Engine & Transmission Post your Engine and Transmission related problems here.

So is it worthwhile to shut off or keep idling?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Mar 22, 2010 | 08:13 PM
  #1  
musclecar70sfan's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Starting Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 112
From: Central Connecticut
musclecar70sfan is on a distinguished road
Default So is it worthwhile to shut off or keep idling?

Hey guys, well I don't really have a "technical" problem here so to speak, but I always wondered... when I'm waiting in a bank drive-through or something, should I keep idling or shut my engine off to save fuel? I'm there for usually about 2 or 3 minutes at a time... depending if there's a line or not. I heard from a few people that cars use a considerable amount of fuel to start. What's the "cut-off" time? Meaning how long would the car have to idle to make it worthwhile to shut off? And if it makes a difference, my truck is a 94 S15 Jimmy with the 4.3 Vortec CPI. Thanks!
 
Old Mar 22, 2010 | 08:29 PM
  #2  
zedartwo's Avatar
Super Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,639
From: South End Barrie, Ontario, Canada
zedartwo will become famous soon enough
Default

A guy I work with did a study on this in university. He found that vehicles manufactured after 1985 don't use any more gas starting than the initial rev of the engine. Can you notice a difference in fuel consumption when you rev your engine once? That was his outlook on it, and I trust him.
 
Old Mar 22, 2010 | 09:56 PM
  #3  
Spectreblazer's Avatar
Banned
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,162
Spectreblazer is on a distinguished road
Default

why do you think hybrids shut off?

idling= 0mpg
shutoff=infinite mpg (your not going anywhere and your not consuming any fuel)
 
Old Mar 22, 2010 | 10:16 PM
  #4  
TriBlaKer's Avatar
Beginning Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 49
TriBlaKer is on a distinguished road
Default

I always find i Use very little gas just idling. I had put in enough for a half tank the other day and had done some daily driving, then encountered my tranny problem, so since then i had only been idling it in the drive way. The needle hasnt seemed to move much really
 
Old Mar 22, 2010 | 10:27 PM
  #5  
Ryanmatt135's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 584
From: Syracuse, New York
Ryanmatt135 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

I was told by my old auto teacher that its better to shut your engine off if you plan on idiling for more than 5 minutes, otherwise leave it running beacuse it will consume more gas trying to start up. He just retired and he worked on mostly carberated vehicles in his life, so that "after 1985 thing" is probally correct, but this makes me think about modern vehicles and how after a few minutes they go into closed loop. For the minute or two until the o2 warms up (open loop), i would think that their would be alot more fuel consumption as opposed to closed loop, so maybe it was 5 minutes with carberuated cars, but do you really use 2 minutes gas on start up as you do waiting for the car to go into closed loop? Probally not so i would say shut it down to save fuel, but thats just what i think.
 
Old Mar 23, 2010 | 02:26 PM
  #6  
musclecar70sfan's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Starting Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 112
From: Central Connecticut
musclecar70sfan is on a distinguished road
Default

Originally Posted by Spectreblazer
why do you think hybrids shut off?
True but I didn't even consider that since hybrids are quite a bit newer than my Jimmy and they have tiny 3-4 cylinder engines (well, at least most of them do). But thanks for the help guys! I guess if I'm gonna gonna be sitting for more than a few minutes I'll just shut 'er down.
 
Old Mar 23, 2010 | 02:56 PM
  #7  
swartlkk's Avatar
Administrator
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 41,331
From: Waterloo, NY
swartlkk has a reputation beyond reputeswartlkk has a reputation beyond reputeswartlkk has a reputation beyond reputeswartlkk has a reputation beyond reputeswartlkk has a reputation beyond reputeswartlkk has a reputation beyond reputeswartlkk has a reputation beyond reputeswartlkk has a reputation beyond reputeswartlkk has a reputation beyond reputeswartlkk has a reputation beyond reputeswartlkk has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Considering the wear and tear on the ignition switch and starter coupled with the minuscule fuel consumption when idling, I would just leave it running.

If I wanted to dig around enough, I'm sure I could find the article I read a while back about a study done by a NYC cab company on this very topic. IIRC, they concluded that it was better for their equipment to leave things running unless they were actually parked.
 
Old Mar 23, 2010 | 02:59 PM
  #8  
musclecar70sfan's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Starting Member
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 112
From: Central Connecticut
musclecar70sfan is on a distinguished road
Default

Originally Posted by swartlkk
Considering the wear and tear on the ignition switch and starter coupled with the minuscule fuel consumption when idling, I would just leave it running.

If I wanted to dig around enough, I'm sure I could find the article I read a while back about a study done by a NYC cab company on this very topic. IIRC, they concluded that it was better for their equipment to leave things running unless they were actually parked.
Oh yeah, I forgot to ask about wear-and-tear too. Makes sense.
 
Old Mar 23, 2010 | 03:00 PM
  #9  
swartlkk's Avatar
Administrator
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 41,331
From: Waterloo, NY
swartlkk has a reputation beyond reputeswartlkk has a reputation beyond reputeswartlkk has a reputation beyond reputeswartlkk has a reputation beyond reputeswartlkk has a reputation beyond reputeswartlkk has a reputation beyond reputeswartlkk has a reputation beyond reputeswartlkk has a reputation beyond reputeswartlkk has a reputation beyond reputeswartlkk has a reputation beyond reputeswartlkk has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Considering the already somewhat weak ignition switch in these trucks... You don't want to start it more than you have to.
 
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
spear11
2nd Generation S-series (1995-2005) Tech
2
Jun 23, 2013 07:32 AM
bscott1234
General Chat
5
Sep 7, 2012 03:33 PM
NYCJUDGE
New Member Area
1
Aug 28, 2011 04:35 PM
musclecar70sfan
1st Generation S-series (1983-1994) Tech
3
Nov 9, 2010 02:17 AM
FJ40sRock
Engine & Internal
2
Mar 18, 2006 12:59 AM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:12 PM.