When does Cruise Control become cost/mpg effective?

[Don]

As per title really, if you use CC for a mile or two, I can't see it being any more effective than general driving, but how far would you have to travel for it to become better (in terms of saving fuel) than just a novelty?

Please move if not in the correct section...

Thanks in advance
Don

 

[Ol’ Tarby]

i think its been proven that using cruise control is actually worse for MPG than not using it

 

[markkram]

I personally think of it only as a convenience feature. If I'm driving on the motorway for any distance I set it then no longer need to keep the accelerator pressed and so rest the old ankle.

If I wanted to save fuel then I would use my old foot as cruise is not IMO designed as a fuel efficiency feature.

 

[jenic]

If your a good driver when diving economically it will never pay to use it, since it accelerates up hill when a normal driver wouldn't.

Myself, I am too tempted to go faster on the motorway so it is more economical for me to set it to 70ish and then I get around 39mpg on a motorway run over 100 miles.

 

[Don]

My thoughts were that if the car is doing a steady fixed speed, then surely it would be better for fuel consumption than the varying pressure of foot over a period of time?

 

[Alastair.]

cruise was the only way of getting 37mpg in my bmw e39 on a flat road at 60.

 

[ianysm]

As above, it will never be better as it applies full power to resume its speed whereas your foot gently applies power.

 

[Ol’ Tarby]

on a flat road ye, it takes away the urge to accelerate etc. but goin up and down hill it would keep a constant throttle posistion uphill which would lower mpg, where if driving manually econonmically you would ease off upthe hill thus increasing mpg

 

[Ste666]

I never noticed a difference when i used it myself, i have no choice now as it's knackered but i didn't like it anyway, only really any use when on an empty motorway otherwise i found i was constantly having to adjust it to suit the traffic flow, i prefer to keep full control myself, as for mpg, i worked out that going down to trax this year i managed a whopping 27 mpg over the 320 mile round trip, that works out at almost exactly one full tank of a 182, i can't imagine CC would have made much of a difference.

 

[jenic]

I never noticed a difference when i used it myself, i have no choice now as it's knackered but i didn't like it anyway, only really any use when on an empty motorway otherwise i found i was constantly having to adjust it to suit the traffic flow, i prefer to keep full control myself, as for mpg, i worked out that going down to trax this year i managed a whopping 27 mpg over the 320 mile round trip, that works out at almost exactly one full tank of a 182, i can't imagine CC would have made much of a difference.

Surely you mean 37?

 

[The Boosh!]

The only reason cruise control isn't effective for MPG is because its constantly adjusting the throttle.

Where you the driver, keep your foot in one place, the computer always changes the acceleration with CC on. Therfore you can't get a constant speed so to speak.

I find it much more fuel effective to use the speed limiter.

Set the speed limiter to 70 and keep your foot planted. No altering the throttle on/off. Just won't let you go past 70. On a test to newquay and back I used CC all way there and got 42mpg but using the speed limiter on the way back I got 48. Not worth bothering with tbh.

 

[jenic]

Set the speed limiter to 70 and keep your foot planted.

My right foots so heavy it overides it lol

 

[Stu_350z]

how do you speed limit your car?? :S

 

[The Boosh!]

Yeh but your a fag so that would explain it

 

[The Boosh!]

how do you speed limit your car?? :S

You have a pov spec cup so won't have it.

On the clios with cruise control you flick the switch down and set the speed that you want to limit the car to.

 

[Stu_350z]

ahhh makes sense lol jus had never heard of it before lol

 

[Ste666]

Surely you mean 37?

You would think so Mike but no it was definately 27mpg, i worked it out with my fuel receipts too, i have a heavy right foot at the best of times
Oh and just out of interest that works out at 54 litres or 4 litres over a full 182 tank, also i think i was getting 31.5 mpg on the motorway sections but i tend to boot it on the country roads which is why i guess it dropped to 27 mpg on average.

 

[Brett]

Cruise is an attractive feature for me. Its something i'd always have liked when on a long drive.

 

[jenic]

Yeh but your a fag so that would explain it

i love you too :rasp:

 

[chris182cup]

I just did a couple of hundred miles my trip comp says 40mpg I noticed having cruise control on some of the way the mpg stayed the same or went down but when off it slowly started to rise

I've never had my car over 40mpg on the trip well not after it's started to average out - I've always used cruise control on long trips though

 

[Curley]

I personally think of it only as a convenience feature. If I'm driving on the motorway for any distance I set it then no longer need to keep the accelerator pressed and so rest the old ankle.

If I wanted to save fuel then I would use my old foot as cruise is not IMO designed as a fuel efficiency feature.

Spot on. I wouldn't want a car without it now.

 

[Damo_Sport]

Spot on. I wouldn't want a car without it now.

Im the same.. Never had a car with CC before the 182

But as my car is of the road atm and use her KA to go to her mums *1 hour motorway jobby* I miss the CC