BSD
New member
So I'm sure we've all heard the old "don't shut it down, it takes more fuel to start it again then if you just idled" advice. Based on what I've found (and feel free to correct me) with today's modern fuel-injected engines if you're sitting for longer than 30 seconds it's better to just turn it off in terms of fuel savings.
Now, my question is, what kind of wear does constant on-off-on cycles have on an engine? The closest answer I have ever found is here:
Idling Your Car
However considering that they are environmentalists pretty sure they care more about that .01% less pollution than any (possibly significant) additional wear on an engine. I haven't been able to find out where the got the "only $10 more a year" figure.
Now, my dad has a Suburban (post 2000, forget the exact year) and whenever we went on big trips it was started once and pretty much never turned off until we arrived. If we stopped for food (Edit: Just to clarify, we would get food and keep driving, not sit in a restaurant with it idling) or gas he would let it idle until we left unless we would be there for at least 30 minutes (which pretty much never happened). His argument was that shutting it down would kill the cooling system and allow the engine temp to climb then turning it back on it would be running at a higher than spec temp causing more wear than had you just left it running.
Always made sense to me until I read here about thermosiphoning (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosiphon) so perhaps it's better to just turn it off? Consumer Energy Center argues idling causes wear, but how much exactly? It's bad enough that I drive less than a mile to work and during the week my sonic rarely gets up to operating temp if at all...
Also, as a bonus question, my other ride is a KLR650. For the unfamiliar, it's a 1980s designed carbureted, liquid cooled (OOooo High tech!!!1!), 650cc dual sport motorcycle. I remember hearing somewhere that starting is harder on a carbureted motor....No idea if it's true. I've always let it idle, just like my car, unless whatever I'm doing is going to take longer than 10 minutes.
If anybody knows of any studies done or articles, all the better.
opcorn:
Now, my question is, what kind of wear does constant on-off-on cycles have on an engine? The closest answer I have ever found is here:
Idling Your Car
However considering that they are environmentalists pretty sure they care more about that .01% less pollution than any (possibly significant) additional wear on an engine. I haven't been able to find out where the got the "only $10 more a year" figure.
Now, my dad has a Suburban (post 2000, forget the exact year) and whenever we went on big trips it was started once and pretty much never turned off until we arrived. If we stopped for food (Edit: Just to clarify, we would get food and keep driving, not sit in a restaurant with it idling) or gas he would let it idle until we left unless we would be there for at least 30 minutes (which pretty much never happened). His argument was that shutting it down would kill the cooling system and allow the engine temp to climb then turning it back on it would be running at a higher than spec temp causing more wear than had you just left it running.
Always made sense to me until I read here about thermosiphoning (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermosiphon) so perhaps it's better to just turn it off? Consumer Energy Center argues idling causes wear, but how much exactly? It's bad enough that I drive less than a mile to work and during the week my sonic rarely gets up to operating temp if at all...
Also, as a bonus question, my other ride is a KLR650. For the unfamiliar, it's a 1980s designed carbureted, liquid cooled (OOooo High tech!!!1!), 650cc dual sport motorcycle. I remember hearing somewhere that starting is harder on a carbureted motor....No idea if it's true. I've always let it idle, just like my car, unless whatever I'm doing is going to take longer than 10 minutes.
If anybody knows of any studies done or articles, all the better.
Last edited: