Goodbye to start-stop systems – the EPA under Trump concludes that they are not worth it and could disappear from new models Goodbye to start-stop systems – the EPA under Trump concludes that they are not worth it and could disappear from new models The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) has spoken, and what was once an open secret now makes much more sense: stop-start systems in cars are useless. No, they’re not useful, they were supposedly designed to reduce fuel consumption when the car is idle but, let’s be honest, they’re pretty annoying.Now, the Trump administration has launched a crusade against these systems, which have been added to cars for more than 15 years. The EPA argues that they provide little or no real benefit in terms of emissions and that all they really do is wear down engine components. What stop-start systems were supposed to promise The idea was simple: eliminate fuel consumption during idling (when the car is stopped but still on, like at traffic lights or yield signs), especially in urban environments.This practice became popular in the early 2000s, when the U.S. Department of Energy and Argonne National Laboratory claimed that a car could consume up to half a gallon per hour while idling. They also claimed that automatically turning off the engine when the vehicle stops and turning it back on when it moves again could save between 4% and 10% of fuel in the city… far from reality.Included in every car Although it started as a premium feature, today 65% of cars sold in the USA have this system, compared to just 1% in 2012. In Europe and Japan, the number goes beyond 90%! And although it’s not legally required, manufacturers receive fuel economy credits for including it, and where there’s money, well, we know how that goes. The EPA hits the brakes Now, after years of research, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin stated that the system barely reduces emissions and causes premature wear on the starter motor (which makes sense, it starts more often, even several times within an hour). Although many tons of CO₂ savings have been estimated annually, the reality is that this system had many shortcomings, starting with the fact that it’s uncomfortable and annoying. And honestly… the fuel savings weren’t that great, estimated between 4% and 5%. Was it really that annoying? It was said that this system worked better in dense urban commutes, obviously, there are more stops than on a regular highway, where the system is irrelevant. Still, it’s annoying. Many drivers deactivate it due to discomfort or fear of it failing. The early versions were clunky and slow, and although they’ve improved, people still don’t like them. The future of stop-start: end of the road? It’s clear that brands started adding this system because of the incentives (not because they liked it) but now, if the EPA removes the credits that reward its use, brands will likely choose to eliminate it from future models. Especially now that we’re moving closer to an electric future, something that would make this system obsolete and unnecessary. Failed bet? At the time, they represented an attempt to reduce emissions, but now that electrification and hydrogen are just around the corner, we can say that these stop-start systems did their job and can now be put to rest (finally). What did the experts say? According to Consumer Reports, for example, it depended on the specific vehicle. They pointed out the pros and cons of the system but admitted that in many cases the system was inconsistent and, as we’ve said, very annoying. We’ll have to wait and see if this is a final goodbye (at least in our country, because Europe and China will probably continue using it) and whether we’ll miss it or feel relieved. And you, what do you think of the stop-start system? Did you find it annoying too?