DonJuan: like you, I'm not a fan of Stop/Start. It claims to be better for the environment, but I wonder if anyone has looked at the "womb-to-tomb" lifecycle of the facility for a net benefit.
From my understanding of the facility, more energy is needed in the life cycle of stop/start because:
- you need larger battery from the outset,
- the battery must be charged more often
- if you are correct about reduced battery life, battery replacement is sooner
- you need a more robust starter motor from the outset
- the starter motor may have to be replaced more often (not sure about this)?
On the reverse side of the equation, there is an obvious fuel saving when the engine is not running.
The question is - is there actually a net benefit over the life of the vehicle? Or perhaps the better question is: how much stop-start traffic do you need to get a net benefit (and how many of us actually experience that level of stop-start traffic)?
Bookmarks