NooYawkuh

On mine, Sport+ always defaults back to Sport on the next startup. But Sport persists.

Alias1431

Ah, maybe I'm thinking of the X3.

Midnight Mystery

I don't even see how it was released with this defect... It didn't take long for members here to encounter this either so it must happen occasionally, too...


These features are in place to make the driver be more relaxed, not give them.a heart attack when it lurches forward on it's own for no (obvious) reason...

DriverOne

This is the first car I've owned that has start stop. I hate it, particularly the way that it stops the engine when I brake to park and then restarts it when I put the car into park. (I did see the poster who recommended just turning off the car after braking, but that's just really strange to me. I really really need to put it into park.) But just in terms of driving experience, when you're stopped and the car has to restart before you drive, it's also sort of irritating. It's just a second, but it's still jarring. I looked into it online and got much of the information that was in this thread: Yes, it saves fuel. No, it doesn't save as much fuel as you think it does. Yes, there's a question of how much stress it puts on starters and so forth. Apparently, the jury is out because engineers have specifically designed the parts to accommodate the vastly increased amounts of starting and stopping, but nobody knows "real world" what that means for a car that has been driven for 10 years.

All I know is this: probably the best circumstance for a start stop system would be if you were stopped for a relatively long time in one position. For example, if you had a traffic light at a busy intersection that takes a minute or two to change. That I buy. But if you're in heavy stop-and-go traffic, you're stopping and then inching up literally every few seconds and half of those stops activate the start stop system. So the only time I would ever activate my start stop system would be if I was stopped for like a road crew or accident and I knew I would be stopped for a long time without moving. (Although, really, in that case, before stop start, I would just turn off the car and it was the exact same thing.)

JB in AZ

It bears repeating that if you have the HVAC temp set at LO, the auto idle stop will not engage.

DriverOne

I didn't know that, but at the same time I'm trying to up my fuel economy at all costs. I don't use my A/C unless I have to, but I would definitely take your advice if I lived in the southwest.

Wander

Not to mention, if you push the button on the console with the curly arrow symbol, at sometime after you start the car, the auto idle stop will not engage.

AFAIK it has the most benefit in inner city stop-and-go traffic, especially at traffic lights.

For stop-and-go traffic on "highway turned into parking lot", you would want adaptive cruise with low-speed-follow to be able to take your foot off the brake pedal while creeping along in traffic. AFAIK RDX doesn't have this.

I can't remember what "auto brake hold" is supposed to be good for ( traffic lights? ), but RDX does have this.

DriverOne

Auto brake hold (which I've actually never used) is for being able to leave the car on without holding down the brake. That's different from auto start stop, which turns off the engine but you need your foot on the brake otherwise you will restart the engine and the car will start idling forward.

NooYawkuh

It will also not engage in Sport or Sport +.

DriverOne

No, it will engage in Sport. That's what I drive in. I have heard that it will not engage in Sport +, but I think most people would not want to drive in that mode routinely.

NooYawkuh

Correct. I've never had it engage is Sport+.

tecwerks

I love to drive in Sport+ mode all the time unless I am on a long road trip which also means that I do not have to deal with the Idle Stop nonsense.

NooYawkuh

As far I can tell, in Sport+, the transmission never seems to go past 8th gear. Even if I'm cruising on the highway at around 70 mph and I bump it up with the paddle, it stays in 8th. That's just wasting gas. So, I put in Comfort.

zroger73

Yeah, well, that's what makes it "sporty" and is why the vehicle won't stay in Sport+ after a restart.

Sporty or economical - choose only one.

Midnight Mystery

My 07 RDX locks out 5th gear in S mode... I think I can override that with the paddle, but still, I hate going 75 mph at 3.5K RPM because of it!


As a result, I rarely ever use it...


But my suspension is not electronically adjustable or anything...

vvraman

I am a little worried after reading the earlier posts that I may be putting myself at risk by using both Brake Hold and Auto Stop-Start at the same time. Is it possible that the car will start to move on its own when restarting automatically (due to air conditioning demand, for example), as the Brake Hold is cancelled when the car enters Auto Stop mode? I cannot believe Acura engineers did not think of this risk. Am I not reading something right?

Midwestuser1

Yes it can do this and it’s happened to me more than once.

Madd Dog

Happened to me, and I posted it months ago.

Do Not Combine the Two.

Frankly, having fully experimented with both, I use neither.

DriverOne

If you're going to pick one, go with the brake hold. My general philosophy in life is not to use features that were created solely to satisfy a government mandate which no consumer asked for.

Madd Dog

Between the two, you are right. But like the walk-away-lock, since my other car doesn’t have it, I don’t want to develop a new habit.

likerage

I use both and have had it lurch forward when starting with auto hold on. The car moves probably .25" which is .25" more than any other vehicle I've had but so little that anyone outside the vehicle would never notice. I think ya'll are being a little silly about this.

tangible

That has not been my experience. The first time it happened to me the car moved about two feet before I stopped it with the brake. It would have kept creeping forward, like any vehicle without brake hold, in Drive with neither pedal pressed. I do still use both, but I never rely on brake hold if there are pedestrians crossing in front of the car, or a passenger getting in or out. In those situations I keep my foot on the brake or put the transmission in Park.

Auto start/stop seems much more logical to me than the traditional system, in which we simultaneously expend energy to move the car and to restrain it when we don’t want it to be moving. If it results in less pollution and better fuel economy, who cares if it was in response to a government mandate? So were seat belts, which no one wanted and which have saved countless lives.

NooYawkuh

I don't use either one. I disable auto-stop immediately or as soon as I'm reminded by it. I would think a simple software update could make them mutually exclusive and probably should.

DriverOne

It's funny how certain people approach things by saying "our ideas are so good that you have to be forced to follow it" and other people approach them by saying "hey, maybe we should present people with this idea and see what they think about it." Maybe auto start/stop systems are great. If they are, then it seems to me that people would be persuaded to opt in to using them, rather than being forced to opt out from them.

Dizzyg12

So Do you avoid restaurants that put calories on the menu cuz that government mandated.

DriverOne

Although this is getting way off topic:

a) I've never been to a restaurant that puts calories on the menu because I haven't eaten at fast-food restaurants in years.
b) If I did go to such a restaurant, I wouldn't look at the calories on the menu because I wouldn't care.
c) Nobody who goes to such restaurants looks at the calories on the menus now that they put them on the menus because they also don't care.
d) Putting calories on the menu isn't the same as instituting mandatory auto stop-start. That one is informational and the other is an action that interferes with you.

If you want to discuss this further, I'm sure we can do so via PM so that it doesn't get us both in trouble with the mods. Thanks.

Madd Dog

I will eat at Panera’s, and they put calories on the menu. It does not change what I normally eat, but it does inform my decision when I want a change.

I don’t get upset at “the government” for making them post the calories.

likerage

Engine shut off feature is not mandated. You're free to buy brand new vehicles right now that dont have it.

DriverOne

To say that they aren't mandated is a little disingenuous because the reason they are around is primarily because of government mandates on fleet mileage. That doesn't mean that, for example, no manufacturer ever had it before then or that it was literally "put into place" by the government, but the government is essentially the reason we have it. It most certainly had nothing to do with consumer demand or satisfaction. Factually, if you offered it as an option on a car, I highly doubt anyone would choose it. It's basically like the claim that hybrids are popular. They're not, but also to the extent that anyone does buy them it's because there are huge taxpayer-funded incentives that underwrite them. On their own, even the relatively small numbers of hybrids being sold would be almost zero. But they're also around to make up numbers on fleet mileage.

tangible

Government requirements for fleet average mileage are, to me, an excellent example of enlightened public policy. The objective - reducing pollution - is an appropriate subject for legislation because it doesn’t intrude on choices that affect only the people who make them; we’re all breathing the same air. The method - allowing each manufacturer to choose how to reach the target instead of specifically mandating features like auto start/stop - preserves freedom of choice for manufacturers and consumers.

The larger question of how much regulation is right for society, essentially liberalism versus libertarianism, isn’t going to be solved in this forum. It’s why we have elections.

Madd Dog

I remember back in the sixites when everyone complained that smog control devices were killing cars. In places, you could almost cut the air. Now, locations that were were always smogged-in are often crystal clear. And the industry caught up, and muscle-car 0-60 times can be had by mundane family sedans and SUVs.

Not to mention that cars are also much safer.

DriverOne

Yeah, but that's actually a false type of comparison that people commonly use when discussing this subject. The choices are not "no government mandates and there's smog; or government mandates and there's no smog." People who are pro-government mandates like to view the issue in that manner, however. The two actual ways to look at the issue are:

1) Is it better? If so, then why are you unable to persuade the consumer to take the choice that you perceive is better, rather than just saying "I'll force them to take the 'better' choice"?
2) What's the cost of "better"? For example, you could argue that hybrids are "better" for the environment (which is a popular misconception that ignores the production, disposal, maintenance, and charging and only focuses narrowly on things like the exhaust), but that's not taking into account the actual cost. In actuality, it only even begins to approach believability if there is substantial underwriting of the cost at all levels.

Similarly, in terms of safety, it is undeniable that our vehicles are safer. But it's also undeniable that there's a large component of hysteria involved in the safety issue. For example, when it comes to seatbelts, let me make it absolutely clear that I 100% agree that if you are in an accident, a seatbelt may save your life. But if you step back and ask yourself how often you've been in an accident your entire life, most people would say "never." But people get extremely anxious if you even drive 5 feet without a seatbelt on like "are you crazy?? You're taking your life in your hands!!" Based on odds and probabilities, you could drive without a seatbelt and notice no difference in your life today. So it's rather questionable that we're safer due to government mandates on seatbelts, for example, even if at face value that sounds insane to say.

Factually, yes, if you do it long enough, you will get people to just use auto stop-start and consider it "normal" if you mandate it and make it cumbersome to avoid. But that doesn't mean it was "better." I mean, I could mandate nobody be allowed to have A/C and within 3 generations I'd get people to accept that, too.

Madd Dog

I personally turn off the stop start as part of the start up routine.

But I was also T-Boned in an accident when I was younger. A girl ran a stop sign and hit me on the drivers side. The 1970 (69?) Maverick had a lock on the flip-forward seats, and maybe a beam in the door, and it held. This was all during the Ralph Nader times, and to me, it made a huge difference in not getting injured.

Little annoyances like pressing a readily available button are OK with me. My bro-in-law has one of these start stop things on his car, and he is completely oblivious to it. So if the more-than-half of the mindless folks out there help Acura save some percentage towards their numbers, I am OK with that. Meeting numbers was something I had to do, and I understand that.

Midnight Mystery

I'm OK with start/stop if it has an off button...


I perfer to hear the starter when I start the car, then hear the engine until I turn it off manually...

DriverOne

I don't mind turning off the feature as part of my routine, but I do have two concerns that make me act semi-psycho. The first is that if you keep pressing the button, there's a decent chance that the labeling gets worn off, depending on the quality. I mean, if you think about it, you're pressing it at least twice a day, often. So I try to press it in places around the labeling. (This also aggravates me for the P button on the electronic shifter, btw.) The other thing is that the "off" light is then on the entire time you're driving. Since I don't want that to burn out, I actually end up turning off (or re-activating) auto stop-start once I hit the highway and will not use it, generally. Then I have to turn it back on once I exit the highway. If they just let me permanently disable the feature, I wouldn't have to do all of that. In actuality, I'm at a higher chance of being in an accident because if I have to come to an abrupt stop, I'll hit the "off" on the auto stop-start as I'm hitting the brakes. All that for mandated fuel economy that we're all getting around anyways.

NooYawkuh

Is it me or are there more incidents, than ever before, of cars being driven into restaurants, convenience stores, shopping centers, etc.? It seems I hear about one on the local news almost every day. Maybe it's an aging population, or more people of all ages attending to their messaging app. Or maybe people are using some of these newer features but their operation is not part of the second nature they've had since they started driving.

I've never used the brake hold feature and I never will. First of all, I don't see it as being the least bit useful. Why do I need to, ... why would I want to take my foot off the brake while I'm sitting at a light? If I do, for ANY reason, I'll put the car in Park. The idea that the car is in gear with my foot off the brake and I "expect" the car not to move, goes against every fundamental since I learned to drive. So much of driving becomes muscle memory and instinct. Why would I now introduce a new variable that is neither safer (it's not) nor intuitive?



Good example of over-thinking right there. Just step on the brake.

tangible

Cars are changing, and we need to change too. I learned how to drive in icy conditions using techniques that now, with the advent of computer-controlled braking and torque allocation systems, actually would reduce safety and increase stopping distance. I also know how to double-clutch a non synchro-mesh transmission.

The idea that a car creeps forward unless you exert pressure to hold it back is nuts. We’re just used to it, so it seems normal. Even a well trained horse knows better.

Madd Dog

I considered that. But my driveway would be unwalkable and stink to high heaven. So I am sticking with the automobile.

NooYawkuh

Some people think that a wide open Sun roof that stays open when it starts to rain is nuts. Guess I'm just not ready for the new normal.

https://acurazine.com/forums/third-g...o-dumb-980553/

DriverOne

I had never used brake hold, but since everyone was talking about it and also I wanted to at least try everything out in this car once, I used it. I agree that it's definitely not intuitive. The first time I used it, I tried it out on an empty street just to see how it worked. It's weird stopping and then taking your foot off the brake. I did try it out in traffic and it did work, but I ultimately stopped using it because I felt like it would be picking up a bad habit if I was driving in someone else's car that didn't have brake hold. Or, I think you have to activate it, so I can see it being a big problem if you forgot to turn it on one day. But I think it does have use. If you're doing a lot of stopping and starting, it does let you just sit around without your foot down. So you just stop, lift your foot, then drive, then stop, lift your foot. And as soon as you hit a red light, you just lift your foot. It's not that bad.

But I don't want my auto stop-start to kick in ...