Gear reduction starters vs direct drive

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

I once even lurked about adapting a pull-rope emergency start setup similar to the one used in outboard motors after having some trouble with the starter of a Pontiac Trans Sport, since it couldn't be bump-started due to the automatic transmission...

[Daox]

I was thinking about this today. I almost started a new thread when I thought to search. Thanks Oil pan 4 for starting a thread that already answered a bunch of questions!

Obviously, the gear reduction starter is superior for the reasons listed. But, what are the downsides to it though? I'm thinking maybe just cost at this point? What starter actually starts the engine faster, or is the difference imperceivable?

[Daox]

I understand what makes an engine harder to start. I'm just curious if these gear reduction starters will actually start an engine faster under the same conditions?

[oil pan 4]

According to the diesel guys, under ideal warm starting conditions the straight drive starters fire the engine little faster over gear reduction starter.
But when the engine is cold, especially in winter, the gear reduction starters turn an engine over faster and get them to fire up sooner.

I only run gear reduction starters if there is a choice.

[roosterk0031]

Nothing come for free, gear reduction reduces the initial/peak amp draw, but has to use the same energy to do the same amount of work, getting it spinning fast enough to fire on it's own.

[oil pan 4]

The gear reduction motor runs at a more efficient higher RPM needed for the series-parallel wound motor to run more efficiently.
With better efficiency you do get something for free.
To say the gear reduction starter reduces amps is an understatement. It almost cuts the amp draw in half and cranking time is increased by a barely noticeable amount if at all.