Motor Vehicle Maintenance & Repair Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for mechanics and DIY enthusiast owners of cars, trucks, and motorcycles. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

A dead battery is a common and serious problem. At a minimum it takes time to jump-start the car. But oftentimes a second car is unavailable, or there's no jumper cables, or a serial killer is chasing you and pounding on your window.

So why don't vehicles come with some alternate way of starting the engine?

Wikipedia says that the original hand-cranks worked but were inconvenient and dangerous for various reasons. I suspect that with modern engineering these handcranks could become safe, through the use of clutches and today's better-behaved engines.

There's also a spring starter for which, Wikipedia points out, "the most common application being backup starting system on seagoing vessels."

So with the constant push for reliability and features, why have I never seen a car that doesn't rely 100% on a battery to start? Imagine the marketing: "Never again be stranded with a dead battery!" Should be a hit.

share|improve this question
Wow, spring starter looks like a cool thing, especially with the provision to rotate the engine for maintenance. Mind you, in the modern auto there would be no place to put it or have access to. Marine, backup EG, and industrial engines are definitely more suitable for it, given the all around access. – theUg Feb 13 '13 at 19:41
Chances are: if you're out at sea and your starter dies you are in much more trouble than if you're in a car on the ground. – Sponge Bob Feb 14 '13 at 17:15
A hand crank on a modern car wouldnt/couldnt work. On old cars like a model T it was feasable, but with modern compression ratios you couldnt turn it by hand anywhere near the speed required, and you also wouldnt be able to generate enough of a spark to start the engine. (If you've ever worked on an engine and had to rotate it to TDC for timing, you would know what I mean) – Matt Bear Feb 19 '13 at 20:04
My old motorcycle (1978 Honda CB400T2) had kick start, electric start, and could be push-started at walking speed. I kept riding for weeks after my battery died - no big deal. – Jay Bazuzi Feb 19 '13 at 20:47
@MattBear: I beg to differ. I've started my engine by hand-cranking it plenty times, using the transmission and wheel as the crank. Of course it's not enough to power the alternator and generate the spark, but as long as the battery has at least enough charge to generate a spark, it works fine. – R.. Jul 3 '13 at 23:01
up vote 7 down vote accepted

As I’ve read, alternative starting systems nowadays used mostly in commercial, industrial and emergency applications, where it is mission-critical to get it started, such as back-up power generator in the hospital, fire pump on an oil rig, or a life boat. Redundancy is required in some of these situations; in others there is no other option even. There are commercial lorries, mining, quarry and construction vehicles, or generators in remote areas where the only system to start an engine would be the air (pneumatic) or hydraulic start. It is a lot easier to find compressed air than to find reliable electricity to charge a battery in some underdeveloped countries.

Most of those are, of course, are powered by Diesel engines, and do not even need electricity to operate, so some of the vehicles or machines would not even have a battery at all. And, by the way, there are, as I’ve read, hand crank systems on some of those: it is possible to use compression-release mechanism to make it easy to spin the engine by hand to get the flywheel going, then dis-engage CR, and kinetic energy stored in the flywheel should be enough to get it started.

On the other side of the spectrum would be open-wheel race cars (Formulas, Indy, possibly others, such as Le Mans or GT) that do not even have on-board starting system and need to have an external air- or electric start device to get going. Obviously, this is done to save weight — this way they do not need relatively heavy starter motor, and they can get away with much smaller battery which is used more as a current stabilizer rather than storage.

As for regular automobiles, there are several factors that prevent manufacturers from using redundant starting systems:

  • First of all, regular electric start is pretty reliable. All of us experience dead battery now and again, but mostly due to our own negligence. And in between, there are hundreds, if not thousands, starts the system handles without mechanical failure of the starter motor or natural degradation of the battery.

  • Secondly, although it is not high-performance racing application, the considerations of weight and cost still play an important role.

  • Modern cars use internal space rather efficiently, and there simply not many options to put another component, and have an easy access to it.

There are after-market systems allowing for that extra reliability for bigger utility vehicles like pick-ups for farmers or loggers and the like, but then again, that qualifies it as industrial application, because no one but Americans use those for getting to the office or snatching some milk in a neighbourhood shop.

share|improve this answer
in old cars with manual crank handles engines were mounted inline with the car, most modern cars outside of USA use transverse engines, which would complicate the linkages required for a crank handle. – Mauro Feb 15 '13 at 12:20

Mine has just such a fancy emergency backup starting device. It's called a "manual transmission". Push starts great with a dead battery. Only downside would be the serial killer chasing me, and well, that's what they make concealed weapons licenses for...

share|improve this answer
In situations where you can't push (like parallel parking), you can also jack up one wheel and rotate the engine manually by turning the wheel while the transmission is in gear. One convenient way to do this is with a socket wrench (with appropriate extension and bar) on the hub nut but you can also do it by hand. It's unlikely to work though if the battery voltage is too low to get a spark. – R.. Feb 15 '13 at 4:32

First, sorry for my bad English.

I think it is because a modern battery is more reliable, from the car manufacturer's point-of-view, so they remove the unneeded crank system alternative.

Dead batteries may be very common -- yes, it got me multiple times on my old car -- but if you are maintaining your car regularly as the manufacturer suggests, you might (be forced to) replace the new one before it dies.

Battery technology seems to be advancing so much these days, some of them might be used in cars in the near future if it's really needed.

share|improve this answer
Exactly. I replaced my battery as soon as I start having trouble with turning the car on... Not once I find out it is completely dead. Costco is a great place to go for auto batteries if you're on a budget. – Sponge Bob Feb 14 '13 at 17:13

If you really wanted to avoid dead battery situations, the best solution is probably a second, isolated battery. Charge both batteries off the alternator, but disconnect the starting battery (via a relay) except when the alternator is running or the key is being turned. It's really stupid that cars are designed such that using non-essential accessories can run down the power needed to start the vehicle.

share|improve this answer
This is actually really common in vehicles with aftermarket sound systems(or diesels). It's an isolated battery that on a relay that only switches on when a certain ammount of amperage(starting amps) is being pulled. – Matt Bear Feb 19 '13 at 20:00

The reality is that it wouldn't actually be a good selling point. There's no use adding cost and weight to a normal every-day car when it's easy to keep your battery well-maintained and carry a $10 starter cable just incase.

share|improve this answer

Personally, I just carry around a small starter battery kit in case of battery failure.

Something like this:

share|improve this answer

I'll tell you why. Because a car manufacturer who tries to save $30 by not installing a rear-window wiper is not going to spend $100 to fit a new component to the engine.

Although, an industrious person may make a neat sum of money by making such a spring-loaded mechanical starter.

share|improve this answer

If you are really worried about it, consider a manual transmission as you can potentially push start it.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.