Cruise control and fuel savings

[Christophe]

To what extent do you think that the generalization of the cruise control system makes it possible to lower the consumption? 5%? 10%?

Do you have concrete personal experiences (comparatively ideally)?

[elephant]

Personally, I fear this kind of device like the plague. When we see how the truckers who are equipped with it and who would rather die (or let die) rather than brake (pcq we can not even say lift off) drive

[Lietseu]

Hello everyone,

Here are the figures recorded by me, on Break Ford Mondéo TDCI 115CV. (At the time - from 100.000 terminals to the meter)

Outdoor temperature <20 ° C

90Km / H 4.2L / 100; 110 / Km / H 5.00L; 120 / Km / H 5.6L; 130 / Km / H 6.00L

Outdoor temperature> 20 ° C respectively 4.00 - 4.8 - 5.4 - 5.8

As you can see, it's not huge for such a big drum ...

the 90Km / H test was carried out in May 2007 from Antwerp to Nancy!


Here the stone is laid

[Lietseu]

Personally, I fear this kind of device like the plague ....

There will always be people unconscious, but I do not believe that "cruise control" is to be criticized for all that!

You brake it disconnects, you disengages, ditto so no problem with the most advanced cars equipped with a radar, the speed automatically adapts to that of the vehicle in front (but here we are talking about the high-end, hum)

Greeting!

[Other]

Hello

It's almost generalized on all cars in North America
Even on the old Mercedes 300D from 1984 for US export it was standard. (although too precise it gives a feeling of too tight control) while on Buick or Chevrolet it is very soft

I did not notice any difference on the flat road consumption
But in hill driving I prefer not to use it, in long descents I let write even if it exceeds the set point you arrive down more vigorous to attack the next rating.
The roads are straight and little traffic, the systems are appreciated over long distances
There are no more accidents because of the cruse control, there are more because of the use of such cell while driving.

Andre

[Lietseu]

Hello

It's almost generalized on all cars in North America
Even on the old Mercedes 300D from 1984 for US export it was standard. (although too precise it gives a feeling of too tight control) while on Buick or Chevrolet it is very soft

Andre

Hello !
That's it I master the thing of quotes ouf, it helps to be well understood, I confirm that on Ford it is relatively soft but also very precise +/- 2KM / H depending on whether it goes up or down ...

It is very clear that if you put yourself in neutral at the top of a huge highway descent like there are in Périgord, (the descent to Limoge ....) you earn money ... in fact on motorway - at night- I change gears in front of each significant long descent and to stop refueling, after 1100KM. with 115hp you climb anything in 6th grade

the mill runs at 2000 rpm. in 6th at 120KM / H which foot this box.

I drove 15 years ago a super Opel Senator with petrol of + de200CV automatic with cruse control arrived at 40 KM / H if you pushed the little button the BEAST would bring you in a few seconds at the memorized speed (120 with us ) it was really a monster! hi, hi!

[Other]

Hello

It is very clear that if you put yourself in neutral at the top of a huge highway descent like there are in Périgord, (the descent to Limoge ....) you earn money ... in fact on motorway - at night- I change gears in front of each significant long descent and to stop refueling, after 1100KM. with 115hp you climb anything in 6th grade

I only have automatic cars .. 3,8 liter engine, so no neutral on a descent it's rigged for tranamition

Andre

[Lietseu]

Exact Master, I bow to your mastery of mechanics.




You are all great!

Good luck and long life to the "Pantone"

[dirk pitt]

good is all this but what about fuel savings? (as the title said)
Personally, I will tend to think that the regulation will always do better than your feet on the accelerator which does not stop fussing for nothing. and I lift my foot, and I accelerate, etc.
the problem is that, on the other hand, the regulation has a set point (speed) and it follows it (stupidly) while humans constantly adapt their speed to external conditions. so it is very difficult to compare.
if we tried on a 100km stretch of highway, to compare the consumption with and without regulator, I think there would be slight advantage to the regulator but the primary purpose of the regulator is more comfort than economy
all that obviously depends on the way of driving of each. last week I went on a business trip with a colleague and I observed his conduct. he was unable to maintain a somewhat constant speed on the highway over 20sec.
it varied continuously between 110 and 130 without reason due to traffic.

it made me think that rather than the cruise control, it would perhaps be interesting (in terms of fuel economy) to have a device that does not take into account the small and rapid variations of the speed. 'accelerator. a sort of digital filter of the information coming from the accelerator to smooth all this out and only take into account what is in the domain of the "voluntary" and not the "unconscious" variations of the accelerator.
easier said than done because the mathematical model may not be easy to find.
if it is, it already exists.

[jessle]

berlingo 1.6 hdi 92ch with regulator

In terms of driving with a regulator, it's true we must not dream driving we must think that the vehicle rolls him whatever happens and always at the speed to program whether it is up or down


upon receipt of the training vehicle by the dealer 45 minutes on the governor limiter only
sentence to remember
"if you drive with a regulator;
as soon as we do an action without regulator cut the regulator "

rolling runs is useless, we must accelerate thoroughly to all reports my consumption decline; even more if it is the regulator that accelerates

always with the same flat route with wind and at the same time

700 km without cruise control sought 130 6.5l / 100 3000rpm

700km with speed regulator 130 6l / 100 3000rpm

driving with the regulator consumes less
journey 780km in Switzerland 120km / h steep uphill and downhill lots of acceleration and decelaration 5.8l / 100