• Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
  • Image Credit: Drew Phillips
Ford has gone all-in on its efforts to offer most of its new vehicles with a fuel-efficient EcoBoost engine, but the automaker is reportedly preparing to take another big step toward improving vehicle efficiency. Automotive News is reporting that Ford will soon expand the availability of start-stop technology, which was first offered – presumably the first non-hybrid vehicle, that is – on the 2013 Fusion (equipped with the 1.6-liter EcoBoost engine) as a $295 option.

The benefit of start-stop is reduced fuel consumption as it shuts the engine off at long stops, and AN quotes Ford as saying that drivers can save more than $1,000 on fuel costs over five years. Despite this, the option hasn't been popular on the Fusion thus far, but it could be more beneficial on bigger vehicles like the F-150. Ford also said that the next-gen Edge, which was previewed in concept form at the LA Auto Show, will be equipped with auto start-stop to help make the EcoBoost engines even more efficient.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 101 Comments
      Master Austin
      • 1 Year Ago
      I've tested it on a friends new Fusion as a driver and passenger, she's not "that" connected to the vehicle as I would be but it wasn't very hard for me to tell if it was on or off, if it's done correctly, 99% of the people out there won't notice it unless they looked at the dashboard.
      Pinhead
      • 1 Year Ago
      We have a hybrid (wife's car), and a completely conventional Civic and I commute to work on surface streets in San Diego. After getting used to the hybrid, it does seem like my civic wastes a lot of fuel idling at traffic lights. Hard to quantify exactly, but what I can say for sure is that our hybrid gets 40mpg in the city, and the civic on the same routes gets 20. So something about the hybrid is working pretty well.
      Mike Lee
      • 1 Year Ago
      Can it be defeated? If not, I'll never buy a Ford vehicle again . . .
        calstag
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Mike Lee
        Yes, it can.
          jz78817
          • 1 Year Ago
          @calstag
          BTW, the fact that it can be defeated by the user is one reason auto stop/start can't be enabled on the EPA fuel economy tests, and the benefits of s/s won't show on the sticker.
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @calstag
          JakeY... is the reason Stop/Start contibution is so small, because the EPA test cycle doesn't actually stop in a realistic manner? (i.e. stopping for a minute or two waiting for a light). The EPA's test was designed way before Stop/Start was imagined. Their City cycle is 31 minutes long. 28 stops Idling 18% of the time 5.58 minutes of Idling throughout the whole test About 12 seconds of idling per stop average http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml
        kmdk78
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Mike Lee
        I have driven an X3 "loaner" car and the sensation is disconcerting. Perhaps it takes some getting accustomed to but I would clearly pass on the option.
          Pinhead
          • 1 Year Ago
          @kmdk78
          The BMW system is a joke. Insane that such expensive cars sit there and crank like that when they restart the engine.
          calstag
          • 1 Year Ago
          @kmdk78
          BMW's s/s system is notorious for being one of the worst in the business with rough restarts, poor execution, etc.
          jz78817
          • 1 Year Ago
          @kmdk78
          having driven both, BMW's system sucks.
          Greg
          • 1 Year Ago
          @kmdk78
          The start-stop system was problem an engineering afterthought for BMW. BMW isn't as great as it used to be. A lot of their cars are just status symbols now without the sporty driving dynamics that they were once legendary for like on the new BMW 5-Series which apparently is more of a luxury boulevard cruiser than a luxury performance sedan.
      Phil
      • 1 Year Ago
      They don't mention that it can lead to worn out starters in record time too. Dumb idea.
        jz78817
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Phil
        yes, because Ford has no idea at all what stresses starter motors undergo, and also just plain forgot that a stop/start system will use the starter a lot more. And they certainly didn't see any need to do something useless like design/specify a more robust starter. Seriously, Phil, did you even *think* before posting that?
          King of Eldorado
          • 1 Year Ago
          @jz78817
          I won't speak for Phil, but over the years there have been plenty of examples of half-baked technology tacked onto existing cars without being fully developed. I'm thinking of several disasters of the 1980s and ''90s, such as the Cadillac V-4-6-8, various GM diesels that were essentially poorly modified gas engines, and the fragile turbos of that era added in the name of magical boosts to power and mileage. Now, of course, we finally have reliable cylinder deactivation, diesels, and turbos. I had a Honda hybrid for 4 years and the stop-start worked perfectly, but it used the hybrid's electric motor, not the starter, and was designed for it from the beginning. There is some basis for concern about the long-term durability of stop-start added to existing engines. You can say, "well, it's not the 1980s anymore," but only time will tell for sure.
        Naturenut99
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Phil
        Prius and several other cars have had start/stop for 13 years now. No issues. Get over it. No one has had any real issues with, except in their own head. As JZ said....THEY DESIGN IT STRONGER TO BE START/STOPPED.
      truckguy
      • 1 Year Ago
      I will never trust a ford. My one brother now knows to save for a new transmission at 70000 miles, 10th truck like clockwork they are good at one thing I will give them that.
      HtCRaCk
      • 1 Year Ago
      This one looks like a Santa Fe with Ford badge on it.
      heavychevy
      • 1 Year Ago
      lol how have we ever survived without saveing 0.002 gallons of gas at a stoplight?! forget stop-start, ford needs to fix that whack suv styling first.
      al4gg10
      • 1 Year Ago
      Ford certainly has enough Quality / Reliability problems than to add another feature which will prove to be just another problem area ! Ford never should have released the new designs on the public without doing significant reliability testing FIRST ! Their automatic transmission problems are among the worst in the business ! The highway steering issues have also caused Big Problems for unsuspecting Owners. If you want to put a Ford on your list of cars you must really test drive the heck out of them to make sure its THE vehicle to BUY.
      David
      • 1 Year Ago
      As long as I can defeat it.
        Joeviocoe
        • 1 Year Ago
        @David
        People so resistant to any change. If it has even the hint of green... they want no part of it. Wasting money on gasoline, just out of spite? Just write me a check and be done with it.
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          When you bought your first car... were you complaining about the technology and it being "overly-complicated" then... NO! You are just proving my point that people are afraid of "CHANGE"... not the complication of the equipment.
          2 wheeled menace
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          If people don't like complex cars, then they should buy an electric.. 1 moving part in the motor, vs hundreds of moving parts in a gasoline engine, plus all sorts of sensors, hoses, etc. My electric motor's interface has 3 wires and a rotating shaft - that's it..
          Jesus!
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          I think it is more than likely the fact that vehicles are becoming extremely complex and overly-complicated. When you have 15 computers in a car and they want to add more stuff? Sheesh!
      Teleny411
      • 1 Year Ago
      I really have hated this in rental cars. I can't see buying a vehicle with it. Guess ill be driving vintage, lol.
      jebibudala
      • 1 Year Ago
      Ford has been using this for years overseas. Personally I feel it's just another potential failure point (ie, clutch switch, gear switch, brake switch, whatever other logic is required to start the engine up again). Any failure whatsoever would instantly nullify the cost savings benefit in fuel, probably in the tow alone. Auto manufacturers are forced to push the envelope of new unproven technologies into production due to government regulation, whether safety or strict EPA mandates. Right now they are doing anything and everything to meet the CAFE 2015 standards. Unfortunately it costs manufacturers tons of money in lawsuits and recalls, driving the cost up for newer vehicles. Powershift transmissions are a good example, they get that extra fraction of a MPG better economy over a traditional automatic with the trade of comfort and reliability. Want those nice upgraded rims in the make/model you really like? Too bad, because the low resistance tires aren't made in the size you want. Oh a spare tire isn't included because the additional weight adversely effects the MPG during testing. Ultimately government mandates limits consumer choices.
        2 wheeled menace
        • 1 Year Ago
        @jebibudala
        You already have a clutch switch, gear switch, and brake switch in your car. You already have a battery and an alternator. It's not an unproven technology either, it's been around for well over a decade.
        JIM J
        • 1 Year Ago
        @jebibudala
        The reason start-stop has not been mainstream here is because there is no benefit to CAFE figures. There is no reason to introduce this technology when it doesn't matter and the money can be spent elsewhere to improve economy. When the average falls below the CAFE mandate it costs Ford 10s of millions every year. And actually start-stop is a good idea whose time has come, particularly in city, stop and go driving. However, It's my understanding CAFE standards will incorporate start-stop into their mpg requirement at some point soon, although I don't know when that is. Ford is just trying to squeeze every bit of economy these days, just like every other mfgr. And it's pretty important for Ford since their MPG figures for hybrids have been off the mark resulting in bad press. Anything they can do to enhance their image and MPG while being ahead of the masses, they are going to do and start-stop is one way to help. Given it's been around in Ford's European products for awhile, it shouldn't be too difficult to incorporate here.
        2 wheeled menace
        • 1 Year Ago
        @jebibudala
        I already have those parts in my cars, and one is from 1996, the other is from 1998.. ( how do you think that a manual transmission car figures out when to turn off cruise control and activate the brake lights? )
        Joeviocoe
        • 1 Year Ago
        @jebibudala
        Yeah, the mandate for catalytic converters has been such an epic failure to reduce pollution in major cities.... /sarc
          2 wheeled menace
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Joeviocoe
          Apples and Oranges.. catalytic converters are a collective way to reduce externalities. They had to be put in place since there was no fee structure for choking out the city with your car. They could have naturally been selected by manufacturers and consumers if there was a market initiative.. ..in fact, Honda figured out how to tune their engines to produce equivalently low emissions *without* a catalytic converter before they were mandated. CVCC could have been used instead, also direct injection and variable valve timing could have came much sooner too to solve the problem. Electric cars could have been developed in the 1970's as well - all these technologies were there. Instead, we got choked engines which remained poorly tuned for decades, which used more oil to operate, instead of looking for high hanging fruit. Yeah - catalytic converters were the only way to reduce smog!
      jbm0866
      • 1 Year Ago
      Call me crazy, but I simply can't warm up to the idea of my engine shutting down unless I'm parked and ready to get out..
        Joeviocoe
        • 1 Year Ago
        @jbm0866
        You are not crazy... just someone afraid of change. There were many horse riders who didn't like the feel of new-fangled horseless carriages. Your kind will simply fade away.
    • Load More Comments