Many people don't realize how much gas they spend idling. Idling your car wastes gas and pours pollutants into the environment. Stopping Idling Is very easy and it will help protect our environment and it will put some money back in your wallet.

This is my first instructable and as you can see above I entered it into the united states of efficiency contest. Please vote for me.

Step 1: Know When to Turn Off Your Car

Many people think that stopping and starting your car uses more gas than Idling. This is completely FALSE In fact If you Idle for more than 10 seconds you are wasting gas. Also It puts unnecessary where and tear on the engine. So when should you turn your car off? There are tons of places that you wouldn't think of. Places like a drive up ATM, picking up someone or any other time you are waiting for more then ten seconds. Just turn off your car.
You stated &quot; In fact If you Idle for more than <strong>10</strong> seconds you are wasting gas. Also It puts unnecessary where and tear on the engine.&quot; this is false start up is a lot harder on the engine because you are essentially spinning the engine a couple of times with very little or no oil circulating.<br />
I'd have to agree with most everyone in this comment section. This article is extremely misleading, as the unnecessary wear forced on the engine will surely counteract the &quot;savings&quot; that you'd make by not idling. More wear = less efficiency. When moving parts scrape against other moving parts, they turn their rotational (or linear) energy into sound and heat. This then takes MORE energy to dissipate. The more worn down the parts are, the more they will scrape, damaging your engine and your mileage.<br><br>The best way by far to save gas and up mileage is to adopt good driving habits. If you think of stepping on the gas as adding energy to the car's movement, and the breaks as taking that energy away, drive so that you have as little need as possible to remove excess energy from the car (i.e. going too fast before a red light/speed bump) and then only put in the energy you need. Cars carry an insane amount of kinetic energy, and a vehicle in motion WILL keep going when the gas pedal is released.<br><br>As for this Instructable, I would urge the author to remove it in case readers begin following this advice.
Im all for ways to save money and gas but before giving this advice you need to know the down sides to doing these actions. There is a little known area of science called Tribology which is the study of friction, lubrication, and wear. The reason we dont start and stop the engine is because the lubrication layer takes a short period to build up. Running the car at high rpm in cold weather while still warming up causes more wear, starting and stopping causes more wear. I totally agree with traffic jams and when you know the car isnt going to be moving. I think saving a few dollars a year on the fumes you saved are not worth the part replacement that will come with treating your car like this. I do think people who leave the car on because they are lazy do need to change that, but dont beat up your car, the environmental cost of spare parts probably outweighs the gas you save.
I wrote this Instructable to try to help people. It was dsined to give people some information if they wanted to hear it. Sure before you do it do some research but just know that multiple sources agree with what this Instructable says. Before you clame that there is false infrormaion here check the coments. There are pleanty of sorces listed to read up on.<br /><div id="refHTML">&nbsp;</div>
continual start stop on an engine uses more petrol then idling and reduces the engine life. <br />working as a commercial mechanic i used to see it an awful lot on milk delivery vehicles.<br />
These statements are Untrue. If you do not leave your car Idol for 1-2 min before driving there wont be enough oil in the top end. Idling does produce less polutants then Driving at 60mph since your forcing more gas into the engine to burn. Go take a Emission test this will prove you wrong. Starting and stopping the engine at every light or every time you have to Idle you will break something 10x faster . Tons of wear on the starter /battery and other components.If you really want to reduce your emissions and raise the Efficiency of your engine use a Smack HHO booster. Up to 50% less emissions and better fuel economy with better fuel burn.
&gt; If you do not leave your car Idol for 1-2 min before driving there wont be enough oil in the top end.<br/>. If you don't have full lubrication everywhere in the engine within a second or two, then something is wrong. Get thee to a mechanic and get it checked out.<br/>. The oil you <em>see</em> on the top end is not doing any lubricating.<br/>. <br/>&gt; 50% less emissions<br/>. Which emissions? You've still going to put out the same amount of Carbon. Unless you are claiming a 50% reduction in gasoline usage.<br/>
With inthe 1st 20-30 Seconds of start up is where you get 80% of wear on your engine..bearings/starter/Lifters . Hot oil drains a lot faster off the top end then you think. Its Never wise to start and stop the engine like this guy wants.Running a HHO booster REDUCES ALL emissions Up to 50% It burns the gas more completely Reducing CARBON .This also Cleans the internal components including the Cat converter. Proof is on this site. Wanna argue more argue with the Owner of the site. www.smacksboosters.110mb.com
> It burns the gas more completely Reducing CARBON . . No matter how completely (or incompletely) you burn the fuel (or anything else), the amount of Carbon out equals the amount of Carbon in. Unless you are an Alchemist.
Here Read what i told you. Go to that website and read the emission tests.If you cant understand them they PROVE on a COPY of the test done by a MACHINE a Reduction in Emissions. THIS argument is Over its proven 100x now . Since you have 0 PROOF you have done your own testing then you can not argue the point.
. I don't place any more credence in their home-brew data collection than you should in mine. At best, that is dubious evidence and most certainly not proof. They may be right, but I need more evidence than one source who is trying to sell me something.<br/>. <br/>. What testing do you propose to verify that elements are conserved in chemical reactions? Have all my Chemistry teachers lied to me?<br/>. If you put X Carbon atoms in, you get <em>exactly</em> X Carbon atoms out.<br/>
Of course your putting X carbon in to your engine but Less of it. Hydrogen Mixed with Gas Burns Hotter reducing X carbon OUT..Well I guess the Scan PROOF of the emission receipts from 4-5 cars is not proof .I guess you get your infor from what TV or a University that's get their money from WHO? Car/ oil company's? Wow bro you better open your eyes before its to late. Think you better Build a Good booster from Smacks Site its all FREE info and plans He does sell his stuff but he shows you exactly how to build them to. BTW here is another site which has all the proof you need <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/hydroxygas.htm">http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/hydroxygas.htm</a> Go Argue more with these 2 guys. These 2 guys are the people who brought HHO back from the Grave,<br/>
. But you said: &quot;It burns the gas more completely Reducing CARBON .&quot;<br/>. <br/>&gt; Well I guess the Scan PROOF of the emission receipts from 4-5 cars is not proof .<br/>. Not without some documentation of the procedure(s) used and 3rd-party oversight that the procedures were properly followed.<br/>. <br/>&gt; Wow bro you better open your eyes before its to late.<br/>. Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you read on the Intertubes. Your conspiracy talk sounds like typical woo-woo to me.<br/>. <br/>. I'm not arguing, merely pointing out your lack of <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking">critical thinking</a> skills.<br/>
Perhaps you didn't hear the man. He said to go to the website. Well I did, and it's all there in black and white. There's a video of a truck, a video of a contraption with a multimeter, and some pictures of cars (particularilly interesting is the photo of all the people standing in front of a car with it's HOOD OPEN, proving that they know cars). That's all the proof I need. Billions upon billions spent by every major auto manufacturer to make a lower emissions car, and this guy builds one in his mobile home. Priceless. This is the same guy that Ford and GM killed for making a carb that ran on water, right?
I told you go argue with Smack and the Emissions Tests. They prove my up to 50% reduced Emission statement. ALL emissions Dropped By up to 50% Using HHO.
>> 50% less emissions > Which emissions? You've still going to put out the same amount of Carbon. Unless you are claiming a 50% reduction in gasoline usage. If you have a large enough system to feed 50% of your needed fuel from the oxy/hyd generator... then yeah, it's gonna cut your emmissions close to that. On the other hand, if you have that set-up, you now drive a hybrid fuel vehicle to start with! crank it upto 100%, and you now drive a hydrogen/oxygen powered vehicle, and your only exhaust will be water, plus any oil that leaks into the cylinders(mainly from the EGR system). now is a system with that capacity gonna happen in a Metro? not any time soon. The average systems most people hack together, and sell plans for on the net... you're making only 3-5% of your fuel usage. POSSIBLY netting a 2-3% hydrocarbon based emission reduction?
Your 100% wrong www.smacksboosters.110mb.com here is 1 site that will prove you 100% WRONG. Hydrogen HHO+ Gas make a complete burn your carbon is UP TO 50% less. Read the emission tests before and after you will see my Test there.In My car im at 34% INCREASE in millage and 40% reduction in emissions. My van 37% city 50% highway and a 50% decrease in emissions. ALL this is FREE off his Site i suggest to read a little.
I'll remain skeptical. The site you referred to gives links to federal documents for HYDROGEN supplementation, yet their technology is injecting the hydrogen/oxygen mixed gas. I have done TONS of research on this type of devise(though this is the first time i've seen that particular website). I even have a hydrogen/oxygen welding torch I built using the same principle. Now, if you can get free electricity, say from solar, then this is great. Sadly, you CANNOT achieve over 100% efficiency(and usually not even 95%). This means you have to produce more energy from the gas generator than it takes to run the generator just to break even in power production. Meaning running this set-up off of the cars electrical system will decrease your total fuel mileage. I do see it as being worth a slight decrease, for the increased emissions... though you have to begin with distilled-deionized water, otherwise your "electrolyzer" will end up in your exhaust. In small quantities, I'll grant, but they will be in there, burning, and have to come out the tail pipe. Smack uses Sodium or potassium hydroxides. When considering emissions... this may help YOUR readings, but you've merely displaced the emissions to the chemical manufacturing plant(where hopefully they SHOULD have a slightly better emissions recovery technique than your cars egr system). I HAVE tested 2 car mounted generators of different design. I got a perceived mpg increase with both, but ACTUAL mpgs decreased ~2%(50 mpg average, down to 48-49). When I switched to charging my auxiliary batteries(separate, just for the gas generator), I did notice a very noticeable increase(from 50 to 52-53 average) in millage vs straight hydrocarbon fuel. But, this was because I was merely changing where i got my energy from... wind power, stored as electricity, used to split water vs. Straight internal combustion of hydrocarbons. To Johnnyscolex, no. I've never heard of any embrittlement of cylinders. Not to say it doesn't happen, but the stoichiometric chemical equation of a properly functioning generator should do no harm. With that particular design, the gasses are bubbled through a secondary water container... giving the gasses a place to pick-up or deposit stray electrons as needed. So it becomes a simple auxiliary fuel supplement. Direct propane injection would produce similar results, but without the lowered emissions. In an older cast engine with iron cylinder sleeves, the metallurgy might be off, allowing for a quenching effect that could over harden the metal, without the normal tempering. this COULD lead to a brittle state, and cylinder wall failure. Fortunately, modern engines are designed to handle this without a hiccup. It is LIKELY, some of the emissions gains come from the fact that you are , not only adding stoichiometric fuel (water->hyd/oxy->water), but also, the water vapor formed helps cool the cylinder. It is replicating the water-injection technology that some hot-rodders used to use with their superchargers(well, I'm being told, that modern turbo-charged engines benefit from this too). And, as the water from the combustion reaction turns to steam, it helps clean deposits off the cylinder walls, and SLIGHTLY adds to the expansion factor of the exhaust stroke. The cooler cylinder leads to a cleaner burn, less need for the egr system, more CO2, less CO and HC out the tail pipe. And to anyone in california that bemoans their CO2 emissions test standards, I advise telling your government to STOP BREATHING. Their hot air is producing more CO2 than my car ever will in it's whole lifetime :-) </end rant>
having any problems with embrittlement? hydrogen systems like this unless installed and tuned correctly cause the cylinders to become brittle during combustion there arent enough electrons present and they begin pulling them from cylinder walls. which causes the walls to become brittle eventually causing the engine to destroy itself.
right so its not lubricating those rocker arms man what was i thinking. I mean if there's no lubrication going on in the top end why would you even need oil going up there? it doesn't make sense enlighten me oh wise one why does oil travel to the upper end of the engine and a second or two for the fluid to reach the top end man where was i when they where explaining that in fluid dynamics. your lucky to get thorough saturation of fluid being pumped from any source through a chambered block of steel. just because the pressure gauge says theres pressure doesn't mean there's thorough saturation. if youd like more sarcasm please let me know and i can lay it on thicker
> if there's no lubrication going on in the top end ... enlighten me ... . There's lubrication going on up there, it's just happening where you can't see it - inside the bearings. The oil that you can see has already been "used" and will drain back into the sump. . > where was i when they where explaining that in fluid dynamics . I'm not sure, but my guess it that you were back at the dorm, hitting the bong. :) > your lucky to get thorough saturation ... . Air has a very low viscosity and will flow through the bearings (not closed chambers) very easily. Ie, it gets out of the way fast at ~50 psig. . > if youd like more sarcasm please let me know and i can lay it on thicker . I <3 sarcasm. Go for it.
>>If you do not leave your car Idol for 1-2 min before driving there wont be enough oil in the top end. >. Air has a very low viscosity and will flow through the bearings (not closed chambers) very easily. Ie, it gets out of the way fast at ~50 psig. air does oil doesn't and cold oil moves slowly >if there's no lubrication going on in the top end ... enlighten me ... see below >there's lubrication going on up there, it's just happening where you can't see it - inside the bearings. The oil that you can see has already been "used" and will drain back into the sump. so I'm guessing that your not interested in the rockers being lubed or the valve guides getting lubed by the oil that moves past on its way back to the sump not all lubrication happens under pressure of the pump >Put your car in neutral ... puts less stress on your engine. in a manual yes in an automatic negligibly. meaning the torque converter keeps spinning and pumping fluid regardless however your vehicles engine will spin with less load in carbeurated vehicles where fuel air adjustments aren't made by computer this is a good in fuel injected vehicles it will reduce load however fuel air mixture will be adjusted to compensate regardless of what the driver does >Idling also causes unnecessary noise pollution. depends on who's listening I hear say a classic car idling with a nice exhaust thats not noise pollution thats someone saying hello I hear a ricer idling id like nothing more than to see it blown up right there (I still prefer my inefficient American muscle to efficient ricer crap) my big thing here is yeah the guys regurgitating something someone else said without showing independent knowledge or outside testing shown You're obviously knowledgable lets just make sure were passing on the right information
you arn't the first person that commented on the factoid idling can produce more emotions than driving that is in some cars at average speed so not 60 miles an hour and not on most cars and if you payed attention i told you NOT to turn off the car at lights
"Many people don't realize how much gas they spend idling." I guess you don't either. It's a very small amount. The amount of power it takes to keep an engine idling is negligible compared to how much power it takes to accelerate from a dead stop. "Idling your car wastes gas and pours pollutants into the environment." It does indeed waste gas, because you aren't going anywhere- getting 0 MPG. But how much? Again, a very small amount. And "pouring" pollutants? CARB mandates that the amount of particulates at idle be ridiculously low, which is fine, because they are anyway. Less than 1/100th of 1% of what's coming out the tailpipe at idle is a greenhouse gas. The rest is water vapor, emitted due to very efficient combustion and the catalytic converter being able to do its best work at low exhaust flow. "Stopping Idling...will help protect our environment..." Just like hugging a butterfly and having a sit-in. Have you tried aligning you car's chackras? My Hummer gets 200 MPG and emits anti-pollutants, actually saving 100 trillion square miles of rainforrest per mile driven, not to mention unicorns being dropped from the tailgate every time I stop.
in most of cars that's true, but not at 100%. nowadays most of cars are EFI, not carb, carb needs an xtra reserve of fuel to start up, so the same amoult of fuel you reserve stopping the engine, you need it later to start it up. I also agree with the comment of yrmoma, a turbocharger needs time to cool down, spins at very high RPM, and the oil also it go down to the oil pan, that makes lubrication worse. I tell this because i've got the grade of mechanic just finished this year, and because i like cars soo much, and i know all this info. A good thing you can do, is, changing gear, if you're MT, in petrol, below 2500 rpm (i usually change at 2000, and when i'm near to run out of fuel, i change at 1500. the cars have the enough power to go toward) in diesel, i've heard, below 2000 (i haven't got a diesel one yet, so i don't know what i have with them). Also you can use the engine brake, by, mopre shifting below gear, than breaking with the pedal instead, you wont worn your brakes so much Combustion cars are unefficient, but we can get a little more of efficiency of they
I like your instructional. But for the people that drive automatic transmission turning on the car is not that easy as manual because the car has to be in park or neutral and you have to push the break to change to drive, this takes a lot of time and work. I on the other hand drive manual transmission, so I turn on and off the engine is no problem. I don't even have to was electricity cranking if the car is on a hill. Just shift it into in a gear while its moving an the car is running in a second.
If you have a turbocharged car, this is even more of a bad idea. Turbos need time to cool down. In order to preserve your turbo, its suggested you not only warm it up by idling for roughly five minutes before driving, but also cooling it down for roughly five minutes at idle after driving. Moreover, even non-turbocharged engines will have more wear and tear. Oil will slowly drip down into the oil pan. This will cause a momentary lack of lubrication when you do start your car back up. It's better to leave your car running for longevity. Source: Myself, as a trained diesel mechanic
this is wrong. as is a lot of the information in your instructable. to turn on your car takes a ton of gas. so you would be saving gas by idling unless you would be siting there for more than 600 or so seconds.
that's the problem that is one of the many myths about idling why don't you type that into Google this and find one site that agrees with you
no he is definitely correct about this. the reason for this is in order for the engine to turn over you have to counteract alot of friction. to do this fuel is essentially dumped into the engine as a vacuum driven diaphragm opens the throttle body. this gives the necessary fuel and air to start the engine. this is also why there is surge and spike of rpm on start up.
one thing about putting your car in nuteral is that when stopped and in drive the idle is a little lower becaus of the resistance of the breaks and clutch and when you put it in nuteral it increaces idle speed so it uses more gas
it is actually the exact opposite. while the engine is turning fewer rpm's while in gear there is a load that is not present while the engine is in neutral. the reason for this is, in order for the engine to not stall out under load it has to add more fuel and air to produce the necessary power to counteract the friction created by the torque converter in an automatic trans engine. in the case of a manual at a stop, you have the clutch disengaged from the drive train so it's going to be idleing no matter what.
Does putting an automatic car in neutral do anything? I've been doing this for years, since every time I've tried to turn my car off at a light I fail at restarting it efficiently. I'd be excited if it does.
<ul class="curly"><li>puts unnecessary where and tear on the engine.</li></ul>. Starting an engine, especially one that has sat long enough for the oil to drain down to the sump, is pretty hard on the engine. Has anyone done an analysis of where the breakeven point is?<br/>. <br/><ul class="curly"><li>Put your car in neutral ... puts less stress on your engine.</li></ul>. Is there any data to corroborate this?<br/>. What about the stresses involved when you put the car back in gear?<br/>. <br/><ul class="curly"><li>2 Idling for one minuet can produce more pollutants than driving for one</li></ul> ...<br/><ul class="curly"><li>5 Idling also causes unnecessary noise pollution.</li></ul>. Any references to back all that up?<br/>
I think it fairly obvious that if an engine is running without doing any work, the natural <em>wear</em> &amp; tear is not mitigated by any necessity. You're asking for a citation on the 10 second statement?<br/><br/>Putting the transmission into neutral isn't going to make <em>much</em> difference, because if you are stationary and <em>in gear</em> you will have disengaged the clutch. Running in neutral is actually worse because you'll still be driving the input-shaft (what you're going at here I think)<br/><br/>It is plainly obvious that if an engine is running without doing any work, the noise is unnecessary.<br/><br/>L<br/><br/>
I believe the neutral suggestion was based towards automatic transmission equipped cars. It certainly makes sense in that scenario.
Yes it would. Majority of UK drivers have manual boxes, auto's are often perceived as being &quot;girly&quot;... I <em>guess</em> that's why they're not so popular over here?<br/><br/>L<br/>
. The wear and tear on a running engine is much less than when being cranked with inadequate lubrication. . I am asking for citations on just about everything. pineapplenewton seems like a nice enough fellow, but I have a hard time accepting a 16 yo as an authoritative source. . . This ible seems to be aimed at automatic transmissions. . . The noise produced by unmodified modern exhaust systems at idle is negligible. But it's there. I should have left that one off.
Ageism! Hehe.
First of all i didn't directly but sight any sources everything that I said is on multiple sources and is easily found if you search for facts about idling. But im going to tell you what i know about each of the points you brought up first is the stopping and starting the car ware and tear problem. It used to be true that it did cause damage to cars to start them but for all cars produced after 1970 with catalytic converters it is better for the engine to stop and then restart. hears my source<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.therecord.com/links/links_04100475540.html">http://www.therecord.com/links/links_04100475540.html</a> for that fact that source also has the note on putting you car in neutral i can't find the site with the one minuet fact right now but i said can produce not just produces its not true of all cars and you took back your last comment thanks for being skeptical though <br/>
. My very poorly stated point was not that these facts may not or may not be true but rather that you need to provide supporting evidence for your claims.<br/>. <br/>. Catalytic converters were not used (in the US) until 1973 and not common until 1975. What other facts have you gotten wrong? If you would provide links to references (eg, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter">catalytic converter</a> for my dates), we could easily check for ourselves.<br/>
i didn't say that all cars mad after 1970 have catalytic converters before you say something is wrong re read it and think about what it is saying. and i just gave you one site but all the information i gave was seen in multiple places
. Your statement is technically correct. But <strong>no</strong> production cars in the US had CCs between 1970 and 1973. You're statement is misleading.<br/>. <br/>. Once again, the veracity of your statements was not the point. It is citing references. Maybe I'm just being ageist, but I have a hard time believing a 16 yo is an expert on any of this. I'd like to see some evidence that what you say is true before I try it out on my car.<br/>. I'm reasonably confident that your info is correct (most of it sounds right), but I'd like some verification by someone that has extensive education and training about how cars and engines work.<br/>
first of all unrelated to this particular article you shouldn't take note of what people say their ages are on the internet. but back to this article first of all i don't think that it is important that the article specify that it is talking about cars made after 1973 people who have cars from before then know enough about them to know what hurts them. and you want evidence that this is true before you try turning off your car? its not like im telling you to re route you fuel line this is basic stuff. if you just did a Google search about idling you would see plenty of sites saying the same things i am.
. OK. Obviously I am not making myself clear. Let's start over. Forget what I've said before. . . I think your iBle would be much better if you included links to the sources you used when researching.

About This Instructable




More by pineapplenewton:Save Gas and the Environment by Not Idling 
Add instructable to: