Cruise control fuel economy

[Fishin' Dave]

This is the first car I've had with cruise control.
Given highway driving - which is more fuel efficient cruise control or manual foot control?

Dave ><>

[-Scott-]

For the ultimate in fuel economy a good driver will beat a cruise control every time - for example, the driver can recognise the hill approaching, accelerate along the flat and allow some speed to wash off approaching the crest; the cruise control has no idea what's coming, and can go WOT to try to maintain speed up the hill.

However, in this day of speed cameras hidden in bushes halfway down hills on dual carriageways, a cruise control is much more relaxing - dial your speed and forget about it (except halfway down hills on dual carriageways... )

Set and forget.

Cheers,

Scott

[pickle]

I agree with Scott,cruise control only good on the straight flat sections.
Hardly ever use mine,as the saying goes.....I like to drive my car,not the car drive me.
Dave

[Brett G]

Fishin' dave, what ever you do, do not use cruise control in the rain or on gravel etc.



back to the topic, ditto what every one else said, good on the flat, not good on hills

[Emo]

I found that druise control uses about 10% more fuel unless you are on an absolute dead flat road.

When you drive you generally keep the same pressure on the accelerator when you come to an incline (assuming it isn't too steep). Speed before the incline might be 100km/h, speed at the top of the incline 90km/h. With cruise control set it will accelerate harder to maintain the constant speed all the way up the hill.

[South]

Personally I've never gone out of my way to measure the difference in economy. However I'd much rather pay another $1 per 100km, if that, than have an aching foot after a days driving whilst using my foot to cruise along. I couldnt live without cruise control, its not a luxury, its a necessity

Set and Forget, I tottally agree