[AWSD]

Being this is my first vehicle with this technology and knowing that Mazda uses compression vs. the traditional starter method to restart their engines, is it really better on engine wear and improving longevity because it uses compression? I know it's used to reach EPA fuel estimates, but I've always been skeptical about using it because of the thousands of extra start cycles it adds to engine components in its lifetime. Thoughts?

 

[conwelpic]

it's a feature that is used in other Mazda's in other parts of the world for quite some time. Generally components used are generally beefed up to take these extra uses.

 

[Polymetalic_Offroader]

it's a feature that is used in other Mazda's in other parts of the world for quite some time. Generally components used are generally beefed up to take these extra uses.

Same goes with other stop/start tech. Bigger battery, alternator and starter. Honestly though, most people will never see engine failure or component failure for the cycles of stop/start. And most of those parts aren't that expensive (relatively).

 

[alexjchan]

I have hated this in other cars but the Mazda version of the technology is pretty good. It doesn’t use a starter so it starts up very quickly and fairly quietly and smoothly.
I like the way the brake pedal brakes normally or at a stop give it a little extra push and I-stop will engage. The Auto Hold is also a nice feature driving around the city with a lot of stops.