Cruise Control and Fuel Economy

Cruise Control and Fuel Economy

Author
Discussion

Halmyre

Original Poster:

11,570 posts

146 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
Is your fuel economy better or worse when using cruise control? What say the PH experts?

Simon_GH

405 posts

87 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
I believe the generic answer is that a good driver should be able to achieve better mpg than cruise control which just aims to maintain a set speed therefore may use full throttle to power up a steep ascent and not let off earlier in anticipation of a descent.

If you’ve got lead boots and don’t read the road ahead then I guess a decent radar cruise would help.

RazerSauber

2,548 posts

67 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
That'll depend on your driving ability. If you're good at anticipation and understanding how to drive economically then cruise control will reduce your MPG. You'll gain MPG if you drive like a tosser.

Matthen

1,341 posts

158 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
Halmyre said:
Is your fuel economy better or worse when using cruise control? What say the PH experts?
Depends on the setpoint.

In eco, car activates cylinder deactivation more often when on cruise than when on full manual. If it's set to 60, it'll do way better than I do in terms of MPG - purely because I'll keep drifting up toward 70.

Set to 70, no difference really. Can't change the laws of physics.


Matthen

1,341 posts

158 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
RazerSauber said:
That'll depend on your driving ability. If you're good at anticipation and understanding how to drive economically then cruise control will reduce your MPG. You'll gain MPG if you drive like a tosser.


Other way around.

Reduction in mpg = more fuel burnt.

Haltamer

2,554 posts

87 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
Generally worse.

It knows how fast the car is going and can add / remove throttle.

That is about all - Barring ACC which can see the car in front and apply brakes (Not just for traffic - Also down hills etc?)

You can see the terrain for miles - Gently waft up this hill behind the truck, then use momentum on the other side to pass and get back up to cruise speed?

Lift off extra early for a clump of traffic?

Etc.

Even on quite empty, non-traffic dodging drives I'd say I can net a 2-3MPG gain over cruise control just by using terrain and forward planning.

SAS Tom

3,550 posts

181 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
Cruise is worse on my car. ACC applies the brakes when not required and in eco without cruise it will coast. On certain sections of roads it will coast for miles downhill which is way more efficient than engine braking then accelerating to maintain speed.

Paul Thorpe evo

90 posts

13 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
If no hills it's a close thing 2-5% difference.

But if hilly, manual throttle control wins easily (and by up to 10%) over cruise control.

The reason is that cruise control puts the brakes on (to maintain constant speed) going downhill (sapping energy) and as you arrive at the bottom of the hill at a now slower pace, cruise control will apply more throttle than manual application to get up hill at a constant prescribed speed.

We did this test in a Magazine about 22 yrs ago btw.

bloomen

7,461 posts

166 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
I only use it on level motorways where I assume it feeds the minimum to maintain the speed.

Mine's an old car with no cleverness.

I'll turn it off for hills as otherwise it either dumps fuel to keep the speed uphill, or does a weird queasy thing to keep it down going downhill.


balise

2,004 posts

217 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
It stops my speed from creeping up, so better.

brillomaster

1,400 posts

177 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
it reduces the effort required to drive quickly, so worse.

if i drive a car without cruise, my foot gets a little tired of pushing the throttle pedal down for hours on end, hence i speed up and slow down a lot, and generally go slower, as that requires less pressure on the throttle pedal.

with cruise, however, setting the cruise at 70 takes exactly the same effort from me as setting it at 90, so i tend to set the cruise higher and get worse mpg as a result.

got to drive my wife to gatwick from the midlands on sunday - will likely set the cruise to 85 and just deal with the poor mpg - i'm claiming fuel expenses anyway.

ChocolateFrog

28,716 posts

180 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
Halmyre said:
Is your fuel economy better or worse when using cruise control? What say the PH experts?
If it's better on cruise then you're not a very good driver. boxedin

otolith

59,149 posts

211 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
I tend to use the speed limiter rather than the cruise control these days. As someone else mentioned, it does not appear to use the coasting function in cruise.

TattyScone

238 posts

118 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
I find cruise control is brilliant at maintaining speed compared to the human driver. But it probably comes at cost of fuel consumption as it will fine tune the throttle input to match the speed target precisely and always be burning ‘some’ fuel, whereas a human will ease off and let the speed dip before applying throttle again. Multiply by a few dozen over the course of a journey, and the cruise control will get to the destination earlier by maintaining cruise speed better, but will have burnt marginally more fuel in doing so.

Jayho

2,187 posts

177 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
I used to shy away from using Cruise Control as I found I got better MPG doing it all myself (about a 5mpg difference). Also annoyed me it would brake for me when going downhill rather than use the momentum and labour the engine a bit to get back up the hill.

Nowadays the roads which I travel on in these instances have become average speed camera roads so I just set my cruise control and forget about it. The couple of MPG difference doesn't bother me too much, but a ticket for not adhering to the averages would.

DanL

6,439 posts

272 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
My consumption is much worse with adaptive cruise. It’ll slow down later and speed up faster than I would as it’s not (able) to anticipate as far up the road as I can.

So, it’s more relaxing to drive with the assists, but also more expensive I suppose.

Scrump

22,944 posts

165 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
Matthen said:
RazerSauber said:
That'll depend on your driving ability. If you're good at anticipation and understanding how to drive economically then cruise control will reduce your MPG. You'll gain MPG if you drive like a tosser.


Other way around.

Reduction in mpg = more fuel burnt.
Read again the post you quoted.

DodgyGeezer

42,391 posts

197 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
I'm happy to be told I'm wrong - however my understanding is that modern CC is actually more economical than the older/cruder type and, crucially, doing it yourself...

RazerSauber

2,548 posts

67 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
Matthen said:
Other way around.

Reduction in mpg = more fuel burnt.
Quite right. I confused myself with MPG and fuel consumption.

DanL

6,439 posts

272 months

Friday 18th October
quotequote all
DodgyGeezer said:
I'm happy to be told I'm wrong - however my understanding is that modern CC is actually more economical than the older/cruder type and, crucially, doing it yourself...
Almost certainly is, on a flat road with no traffic - it’ll be better at maintaining speed with minimal required throttle input. But throw in some hills (which it will increase throttle on to maintain speed, vs. slowing slightly with the same throttle input if you’re driving yourself) and a bit of traffic for it to anticipate and it’s not quite so clear.