Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Start Stop Feature on your F30 3 Series

by Tim Jones on March 9, 2012, 3:13 pm
BMW F30 3 series stop start function

One of the most interesting, possibly obtrusive and certainly confusing new "EfficientDynamics" features added to the 2012 F30 3 series is the automatic stop start system. Stop/start is standard equipment on all new F30 3 series and is designed to save fuel while the car would otherwise be idling. The stop start functions differently depending on the transmission choice.

Automatic Transmission
Stop/Start will shut off the engine whenever the car is brought to a stop, so long as the transmission remains in D and the brake pedal is pressed to keep the car from moving. The engine is shut off after approximately one second and the tachometer needle will point to the "ready" position. As soon as the brake is released the engine starts and you continue on as normal. The driver can also select P while the engine is off and release the brake pedal, by then selecting D again the car will automatically start.

Manual Transmission
Stop/Start will shut of the engine whenever the car is brought to a stop, the car is in neutral and the clutch pedal is released. The engine is shut off after approximately one second and the tachometer needle will point to the "ready" position. The car is automatically restarted when the clutch pedal is depressed and you continue on as normal.

BMW F30 stop start tachometer in 'ready' state

Interesting Quirks/Features
  • The engine can be restarted by the driver in anticipation of driving off by: briefly applying additional pressure to the brake pedal or by releasing the break pedal slightly. Both will cause the engine to start.
  • If "Automatic Hold" is activated the car will hold itself once the car has come to a stop and the engine has been switched off freeing the driver from needing to hold the brake pedal. Applying the brakes will cause the engine to start automatically.
  • It is possible to prevent engine shut down once stopped in order to be able to drive off quickly. Within one second of stopping apply additional force to the brake pedal and then release the additional pressure and continue holding the brake pedal with "normal" force. Whatever that means.

Why isn't my Stop/Start working?
There are numerous vehicle parameters that are monitored as a part of the stop/start function to ensure the driving experience is not impacted. As many of the factors are not possible to monitor it may appear that the feature is not working. Reasons why the stop/start may not shut down the engine include:
  • The car is coasting (manual transmission)
  • Brake vacuum reading is too low (manual transmission)
  • Insufficient brake pedal pressure is being applied to hold the vehicle stationary (automatic transmission)
  • Stopping on a hill/downhill with a 12% or greater gradient
  • If the steering angle is more then 6 degrees
  • If the steering wheel is still be moved after approximately one second of coming to a stop
  • The system has not yet be activated by going over a speed of 5mph for automatics, 3mph for manuals since the last engine switch off
  • If the gas pedal is being pressed (engine must be at idle speed only)
  • You're coming to a stop from reverse
  • The driver gets out of the car
  • If Hill Decent Control (HDC) is activated
  • If the engine is not up to temperature
  • If the carbon canister is being purged
  • if the grade of the fuel is too low for the engine
  • Transmission adaptation is active (automatic transmission)
  • The hydraulic pressure accumulator is not yet up to pressure (automatic transmission)
  • Stop-and-go traffic - system is only activated by driving over 5mph for automatics, 3mph for manuals
  • Batter charge is low
  • Outside temperature is colder then 37.4 F / 3 C
  • Outside temperature above 95 F / 35 C and the air conditioning system is on
  • Fogging of the windshield is detected by the IHKA system
  • Climate control system is on but passenger compartment has not yet reached desired temperature
  • ABS system was used when coming to a stop

Alternatively the car may automatically restart outside the standard restart procedure if:
  • The driver is moving the steering wheel
  • The driver presses the gas pedal
  • The transmission was shifted from D to P and subsequently back to D
  • The transmission is shifted to N or R
  • The battery charge runs low
  • Outside temperature rises above 95 F / 35 C and the air conditioning is on
  • Fogging of the windshield is detected by the IKHA system
  • Low evaporator temperature is detected

Disabling Automatic Stop/Start
The stop/start feature can be manually disable by pressing the button above the engine start button. BMW is now offering the ability for stop start to remember the last mode, meaning if stop/start is shut off and you completely shut down your car, it will remember the last mode and will not automatically re-enable stop/stop start. This can be coded by your dealer, read the service bulletin here -

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=636783

Impressions
The Bimmerfest Long Term Review Project 328i is mated with a 6 speed manual. The stop start function impressively does work with the manual transmission, however, I find it odd to sit at a light in neutral with the clutch out. When I was taught to drive manual I was told to always leave the car in gear in case you need to move suddenly. Therefore I tend to sit at lights with the clutch in, in first gear, so the stop start function never acts. When I do remember to use it I think it is the funniest thing to have it shut off the engine. I'll use the feature to entertain passenger and show off the technology of the F30. The rare cases where I'm at long lights it is nice but my daily commute doesn't have enough lights to make the gas savings worth much. It is disappointing that it doesn't work in stop-and-go traffic, that is where I would expect the majority of fuel savings would be seen by F30 3 series owners.

On an automatic where it can function without any change to ones driving habits I think it is a great way to save on gas. If someone with an automatic can comment on how it is that would be great.


Leave a Comment

You must be a registered member to comment on stories. Please take a moment to register for your free account now. If you already have an account, log in using fields below.










100 responses to Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Start Stop Feature on your F30 3 Series

stampchez commented:
March 9, 2012, 3:24 pm

I have a manual and find that it is totally annoying in stop and go traffic. I haven't found the situation where it doesn't turn off. It just feels like turning off the engine and then turning it back on a second can't be any good for it.
sr5959 commented:
March 9, 2012, 3:27 pm

Great post Tim, especially for me as I have 328i Auto, and for a few days I was sure there was something wrong with the system as it wasn't activating. I believe that was caused by some cold temperatures in the first few days I had the car, as it is now working most of the time.

I find it really interesting in action, and I appreciate the silence and no vibration when the engine is stopped. The vibration as it restarts is a little bit off-putting, but more to passengers than driver I find. In hybrids this system works better because they move off from rest on battery then restart the engine while in motion which is a lot smoother.

Overall I definitely like this feature; just adds to all the other new technology in this car which makes it interesting!
pcbrew commented:
March 9, 2012, 3:39 pm

What is: "Transmission adaptation is active (automatic transmission)" ?

I was taught not to sit at a light with the clutch in, due to additional wear on the throwout bearing. Not sure if that's still a concern in modern cars, but seems I wouldn't have to change any habits.
nofuture commented:
March 9, 2012, 3:48 pm

I love this feature at the long and infrequent stop lights, rail road stops (when train is coming)

In a city driving with frequent stops and goes it gets annoying really fast. I think mellow/easy going drivers should not have problem with it.

Agressive drivers will hate it.
mohrgan commented:
March 9, 2012, 4:10 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by pcbrew View Post

I was taught not to sit at a light with the clutch in, due to additional wear on the throwout bearing. Not sure if that's still a concern in modern cars, but seems I wouldn't have to change any habits.
Absolutely this is still a concern! Clutches haven't changed much.

I still have not driven an F30 but I think S/S would drive me nuts!!!
Michael Schott commented:
March 9, 2012, 4:15 pm

Thanks Tim. It sounds similar to my wife's Honda Insight hybrid. The stop/start feature is something you get used to after a while. Then it becomes second nature.
Mets335 commented:
March 9, 2012, 7:51 pm

During my test drive I found it to produce a lot of vibration at start up - definitely noticeable. I would turn it off all the time. Not worth the 1 mpg it probably saves. It's a $40-$50k car and that start up vibration cheapens the experience.
justinnum1 commented:
March 9, 2012, 7:59 pm

also pulling a paddle starts the engine
malc410326 commented:
March 9, 2012, 8:18 pm

My personal preference is to shut off the Auto Start/Stop. I admit, I may just not be willing to adapt to a new technology that in the long run could save me money at the gas tank....I just can't seem to get comfortable with what I call the "Bimmer shimmy-shake" that my F30 does each time the battery turns off and on....I have to confess, the first time I experienced the Auto Start/Stop at the first stop light we encountered, my wife and I looked at each other in horror thinking that our car stalled. Then when it came back alive, we both breathed a sigh of relief. I admit, during our test drive, we had not experienced the Stop/Start feature, we were just aware of it as a standard feature and I thought to myself, "That's cool."But since we test drove on the highway in Sport mode (yes, sport mode made me fall in love with this Bimmer), we never had stopped at a stop light or anything of the sort! So my usual ritual is to make sure I push the Auto Start/Stop button after selecting the Sport Mode and I'm off into the countryside for a quick drive or set my mode back to Comfort Mode when I'm back in town (and proceed to make sure Auto Start/Stop is off). And then of course, I'm looking forward to a long road trip to try out the Eco Mode....

Maybe in the future, I'll give Auto Start/Stop a chance again....Time will tell if I'm able to evolve or not. We should count ourselves lucky, since we have an option to turn this feature on and off. By the way, do the other hybrids (i.e. Prius, etc) do the 'shimmy-shake' that the Bimmer does?
jgrasty commented:
March 9, 2012, 8:18 pm

You may find that you have to change your driving style if you allow auto start / stop to operate. The worst part is when you are turning left across traffic, as you have to allow 2-3 seconds for the car to start back up before you can turn. I usually just turn auto start/stop off.
m8o commented:
March 9, 2012, 9:31 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by tim330i View Post
...however, I find it odd to sit at a light in neutral with the clutch out. When I was taught to drive manual I was told to always leave the car in gear in case you need to move suddenly. Therefore I tent to sit at lights with the clutch in, in first gear, so the stop start function never acts...
Really? [!]

Back in the early 80s, my pop used to yell @ me for doing that in our F150. And the clutch on the F150 did eventually fail from broken fingers on the pressure plate. The guys in the shop backed my father saying it was because I'd leave the clutch depressed for long periods of time. ... these days, I yell at my wife if I catch her doing it even for seconds.

So looks like autostop should be quite natural for me, cause neutral no clutch is the only way I [don't] roll.
silberma commented:
March 10, 2012, 9:03 am

OK, so this feature save 1 mpg in city driving. The saving may never be offset by the increased maintenance costs of premature starter wear. Only time will tell how the starters are holding up in this severe use. Also keep in mind that when you restart the car it uses electrical energy from the battery which needs to be recharged when the engine is restarted. On short stops there may be no savings at all.
Weaselboy commented:
March 10, 2012, 10:12 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by silberma View Post
OK, so this feature save 1 mpg in city driving. The saving may never be offset by the increased maintenance costs of premature starter wear. Only time will tell how the starters are holding up in this severe use. Also keep in mind that when you restart the car it uses electrical energy from the battery which needs to be recharged when the engine is restarted. On short stops there may be no savings at all.
I was thinking the same thing on my test drive. It stopped probably four or five times for 10-20 seconds each time. After factoring in a recharge of the battery after each start, I really wonder how much fuel savings there is. I can see some savings in city traffic where you are at red lights often and a minute at a time.

It would be interesting to see some controlled tests of this with it on and off.
bcl0328 commented:
March 10, 2012, 10:53 am

silberma, I read somewhere that the auto stop/start uses its own starter.
ljgmdad commented:
March 10, 2012, 11:22 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by stampchez View Post
I have a manual and find that it is totally annoying in stop and go traffic. I haven't found the situation where it doesn't turn off. It just feels like turning off the engine and then turning it back on a second can't be any good for it.
Yikes. I agree. Can this "feature" be disabled once and for all?
jgrasty commented:
March 10, 2012, 11:22 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by bcl0328 View Post
silberma, I read somewhere that the auto stop/start uses its own starter.
There is only one starter in the car. RealOEM
stampchez commented:
March 10, 2012, 11:25 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by ljgmdad View Post
Yikes. I agree. Can this "feature" be disabled once and for all?
You can't change the default to be off. I leave it on unless I'm creeping in stop and go traffic. I really don't mind it at all at red lights. With a manual, it won't turn off for quick stops if you leave the clutch in.
Phillyd2 commented:
March 10, 2012, 11:27 am

After about a week in my 335 Auto I too find it annoying. Will give it more time to make sure I really hate it. If so, its on the list to be coded - it possible.
ljgmdad commented:
March 10, 2012, 11:48 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by stampchez View Post
You can't change the default to be off. I leave it on unless I'm creeping in stop and go traffic. I really don't mind it at all at red lights. With a manual, it won't turn off for quick stops if you leave the clutch in.
If you want to start quickly from a stop, does it come on in time?
stampchez commented:
March 10, 2012, 12:01 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by ljgmdad View Post
If you want to start quickly from a stop, does it come on in time?
It's ready to go by the time you get your foot on the clutch and move the shifter into first.
CE750Jockey commented:
March 10, 2012, 12:15 pm

Whether you like it or not is a personal thing, I guess. What I hate is that you can't permanently turn it off. Give us the damn choice! Is that too much to ask?!
jmsent commented:
March 10, 2012, 12:18 pm

I would expect that there could be a fairly easy hardware workaround to disable the auto start stop automatically when the car is started, assuming you're just closing a set of contacts on the disable switch. Might have warranty implications, though.
ljgmdad commented:
March 10, 2012, 12:29 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by stampchez View Post
It's ready to go by the time you get your foot on the clutch and move the shifter into first.
Makes sense. So I guess if you never take your foot off the clutch the engine never stops. What about the AT though?

Someone needs to write a program for:

1. Defaulting to and staying in sports mode
2. Default disabling of auto start/stop
Michael Schott commented:
March 10, 2012, 12:40 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by CE750Jockey View Post
Whether you like it or not is a personal thing, I guess. What I hate is that you can't permanently turn it off. Give us the damn choice! Is that too much to ask?!
Yes it's too much to ask of BMW. The car's CAFE numbers are based on stop/start being part of the normal operation of the car. If BMW allowed it to be defeated it would have to be tested for CAFE in that mode. Don't ever forget that is all about meeting CAFE requirements and will be normal on last cars in the next few years. Get used to it.
EdCT commented:
March 10, 2012, 12:47 pm

I wonder how well this feature will hold up over time ...
CE750Jockey commented:
March 10, 2012, 12:54 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Schott View Post
Yes it's too much to ask of BMW. The car's CAFE numbers are based on stop/start being part of the normal operation of the car. If BMW allowed it to be defeated it would have to be tested for CAFE in that mode. Don't ever forget that is all about meeting CAFE requirements and will be normal on last cars in the next few years. Get used to it.
Yeah, I know they're part of the CAFE calculation, and CAFE sucks. More gov't intrusion. This auto s/s is gonna have unintended consequences, just like the ill-conceived ethanol protocols, here in the US.
newBMWinLA commented:
March 10, 2012, 1:03 pm

I've had a Honda Civic Hybrid for 10 years with Auto Stop/Start, and i've never had any trouble with it. Oddly, I've test driven the F30 a couple of times (going to get mine ED in May!), and my civic's restart is much smoother than the 328's. For those of you who know hybrids, the Civic restarts directly on gas, it does not go to electric and then gas like some other hybrids, so that's not the answer. My guess is that it is probably because my civic's engine is tiny and weak and its entire construction is geared toward all of these little efficient dynamics.

Either way, you definitely get used to auto stop/start, and as the system matures, it does get into a better patter for stopping (i.e., mine stopped shutting off in stop-and-go traffic after initially shutting off at every opportunity.)
F30owner commented:
March 10, 2012, 8:58 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by newBMWinLA View Post
I've had a Honda Civic Hybrid for 10 years with Auto Stop/Start, and i've never had any trouble with it. Oddly, I've test driven the F30 a couple of times (going to get mine ED in May!), and my civic's restart is much smoother than the 328's. For those of you who know hybrids, the Civic restarts directly on gas, it does not go to electric and then gas like some other hybrids, so that's not the answer. My guess is that it is probably because my civic's engine is tiny and weak and its entire construction is geared toward all of these little efficient dynamics.

Either way, you definitely get used to auto stop/start, and as the system matures, it does get into a better patter for stopping (i.e., mine stopped shutting off in stop-and-go traffic after initially shutting off at every opportunity.)
I agree about the engine size. I test drove both the 328 and 335 and paid attention to the start/stop. The 328 seemed a bit smoother than the 335. And I think the quite/smoothness was due to a small vs bigger engine.. possibly ...
Michael Schott commented:
March 10, 2012, 9:50 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by CE750Jockey View Post
Yeah, I know they're part of the CAFE calculation, and CAFE sucks. More gov't intrusion. This auto s/s is gonna have unintended consequences, just like the ill-conceived ethanol protocols, here in the US.
I'm going to tread lightly around the political motivations of your comments but suffice to say without government intervention our cars would get 12 MPG and pollute like crazy.
ljgmdad commented:
March 10, 2012, 10:07 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Schott View Post
I'm going to tread lightly around the political motivations of your comments but suffice to say without government intervention our cars would get 12 MPG and pollute like crazy.
Not true. Market forces and competition would drive manufacturers to produce efficient and more cost effective automobiles. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the free market would not demand fuel efficiency.
Yobyot commented:
March 10, 2012, 11:09 pm

I drove a 328i the other day -- when it was cold, I was shocked at how abrupt the restart was. Even after the engine warmed a little, the restart was annoying. Shutdown was smooth.

I suspect there's a software update in the 328i's future to smooth out that restart.
Mark K commented:
March 11, 2012, 8:57 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by ljgmdad View Post
Not true. Market forces and competition would drive manufacturers to produce efficient and more cost effective automobiles. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the free market would not demand fuel efficiency.
Market forces and competition do work, but not for auto industry. You cannot run into a dealership and ask, nay, DEMAND a 40 mpg car the first day the gas hits $4 a gallon then go back to your truck after it gets down to $2.50 - just like it happened 3 1/2 years ago. Average car takes about 5 years to develop.

I personally do not like large vehicles. Personally, I think that 3 series is just a tad too big for my tastes. That said, I can see that I finally (last year or so) get to contemplate some very good choices of very decent small cars to eventually buy. I don't thank free market and competition for this, I do thank Government's 35 mpg/fleet by 2015 requirement for that change of luck.

Now I'm just waiting to see 4 cylinder diesel in a 1 series hatchback coming to the States. Won't happen. However, I will take a VERY close look at (rumored) 4 cylinder 325d coming here after 2013.
sr5959 commented:
March 11, 2012, 1:06 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yobyot View Post
I drove a 328i the other day -- when it was cold, I was shocked at how abrupt the restart was. Even after the engine warmed a little, the restart was annoying. Shutdown was smooth.

I suspect there's a software update in the 328i's future to smooth out that restart.
This function doesn't work on mine until the car is fully warmed up. Maybe some already have a s/w update???
ljgmdad commented:
March 11, 2012, 1:20 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark K View Post
Market forces and competition do work, but not for auto industry. You cannot run into a dealership and ask, nay, DEMAND a 40 mpg car the first day the gas hits $4 a gallon then go back to your truck after it gets down to $2.50 - just like it happened 3 1/2 years ago. Average car takes about 5 years to develop.
Sure they do. There's nothing special about the auto industry. Aggregate demand is determined by behavior. Over time manufacturers in any competitive industry, must react to it. 12 MPG vehicles would be long gone by now, without any government intervention. There's absolutely no reason to believe otherwise. But it's not sufficient to simply deregulate the automotive industry without also taking steps to turn over highways to private owners, drastically reducing fuel and oil taxes, opening up federal lands and offshore sites to drilling, etc. I think one of the fears that is intentionally propagated by the statists is that of unchecked pollution. And I find it to be silly. Given sufficient freedom to self-regulate, the market would have to take appropriate steps to control concerns like pollution. A neighboring land owner always has an actionable tort against me if I'm blowing nasty pollutants towards him. And let's not forget the other side of the fuel efficiency debate, either. Studies have indicated that many automobile-related deaths could have been avoided simply by driving larger automobiles. So the market may reject the sub-compact ultra-efficient econobox style cars for good reason - safety, quality, etc. And with government enforced CAFE standards, we may well be in a situation where we are forced to give these up - at least to a certain degree that we might not have otherwise deemed acceptable.

Quote:
I personally do not like large vehicles. Personally, I think that 3 series is just a tad too big for my tastes. That said, I can see that I finally (last year or so) get to contemplate some very good choices of very decent small cars to eventually buy. I don't thank free market and competition for this, I do thank Government's 35 mpg/fleet by 2015 requirement for that change of luck.
If demand in the aggregate was for small econobox autos, you can rest assured that you would be able to take your pick. And even if demand dictated otherwise, market forces would not eliminate choices. I.e. even if the econoboxes were not the market sweet spot, they'd still have their place and be available all the same. There is definitely a market for them.

Quote:
Now I'm just waiting to see 4 cylinder diesel in a 1 series hatchback coming to the States. Won't happen. However, I will take a VERY close look at (rumored) 4 cylinder 325d coming here after 2013.
That'd be great. I'm all for more diesel passenger cars as well. But the trend right now seems to be for hybrid vehicles instead. I thought BMW was also rumored to be introducing a line of hybrids instead?
EdCT commented:
March 11, 2012, 1:52 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by ljgmdad View Post
Sure they do. There's nothing special about the auto industry. Aggregate demand is determined by behavior. Over time manufacturers in any competitive industry, must react to it. 12 MPG vehicles would be long gone by now, without any government intervention. There's absolutely no reason to believe otherwise. But it's not sufficient to simply deregulate the automotive industry without also taking steps to turn over highways to private owners, drastically reducing fuel and oil taxes, opening up federal lands and offshore sites to drilling, etc. I think one of the fears that are intentionally propagated by the statists is that of unchecked pollution. And I find it to be silly. Given sufficient freedom to self-regulate, the market would have to take appropriate steps to control concerns like pollution. A neighboring land owner always has an actionable tort against me if I'm blowing nasty pollutants towards him. And let's not forget the other side of the fuel efficiency debate, either. Studies have indicated that many automobile-related deaths could have been avoided simply by driving larger automobiles. So the market may reject the sub-compact ultra-efficient econobox style cars for good reason - safety, quality, etc. And with government enforced CAFE standards, we may well be in a situation where we are forced to give these up - at least to a certain degree that we might not have otherwise deemed acceptable.



If demand in the aggregate was for small econobox autos, you can rest assured that you would be able to take your pick. And even if demand dictated otherwise, market forces would not eliminate choices. I.e. even if the econoboxes were not the market sweet spot, they'd still have their place and be available all the same. There is definitely a market for them.


That'd be great. I'm all for more diesel passenger cars as well. But the trend right now seems to be for hybrid vehicles instead. I thought BMW was also rumored to be introducing a line of hybrids instead?
"Market forces" never demanded better tires, seatbelts, airbags, antilock brakes, safer interiors free of projectiles and non-piercing steering wheels, better seats with headrests, metal-free dashboards, crumple zones, doors that could be opened after a crash, roads with larger run-offs and better sight lines .... etc, let alone cleaner air and water - that latter two signed into law by a republican president no less.

All of these were government regulated and much if not all of it borrowed from racing technology, which itself had to be regulated thanks to Jackie Stewart and a handful of high-profile drivers who were underwhelmed, to say the least, of what the "free market forces' were demanding in terms of auto-racing safety.

It's also worth noting that environmental and pedestrian safety standards on many of today's German cars are originating in the homeland, not here - in fact, BMW has used 4 cylinder engines in its 3 series lines for years, as well as the Z3 and Z4 (diesels too).
ljgmdad commented:
March 11, 2012, 2:19 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdCT View Post
"Market forces" never demanded better tires, seatbelts, airbags, antilock brakes, safer interiors free of projectiles and non-piercing steering wheels, better seats with headrests, metal-free dashboards, crumple zones, doors that could be opened after a crash, roads with larger run-offs and better sight lines .... etc, let alone cleaner air and water
Market forces become distorted in highly regulated industries and you can not conclude that automotive safety and environmental stewardship would not have otherwise come to be. In fact, such a conclusion is highly counter-intuitive.
EdCT commented:
March 11, 2012, 2:26 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by ljgmdad View Post
Market forces become distorted in highly regulated industries and you can not conclude that automotive safety and environmental stewardship would not have otherwise come to be. In fact, such a conclusion is highly counter-intuitive.
Interesting conclusion on your part, but in my time on this planet, I cannot think of one major industry where "market forces" have demanded safer products, from home electronics, to construction, to automobiles.

Generally regulation comes about precisely because there is no "market force", either that, or regulators are so incredibly talented and have such foresight that they're apparently beating all market forces to the punch
ljgmdad commented:
March 11, 2012, 3:43 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdCT View Post
Interesting conclusion on your part, but in my time on this planet, I cannot think of one major industry where "market forces" have demanded safer products, from home electronics, to construction, to automobiles.

Generally regulation comes about precisely because there is no "market force", either that, or regulators are so incredibly talented and have such foresight that they're apparently beating all market forces to the punch
And yet it's precisely how the market operates. Perhaps some basic economic refreshers are in order. Regulations generally come about in reaction to perceived problems and most commonly as a result of ... unintended consequences of previous regulations. But one of the most misunderstood concepts is the notion that supply creates demand. So if Volvo unilaterally decided to innovate in the areas of automotive safety in order to gain competitive advantage (even exporting to markets where safety regulations were non-existent), and such innovations were perceived as desirable overall, then other manufacturers would follow suit. On the otherhand, perhaps in a free society, we might decide to favor frugality over safety - and one could easily argue that driving automobiles that are suboptimal from a personal safety standpoint is well within our rights. So it is quite possible, as a society, we would prefer to live under conditions where the government isn't constantly acting to protect us from ourselves. And that's OK too. But I have no doubt that numerous choices would exist - from high end autos with all the safety bells and whistles to low end automobiles with none of the above. Perhaps it's really a discussion of whether the utopian society that does not have winners and losers should be what we strive for or not.... and there are more appropriate places to pursue that discussion.

Ciao!
CE750Jockey commented:
March 11, 2012, 5:09 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by ljgmdad View Post
And yet it's precisely how the market operates. Perhaps some basic economic refreshers are in order. Regulations generally come about in reaction to perceived problems and most commonly as a result of ... unintended consequences of previous regulations. But one of the most misunderstood concepts is the notion that supply creates demand. So if Volvo unilaterally decided to innovate in the areas of automotive safety in order to gain competitive advantage (even exporting to markets where safety regulations were non-existent), and such innovations were perceived as desirable overall, then other manufacturers would follow suit. On the otherhand, perhaps in a free society, we might decide to favor frugality over safety - and one could easily argue that driving automobiles that are suboptimal from a personal safety standpoint is well within our rights. So it is quite possible, as a society, we would prefer to live under conditions where the government isn't constantly acting to protect us from ourselves. And that's OK too. But I have no doubt that numerous choices would exist - from high end autos with all the safety bells and whistles to low end automobiles with none of the above. Perhaps it's really a discussion of whether the utopian society that does not have winners and losers should be what we strive for or not.... and there are more appropriate places to pursue that discussion.

Ciao!
You got that right! See the Chevy Volt for evidence of this. Wrong car. Wrong time. All brought about by a Government that thinks it should decide what the market wants and needs. The F30 hoodline? Looks like crap. The result of Gov't regulation. The Auto S/S feature? Already generating negative experiences. More Gov't intrusion. GTFO of the way and let the manufacturers supply what the people demand.
Mark K commented:
March 11, 2012, 5:56 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by ljgmdad View Post
Studies have indicated that many automobile-related deaths could have been avoided simply by driving larger automobiles. So the market may reject the sub-compact ultra-efficient econobox style cars for good reason - safety, quality, etc. And with government enforced CAFE standards, we may well be in a situation where we are forced to give these up - at least to a certain degree that we might not have otherwise deemed acceptable.
Studies MIGHT be wrong. We die at twice the rate more than Germans do on the road (with interesting, uncharacteristic and sharp dip in 2009 and 2010 we might now die at just 50% higher rate then them). Yet, I'm sure we do, on average, drive much bigger vehicles than they do.

Quote:
If demand in the aggregate was for small econobox autos, you can rest assured that you would be able to take your pick. And even if demand dictated otherwise, market forces would not eliminate choices. I.e. even if the econoboxes were not the market sweet spot, they'd still have their place and be available all the same. There is definitely a market for them.
I haven't seen that. I hope you will not argue that I did, in fact, have a CHOICE in October of 2006 when I was looking for a diesel car with MT. That vehicle is now in my garage together with the car in signature - but having ONE option (Jetta TDI) does not constitute a choice. Not in my dictionary.

What you are saying is correct and makes sense. However, for someone who came from Europe, efficient market does not offer CHOICES. You either want what majority wants or you ... well, you're screwed. Only small, inefficient and relatively expensive artisans give you a choice. In U.S. we do have a niche market - too bad that, somehow, over here niche get equaled with "filthy rich". That is not the case over there. Now I'm talking in general, not cars - bakeries, masons, wood shops, restaurants ... and so on.

There's one thing I have to say about the strategy that U.S. Government deployed in order to create more fuel efficient fleet. I like it a WHOLE lot better than what they used in Europe to achieve the same goal. By raising gas taxes in order to make fuel consumption very expensive, they punished everybody - including those who already tried to drive fuel efficient vehicles. That is not the case here. You can still buy fuel hog if you wish, but I will not be punished for driving relatively frugal car (Jetta TDI, not E92).

Quote:
That'd be great. I'm all for more diesel passenger cars as well. But the trend right now seems to be for hybrid vehicles instead. I thought BMW was also rumored to be introducing a line of hybrids instead?
I will give market a slight benefit of doubt on this one because of the federalization rules. It was most definitely the Government regulation (EPA and federalization rules) that practically excluded diesel offerings on U.S. market. We are working very hard with a lot of overtime to prove Churchill consistently correct. He said something like "You can count on American people to always do the right thing. After they tried all the other ones." Fossil fuel might become thing of the past, but we need it as a bridge towards the transportation on alternate fuels/electricity which is far from being ready for a prime time. Interim, there is NO better engine to serve that purpose than diesel - yet, it is the most unacceptable one for the regulators in our Government.

Yes, F30 hybrid is coming together with the whole new set of players in not-yet-revealed i-series of cars. Wake me up when we get electric cars that perform. Hybrids make me very slee....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
ljgmdad commented:
March 11, 2012, 8:37 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by CE750Jockey View Post
You got that right! See the Chevy Volt for evidence of this. Wrong car. Wrong time. All brought about by a Government that thinks it should decide what the market wants and needs. The F30 hoodline? Looks like crap. The result of Gov't regulation. The Auto S/S feature? Already generating negative experiences. More Gov't intrusion. GTFO of the way and let the manufacturers supply what the people demand.
We're in 100% agreement. The concept is not "anything you produce will automatically be in demand." We know this is simply not the case. The government doesn't know the auto industry. And without government involvement, you're right, the Chevy Volt might not exist. I hadn't seen any evidence that such a car was likely to succeed prior to its introduction and post-production sales figures obviously bear that out. The important thing here is that, in a free market, companies need to be allowed to fail so that better companies with better ideas can come along and replace them. When government props up the companies that are unsuccessful, that has the effect of "crowding out" other potential producers and suppressing real growth.
ljgmdad commented:
March 11, 2012, 8:42 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark K View Post
Studies MIGHT be wrong. We die at twice the rate more than Germans do on the road (with interesting, uncharacteristic and sharp dip in 2009 and 2010 we might now die at just 50% higher rate then them). Yet, I'm sure we do, on average, drive much bigger vehicles than they do.
There are many factors in automobile deaths. The studies I recall were performed in the 70's, 80's and 90's and were not comparative. They found that many thousands of lives were lost in automobile accidents which most likely would not have been had the motorists been driving larger vehicles.


Quote:
I haven't seen that. I hope you will not argue that I did, in fact, have a CHOICE in October of 2006 when I was looking for a diesel car with MT. That vehicle is now in my garage together with the car in signature - but having ONE option (Jetta TDI) does not constitute a choice. Not in my dictionary.
But your available choices have largely been determined by the government. There have been MAJOR regulatory hoops to jump through for diesel cars to be available at all here in California, for example.

Oh and by the way, Europe isn't exactly the model of "efficient markets". :-) Germany, however, is probably the closest as a significant exporter of capital equipment. They definitely have the means to dig themselves out of debt, unlike many other countries over there.
floydarogers commented:
March 11, 2012, 9:20 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by ljgmdad View Post
...But your available choices have largely been determined by the government. There have been MAJOR regulatory hoops to jump through for diesel cars to be available at all here in California, for example...
One might well argue that requiring diesel-engined cars to meet the same emissions standards as gasoline-engined cars isn't a "major regulatory hoop". The fact that it causes major changes is completely beside the point. Additionally, CA regs were adopted (by the Bush-era EPA) as the standard, so I'm not clear on your point of including CA...
ljgmdad commented:
March 11, 2012, 11:48 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by floydarogers View Post
One might well argue that requiring diesel-engined cars to meet the same emissions standards as gasoline-engined cars isn't a "major regulatory hoop". The fact that it causes major changes is completely beside the point. Additionally, CA regs were adopted (by the Bush-era EPA) as the standard, so I'm not clear on your point of including CA...
And I'm not clear on your bringing of Bush in to the discussion. But just in 2009, the EPA allowed California to set its own tailpipe emissions standards.
EdCT commented:
March 12, 2012, 1:07 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by ljgmdad View Post
And I'm not clear on your bringing of Bush in to the discussion. But just in 2009, the EPA allowed California to set its own tailpipe emissions standards.
We can argue your political theories for hours on end, but in the end, they're just theories - unprovable at that There's no working model anywhere at any time throughout history that proves your point, in fact, just the opposite is true, a trip down memory lane shows the how's and why's of regulation. All you need to do is start with the industrial revolution and work forward from there.

Burdensome regulation is a whole different story, and with that I'm sure many of us would find common ground with you, but talk of "utopian societies" and "aggregates" smack of Ayn Rand, which IMO, gets into hard-core ideology which focuses on selfishness as the key to supreme happiness.

There is a poly sci forum on bimmerfest, you might find it entertaining.
ljgmdad commented:
March 12, 2012, 10:30 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdCT View Post
We can argue your political theories for hours on end, but in the end, they're just theories - unprovable at that There's no working model anywhere at any time throughout history that proves your point, in fact, just the opposite is true, a trip down memory lane shows the how's and why's of regulation. All you need to do is start with the industrial revolution and work forward from there.

Burdensome regulation is a whole different story, and with that I'm sure many of us would find common ground with you, but talk of "utopian societies" and "aggregates" smack of Ayn Rand, which IMO, gets into hard-core ideology which focuses on selfishness as the key to supreme happiness.

There is a poly sci forum on bimmerfest, you might find it entertaining.
They're economic concepts, not political theories, as such is my background. Others have tried to make political banter out of them. And working models do abound.

Oh and since you mention Ayn Rand ... I do still have original copies of her newletters, though I never did take the time to read Atlas Shrugged.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px6keElPXVE
floydarogers commented:
March 12, 2012, 11:24 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by ljgmdad View Post
And I'm not clear on your bringing of Bush in to the discussion. But just in 2009, the EPA allowed California to set its own tailpipe emissions standards.
You're right - Bush has nothing to do with this; I was in error on my dates.

But although you're right on specifics (CA having an exemption), you're wrong on effects. The US EPA's current standards are CA's (as far as CO, HC & NOx pollutants) go. Diesel car emissions are regulated to the same standards as gasoline.

CA may (at some point in the future) increase mileage/CO2 standards. However, Obama and the EPA increased CAFE standards last year and effectively pre-empted any CA regs.

I think that many people forget that government (regulation) is "by the people", and is actually PART of the market economies.
ljgmdad commented:
March 12, 2012, 12:21 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by floydarogers View Post
You're right - Bush has nothing to do with this; I was in error on my dates.

But although you're right on specifics (CA having an exemption), you're wrong on effects. The US EPA's current standards are CA's (as far as CO, HC & NOx pollutants) go. Diesel car emissions are regulated to the same standards as gasoline.
Nah. I was referring to the era of "49-state legal" passenger cars originally. But today, the effects of the EPA's regs are very far reaching.

Quote:
CA may (at some point in the future) increase mileage/CO2 standards. However, Obama and the EPA increased CAFE standards last year and effectively pre-empted any CA regs.
Cali has already said not expect it until 2014 I believe.

Quote:
I think that many people forget that government (regulation) is "by the people", and is actually PART of the market economies.
So is the federal government accountable to the people anymore? Is it even staffed by regular Americans, or only members of certain interest groups? I might be an oddball, but it's clear that the current government does not speak for any substantial percentage of Americans:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...-all-time-low/

Unfortunately market economies are largely dead. They've been replaced by the "too big to fail" central planners whose job it is not to understand economics or to even consider well-reasoned arguments, but to do what's politically expedient - and to do it NOW.
Phillyd2 commented:
March 12, 2012, 12:47 pm

LOL you guys are funny. Of course market forces work, even for the auto industry. I can't think of any auto safety product that was mandated by the .gov and then developed and installed into cars. Seat Belts, ABS, Airbags, etc. were first developed by the industry, introduced to the consumer and then copied by other car companies. It is true that most started out on more expensive cars before trickling down but the .gov only mandated them AFTER they were known and proven technology widely available to the consumer.

Even without mama .gov would anybody really buy a car these days without airbags and seat belts?

When the .gov does mandate before the consumer market place demands a product the end result is the Chevy Volt. Well done central planning.

I'm not again the.gov. Not even against sensible regulation. But anyone claiming we are today anywhere close to being sensible must be living on a different planet.
samualcc commented:
March 12, 2012, 1:09 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillyd2 View Post
LOL you guys are funny. Of course market forces work, even for the auto industry. I can't think of any auto safety product that was mandated by the .gov and then developed and installed into cars. Seat Belts, ABS, Airbags, etc. were first developed by the industry, introduced to the consumer and then copied by other car companies. It is true that most started out on more expensive cars before trickling down but the .gov only mandated them AFTER they were known and proven technology widely available to the consumer.

Even without mama .gov would anybody really buy a car these days without airbags and seat belts?

When the .gov does mandate before the consumer market place demands a product the end result is the Chevy Volt. Well done central planning.

I'm not again the.gov. Not even against sensible regulation. But anyone claiming we are today anywhere close to being sensible must be living on a different planet.
Quite frankly, there are people out there who drive without a seat belt on, drive drunk, drive without insurance, etc. Some people may pass on seat belts and airbags if given the chance to spend less on a car. This actually would prove that market forces do work in the auto industry, they just may not always be desirable.

There is clearly a balance to be struck between regulating common sense things, such as child seats for infants, and trying to prop up something like the Volt with huge tax credits. Though honestly, the number of Volts planned and actually built is so small when compared to overall car sales, I am not sure I would consider it government regulations gone crazy.

Now run flat tires on every car, that would be a good example of overreaching!
ljgmdad commented:
March 12, 2012, 1:25 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillyd2 View Post
I'm not again the.gov. Not even against sensible regulation. But anyone claiming we are today anywhere close to being sensible must be living on a different planet.
Let's take one example: the insurance industry. The insurance industry absolutely needs regulation - at least in the form of transparent accounting - because normal market feedback mechanisms generally can't work effectively there until after disaster strikes.

Yes, there is a place for government regulation. But, yes, we've completely gone off the deep end with its current breadth and depth.
EdCT commented:
March 12, 2012, 2:07 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by ljgmdad View Post

So is the federal government accountable to the people anymore? Is it even staffed by regular Americans, or only members of certain interest groups? I might be an oddball, but it's clear that the current government does not speak for any substantial percentage of Americans.
I agree.

Many of those "interest groups" are large corporate sponsors who pay very expensive lobbyists to do their bidding for them. This results in things like very expensive HC. The government today speaks for corporate America, not the working class.
EdCT commented:
March 12, 2012, 2:12 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by samualcc View Post
Quite frankly, there are people out there who drive without a seat belt on, drive drunk, drive without insurance, etc. Some people may pass on seat belts and airbags if given the chance to spend less on a car. This actually would prove that market forces do work in the auto industry, they just may not always be desirable.

There is clearly a balance to be struck between regulating common sense things, such as child seats for infants, and trying to prop up something like the Volt with huge tax credits. Though honestly, the number of Volts planned and actually built is so small when compared to overall car sales, I am not sure I would consider it government regulations gone crazy.

Now run flat tires on every car, that would be a good example of overreaching!
The Volt is just a rolling r&d platform, no one expects it to make money. GM's sales predictions were rather ridiculous though, but that doesn't detract from the necessary r&d we'll get from it.

Everything learned is passed on to the next generation of alternate fuel car, and yes there's a place for government subsidies - if my local church can get tax breaks, so can GM for developing technologies for the overall betterment of our society - it'd be nice for a sector of our economy if we could become leaders in this area, too.
samualcc commented:
March 12, 2012, 3:38 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdCT View Post
The Volt is just a rolling r&d platform, no one expects it to make money. GM's sales predictions were rather ridiculous though, but that doesn't detract from the necessary r&d we'll get from it.

Everything learned is passed on to the next generation of alternate fuel car, and yes there's a place for government subsidies - if my local church can get tax breaks, so can GM for developing technologies for the overall betterment of our society - it'd be nice for a sector of our economy if we could become leaders in this area, too.
Absolutely correct. I was simply saying that some people use the Volt as an example of gross government involvement and overreaching regulations. In reality, it is nothing more than a super low volume R&D platform in preparation for a real mass production vehicle 5 to 10 years from now.
Phillyd2 commented:
March 12, 2012, 4:45 pm

Well, its seems like you guys are not alone in accepting the fact that .gov knows better than the governed as evidenced by the state of affairs these days. Despite the will of our Founders and the general principles that served so well for so long. Once we accept that the State may mandated seat belts for our own good there is no intellectual argument against mandating run flat tires or anything else. Again, well done do gooders.
EdCT commented:
March 12, 2012, 7:06 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillyd2 View Post
Well, its seems like you guys are not alone in accepting the fact that .gov knows better than the governed as evidenced by the state of affairs these days. Despite the will of our Founders and the general principles that served so well for so long. Once we accept that the State may mandated seat belts for our own good there is no intellectual argument against mandating run flat tires or anything else. Again, well done do gooders.
You really believe the founding fathers didn't think they knew what was best for you?
Phillyd2 commented:
March 12, 2012, 7:37 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdCT View Post
You really believe the founding fathers didn't think they knew what was best for you?
I'm old but not that old so I've never met them. However I have read more than a few things they wrote including the Constitution. Give it a look see some time. The common theme in all of their written words is that the People know way more than the .gov. Old fashion notion, I know.

The whole system was set up so we don't end up like this. But they also well understood the dangers of lazy citizens and the biggest danger of people discovering they can vote to take the industry of another's labor.

How's that all working out for us?
EdCT commented:
March 12, 2012, 10:19 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillyd2 View Post
I'm old but not that old so I've never met them. However I have read more than a few things they wrote including the Constitution. Give it a look see some time. The common theme in all of their written words is that the People know way more than the .gov. Old fashion notion, I know.

The whole system was set up so we don't end up like this. But they also well understood the dangers of lazy citizens and the biggest danger of people discovering they can vote to take the industry of another's labor.

How's that all working out for us?
They also believed a woman shouldn't have the right to vote, that a black man was 3/5th's a man and leeches could cure illness.

Thankfully we've moved on from the misguided notions of the world from which the founding fathers came.

Btw, which constitution would you like me to read? The original, or the current one, which contains 27 amendments?
Phillyd2 commented:
March 12, 2012, 10:35 pm

Based on your posts you may be better off reading the European constitution.
Michael Schott commented:
March 13, 2012, 9:28 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillyd2 View Post
Based on your posts you may be better off reading the European constitution.
Maybe instead of being insulting you should take your political views to the appropriate forum on this site. There is a Political Science forum under the Off Topic forum heading.
Phillyd2 commented:
March 13, 2012, 9:38 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Schott View Post
Maybe instead of being insulting you should take your political views to the appropriate forum on this site. There is a Political Science forum under the Off Topic forum heading.
Really? You are among the first to start stating your political views in Post 30 and now have the nerve to post this? How does ones head not explode at the pure hypocrisy?
EdCT commented:
March 13, 2012, 9:54 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillyd2 View Post
Really? You are among the first to start stating your political views in Post 30 and now have the nerve to post this? How does ones head not explode at the pure hypocrisy?
One's head need never explode.

Actually, until you came in, the discussion here has remained pretty civil, exactly the opposite of what happens in poly sci - which may be why Mike suggested you go there ...
Phillyd2 commented:
March 13, 2012, 10:09 am

OK, thanks for explaining that its not political talk that's forbidden as Mike suggested but only those with differing views. Now that I understand I will sin no more.
Michael Schott commented:
March 13, 2012, 10:36 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillyd2 View Post
Really? You are among the first to start stating your political views in Post 30 and now have the nerve to post this? How does ones head not explode at the pure hypocrisy?
That was frankly a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to your flying your libertarian flag in this thread. I am not going to make this thread political.
Phillyd2 commented:
March 13, 2012, 10:56 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Schott View Post
That was frankly a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to your flying your libertarian flag in this thread. I am not going to make this thread political.
Why are you rubbing it in? I already posted that I got it and now understand that its ok to post Left political views but not others. I also now understand that by YOU posting YOUR political views did not make this thread political but me posting mine did.

I sincerely apologize for the misunderstanding. Can we move on please?
Andrews335ic commented:
March 13, 2012, 9:45 pm

At least the M3 start/stop defaults to off when you start the car!
Phillyd2 commented:
March 13, 2012, 10:08 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrews335ic View Post
At least the M3 start/stop defaults to off when you start the car!
As it should be.
rajens00 commented:
March 15, 2012, 5:30 pm

It's been a fun 12 year ride with 4 BMW 3 Series but we're going to have to end our relationship since this auto start/stop can't be turned off, except manually each and every time you drive car. Sorry, it's unacceptable. It's a nice OPTION, but you shouldn't FORCE FEED you customers.
tim330i commented:
March 15, 2012, 5:32 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by rajens00 View Post
It's been a fun 12 year ride with 4 BMW 3 Series but we're going to have to end our relationship since this auto start/stop can't be turned off, except manually each and every time you drive car. Sorry, it's unacceptable. It's a nice OPTION, but you shouldn't FORCE FEED you customers.
Tell that to the NHTSA and your congress person, they're the reason you can't default it off.

Tim
bcl0328 commented:
March 15, 2012, 5:57 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by rajens00 View Post
It's been a fun 12 year ride with 4 BMW 3 Series but we're going to have to end our relationship since this auto start/stop can't be turned off, except manually each and every time you drive car. Sorry, it's unacceptable. It's a nice OPTION, but you shouldn't FORCE FEED you customers.
Are you also mad that you have to switch to Sport mode every time you start too?
ProRail commented:
March 19, 2012, 10:53 pm

Wow. I knew that most BMW owners were totally self-centered but I never knew so many of them would declare it with such vehemence. Happy to say not all of us feel this way.
EdCT commented:
March 19, 2012, 11:26 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by tim330i View Post
Tell that to the NHTSA and your congress person, they're the reason you can't default it off.

Tim
Are you sure about that? Stop/start being mandated by congress and the NHSTA is news to me
pcbrew commented:
March 19, 2012, 11:44 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdCT View Post
Are you sure about that? Stop/start being mandated by congress and the NHSTA is news to me
Stop/start is not mandated, but the benefits are not counted for CAFE performance unless it is the default mode when you start the car.
E36toF30 commented:
March 20, 2012, 2:33 am

If you really hate it, I would imagine within two or three months, someone will come up with a reasonably easy/cheap way to permanently disable the start/stop system.
EdCT commented:
March 20, 2012, 10:21 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by pcbrew View Post
Stop/start is not mandated, but the benefits are not counted for CAFE performance unless it is the default mode when you start the car.
Ah then, that's what I thought - in other words, the US government has offered BMW a mechanism to get their numbers in line and the car maker has taken it. So it's BMW's choice to default the system to "on", not the government's.

Ideologues will never see it this way, though ...
Needsdecaf commented:
March 20, 2012, 11:45 am

Wow, this thread went downhill.

I wonder how many people here have actually used the S/S beyond a 10 minute test drive? I have to say, it's not bad, and worth more than 1 MPG where I live. Then again, I live midst the worst traffic in the country.

The re-start on the 328 is pretty violent, though.
Phillyd2 commented:
March 20, 2012, 12:13 pm

I've had it for about 3 weeks and its as silly as it was on day one. There are ways of playing with the left pedal but its annoying.

Offer it as a option, like econ mode - no problem! Its the making it the default setting that I don't like.

There IS a reason I did not buy a Prius.
Michael Schott commented:
March 20, 2012, 3:06 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phillyd2 View Post
I've had it for about 3 weeks and its as silly as it was on day one. There are ways of playing with the left pedal but its annoying.

Offer it as a option, like econ mode - no problem! Its the making it the default setting that I don't like.

There IS a reason I did not buy a Prius.
As mentioned, it cannot be optional and still be part of the EPA testing cycle.
Snareman commented:
March 20, 2012, 4:27 pm

So if you're stopped at a light and the car turns off, the heat/AC go with it right? Electric (radio, fan) stays on?

It would seem particularly annoying when at a light turning left.
andy966 commented:
March 20, 2012, 4:57 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snareman View Post
So if you're stopped at a light and the car turns off, the heat/AC go with it right? Electric (radio, fan) stays on?

It would seem particularly annoying when at a light turning left.
I think if you had the AC on, the system would be smart enough not to shut down.

Under reasons why the Stop/Start feature would not function if:
"Climate control system is on but passenger compartment has not yet reached desired temperature"
Quacker commented:
March 28, 2012, 3:10 pm

Try this on a 5'r like mine:

1. Bring the car to a stop in a safe place and with your foot still on the brake, wait for the ASS to shut the motor off.

2. Place the car in park and then take your foot off the brake - the vehicle remains in "Stop" mode.

3. Now without doing anything else, open the driver's door. And as if by magic, the car will start! Why it would want to start when the door is opened is not at all clear to me. In my view, it should have dropped the car into either radio-ready or completely off.
6kat commented:
December 23, 2012, 9:32 am

Totally SUCKS! I hate having to turn this feature off. Went to BMW dealership yesterday and they said they did not want to do this adjustment because they did one and it did not work and said BmW did not really have the proper fix as of yet so i had to leave without fixing the damn thing.

BMW does not allow the owner of their own car to make the choice for themselves.
These cars are very nice BUT all the garbage we have to go through is making me wonder about my purchase for my next car.
Having functions is a really good thing IF I should choose to use them, this should be my choice to we I don't have to be inconvenienced and controlled the way we are with these very expensive vehicles.
krash commented:
December 23, 2012, 10:00 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by ljgmdad View Post
Not true. Market forces and competition would drive manufacturers to produce efficient and more cost effective automobiles. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the free market would not demand fuel efficiency.
100% correct.
arktctr commented:
December 23, 2012, 10:59 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quacker View Post
Try this on a 5'r like mine:

1. Bring the car to a stop in a safe place and with your foot still on the brake, wait for the ASS to shut the motor off.

2. Place the car in park and then take your foot off the brake - the vehicle remains in "Stop" mode.

3. Now without doing anything else, open the driver's door. And as if by magic, the car will start! Why it would want to start when the door is opened is not at all clear to me. In my view, it should have dropped the car into either radio-ready or completely off.
I know this is an old topic but I just tried this on my F30 and the car went from "Ready" to "Off" when I opened the door after ASS shut down...
Quinn Lasser commented:
December 23, 2012, 2:38 pm

My favorite part of the ASS feature is the ability to turn it off. Sorry, every time I use it and the car stops I think I've killed the car.
Yobyot commented:
December 23, 2012, 9:39 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by 6kat View Post
Totally SUCKS! I hate having to turn this feature off. Went to BMW dealership yesterday and they said they did not want to do this adjustment because they did one and it did not work and said BmW did not really have the proper fix as of yet so i had to leave without fixing the damn thing.

BMW does not allow the owner of their own car to make the choice for themselves.
These cars are very nice BUT all the garbage we have to go through is making me wonder about my purchase for my next car.
Having functions is a really good thing IF I should choose to use them, this should be my choice to we I don't have to be inconvenienced and controlled the way we are with these very expensive vehicles.
You need a new dealer.
Yobyot commented:
December 23, 2012, 9:40 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snareman View Post
So if you're stopped at a light and the car turns off, the heat/AC go with it right? Electric (radio, fan) stays on?

It would seem particularly annoying when at a light turning left.
The climate system stays on.
Orient330iNYC commented:
December 23, 2012, 9:51 pm

I test drove a 328i 8AT and was not impressed with it. i was going to ask to have it disabled.
after having it for a few days on my 335i 6MT, i actually dont have an issue with it-- probably because it only shuts down the engine when i'm in neutral with the clutch out. as soon as i push the clutch in to get ready to pull away from a light, the engine fires right back up. the startup on a 335i is a lot less rough than it was on the 328i i drove.

it is a little weird for the engine to shut down, and the car to go silent.
chiba commented:
December 24, 2012, 1:40 am

I love this feature and actually miss it now that the weather is below 3 degrees.

Chiba
boltjaM3s commented:
December 24, 2012, 9:47 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orient330iNYC View Post
I test drove a 328i 8AT and was not impressed with it. i was going to ask to have it disabled.
after having it for a few days on my 335i 6MT, i actually dont have an issue with it-- probably because it only shuts down the engine when i'm in neutral with the clutch out. as soon as i push the clutch in to get ready to pull away from a light, the engine fires right back up. the startup on a 335i is a lot less rough than it was on the 328i i drove.

it is a little weird for the engine to shut down, and the car to go silent.
I can't speak to how it functions on a MT car, but on an AT car in the NYC area it's downright scary.

Not only did I stall the car once- the first time I'd been in any car of any type that stalled in 25+ years- but it turns itself off at the very moment you need reliable power the most. Like at a stop sign having to cross a busy 50 MPH street or at a green light, about to make a left turn across traffic, patiently waiting for a window to squeeze through.

While shutting the engine off can save a few cents a week on gas (literally, a few cents) this feature can cause a stall or create a hesitation at the very moment you need a reliable, trustworthy burst of power.

I couldn't let my wife near my F30 until BMW disabled ASS for me. Now that it's gone, I don't even think about it. For someone living in the sticks this feature might we worthwhile. But anyone in a big city or in populated suburbs, this feature is going to do more harm than good, going to get someone hurt.

BJ
kpgray commented:
December 24, 2012, 10:16 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by boltjaM3s View Post
I can't speak to how it functions on a MT car, but on an AT car in the NYC area it's downright scary.

Not only did I stall the car once- the first time I'd been in any car of any type that stalled in 25+ years- but it turns itself off at the very moment you need reliable power the most. Like at a stop sign having to cross a busy 50 MPH street or at a green light, about to make a left turn across traffic, patiently waiting for a window to squeeze through.

While shutting the engine off can save a few cents a week on gas (literally, a few cents) this feature can cause a stall or create a hesitation at the very moment you need a reliable, trustworthy burst of power.

I couldn't let my wife near my F30 until BMW disabled ASS for me. Now that it's gone, I don't even think about it. For someone living in the sticks this feature might we worthwhile. But anyone in a big city or in populated suburbs, this feature is going to do more harm than good, going to get someone hurt.

BJ
I agree, When I commute early in the morning (before 6:00 AM), the start/stop is OK in light traffic, however, on my commute in the afternoon (4:00 PM), in heavy traffic, the start/stop feature has been at times, downright frighting! I now just hit the disable button for the drive home. On my first dealer visit, I will request the ASS software upgrade.
eclampsium commented:
May 8, 2013, 8:48 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by stampchez View Post
I have a manual and find that it is totally annoying in stop and go traffic. I haven't found the situation where it doesn't turn off. It just feels like turning off the engine and then turning it back on a second can't be any good for it.
If i'm not mistunderstood, the car has a small secondary battery with special fast charge and discharge characteristics, so it's made for it... It seems to have a Momentary way not to stop the engine if you whants too, that is in the first second off the stop, varying the degree off pressure in the brake pedal, so the car understands that, in that specific moment, you don't want it to stop. Off course, you may stop it if you want to...
eclampsium commented:
May 8, 2013, 8:52 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by nofuture View Post
I love this feature at the long and infrequent stop lights, rail road stops (when train is coming)

In a city driving with frequent stops and goes it gets annoying really fast. I think mellow/easy going drivers should not have problem with it.

Agressive drivers will hate it.


that's it. you nailed it perfectly!
kkapdolee commented:
May 8, 2013, 9:52 pm

Tim,

Can we be assured that BMW engineers created the Auto Start Stop in a way that frequently using it doesn't wear out certain parts of the car much quicker than not using it at all?
I worry about the potential wear more than anything.

Thanks
tim330i commented:
May 8, 2013, 9:55 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by kkapdolee View Post
Tim,

Can we be assured that BMW engineers created the Auto Start Stop in a way that frequently using it doesn't wear out certain parts of the car much quicker than not using it at all?
I worry about the potential wear more than anything.

Thanks
Assured, no, not really. That being said it is possible they figured it out, absolutely. Would using ASS worry me for the long term, no.

Tim
fradzz commented:
May 8, 2013, 11:48 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by CE750Jockey View Post
Whether you like it or not is a personal thing, I guess. What I hate is that you can't permanently turn it off. Give us the damn choice! Is that too much to ask?!
Off subject! Love your logo, good to see another Braves fan!
M_terkait commented:
May 9, 2013, 6:19 am

Quote:
Originally Posted by nofuture View Post

In a city driving with frequent stops and goes it gets annoying really fast. I think mellow/easy going drivers should not have problem with it.

Agressive drivers will hate it.
i agree with you i hate it when i drive my sister car ;p although she keeps it on without a problem
rtobin7265 commented:
November 25, 2013, 1:44 pm

So if I'm reading this correctly, in cold climates or winter driving conditions there is a possibility that the feature would never work...correct. Below 37F.
Snareman commented:
November 25, 2013, 2:32 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by rtobin7265 View Post
So if I'm reading this correctly, in cold climates or winter driving conditions there is a possibility that the feature would never work...correct. Below 37F.
I think once the car is warmed up it might start working. It just won't work, as I understand it, until the car is warm. I'll have mine back tomorrow and barring the snow they say is coming here to Ohio, I may get to try it some.
gkr778 commented:
November 25, 2013, 2:44 pm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snareman View Post
I think once the car is warmed up it might start working. It just won't work, as I understand it, until the car is warm.
This was exactly what I experienced when I drove my 320i yesterday in ambient temperatures of 29 to 32 F (-1.7 to 0 C). Once the engine reached operating temperature and I shut off the seat heater, auto start stop worked like a champ.