Cruise control...gas saver, or gas waster?

[mjncad]

Thanks for the replies everyone. It's nice to know I'm not imagining things.

I've never used the cruise control in 1995 Accord and have no idea if it works. Unlike my F-250, with the Accord I have no place to comfortably put my feet with the CC on, so I have no reason to use CC...even if I did like it. My Accord is much easier to manually modulate speed and RPM than my F-250 is.

I'll stick to being contrary and not use CC, with one exception. I do use it on my 4200 if I'm driving over to a neighbor's to move rock or dirt for him.

 

[schmism]

are we talking about towing or not towing.

In my car i can see a 2-3 mpg gain when useing cruise (6spd manual) This was verified when driveing from STL MO to Estas park CO in one day.

but thats a aerodynamic car not a box on wheels er 99 F-250

 

[Bird]

are we talking about towing or not towing.

In my car i can see a 2-3 mpg gain when useing cruise (6spd manual) This was verified when driveing from STL MO to Estas park CO in one day.

but thats a aerodynamic car not a box on wheels er 99 F-250

Whether manual or automatic, most people will get better mileage, with the cruise control. We had a 1993 Ford Escort, 5-speed manual, that averaged 32.585 mpg over its 121k life. But on highway trips where I used the cruise, usually on the speed limit to as much as 5 mph over, several tanks of gas were 38 to 41 mpg with the average over 38. We now have a 2002 Ford Crown Vic that has averaged 21.769 mpg, but last summer, on a trip to WV, 3 adults going and 4 coming back, using the air-conditioner all the way, it averaged over 26 mpg for the round trip.

While most people will get better mileage with the cruise control, it is possible to get better mileage without it, and I understand and know how to do that, but it's terribly inconvenient for yourself as well as others on the road.:laughing:

I like my cruise contol so much that I even had the dealer put an aftermarket cruise controil on my 1985 Honda Aspencade motorcycle.

 

[Gale Hawkins]

are we talking about towing or not towing.

In my car i can see a 2-3 mpg gain when useing cruise (6spd manual) This was verified when driveing from STL MO to Estas park CO in one day.

but thats a aerodynamic car not a box on wheels er 99 F-250

Steve in the case of the MH I was talking about fully loaded which is 100% of the time in the case of a MH.

Cars and unloaded trucks should see little to no downside when using cruise and most likely it would be a plus as the posts are showing.

It is the loaded/maxed out vehicles I think where cruise can actually cut MPG any. As I posted before even in the MH unless in some real hills mainly found on two lane roads I will the cruise for comfort.

 

[brandoro]

I feel I get better fuel economy using the cruise control because without it I tend to settle right around 80mph. While that seems comfortable enough for me there are some others out there that take a dim view of it. I haven't had a speeding ticket in over two decades and give full credit for that to my use of cruise control. I am unlikely to purchase a vehicle without CC for that reason alone but, since I live on the prairies where the terrain is flat or gently rolling I figure I am in terrain where CC works best. I agree that one problem with it is that it doesn't anticipate hills, up or down, often I will help out with that then hit resume as soon as the terrain allows.

 

[ModMech]

As others have correctly noted, most drivers will get better mileage WITH than WITHOUT. It does not mean they are not "good" drivers, only that they are not SUPERIOR drivers

My father can SPANK any cruise control system in economy, but not in maintaining a strict pre-determined speed.

I have driven probabally 100 different cars and trucks at least 50 miles on cruise control, most are "on the gas/off the gas" and that sucks gas. A FEW late model cars (our Taurus) have VERY smooth cruise control programming and will not WOT the engine or engage if the speed is too different than the pre-set. The cruise in the Grand Marquis is not as good (smooth) but the car is about 1,000 heavier.

A STEADY FOOT is the key to good economy, few people care, much less make an effort to operate a vehicle smoothly and efficiently. Therefore, most will benefit from the use of cruise control.

 

[mjncad]

are we talking about towing or not towing.

In my case, it's NOT towing.

A STEADY FOOT is the key to good economy, few people care, much less make an effort to operate a vehicle smoothly and efficiently. Therefore, most will benefit from the use of cruise control.

I aim for the steady foot method of driving, and it pisses me off when other drivers speed up, slow down constantly making me do the same.

The other reason I dislike CC is I don't feel as much in control of the vehicle as I prefer.

 

[Bird]

I aim for the steady foot method of driving, and it pisses me off when other drivers speed up, slow down constantly making me do the same.

Do you mean "steady speed" which is what you get with cruise control, or do you mean "steady foot", as you said, which means your vehicle slows on every upgrade and speeds up on every downgrade, no matter how slight?

 

[Pops15]

I get better MPG without cruise in both my F250 and Grand Marquis while maintaining a steady speed (varies about 1 mph). The CC in the F250 doesn't maintain speed that well. It will lose 4-5 mph before down shifting in some situations, then like others have said it's WOT. The CC in the GM is much better.
The people not maintaining a constant speed don't bother me nearly as much as those that pull out to pass then take several miles to complete the pass. I suspect they have their CC set a fraction of a MPH faster than those they are passing. Either that or they're just inconsiderate drivers.

 

[ModMech]

I get better MPG without cruise in both my F250 and Grand Marquis

Looks like your fleet closely resembles ours