Sport Today

by **marc rose** » Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:06:35

Hey Long distance drivers,
For those who use cruise control, does it tend to cause a greater
consumption of fuel than driving with it off?
I have cc on my van but I've never used it and was curious if anyone
out there made a comparison. Thanks in advance,
Marc
(Hey Ellen, if your reading this, you may be my best responder!)

by **kurt** » Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:16:15

Quote:

> Hey Long distance drivers,
> For those who use cruise control, does it tend to cause a greater
> consumption of fuel than driving with it off?
> I have cc on my van but I've never used it and was curious if anyone
> out there made a comparison. Thanks in advance,
> Marc
> (Hey Ellen, if your reading this, you may be my best responder!)

Depends on whether there are mountains and big hills. When CC hits a
mountain, it's going to maintain MPH, meaning it floors it. CC isn't
cheaper, it's just easier.

by **Isobar** » Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:25:15

I'd ask Google about the details, but the slight fuel consumption difference
would pale compared to the convenience of CC, in my book. I just find CC so
dang relaxing on long hauls that 13 cents or $13 is of little consequence by
comparison. A HUGE plus is that on CC I can forget about cops (presuming
it's set on a speed they'll allow, freeing up my eyes and mind for the
HIGHWAY rather than my dashboard. I use CC on some local 40-50-mph roads
expressly so I can watch traffic more closely without worrying about a
ticket. Sure, I'd save a little bit by driving by a vacuum gauge -- a LOT in
mountains -- but it also wipes out both those advantages.

The downside? Ya better remember to disengage it next time you run off the
highway. Fall asleep, or take an unintended off-road excursion, and until
you disengage, you'll still be doing CC speed when you engage that bridge
abutment, oak tree, or parked D-9 Cat.

Mike \m/

Quote:

> Hey Long distance drivers,
> For those who use cruise control, does it tend to cause a greater
> consumption of fuel than driving with it off?
> I have cc on my van but I've never used it and was curious if anyone
> out there made a comparison. Thanks in advance,
> Marc
> (Hey Ellen, if your reading this, you may be my best responder!)

by **Brian Sangeorza** » Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:56:50

Marc,
I'm agreeing with Kurt. You can do better by anticipating slow-downs,
allowing the vehicle to lose speed on grades, and accelerating slowly after
a forced slow-down. On the wide open flats - speed control might beat out a
tired driver whose constantly changing speeds.
Brian

Quote:

> > Hey Long distance drivers,
> > For those who use cruise control, does it tend to cause a greater
> > consumption of fuel than driving with it off?
> > I have cc on my van but I've never used it and was curious if anyone
> > out there made a comparison. Thanks in advance,
> > Marc
> > (Hey Ellen, if your reading this, you may be my best responder!)

> Depends on whether there are mountains and big hills. When CC hits a
> mountain, it's going to maintain MPH, meaning it floors it. CC isn't
> cheaper, it's just easier.

by **Paul Braunbehren** » Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:16:31

Quote:

> I'd ask Google about the details, but the slight fuel consumption difference
> would pale compared to the convenience of CC, in my book.

I agree. Set the CC so you don't get a ticket, grab your iPod with a
good audiobook on it, and relax. I just disengage it when it looks
like I'd make better decisions than the CC, hills, traffic, etc. I use
it all the time on flats when pulling a boat, haven't noticed increased
fuel consumption. Actually, I probably get better fuel consumption
because I set the speed a little lower and it's very constant. If I'm
driving I tend to go a bit faster and end up speeding up and slowing
down more.

Quote:

> The downside? Ya better remember to disengage it next time you run off the
> highway.

I don't see that as a problem, since hitting the brake is the first
reaction and that disengages it. Obviously you don't want to go in the
back and make a cup of tea...

Of course when I'm going sailing and the wind is blowing CC is that
last thing on my mind. I usually end up breaking a few laws on my way
to the sailing site ;-)

by **Glenn Woode** » Fri, 25 Mar 2005 22:42:44

says...

Quote:

>Marc,
>I'm agreeing with Kurt. You can do better by anticipating slow-downs,
>allowing the vehicle to lose speed on grades, and accelerating slowly after
>a forced slow-down. On the wide open flats - speed control might beat out a
>tired driver whose constantly changing speeds.
>Brian

I agree with all of the above. Like Mike, I use it for the convenience of it
and to avoid letting my speed creep too high. I disengage it when I get into
traffic or standing water and when I think I can do a better job like when it
wants to overaccelerate.

I think in my case I do better fuel-wise when I do not use it, especially when
I am in a hurry. I have found that a heavier foot gets me better mileage. I
have a supercharger and it seems that the quicker I get that thing working for
me the better my mileage is. I think that combined with when my truck shifts
has a lot to do with it. I seem to waste a lot of fuel just getting out of
first unless I accelerate harder.

Glenn

by **Roger Jacks** » Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:14:24

Hi Marc,
In your van, with the turbo diesel, Cruise control should give you
better mileage.
If left on cruise control, the engine management system only has to deal
with changes in elevation.
If the elevation rises, the engine management senses the higher power
demand and spins up the turbo and increases the fuel available at the
injectors to increase the power, but only for as long and as much as
required to maintain the engine RPMs required to give the speed you have
set.
On a downhill incline, everything shuts down just enough to hold your
speed, but the turbo spins down and the fuel to the injectors is
reduced.
On bigger trucks, the cruise can even activate the "jake brake" and put
the engine in "negative horsepower engine braking" where the engine's
cam timing is altered and the engine develops a strong braking force.
Don't think the Sprinters have "engine braking" though.
I have a limited engine braking system on my Mitsubishi Fuso, but it
basically shuts off most of the fuel and makes the engine "suck" for air
which produces a mild braking effect.
Overall, allowing the cruise control and engine management systems to
"maintain" your speed should use less fuel than you accelerating and
decelerating with your foot.
Engine management will only change the fuel and turbo based on demand
and only enough to increase/decrease speed at a given rate.
You on the other hand will probably depress the pedal more than needed
in an attempt to change your speed more quickly and the turbo will spin
up and the fuel rate will increase probably alot more than engine
management would do it. Then you need to shut it off to reduce a little
speed so you probably will get poorer mileage due to more constant
"fluctuations".
My truck doesn't have enough power to have this problem. At anything
over 65 mph, the pedal is on the floor and the turbo is controlled by
engine management.
I don't have cruise control, but wish I did.
With the pedal to the floor, my truck simply gains and loses speed as
the road gradient changes. :-)
Roger

Quote:

> Hey Long distance drivers,
> For those who use cruise control, does it tend to cause a greater
> consumption of fuel than driving with it off?
> I have cc on my van but I've never used it and was curious if anyone
> out there made a comparison. Thanks in advance,
> Marc
> (Hey Ellen, if your reading this, you may be my best responder!)

by **Isobar** » Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:58:38

When a 6"-deep, tire-wide, square-sided, longitudinal trench in a newly
paved stretch of interstate highway spit me into the median construction
zone at 65 per, my entire brain was occupied with avoiding that D-9, its
bigger siblings, and the oncoming semi I missed by three feet. It wasn't
until I got my RV back under some semblance of control that I had the time
or spare brain bits to recognize that I was still under hard throttle,
engage my foot bit, and apply the brakes to disengage the CC. And the lady I
watched as she got BIG air at 60+ beside a highway seconds after she fell
asleep never showed any brake lights until she returned to earth and woke
up. MAN, was she busy hauling that sports car down from 60 out in the mogul
field! CCs aren't for drowsy people, IMO. That scenario is credited with
thousands of wrecks annually.

Mike \m/

Quote:

>> I'd ask Google about the details, but the slight fuel consumption
>> difference
>> would pale compared to the convenience of CC, in my book.

> I agree. Set the CC so you don't get a ticket, grab your iPod with a
> good audiobook on it, and relax. I just disengage it when it looks
> like I'd make better decisions than the CC, hills, traffic, etc. I use
> it all the time on flats when pulling a boat, haven't noticed increased
> fuel consumption. Actually, I probably get better fuel consumption
> because I set the speed a little lower and it's very constant. If I'm
> driving I tend to go a bit faster and end up speeding up and slowing
> down more.

>> The downside? Ya better remember to disengage it next time you run off
>> the
>> highway.

> I don't see that as a problem, since hitting the brake is the first
> reaction and that disengages it. Obviously you don't want to go in the
> back and make a cup of tea...

> Of course when I'm going sailing and the wind is blowing CC is that
> last thing on my mind. I usually end up breaking a few laws on my way
> to the sailing site ;-)

by **Mike LaRond** » Sat, 26 Mar 2005 02:51:14

Road elevation can be considered "potential energy". when climbing a hill
you convert your kinetic energy into PE. when descending, you can get your
PE back into KE...IF you let your vehicle speed up! it doesn't matter
whether you are stepping on the brake or "engine braking", either way you
are wasting momentum. In order to truely save gas, your average speed must
be less than the maximum speed you will be willing to travel on the
downhills.

If you insist on maintaining the same speed at all times, either manually or
by computer, you will waste gas.

I have also found it helpful to accelerate on a downhill when approaching an
uphill, then use my extra momentum to get me up the hill. the worst thing
for gas mileage is for your *** to downshift and this technique can avoid
it.

Mike L.
making annual 900 mile trip to OBX next month.
(last year of gas costing less than housing)

Quote:

> Hey Long distance drivers,
> For those who use cruise control, does it tend to cause a greater
> consumption of fuel than driving with it off?
> I have cc on my van but I've never used it and was curious if anyone
> out there made a comparison. Thanks in advance,
> Marc
> (Hey Ellen, if your reading this, you may be my best responder!)

by **(Pete Cresswell** » Sat, 26 Mar 2005 07:45:03

Per marc rosen:

Quote:

> was curious if anyone
>out there made a comparison.

I use mine when the right lane is moving at a steady speed.

But a guy I knew a long time ago who sort of drove for a living (his family had
a chain of candy stores spread across the USA and he drove thousands of miles a
month sometimes) always had his vehicles altered so that the throttle return
spring was extra-strong and he never, ever had cruise control.

His rationale was along the lines of dozing while driving.... the throttle
return spring was so strong that if the driver dozed and relazed his foot, the
power came off.

I still use my cruise... but that guy's outlook had definately affected how I
use it.
--
PeteCresswell

by **Ellen Falle** » Sat, 26 Mar 2005 07:41:29

Hi Marc,
For some reason, your post hasn't shown up on my newsgroup's view of
rec.ws, but I saw it in Roger's reply.
With my Sprinter, I have not found any real difference between using
cruise control or not. In the NE, there are not long stretches of road
that make it terribly practical to use. I do use it on the Garden State
Parkway in the southern region on my way to Lakes Bay. I can set it at
the speed limit, and then go faster if I choose, or relax, stretch my
leg and foot, and keep on going. I've used it on other highways as well
but don't like to keep my foot away from the peddle as I'm afraid I'll
forget I'm driving. I like the connection to the road through my foot.
The biggest change in my mileage was due to the front end needing
alignment part of one year. That dropped the average down to 19-21. Once
fixed, it went right back up to 22-24 mpg. On some occasions, my best
mileage came on a trip where I sat in heavy traffic in NYC area,
creeping along. That would have drained my car.
The CC on the Sprinter has so many options.
Ellen

Quote:

>>Hey Long distance drivers,
>>For those who use cruise control, does it tend to cause a greater
>>consumption of fuel than driving with it off?
>>I have cc on my van but I've never used it and was curious if anyone
>>out there made a comparison. Thanks in advance,
>> Marc
>>(Hey Ellen, if your reading this, you may be my best responder!)

by **Glenn Woodel** » Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:11:33

On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 14:14:24 GMT, "sailquik (Roger Jackson)"

Quote:

>I don't have cruise control, but wish I did.

Roger,

One advantage with a leg like mine. It comes with a sort of cruise
control built in. Get to the desired speed and lock the knee. :)

All kidding aside, I really do like my CC.

Glenn

Sport Today

Mostly Off Topic (unless you're driving to a windsurf event)

Mostly Off Topic (unless you're driving to a windsurf event)

Mostly Off Topic (unless you're driving to a windsurf event)

Mostly Off Topic (unless you're driving to a windsurf event)

Mostly Off Topic (unless you're driving to a windsurf event)

Mostly Off Topic (unless you're driving to a windsurf event)

Mostly Off Topic (unless you're driving to a windsurf event)

Mostly Off Topic (unless you're driving to a windsurf event)

Mostly Off Topic (unless you're driving to a windsurf event)

Mostly Off Topic (unless you're driving to a windsurf event)

Mostly Off Topic (unless you're driving to a windsurf event)

Mostly Off Topic (unless you're driving to a windsurf event)

Mostly Off Topic (unless you're driving to a windsurf event)