When I use cruise control on my 1.2 Yeti, I get the feeling that more fuel is being used.  Is this my imagination or is there a clear reason why this happens?

 

If you really want to save fuel, you can beat the cruise control, easily. You have the ability to look ahead and adjust the throttle according to what you see, and make the throttle adjustment smooth. You can lift the fun pedal a little to adopt to trafic and fortcoming events (like hills, corners, etc.) The cruise control keep a steady speed whatever, and that means it really giving the beans at uphills just to keep the speed to the set digits.

I have heard mention before that cruise control may not be as fuel efficient as using your foot carefully. I guess the logic goes that the brain can see what is ahead and slowly increases or decrease the throttle in advance/anticipation. The car cruise control cannot think ahead and responds to immediate conditions/load. As such it is more abrupt in its response, not so smooth, and so demand for fuel is greater. Logic is smooth driving in correct gear means less fuel used.

 

Colin

 

I need to type more quickly. See above.

Edited 12 March, 201610 yr by eribaMotters

I concur with those observations.

 

That's one of the reasons I don't really like cruise control. If you dis-engage it because of traffic conditions and then re-engage it and you haven't got the speed just right it accelerates like a mad thing!

I've been trying to figure this out recently and reckon cruise is thirstier alright - as said above you can read the road ahead and feather the throttle etc which makes a difference.

Cruise control and DSG have made me a lazy driver and the penalty shows in the MPG.

 

Fred

More to do with the cruise control I think Fred.

 

I had two identical Passat estates one after the other, but one manual and one DSG and the DSG would generally give slightly better fuel consumption in Drive. This was because it would often change up a gear whereas in the manual I wouldn't bother because there was an island etc. not far ahead.

 

OK in a manual you can do better if you drive in higher gears and labour it but I can't drive like that with my mechanical sympathy!

Edited 12 March, 201610 yr by VAGCF

We're preparing to cross the continent on the one of the flattest, straightest and least trafficked highway in the world - across the Nullarbor (no trees)........one section is dead straight for 91.1 miles (Caiguna - Balladonia).

It will be a matter of locking the foot and allowing a gentle rise and fall in speed for many hours......I'll have to try and resist the urge when not on the flattest sections with wind speed and direction being a significant issue due to complete exposure........might find a truck occasionally))))

Cruise control used correctly should be more economical. Cruise control combined with electronic throttles can deliver much more precise amounts of fuel that your foot can. What cruise control can't do is see things like hills approaching and will, for example, accelerate until after the brow of a hill. Knocking the cruise control off when you can see things the cruise control can't and leaving it on at other times should be the most efficient use of it.

We're preparing to cross the continent on the one of the flattest, straightest and least trafficked highway in the world - across the Nullarbor (no trees)........one section is dead straight for 91.1 miles (Caiguna - Balladonia).

It will be a matter of locking the foot and allowing a gentle rise and fall in speed for many hours......I'll have to try and resist the urge when not on the flattest sections with wind speed and direction being a significant issue due to complete exposure........might find a truck occasionally))))

This is a perfect cruise control travel.

My best fill to fill has always been without, but you mustn't be one of those throttle pampers.

cc lags slightly then has to recapture the set speed .......I don't

I also avoid the down change when speed builds up on the other side.