wrestrepo

I posted this in the wrong board...

I read on Time magazine that one of the strategies for saving gas is to not use cruise control...this was also discussed here until we got tired...In the spirit of believing that I am correct, and having to prove and convince everyone else I am (I feel like talking to my wife now) I would like to revisit this and explain my believes....

It is true that using cruise control will ask the car to speed up (rather accelerate)in an uphill situation to maintain the constant speed...but, what do you think that a person does in those conditions? they will push the accelerator too...I don't think that anyone that considers themselves a good driver would let the car slow down going uphill (I hate it when I get stock behind someone going slow uphill). As a matter of fact, I believe that here the advantage goes to the CC since our feet will try to speed up through the uphill, most of the time going over the "cruising" or desired speed.

In moderate to heavy traffic conditions it comes down to comon sense. I try to avoid it when the drivers around me are being too agresive or there is a lot of stop and go. At the same time, I try to use it as much as possible when people are speeding too much....I find myself becoming part of the "train" cruising at 80 and over to keep up with the pace. This is certainly not condusive to fuel economy and you tipically don't realize how fast you are really going...Again, the advantage would go to the CC since after setting the speed you won't be speeding with the group unless your right foot does it.

Becoming too impatient...well, push the right pedal down a little more...that's what we normally do if traffic seems to be at a stand still even when cruising at normal speed...with CC, "set it and forget it" even if it feels slow, you know what speed you are driving at.

If it is true that CC doesn't work for everyone, I believe that if used properly it will have the advantage over the human foot in fuel economy..jut my

Now, I will be taking an 800 mile trip on my RDX next week (first long one) and I want your thoughts....

neo1738

i dont know who has said no cc is better, but personally i have always found cc at speeds around 65mph are the best mpg in my RDX, as well as my previous accord and mustang

Patronus

Drive with your instant economy gauge selected and watch how sensitive it is to your right foot. Try it with and without CC. You can even reset the average economy meter, drive for a while manually, reset it and drive with CC and compare the difference.

Maintaining constant speed uphill is only part of the problem. CC does it much less efficiently than the human brain. As you start up the hill CC waits until the speed drops below a certain threshold and then guns it. Humans can actually anticipate the hill, even speed up before getting to it and relax the throttle a bit when going up the hill, all while not dropping below the desired speed. Much more efficient.

The only time CC might be more efficient is going straight and flat - like going across western Kansas. CC will not space out like a human might. Other than that, CC is less efficient than a alert human.

Pote757

A key point is that cc is not influenced by other traffic. You wont have the urge to go with the flow, race the douchebag who passed you or generally lose your focus when the cc is on. The cc may cause you to run a little faster than you would normally to stay in the fast lane where you wont be coming up on slower traffic and having to kick it off as much. I think the psychology of the cc has more to do with mpg than the actual mechanics of it.

I'd be curious to see how the adaptive cc on the infiniti's differs in mpg from a traditional one.

wrestrepo

Human anticipates the hill while driving with cruise control and accelerates to not loose momentum avoiding the computer intervention to "floor it"....what am I missing?...Advantage 50/50

Don't take it personal (anybody) I am not trying to convince you to use CC...

Scottieb

I have lately been take to using the CC on my drives home. My drive home is always after 8 pm and the roads home are more open. Even with the hills I do encounter on the drive I fined using the cc is better for my MPG.

mau108

CC is great when your driving on flat land but when you got hills and such CC kills gas.

Pote757

So who is right? Scottie or Mau? Does anyone have any substantiating data, or is this just your gut feeling/opinion?

There is too much opinion stated as fact going around this forum. And that doesnt do well for people who come here to learn about their rides.

sl_33

So basically it all comes down to driving style.

If you've got a twitchy foot and can't maintain a constant speed....cc is your friend.

If you can maintain a steady speed and drive like you're using cc, it's pretty much a wash.

But if you are extremely conscientious and factor in the hills in advance, you might be able to drive slightly more efficiently that cc.

So it seems to me that for 99% of people in 99% of situations, cc is either going to help you or not hurt your mileage and therefore has an advantage in more efficient mpg.

mau108

Its not about your foot its about how the cc works. Try this, next time your using CC, hit the ACCEL button and hold on to it, and watch how the engine responds and think about how you would speed up...you would never speed up like how the CC does and this is the reason why when your driving in up hill and downhill situation CC consumes more fuel, on flat paths is not really a concern.

sl_33

The ACCEL button does hit the gas pretty hard. But in most driving situations, cc maintains a steady speed and it isn't accelerating like that. Isn't the purpose of the ACCEL button to speed up quickly for passing someone or a simliar situation.

I would still predict that even in hills, the efficient gained by using cc in any flat sections is going to make up for the hard acceleration on hills and for MOST people, it will result in better mileage. Again, some people are probably savvy enough drivers to beat the cc, but not the majority. Also, driving in an area that is all hilly, you might not want cc, but for most semi-hilly or flat areas, it is useful.

And, more important to me than gas mileage, I wish more people would cc so I don't deal with the idiots going fast/slow/fast.... and play leapfrog with them on the highway.

mau108

going up hill, if it steep enough gives the same reaction hitting accel button does. I agree in light hills you may not notice it but here in canada we can get some massive hills and im sure in the US the same (ive been as far south as south carolina lol, I've driven through virginia :P

sl_33

Which Toronto do you live in? The TO I've been to is flat as a pancake.

scudzuki

One of the things I hated about my 2001 MDX was highway driving in PA with cruise control. Even on the flattest highways, the X would downshift, sometimes twice, to maintain 75 mph. I would purposely kick off the CC manually on a hill and take over, letting the vehicle slow if necessary, to prevent it from kicking down a gear.

The RDX has NEVER downshifted from 5th on any highway I've been on (the same roads, up to 80 mph). It has enough torque in top gear at that speed to pull the RDX. The boost will go up a bit, but it easily maintains the speed with no fanfare. I'm very satisfied in that respect. With regards to turning better mileage, I have a hard time believing I could do better with my foot whilst maintaining +/-1 mph.

Joe

wrestrepo

Guys, one advantage of the RDX is the paddles that can be used at any time...if you feel that downshifting (CC) is not what you like, shift up and take control of the accelerator...