US Government Will Stop Pollution-Reduction Credits for Cars With 'Start-Stop' Systems
15 293Starting in 2009, the U.S. government have given car manufacturers towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions if they included "start-stop" systems in cars with internal combustion engines. (These systems automatically shut off idling engines to reduce pollution and fuel consumption.) But this week the new head of America's Environmental Protection Agency eliminated the credits, reports Car and Driver: [America's] Environmental Protection Agency previously supported the system's effectiveness, noting that it could improve fuel economy by as much as 5 percent. That said, the use of these systems has never actually been mandated for automakers here in the States. Companies have instead opted to install the systems on all of their vehicles to receive off-cycle credits from the feds. Virtually every new vehicle on sale in the country today also allows drivers to turn the feature off via a hard button as well. Still, that apparently isn't keeping the EPA from making a move against the system.
"I absolutely hate Start-Stop systems," writes long-time Slashdot reader sinij (who says they "specifically shopped for a car without one.") Any other Slashdot readers want to share their opinions?
Post your own thoughts and experiences in the comments. Start-Stop systems — fuel-saving innovation, or a modern-day auto annoyance"
15 comments
They used to be annoying (Score: 5, Insightful)
by LindleyF ( 9395567 ) on Saturday February 14, 2026 @06:03PM (#65989394)
But they've gotten to the point of hardly noticeable. Perfect time to take pointless action against a non-problem.
Re:They used to be annoying (Score: 5, Insightful)
by TheMiddleRoad ( 1153113 ) on Saturday February 14, 2026 @06:05PM (#65989400)
Gotta kill a successful idea if it means your oil buddies who spend on your crytpo cash are gonna lose some sales.
Re: They used to be annoying (Score: 5, Insightful)
by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Saturday February 14, 2026 @09:15PM (#65989724)
Oil buddies he met at pedo parties, let's not forget that.
Re: They used to be annoying (Score: 5, Informative)
by hdyoung ( 5182939 ) on Sunday February 15, 2026 @11:09AM (#65990394)
This has absolutely nothing to do with oil executives or car manufacturers. The engine-auto-stop thing has been in the right wing media recently and is considered an example of woke-gone-bad because supposedly destroys engines. Like 99 percent of what you hear from this admin, the announcement is largely fluff to make the MAGA people feel good about themselves.
Re: They used to be annoying (Score: 5, Interesting)
by Knightman ( 142928 ) on Saturday February 14, 2026 @07:25PM (#65989528)
The cars have a BMS which turns off the start/stop function if the battery gets low, there are other criteria that affects this too like engine/transmission temp, other electrical draw (heaters/defrosters etc) plus a bunch of others.
In practice, the car will never turn the engine off if you got a bad battery. And regarding batteries, it is a wear item that will go bad eventually regardless of what you do. Will the start/stop shorten the lifespan, absolutely, but compared to what?
Re: They used to be annoying (Score: 5, Insightful)
by BoogieChile ( 517082 ) on Sunday February 15, 2026 @12:28AM (#65989916)
Kehn's reasoning is where the myth that turning on and off a flourescent light as you enter and leave a room uses more energy than just leaving it on for hours on end got started.
It stems from wanting an excuse to be lazy.
Re: They used to be annoying (Score: 5, Interesting)
by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Saturday February 14, 2026 @07:49PM (#65989562)
Last I checked, Toyota claimed their starter motor was good for 100,000 operations. Often times cars use a second starter motor for this feature and if they did consistently fail you’d hear about it.
Re: They used to be annoying (Score: 5, Insightful)
by bussdriver ( 620565 ) on Saturday February 14, 2026 @08:45PM (#65989660)
Durable starters must be used; a conventional old one would die out quickly and be a huge problem. my brother is a mechanic. the new ones are better lasting. As far as hard-- no; not really. the engine is still hot - it doesn't need the effort or gas that cord start requires. The battery is quite strong for short loads like this as long as it gets enough charge back.
I find it funny that people think fewer explosions and revolutions would wear it out faster.
Re:They used to be annoying (Score: 5, Informative)
by djinn6 ( 1868030 ) on Saturday February 14, 2026 @09:43PM (#65989754)
I'd say touchscreens are worse.
I haven't tried it on an ICE-only car, but it's great for hybrids that don't need the engine right away. The engine doesn't kick in until you're over 25 mph anyways.
Re:What is the difference (Score: 5, Insightful)
by ClickOnThis ( 137803 ) on Saturday February 14, 2026 @06:14PM (#65989424)
From having this system available for everybody to disable it versus not having this system available at all?
The difference is that the mere existence of such systems is a reminder to Trump of the Obama era, so they gotta go.
I am not of sinji's opinion. (Score: 5, Informative)
by Sique ( 173459 ) on Saturday February 14, 2026 @06:07PM (#65989408)
I, for once, really like start-stop. It does automatically, what I was doing by other cars manually. And I really don't understand what people are arguing against it.
Hybrid -- Automatically start/stop (Score: 5, Insightful)
by ve3oat ( 884827 ) on Saturday February 14, 2026 @06:23PM (#65989436)
I drive a hybrid. When the engine isn't needed, as in idling, it automatically stops running. (Saves gas and pollution.) The car is still On and when I take my foot off the brake or touch the accelerator pedal, the engine automatically comes to life again. What could be simpler? Saves gas and pollution. But some big companies and many car owners have this love affair with gasoline. I am afraid that they hasten the coming lethal effects of global warming. (For details, read "The Next Civil War" by Stephen Marche (2022), well researched and very prophetic.
2000 Honda Insight (Score: 5, Informative)
by John_Sauter ( 595980 ) on <John_Sauter@systemeyescomputerstore.com> on Saturday February 14, 2026 @07:03PM (#65989490)
In the year 2000 I bought a Honda Insight, an early hybrid. I was surprised to find that it had start-stop: when I stopped at a traffic control signal it shut off the motor, then started it up instantly when I pressed the accelerator. A few times the driver of the car in the adjacent lane looked startled when the sound of my motor stopped.
The Insight had wonderful fuel economy. I once got 73.5 miles per gallon on a 109.4-mile stratch of Interstate 90.
I used that car as my daily driver until 2018, when I traded it in on a Nissan Leaf, an electric car, which I drive today,.
Re:Good (Score: 5, Informative)
by Sique ( 173459 ) on Saturday February 14, 2026 @06:13PM (#65989422)
It is not. At least none of the starters of all the cars I ever owned.
Re:Start Stop, the bane of anyone's existance (Score: 5, Informative)
by Bahbus ( 1180627 ) on Saturday February 14, 2026 @07:13PM (#65989506)
First order of the day after turning on the car: Deactivate the start-stop.
Because you're either stupid or rented a shitty vehicle in general.
It increases engine, battery, and starter motor wear and tear. Leading to earlier disposing of the car
It does not. The whole system is designed to handle it. And by decreasing the amount of time the engine sits idle at stops, it actually reduces overall long term engine wear.
increases trafic
No, it doesn't, nor is there any proof of such.
But, please, do continue spouting absolute bullshit.