM
Tedster9's Avatar
Tedster9
Tedster9 is online now
Post Fiend
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Waterloo, Iowa
Posts: 13,773
Tedster9 has a superb reputationTedster9 has a superb reputationTedster9 has a superb reputationTedster9 has a superb reputationTedster9 has a superb reputationTedster9 has a superb reputationTedster9 has a superb reputationTedster9 has a superb reputationTedster9 has a superb reputationTedster9 has a superb reputationTedster9 has a superb reputation
Originally Posted by NewEnglandHerdsman
There's nothing unusual about the starts, just probably an increased number of them. So what would beefed up require? Maybe heavier bearings, an upgraded bendix, larger brushes? That's relatively easy, and probably would explain the few dollars more. THe component I'd most worry about would be the ring gear - definitely the most expensive part of the system to replace.
I don't know what the duty cycle for an engine starter is exactly. Probably several minutes for every 10 seconds cranking. Normally an engine starts in just a split second. Then it's not needed again for a while. That's how a relatively small electric motor can crank a big heavy duty engine over in the first place without burning up, it's only required to do so for a very short while. Same thing with solenoids. But start wailing on them, or over and over, and they will soon fail. Maybe not the next day, but they are not going to be around long.

Typically abused starters just don't last, when they get hot the windings start roasting the insulation off, among other things. And that's OEM. The rebuilds are always a crapshoot these days. I assume that the starters here would need to be designed for a higher rated duty cycle. Same thing with starter solenoids or relays. You can buy continuous rated solenoids, but they cost ten times what the cheapies cost.
 
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-29-2018, 05:42 AM
NewEnglandHerdsman's Avatar
NewEnglandHerdsman
NewEnglandHerdsman is offline
Moderatee...
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: in the woods of MA
Posts: 5,627
NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.NewEnglandHerdsman has a spectacular reputation.
Originally Posted by Tedster9 View Post
I don't know what the duty cycle for an engine starter is exactly. Probably several minutes for every 10 seconds cranking. Normally an engine starts in just a split second. Then it's not needed again for a while. That's how a relatively small electric motor can crank a big heavy duty engine over in the first place without burning up, it's only required to do so for a very short while. Same thing with solenoids. But start wailing on them, or over and over, and they will soon fail. Maybe not the next day, but they are not going to be around long.

Typically abused starters just don't last, when they get hot the windings start roasting the insulation off, among other things. And that's OEM. The rebuilds are always a crapshoot these days. I assume that the starters here would need to be designed for a higher rated duty cycle. Same thing with starter solenoids or relays. You can buy continuous rated solenoids, but they cost ten times what the cheapies cost.
Good points. I think the life of a starter in these systems is going to dependent on the specific usage. The start/stop software obviously has no idea how long the vehicle ill be stopped, so extreme stop and go traffic situations could easily overheat the starter - and drain the battery. Yet the computer systems in these vehicles seems to be pretty smart, it's possible that the recent duty cycle is being monitored and if a threshold is reached, the start/stop is temporarily disabled? Or if the battery is being discharged too rapidly? Or...? That's all total conjecture on my part, but I'd actually be surprised if that type of monitoring and action *wasn't* being done. With all the sensors and monitoring that's done already, adding features like that is just software, which is very little added cost.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Connecticut Calvin
1948 - 1956 F1, F100 & Larger F-Series Trucks
24
02-03-2016 09:17 PM
Monster-4
1999 to 2016 Super Duty
0
02-15-2011 09:25 PM
johnc486
1987 - 1996 F150 & Larger F-Series Trucks
2
01-19-2008 10:02 PM
JerseysBest
General Automotive Discussion
11
03-31-2005 05:17 AM
explorerdad
Explorer, Sport Trac, Mountaineer & Aviator
1
09-05-2001 06:39 PM


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: start / stop pressure sensitive


Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: