Mailbag: Can The Stop/Start System In The 2014 Chevy Malibu Run Out Of Power?
84
Sponsored Links
When it launches in the fall of 2013, the refreshed 2014 Chevy Malibu will be the first sedan in its class to offer a stop/start system as standard equipment in the United States. To conserve fuel, the system shuts off the 2.5 liter I4 (LCV) engine when the Malibu comes to a stop, with all electric accessories, such as air conditioning, radio, and lights, among others, continuing to work via the auxiliary battery. As soon as the driver lifts his or her foot off the brake pedal, the powerplant springs back to life.
Since learning about the system, several GM Authority readers have written in asking about the behavior of the stop/start system in the event that the auxiliary battery doesn’t have enough power to continue running the air conditioning (or other accessories), and how the system works in stop-and-go traffic. So we reached out to Chevrolet spokesman Chad Lyons for clarification, who was kind enough to provide a great explanation of the logic employed by the stop/start system. In a word, the setup as seen in the 2014 Malibu is smart, and won’t let you down. Here are the details.
Battery Charge
By far the most common question we’ve seen thus far as it relates to the stop/start system in the ‘Bu concerns its functionality during a state of low battery charge.
As it turns out, the Malibu monitors the state of charge to determine whether or not it should shut the engine off. If the battery cannot maintain the car’s current accessory load (AC speed, other load) for at least 2 minutes, then the engine won’t be shut off. Furthermore, if the electric load increases when the car is already stopped and the engine is off, and the system determines the battery state of charge will reach its threshold, then then engine will turn back on.
To note, the auxiliary battery only powers electrical accessories momentarily during engine cranking (AutoStart).
Stop and Go Traffic
The other common question about the Malibu’s stop/start system surrounds its behavior in stop-and-go traffic.
To that end, the system is smart enough to monitor inputs like vehicle speed, the operation of the climate control system, and the force a driver applies to the brake pedal to determine whether it is efficient to shut off the engine in certain driving conditions, like during stop-and-go driving situations.
Vehicle speed is another factor that’s taken into consideration. In a situation like stop-and-go-traffic, for instance, a vehicle will usually stop, then move slowly, then stop again. The Malibu’s system monitors speed to understand that the vehicle is in stop-and-go-traffic, and that the engine should not shut off.
The result isn’t only a stop/start system that’s smart, but one that delivers 25 MPG in the city, 36 MPG on the highway, and 29 MPG combined — a rather noteworthy accomplishment since the 2.5 liter engine is one of the more powerful base engines in the U.S. midsize sedan segment.
The GM Authority Take
That’s some great stuff, Chevy! In fact, we can already see an ad for this, with the outro tagline saying, “That’s American ingenuity to Find New Roads.”
Plus, we’d love to see the technology be added to more Chevrolets, and GM vehicles in general. The Buick Regal and Cadillac ATS seem like worthy candidates.
- Sweepstakes Of The Month: Win a 2023 Corvette Z06 Convertible. Details here.
Sponsored Links
To save gas and reduce loading on the engine and the automatic transmission (and reduce braking effort), I shift into Neutral when I have to stop at a traffic light, then shift back into Drive as the light turns green. Does this new system detect such shifting and also stop the engine?
I totally agree that GM should add “Start/Stop” or “eAssist” to every vehicle in their product line that isn’t EREV or BEV. As owners sample how effective some electrification helps (as a light hybrid), they will buy an EREV or BEV in the future.
If you’re driving an automatic and its going to shut off the engine why would you put the car into neutral anymore?
I only ever placed my car in neutral when driving a manual, or before tune ups when the engine would shake so badly it felt more comfortable in neutral.
Start and stop only works when the transmission is in drive.
My question is when this system fails how expensive will it be to fix. In a $80,000 high tech repairs are less an issue but a base model Malibu will it be worth investing a large amount of money for a expensive repair.
As for shifting into neutral if you are saving anything it is so small you will never see the difference. Also to those who shift into neutral on the road coasting down if you have Direct Injection you are hurting MPG more than helping. DI shuts the fuel off if you coast down and saves gas. If you put it in neutral and coast the fuel is not cut off.
I just wonder if this is another thing like motorized seat belts that will appear for a short while and go away.
I have driven theses systems since back when it appeared in the Truck Hybrids. It will be interesting to see if the public really takes to this or if they will resist it. I expect in California it will do fine but in the states away from Salt Water many will not take to it so easily. If anything it could hurt sales.
My wife drove one in a Buick when we were shopping and while not appalled by it she did not really want it. I thought this was an interesting take on it as I had never said a word and only the salesman was her first information on this.
To me it while it may be a fine system I want to see what the repair cost of the most common failed parts will be. After seeing this I can make a better judgment.
I am already seeing my In laws spend a fortune on a DTS with many electric parts failures.
Spot on comments, I don’t trust GM with this “V8-6-4” technology. ALL the Cadillacs I’ve owned (3) had electrical part failures- no surprise it still happens. What is an out-of-warranty module diagnosis & repair these days, $450?
GM is doing this because of Obama’s RIDICULOUS CAFE standards. Don’t blame GM for this stupidity, blame your own idiotic voting. Had Romney got in, all this nonsense would have gone away and the pipeline we needed would have got the green light. Too bad the avergae voter is too stupid to connect the dots now. Bottom line, not GM’s fault, BUT they have a poor track record with new technology.
I hate Obama too, but had Romney got in lets just say GM probably wouldn’t be where it is today. . . .
What does Obama have to do with anything. So I guess your stupid ass is gonna vote for Tramp.
I have a 2014 malibu, 2400 miles and already in the shop for a fix on the alleged auto stop. It’s a hunk of junk if you want to know. It stopped shutting off the motor after it reached 2000 miles. The rental car they gave me, also a 2014 malibu…same issue. System never shuts down the motor. Interestingly the rental has 2400 miles on it as well. Coincidence. Doubt it, it’s a faulty system at best. And while it was working, if you want to call it that, it would shut down at the worst times and then not at the most opportune ones. I couldn’t figure out how it makes any determination as to when to shut down and not to. I think GM employed a chimp to decide. Terrible design with clearly no testing. Again yet another debacle from GM, maybe after the next bailout they will take a lesson from their much more reliable import friends and actually use the money handed to them to build something resembling the cars they built in the 60’s.
many new cars, including the Cruze and the Focus (idk about the Malibu) automatically put the tranny in neutral when stopped, no need to do that manually. You can feel it engage when taking your foot off the brake. When stopped on slight incline, you even feel (although ever to slight) a little rollback.
Thanks, for the heads up – Ran out and traded the 2011 for a 2013 Malibu. Ever been rear ended at a stop light or stop sign? Probably not the person that signed off on this mod. The only reason I’m not in a wheelchair and my children grew to adulthood was because my Chevy didn’t. Next time sitting at a stop light in your shiny 2014 Malibu with start stop technology all smug saving gasoline and the Earth, glance into the rear view mirror and envision a semi barreling down on you at speed with brakes locked, air horn blaring and smoke from burning rubber pouring from the wheel wells. If I hadn’t stomped on the 350 and gained the extra 50 -100 feet of distance before impact in the time your 2014 would still be -cranking I would have lost my children and life instead of the just the vehicle’s trunk area. The next thing the genius designer who thought of this should invent is rear air bags. If I’m not mistaken some Japenese car makers tried this in the late 70s as a gas saving measure….ever bother to find out why they dumped the idea?
I had the exact same thought. Just how fast does the engine start up and get the big car moving if you stomp on the gas to get out of an emergency situation?
It may not be a common occurrence, but probably most drivers in their lives have experienced at least one situation where very quick movement from a standing start was needed to get out of an emergency situation. How will stop/start respond in such a situation?
Bought a Malibu just a few weeks ago. In short hate this feature Hate it – have been driving many years and when your car stalls it freaks you out – gotten to the point that i just tap the brake pedal repeatedly so it wont shut down at lights or exit ramps sand such. Was planning on giving this car to my college age daughter but doubt I will keep it that long.Hopefully they will allow us to turn this system off somehow in the future
General Motors has thoroughly tested this Stop/Start system and it works just fine. Let it do what it is designed to do (shut the engine off to save gas) and it will fire right back up the second you take your foot off of the brake! My friends did a test with a 2014 Malibu 2LT and a 2011 Toyota Camry 2.5L to see just how fast the Stop/Start system is. They were sitting (Malibu off and Camry running), honked the horn three times and shot off for a quarter mile. The Malibu ended up winning by a door length. If you really hate this feature, you can try holding the emergency brake instead of the pedal at a stop light or go to the dealer and have them disconnect the battery completely.
I completely agree. The system works, and works very well. Not only does it note take anything away from the driving experience and not pose an inconvenience, but it is also great at improving fuel economy. The only downside is that some people aren’t used to having the engine off… but drive it for a week, and you get used to it. I don’t see a problem here.
Just got the 2015 Malibu LT. It now has 750 miles on it and the auto stop stopped working. And it was shutting the car off every single stop. I thought first of all, how can it efficient, and second of all, how long before the mechanism breaks. Googled it for the first time just now and sure enough, lol. I’m glad. It is a lease and covered bumper to bumper, but I don’t want it corrected. It was not behaving as intended. Most like the brake pedal sensor. Battery is full and it stopped working a few days ago. I’m very happy with the car otherwise. Great pick up with the 2.5 at 196 HP and awesome entertainment package with wifi.
Your full of it, it doesn’t work fine . My Malibu is a HUNK of JUNK this stupid system works when it wants to, it doesn’t save on has and it shutters like hell when it restarts. Never shut off once when I test drove it, and the salesman never told me about it
Same with me when I bought my 2015 Malibu LTZ the salesman never said a word and it didn’t start turning off until a few days after I got it home. Not a good idea GM. It’s a lease and I will be very happy when I turn it in. Will not buy another car blind like this again.
That said, almost every new car will have this feature… not just from GM/Chevrolet, but also from other manufacturers thanks to the stringent corporate average fuel economy standards set out by the government.
I had to have the dealership come and get my 2015 malibu eco because it almost got me into multiple wrecks during the exact scenario you are concerned about. The car would barely move when i hit the gas, then it took 3 to 4 seconds to actually go. Its terrifying………Side note, I have the loaner because my 2014 silverado is a lemon. GM is awful
This feature is terrible. We rented a car from Hertz, 2014 Chevy Malibu, and I agree it is down right scary!! Hertz never told us about feature. I finally figured out it was tied into brake system. I exchanged it for another car during trip as i was afraid the car would stall & we would get rear ended in traffic. We’ve had rentals go dead in water cause of computers in cars. I would never buy a car with this feature!
Car starts as soon as you take your foot off the brake. There is no delay
beside the cost of adding this technology and cost of repairing it, can I just turn it off completely so as to not be so annoyed by it…. off and on, off and on, off and on just to save a couple of bucks?
This is not GM’s STUPIDITY, they are doing this to please Obama and his EPA- if you end up dying, so what? Jimmy Carter and his boobs KILLED a bunch of people by MANDATING airbags be more powerful than they should have been- because they wanted to protect unbelted drivers. They ended up killing a bunch of children and shorter women. If you don’t vote for these idiots I feel sorry for you, if you do vote for them you deserve it.
Wait, Carter? Jimmy Carter? You’re blaming Jimmy Carter for airbags that were too strong?
Jimmy Carter won the 1976 election against Ford and his presidency ended when he lost to Reagan in 1980. Airbags did not become common in the US until the 1990’s. Whether Carter even knew what an airbag was when he was president, and whether his administration had anything to do with airbags, there was over a decade after he was long gone from the Oval Office for any errors to have been fixed.
I’m not a Democrat and I’m not here to defend any politician. But some things are just too preposterous to let by without a comment.
(Umm, did you by any chance mean Clinton? At least that would make some sense).
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-03-10/business/0303100007_1_suv-safety-air-bags-auto-industry
HenryE, You should learn history or how to Google something before you post a comment:
“Under Joan Claybrook, head of NHTSA under President Jimmy Carter, the government rushed to mandate air bags in cars. The reason: Occupants weren’t wearing their seat belts and needed protection.
The standard dictated that air bags inflate at a speed sufficient to protect a 175-pound adult male riding in the passenger seat unbelted.
So kids whose heads and necks weren’t sufficiently developed to withstand a 200-m.p.h. bag deployment were killed, until the industry asked and the government reluctantly agreed to allow less powerful bags in cars–and order kids to the back seat.”
That’s why I had written in my comment “…there was over a decade after he was long gone from the Oval Office for any errors to have been fixed.” I did not know about Joan Claybrook, but my point was not that nobody in the Carter administration knew about airbags (whether Carter himself knew or didn’t). My point was that there was over a decade between when Carter was out and we had successive Republican administrations, and when airbags started becoming popular in the 1990’s. So there was plenty of time to fix any mistakes the EPA under Carter made.
Switch it around: How annoyed were you when Obama’s people kept blaming all problems on Bush, saying they had inherited all these problems. At some point, didn’t you want them to just own the problems and fix them? And that was just 4 years, not over a decade. That’s why I objected when you blamed it all on Carter.
Anyway, we are actually probably in agreement about the main point of fuel savings mandates causing potential risks to people in cars. I just get annoyed when people take politics so personally they start to demonize the other side.
By the way, I was the one who gave you the thumbs up vote (for having the Chicago Tribune reference). I was not the one who gave you the downvote.
Airbags came on the ’73 Olds Tornado, ’84 Ford Tempo, and in ’88 Chrysler had them as standard equipment on some models, so Jimmy knew what they were. Many more cars got them in the 90’s, however, they weren’t required until 1998, so the Clinton theory seems to fit better. Many European cars that already had airbags had to make changes to meet that standard, because their own countries didn’t require protecting unbelted occupants.
As for comparing it to the 30 year old V8-6-4 technology, c’mon man, times have changed and technology has improved – there are millions of GM and Chrysler V8’s on the road with “modern” cylinder deactivation, rarely hear of a problem. On the other hand, I can’t say that I noticed a significant real-world MPG difference on trucks that I’ve owned with and with out cylinder deactivation. Often it takes this, that, and the other thing of small mpg improvement tech gadgets to add up to something that actually makes a difference, when each individual thing probably doesn’t make much difference.
almost forgot, Honda has cylinder deactivation on the V6’s too – V6-5-4!
My uncle is over 90 and a little forgetful, but one thing he never forgot was the trouble he had with his 4-6-8 Caddy. So, tell me all about GM’s modern cylinder deactivation technology. But, first check out some club forums for ’07 – ’10 series Chevy Avalanche, Tahoe, Surburbans and Silverado classes equipped with the aluminum V8 with Advanced Fuel Management (AFM)…..many owners cite the deactivation feature led to their severe oil burning problems and #1 and #7 plug and ring fouling on their vehicles in the 40K and up range. …..do a search on “oil burning” or “AFM”. Many have been turning off the AFM feature using an aftermarket programmer as a prophylactic measure. Accordingly, GM has had to do a lot of ring cleaning, piston replacement, baffle and valve cover installation under their warranty and those over 100K are SOL. I personally took a bath trading in an ’07 with 40K that was just starting to consume more oil (and I change w/Mobil 1 every 3K) on a ’13 Avalanche so I could get a “fixed” model with the new valve cover/PCV system, oil baffles in the crankcase and , modified lifters in the hope the problem is solved. And the real joke is that owners claim no difference in gas milage after they deactivate the 4/8 feature and GM cannot deactivate the feature for any owners because it would be considered an emission modification.
And I wish the” hill hold” feature on my ’12 and ’13 GM’s had something to do with a tranny modification……the new feature has nothing to do with the tranny……..if the sensor detects the vehicle is stopped on an incline the brake system pressure is maintained for 2 seconds after you release the pedals or until the gas is depressed….might be good for a novice manual tranny driver but useless for an experienced manual or automatic tranny driver…wonder what will happen if that screws up and the brakes don’t release.
You missed the point – V8-6-4 was 30 year old technology, you can’t expect a new iMac to perform the same as an Apple IIe just because they are both computers made by Apple. When millions of vehicles are produced (such as the last 6 years of cylinder deactivation V8’s), there are always going to be a few that didn’t turn out right for whatever reason, and those unfortunate few people are the ones who bitch on the blogs/forums, and most of those don’t know what they’re talking about, or don’t properly care for their vehicles. If it was really a significant problem, you’d be reading it on auto news web sites (or even general news), or else nobody would be buying Ram’s or GM trucks, which is clearly not the case.
It’s not a significant problem unless you are one of the poor souls stuck with an engine burning over a qt./mi. Never heard about the GM V8 heads made by one subcontractor prone to cracks either. And I don’t remember the mechanical 4-6-8 technology ever being panned in the auto trade magazines of the times either. ….they though it was innovated and a great gas saver. The only saving grace for GM trucks is that many do not use the aluminum AFM V8s as their base engine. My dealers’ service departments and the technician evaluating my trade was aware of the problems, but of course none of the salesmen claimed to know anything about it.
And even though I meticulously maintain my vehicles and change oil more than necessary, when I lose a few grand on a trade because that year/engine combo has a bad reputation……it is a significant problem. And GM making repeated significant design modifications to correct a problem engine almost four years after release is more than teething problem.
Above poster Micheal W. was correct in his placing blame on unrealistic expectations and regulations of the EPA….all auto makers are being forced to develop more and more innovative approaches to unrealistic standards for the size and type vehicle capable of being marketed and they frequently outrun the available affordable technology and resort to quickly developed new experimental fixes.
Did the people at GM run out of things to do? Stop/start nonsense does not save any gas period. If you’re waiting for over a minute at a traffic light, just turn the damn car off. Stop playing these little supposed fuel saving games. No vehicle gets the mpg that’s advertised on the window sticker any way. If you’re spending $25,000 or more on a vehicle, saving a few pennies in gas is not worth it. GM should focus it’s attention on either hydrogen or all electric vehicles. And we haven’t even discussed how much these new heavy duty starters cost or the price of newer or more powerful batteries will be.
Actually it does save fuel. Do you happen to know what the fuel economy numbers were for 2013 versus 2014? The 2013 got 22/34 and the 2014 gets 25/36! Now, GM did add iVVL to the engine as well, but it really only works on the highway and likely only improves the city by 1mpg. Which means the Stop/Start system improves fuel economy in the city by 2mpg! It isn’t a waste of money. They wouldn’t have done it if it didn’t improve fuel economy.
As of now, it looks like nobody has a problem with the small glass-pack battery or the heavy duty starter. We’ll only have to wait and see. .
Really? GM wouldn’t do it(stop/start technology) if it didn’t work? You missed the point. It is completely unnecessary. Gm said the current “cylinder deactivation” would improve gas mileage. Absolutely wrong. My 2011 Silverado gets 10.8mpg in the city, while my 2005 Silverado gets 12.7mpg in the city. Same engine, same everything. One has it, one doesn’t. GM said in 1981 the Cadillac HT4100 was the engine of the future. Had an 1982 Cadillac Eldorado, engine went to hell at 29,000 miles. It is considered one of the top 10 worst automotive engines ever designed. I’m not knocking GM, what I’m saying is we need to move forward and quit re-inventing the wheel. Most engine wear and tear occurs during starting. Unnecessary expense.
No I did not miss the point. First, Active Fuel Management doesn’t work in the city (duh, heavy engine load)! Second, if AFM didn’t work, then why does the LT1 get 30mpg (with more power) and the LS3 only gets 21mpg?
There is no excessive engine wear on the 2.5L because of the Stop/Start system due to the advanced starter system GM put into it. Even you said it yourself. It isn’t unnecessary when it gets 2mpg more!
Have had AFM on three vehicles with 5.3 aluminum V8s and it doesn’t save a drop of gas in small city or mountain driving either……..did save about one mpg in a test run on one vehicle to PA on a non stop, all highway, 200 mile round trip on flat ground at posted speed limits using the same tank of gas, AFM was active going and AFM turned off on return using the Range Technology device which locks the engine in V8 only mode. Whoo hoo a one mpg savings driving like grandma.
And I don’t think joe above was addressing or limiting his comments on engine wear to the starter motor. Engine wear on startup has nothing to do with the starter motor….splash lubrication of the cylinder walls from the rotating crankshaft and oil pressure lubrication of the journals and bearings occurs only when the engine is running at idle speed and above, and lube oil for the upper end drains back from the valve covers into the sump when the engine stops.
That’s why your oil pressure gauge needle doesn’t move to spec or the idiot light doesn’t go off until the engine reaches speed.
They wouldn’t use AFM if it didn’t work. It turns on under light engine loads. Any type of city and mountain driving is not light. Highway driving (without towing) is light (that’s why EPA fuel economy ratings for Hwy are higher). It does save money. Have you seen the LT1 or any of the new ECOTEC3’s? Have you driven them? They are smooth, responsive and efficient.
AFM saves gas as advertised only on the Government test course designed for measuring vehicle mileage …these figures are unrealistic in a real world driving environment.
And AFM operation is seamless only to the clueless…..I have two 5.3 AFM Avalanches and cylinder deactivation while not obtrusive is definitely not seamless………you do not need to use the display in the DIC to see when it kicks in…….it can not only be felt in the pedal but heard in the sound of the exhaust.
Calm down everyone, none of these technologies was ever intended to create hybrid-like mileage. Auto-start/stop, cylinder deactivation, direct injection, variable valve timing, as well as other friction reduction methods and aerodynamic improvements don’t do a lot individually to make big improvements, but collectively they do add up to a few mpg’s. So it’s probably true that if you disable your one pet peeve technology you probably won’t see much difference. I think it’s safe to assume that the incremental mpg increase of these and hundreds of other very minor items has each been cost justified somehow before they are added to the cost to manufacture the cars. For the same reason, if a technology proves to be unreliable over time, I’m sure the warranty costs will factor into the cost justification on the decision to eliminate, improve, or expand each item. Case in point: the 2.5 with start/stop (as well as many other improvements to reduce friction and improve efficiency) made the old 2.4 mild hybrid pointless (costs more, loss of trunk space, same mpg) so they eliminated it on the Malibu. Now GM needs to follow through with other models using that drivetrain.
Note: AFM could show more of a benefit if it was programmed more aggressively to be enabled at lower rpm’s (like when a vehicle is stopped) or under a light load, but no one does that because of noise, vibration and harshness issues.
Well, adding the Intake Variable Valve Lift to the 2.5 for 2014 increased the highway mileage by 2mpg. That is a lot considering it was only one addition. Cylinder deactivation only works on light engine loads. Fuel economy will start getting much better due to the outrageous CAFE standards coming in 2016. More gears, smaller engines, turbo’s, aluminum and other technology (such as VVT, SIDI, AFM and iVVL) will start making a big splash into the market (more than they already have). . .
The 2.5L is a great engine. But ultimately, instead of trying to make larger engines just as efficient, auto companies will start to make tiny engines as well as adding fuel saving technology to them.
GM really needs a new/refreshed Ecotec lineup. VVT, SIDI and iVVL on all Ecotec I3’s and I4’s. VVT, SIDI, iVVL and AFM on all ECOTEC4 V6’s and V8’s.
1.0L Turbo I3 with 120HP and 135FT-LBS
1.2L Turbo I3 with 140HP and 155FT-LBS
1.4L Turbo I4 with 175HP and 190FT-LBS
1.6L Turbo I4 with 215HP and 230FT-LBS
1.8L Turbo I4 with 240HP and 285FT-LBS
2.0L Turbo I4 with 280HP and 305FT-LBS
2.5L TDI I4 with 175HP and 300FT-LBS
2.8L TDI I4 with 190HP and 350FT-LBS
2.8L Supercharged V6 with 345HP and 360FT-LBS
3.2L TDI V6 with 290HP and 450FT-LBS
3.6L Twin-Turbo V6 with 420HP and 430FT-LBS
4.3L V6 with 335HP and 310FT-LBS
5.3L V8 with 365HP and 395FT-LBS
6.2L V8 with 460HP and 470FT-LBS
6.2L S/C V8 with 625HP and 635FT-LBS
6.6L TDI V8 with 415HP and 790FT-LBS
Exactly Tom. I could care less about the starter motor. You will just end up paying more when it’s time to replace it. I’m talking about engine lubrication. When the engine is off, so is the oil pump. I have also found that by using the Range plug-in, mpg is slightly better. But not better than my 2005 without the AFM. I hope every one realizes that GM, Ford, Chrysler are not nor have they ever been in the business to make cars and trucks. They are in business to make money. Their primary objective is showing a return to their investors. Most of the time they get it right, some times they don’t. Stop/start is a technology which the ends do not justify the means. The money spent on replacement starter, larger battery, engine wear will not be worth your added one mpg. I can live without the flying cars we were promised 30 years ago, but where are the all electric or the hydrogen vehicles?
As for auto start/stop…..
Tested both the ’14 and ’13 Malibus with the 2.5l prior to purchasing …….luckily we bought one of the last ’13s with the new 2.5l., much better than the old 2.4 in the ’11 Malibu that was traded in…….the engine is dead quiet and smooth as silk and it doesn’t turn itself off at a stop light. The start/stop system is a costly gimmick that will eventually bite the owner in maintenance costs.
And the main concern is not for the starter motor….there is a second auxiliary battery in the trunk, an electric engine coolant cabin heater pump that circulates the radiator water when stopped to feed the heater, no A/C from the vents just blower when stopped, an electric auxiliary transmission oil pump to provide instant oil pressure for transmission engagement, and my favorite…..if the engine fails to restart after two seconds, you have to manually recrank the engine to start, and it won’t restart manually in gear because of the gear selector interlock. Also the tach needle stays at minimum idle rpm either when this engine which is dead silent engine when running or is stopped in auto stop mode (great idea, not). For my son it was a choice of either buying the ’13 or the buying the ’14 and disconnecting the hood ajar switch permanently to defeat the auto start system altogether….screw the mileage savings. After doing the research and seeing the dozens of additional sensors, servos, electric motors, programming etc. necessary to keep all this crap in sync…….and all for a theoretical 14% boost in mileage…..they can keep it……..the ’13 is great as is.
I purchased a new 2014 Malibu on March 5. I wish I could turn off the auto-stop feature because I find it clumsy. When I drive the car into my driveway and stop, the engine goes off. When I take the gear from Drive to attempt to go to Park the engine comes on again. After I get the car in Park is shut the engine off. It’s not smooth..
I’ve read that the start stop system will not activate if the hood is open……..of course you can’t drive with the hood open, but if the ECM thinks it is open if the switch is somehow disconnected it may defeat the system……I’ve no idea if it will work or if it will trigger a warning in the display, or otherwise limit drivability……purposely bought my son a leftover ’13 Malibu so I didn’t have to deal with it …..might be worth a try.
I often wondered what happens in colder climates where you don’t want the vehicle to turn off? Let’s say you live on the east coast and the temperature outside is four degrees. I would want the engine to warm up asap so the heater will warm up the inside of the car as well. At that point mpg would be the furthest thing from my mind. It can’t possibly be good for any engine to play this on/off game in cold weather. GM is just reaching for straws at this point in the game. An internal combustion engine does have it’s limitations.
I have a new 2014 Malibu with the “Start/Stop” technology – which I was not thrilled about. While sitting in rush hour traffic this morning the engine stopped while idle, and then did not start back up. To say the least, I’m pretty disappointed. And while I know very little about cars, I knew that I did not want to be on the cutting edge of this particular technology. My car has exactly 3,000 miles on it and stalled. I drove a beat up Saturn for 6 years and never had this problem, nor did I with the Pontiac I owned prior. This will probably be my last GM vehicle for a while, or ever again.
That sucks. Hopefully it doesn’t do that again. My Malibu with the 2.0t has been great to me so far! For the 2015 Malibu, I expect GM to fine tune the Stop/Start system, add iVVL to the 2.0t, and install the new 7-Speed Dual Clutch.
I purchased a 2014 malibu last month, I do not like the stop start and would like it disabled. If I can’t get it disabled I will trade the car in six months (I purchased as a gm family member). Can the dealer disable this without affecting anything else in the car? I can’t see any diff in gas milage or any benefit of the stop start. When I pull into my garage the motor shuts off when I stop, it scares me when it restarts just to put it in park. I think that this is dangerous and a potential accident if the car malfunctions at restart in the garage. I would be happy if I could just get this disconnected. The rest of the car is great if I could take away, or turn off the stop start. Is it possible that gm will recall this to disconnect this system so that people will keep their gm cars?
What do you mean you cannot see a difference in gas mileage? The Stop/Start System in your Malibu hasn’t been disabled yet right? That means it is still activated and giving you the best economy possible. I wish GM would just get rid of the Stop/Start system or give it major improvements. The Malibu should also get the 7-Speed Dual Clutch for best-in-claaa efficiency.
Evan – the 2.5L LKW is a SIDI engine:
http://gmauthority.com/blog/gm/gm-engines/lkw/
But I completely agree with you: having Stop-Start is better than not having it at all when it comes to fuel economy… not to mention the fact that the 2.5L LKW also makes great power for its size and efficiency. Honestly, I’m not sure how the owners here don’t see a difference in fuel economy.
One other thing to keep mind: soon enough, every automaker in the industry is going to have a Start-Stop system in the base engines of their vehicles. In fact, GM is ahead of the curve here.
I would love to have great fuel economy but not have the car stall in out in rush hour while I have my 8 month old in the backseat, and that unfortunately is what happened. Now I am doing everything I can to not have the Auto/Stop go on. I’m just thankful I’m only leasing this car. Looking back, my husband I now realize the dealer was trying to warn us about this without openly blasting GM.
The sad thing , Nicole, is the car probably already would get great gas mileage without the stop/start nonsense, but under pressure from the Obama administration for better fuel mileage, they’re trying to squeeze every drop regardless. At least next time you’re out car buying you definetly know what to look out for. GM makes great powertrains, it’s just this added $%#@ that ruins it.
Sorry, it was to my understanding that it only had VVT and iVVL. I know it would cost money, but it would be well worth it as the mid size sedan segment is one of the main moneymakers, perhaps GM could extend the Epsilon ll Platform by an inch or two for the Malibu and Regal. Heck, they could just take an inch of trunk space off of the current 2014 for the backseat! This would be essential for Chevrolet and GM as the replacements most likely won’t come for another 3-4 years.
Sorry Mel. You’re stuck with it. If it could be disconnected, every one would do so. See if you can trade it back for a 2013 model or any other vehicle with out that worth less stop/start/stall technology. You want the car to go, it wants to stop. But just think of all the money in gas you are not saving. Best of luck.
I’ve been experimenting today, just driving around starting and stopping. I have found that the less pressure that I put on the brake pedal, the less engine stops I have. If I put hard pressure on the brake pedal the engine stops 9 out of 10 times with in 2 seconds of the speedometer saying zero mph. With light pressure I stopped 10 times in a row with no engine stops. Not bad, I could live with that. IS THERE A SENSOR FOR THE START STOP IN THE BRAKE PEDAL ?
Live with it; riding the brake is not a safe way to drive or enjoy the driving experience????? My advice is to trade it in on a 2013 Malibu and you won’t be sorry. Over 25K on my son’s already and he gets 30+ mpg and the only time the engine ever stops is when you turn the key to OFF!
The 2013 Malibu has been a joy to drive and worth every dime of extra gasoline it uses to keep the engine from stopping and the A/C going full blast in the Summer……..and likely a lot less extra dimes saved by buying a 2013 leftover plus extra dimes added to the 2014 MSRP to pay for the start/stop extra crap added on.
You’ll notice that GM didn’t introduce start/stop to their top line models…..they used a refined model at the end of it’s 6+ year model run cycle to experiment with a new “throw it at the wall and see if it sticks” idea…..if it bombs they can always dump the Malibu nameplate and upscale the 2015 Cruze nameplate without start/stop. Kudos to GM for using new car buyers as guinea pigs and at the same time getting them to pay for the experiment. If this was such a great idea it should have been thoroughly trial tested in EPA fleet cars before being foisted on the public.
As in the past, time will tell. If it works out we may see this technology expanded to more vehicle lines……..if not the 2014 Malibu will be a big stink bomb just like GMs innovative technologies of the V4-6-8 Cadillac, I4 Vega, or the diesel Olds….you pays your dime and you takes your chance…..If I’m correct there may soon be a lot more 2014 Malibus in used car lots than 2013s on the road.
I like our ’13 Malibu, but I love our ’13 Avalanche because the power, versatility and comfort are more important to me and my aching back than saving gasoline. And the 20% plus under MSRP in new car savings from rebates, dealer cash, owner loyalty and GM card top offs financed by my tax dollar bailout more than offset a semi tanker load worth of gasoline for the life of the vehicles.
It appears that as a society we’ve reached the point where our vehicles and lawn mowers are being designed by environmental lobbyist controlled lawmakers instead of engineers who they task with implementing gimmicks to squeeze water from a rock at any cost……and whose self righteous souls will be more comfortable riding in their limos and private jets once the rest of us are riding bicycles and defending ourselves with sharp sticks …. bicycles eventually to be regulated for rubber dust pollution and sharp sticks regulated (and registered) for length and sharpness.
‘Nuf said on this topic…….You may not agree with my observations and comments, but I’ll venture that after reading all these posts you will agree that among all these replies it is not I who is tasked with being the GM apologist.
For what its worth, I recently rented a ’14 Malibu for a few days, and found the AFM system to be quite annoying; the vehicle shook every time it started up again, and it reminded me of my old Ford Maverick that used to stall at traffic lights! The Malibu “gurgles” on start up, and sometimes on stop. Not a well developed feature, in my opinion.
And I also agree with the prior writer that the savings in gas will be overshadowed by the expense of repairing the system when defective. Case in point; when I was a kid and a turn signal blinker box went out, you would get a new box for 20 bucks. When the turn signal stopped working on my ’06 Fusion, it set me back about $600 for a new lighting computer. This is progress?
“Nuf said.
There has to be a way to turn this thing off. How many starters will this cause us to have to buy. Pull in driveway, Put in park, it cuts off, take foot off break and turn off but it cuts back on before I can turn key off. Senseless. It is 90 degrees, over a hundred in the car and it wants to cut off and turn off a/c. Not a good idea, would not have picked a Malibu had I known it was on the car and not an option to disable. Hate it!
I have 2015 malibu. Called a friend at dealership to disconnect it. You can. Go to the hood latch hole by the radiator. There’s a wire there. Disconnect the wire. It will take a screw driver. But… one downfall he warned me my remote start may not work. That’s ok. I didn’t want the start stop feature. Then on my car a orange engine light came on. Orange light not bad but he said take it back to the dealership and let them rest the codes since I disconnected the start stop.