What are the reasons for NOT using Cruise Control?

[check]

I agree with you and try to keep a minimum of 4 car lengths in front of me clear. More if I'm hauling something. The kicker is, in rush hour, at any given time you'll have at least 3 vehicles squeeze into that space in front of me. Till they can pull away from me to free up that space, your limited. And usually it's just more and more vehicles stacking into that spot. Usually turns into a nasty cycle till you can get out of the city and traffic frees up

Yeah, this happens a lot. Traffic is heavy, you have at least two lanes going each way, and somebody always seems to feel that if there is more than one car length between you and the car in front of you they need to get into it! Even if your left hand lane is steadily (but slowly) passing the cars in the right-hand lane, which may themselves have spaces between them. When you see that person weaving in and out at high-speed in heavy traffic, I always try and pull over for even 30 seconds or so, so that I am not involved in the accident that they may very well cause.

 

[check]

But it's way more fun to see how mad you can make other drivers. What would you expect someone to do, just move right & get out of the way?

It would be a lot more fun if you were a fly on the wall in the other person's car, watching him/her panic! But of course, they may also get into an accident and hurt someone seriously, so I won't chance it even though the impulse is really appealing!

 

[check]

What would you expect someone to do, just move right & get out of the way?

Actually, I almost never give anyone a reason to tailgate me, as I am never a "left lane bandit". I check my rearview mirror constantly, and when I see someone coming up I move over into the right-hand lane if it all possible. If not, I speed up enough until I get a clear spot in the right-hand lane. And when I was younger, I would call these people "bear hunters", and pull in behind them after they passed me, and then follow them at their over-the- limit speed unless it was ridiculously excessive. A bit too risky these days, however, with all of the sophisticated radar that the cops have.

 

[cqaigy2]

I've never owned a car that couldn't maintain or increase speed up hill, let alone have to floor it. Even my junky $500 Nova's in the 80's could do it. If the car is that bad, its probably not safe to drive on the road.

You've never driven a 2001 ford ranger. Maybe the fiberglass (heavy) canopy has something to do with it, but there are some hills around here that i just can't maintain 70MPH. If there's a right lane, you'll find my truck in it.

 

[Sysop]

Every one of the new cars I've seen from Dodge, Chevy, Ford, Honda, Toyota, etc., in their base trim with the base engine is incapable of maintaining a steady speed on the hills local to me, they always have been. They all drop speed and downshift, many drop even more speed and downshift again, then after a downshift or two they'll be getting enough juice to the wheels to gain some of the speed back. But then they try upshifting and start losing speed again... Eventually you reach the top of the hill and the abuse is over.

If you want a weak car to last 100,000+ miles in the mountains near me, you just go ahead and slow down while going up the hill so the car remains in the lower gear that's able to pull the hill. Either that or you spend the money on a better powerplant under the hood so it's not working so hard to pull the hills. Truth be told, I've never owned a vehicle with the base engine because I've seen enough of them struggling up the hills to know better. I always go with the most powerful available powertrain for my vehicles so I'm not wearing my vehicle out on the hills and can get better fuel economy because I'm not constantly driving it at it's peak output just to pull the hills.

 

[Egon]

Want life get the rpm's at torque peak or slightly above and shift gears to keep it there.

 

[dragoneggs]

Want life get the rpm's at torque peak or slightly above and shift gears to keep it there.

A great reason, Egon Been a long time.

 

[Sysop]

That's more or less the same thing as slowing down so you can get into a gear range that can maintain a steady speed, just worded differently...

 

[k0ua]

If anyone doubts that this is possible, you are welcome to come by and we will go repeat this experiment, but you can not ride the Palomino because that is my favorite ride on the merry-go-round.

Now that put a smile on my face!

 

[MossRoad]

Every one of the new cars I've seen from Dodge, Chevy, Ford, Honda, Toyota, etc., in their base trim with the base engine is incapable of maintaining a steady speed on the hills local to me, they always have been. They all drop speed and downshift, many drop even more speed and downshift again, then after a downshift or two they'll be getting enough juice to the wheels to gain some of the speed back. But then they try upshifting and start losing speed again... Eventually you reach the top of the hill and the abuse is over.

If you want a weak car to last 100,000+ miles in the mountains near me, you just go ahead and slow down while going up the hill so the car remains in the lower gear that's able to pull the hill. Either that or you spend the money on a better powerplant under the hood so it's not working so hard to pull the hills. Truth be told, I've never owned a vehicle with the base engine because I've seen enough of them struggling up the hills to know better. I always go with the most powerful available powertrain for my vehicles so I'm not wearing my vehicle out on the hills and can get better fuel economy because I'm not constantly driving it at it's peak output just to pull the hills.

Geeze... just pull it into the lower gear BEFORE you hit the hill and it'll maintain the speed it all the way up. Drive the vehicle, don't let it drive you.