Intelligent stop/start able to be disabled 2015/2016?

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

katiebee4

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2015
Posts
16
Reaction score
0
I've read a few reviews that mention that the intelligent stop/start can be quite annoying. I'm sure this has been covered on other forums but my search here didn't come up with anything.

Can the intelligent stop/start be turned off permanently if you want to?

Thank you!
 

umbertob

Full Access Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Posts
2,701
Reaction score
428
Location
California, USA
Yes, but you'll do so without Land Rover's blessing. You basically disconnect the negative lead from the small auxiliary battery installed under the hood specifically for that purpose, and apparently that's all it takes to permanently cripple the Stop/Start thingie.
 
Last edited:

JotaDe

Full Access Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2014
Posts
239
Reaction score
8
Hi Katie, I wouldn't worry about the stop/start. You get used to it pretty quickly and then it's just a part of the car. I personally enjoy the engine turning off at stops as it really doesn't need to be running. Plus the action of stop start is smooth and quiet for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

ramajama

Full Access Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Posts
155
Reaction score
2
I've read a few reviews that mention that the intelligent stop/start can be quite annoying. I'm sure this has been covered on other forums but my search here didn't come up with anything.

Can the intelligent stop/start be turned off permanently if you want to?

Thank you!

In the past, I have always been generally against the Start/Stop feature on any vehicle. However, having it on the Disco Sport has changed my mind a great deal. Its not realy annoying at all..IMHO. and its probably the single largest contributor to the excellent MPG weve been getting. Its quick and seamless. The only time I DONT like it is when Im creeping into the garage or a tight space...but Ive learned to almost intinctively hit the button on the dash and disable it in those instances.....however, im not sure my wife has bothered to ever disable it.

But umbertob has elaborated on what would need to be done to disable.
 

eye.surgeon

Full Access Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Posts
57
Reaction score
0
here's the real truth about stop-start: it does very little to improve mileage in real-world driving and adds a layer of mechanical complexity and is frankly annoying. It does allow manufacturers to score better in the artificial drive test required for European fuel economy ratings. Basically it games the testing standards but has a minimal effect on actual fuel economy (~1 MPG or less).
 

ramajama

Full Access Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Posts
155
Reaction score
2
here's the real truth about stop-start: it does very little to improve mileage in real-world driving and adds a layer of mechanical complexity and is frankly annoying. It does allow manufacturers to score better in the artificial drive test required for European fuel economy ratings. Basically it games the testing standards but has a minimal effect on actual fuel economy (~1 MPG or less).

This is incorrect. See, when you are going zero mph but your car is running and using fuel you are getting negative mpg. When you drive in a lot of city stop and go situations and even spend upwards to 15-20 minutes idling at stop lights every day, twice a day. That impacts your mpg a little more than 1%. Personally I don't spend a lot of time in stop and go during my commute and my RAM truck doesn't have start/stop. But in the winter when I remote start my truck to warm it up, I see weekly mpg drops Of 2 mpg or more Over the summer months or weeks I don't warm up my truck. I usually let it idle for around 15 mins before I get going in the morning and afternoon with a total of 30 mins a day.
Regardless, start stop is a fuel saver and obviously individual results may vary. I used to think along the same lines as above and railed that it was all BS but now I know better.

I would do an experiment of one week with SS and one week without SS but the Disco Sport is my wife's vehicle and there's no way she'll be disciplined enough to disable SS for a whole week.
 

eye.surgeon

Full Access Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Posts
57
Reaction score
0
This is incorrect. See, when you are going zero mph but your car is running and using fuel you are getting negative mpg. When you drive in a lot of city stop and go situations and even spend upwards to 15-20 minutes idling at stop lights every day, twice a day. That impacts your mpg a little more than 1%. Personally I don't spend a lot of time in stop and go during my commute and my RAM truck doesn't have start/stop. But in the winter when I remote start my truck to warm it up, I see weekly mpg drops Of 2 mpg or more Over the summer months or weeks I don't warm up my truck. I usually let it idle for around 15 mins before I get going in the morning and afternoon with a total of 30 mins a day.
Regardless, start stop is a fuel saver and obviously individual results may vary. I used to think along the same lines as above and railed that it was all BS but now I know better.

I would do an experiment of one week with SS and one week without SS but the Disco Sport is my wife's vehicle and there's no way she'll be disciplined enough to disable SS for a whole week.
1. it's physically impossible to get negative MPG. Think about it.
2. You're assuming no fuel penalty for the stop-start itself. if you stop-start for just a few seconds, and you frequently will, you actually consume more fuel due to the extra consumed to restart the engine vs idling.
3. The extra wear and tear on the engine is significant, you're talking upwards of a half million start cycles in the life of a stop-start engine.
4. Manufacturers do not care if stop-start actually saves fuel and it's not even focused on real-world fuel savings. It's purely developed to maximize performance on a rigid and largely artificial simulated drive test required to receive a European fuel economy rating. It's the automotive equivalent of studying for the test.
 
Last edited:

ramajama

Full Access Member
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Posts
155
Reaction score
2
1. it's physically impossible to get negative MPG. Think about it.
2. You're assuming no fuel penalty for the stop-start itself. if you stop-start for just a few seconds, and you frequently will, you actually consume more fuel due to the extra consumed to restart the engine vs idling.
3. The extra wear and tear on the engine is significant, you're talking upwards of a half million start cycles in the life of a stop-start engine.
4. Manufacturers do not care if stop-start actually saves fuel and it's not even focused on real-world fuel savings. It's purely developed to maximize performance on a rigid and largely artificial simulated drive test required to receive a European fuel economy rating. It's the automotive equivalent of studying for the test.
Physically impossible? Really dude...really?
1 If you are burning fuel while not moving then you are getting less than 0 MPG..think! MILES PER GALLON. Let me make it easy for you to understand. You burn fuel but you dont move any miles. That equates to a NEGATIVE. Instant fuel reading while idling on trip computer will register 0 mpg only because it CANT register negative mpgs....just watch your avergae MPGs drop while idling....DUH.
2 There is VERY, VERY limited fuel penalty in modern FI engines with pressurized fuel systems..even on modern V8s, much less a 4 banger in something like a Disco Sport...were not talking about a 1967 ford mustang with a 4 bbl carb and and 351ci engine and old school starters. Welcome to the 21rst century...DUH!
3 Hello, they have tested these engines on AT LEAST a half million start stop cycles and positively many more. Do you realy think they are going to open themselfvs up to this kind of liabilty for failure? DUH.
4 Again, see 1...miles driven per tank divided by gallons to refill on ye old old calculator don't lie. DUH and DUH.
Im going to do my experiment so I can shut your hole.
 
Last edited:

eye.surgeon

Full Access Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Posts
57
Reaction score
0
You're a little confused on your math. Zero miles travelled divided by any number of gallons burned is never a negative number.

Say you idle at a traffic light for a year & burn 10,000 gallons of gas. 0 miles traveled divided by 10,000 gallons consumed is zero miles per gallon. I'm finding it hard to believe that I have to explain this.
 
Last edited:

catman

Full Access Member
Joined
May 4, 2015
Posts
699
Reaction score
194
Location
The Relay Shack, Parts Unknown USA
Not sure why this tuned a little hostile but yes, eye.surgeon is correct that it is impossible to have negative miles per gallon.

But, we get the point ramajama is trying to make, so it is a moot issue on the technicalities of the math. He means that there will be a negative "effect" on mpg, assuming it is greater than zero to begin with, it will slowly decline at idle (but it can never be less than zero).

I will add that I lose about 1.5-2mpg here in the Northeast simply due to the changeover to winter fuel blends. So if I get 15mpg all summer, I get about 13.5mpg all winter, starting as soon as the fuel switch takes place. Idling to warm up the cars when it gets real cold makes this even worse.

I am not sure these modern engines waste any fuel starting, so I am not sure the start/stop function would waste fuel on restart that negates the savings.

My impression of the whole concept is that there is more to lose in terms of things going wrong and the costs to repair versus the savings in fuel. But, all newer technologies start off less than ideal and evolve over years and even decades, so perhaps some day in the future this concept will be perfected and everyone will be happy....
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
36,222
Posts
217,569
Members
30,473
Latest member
OnoA
Top