Cruise control hurting gas mileage??

[justasimpleman]

So i live like 20ish miles outside of the city, and there’s a road I take pretty much every time to go back n forth... majority of the time, I use cruise control figuring it’s helping keep the mpgs up. Leaving, I get it to around 35ish, coming home 38-40ish.

last couple times going home, for whatever reason I forgot to turn on CC, and the mileage was easily at 40+. This morning I left, and it was also 40+.

I pretty much never use eco. Driving roughly 60-65ish mph.

In the pic below, top is leaving this morning, and bottom is coming home last night...

Sponsored

 

[BoostinIX]

In my SI I've noticed I can usually do better than CC just by watching the instant MPG meter. CC only cares about maintaining that number you set, not is there a downhill to take advantage of, a hill that'll suck up more MPG. Can't speak to your driving habits, but generally CC is not the most efficient way possible. Also could be there's more uphills than down in one direction. Randoms like that.

 

[justasimpleman]

Both ways seem pretty flat, but leaving I’m assuming is a slight incline. I’ve just noticed a pretty significant difference with/without CC.

 

[NotSerious]

I have never measured the difference in mpg, but it does seem as though Cruise Control does hit the accelerator quite hard going up hills and engine RPMs rise quite a bit. When CC is off, I don't hit the gas as hard going up hills. I have always suspected that I could easily outperform CC if I am fully alert.

I think that Cruise Control is for those long boring highway drives with light traffic. It is there to relieve the boredom, not to save fuel.

 

[justasimpleman]

I have never measured the difference in mpg, but it does seem as though Cruise Control does hit the accelerator quite hard going up hills and engine RPMs rise quite a bit. When CC is off, I don't hit the gas as hard going up hills. I have always suspected that I could easily outperform CC if I am fully alert.

I think that Cruise Control is for those long boring highway drives with light traffic. It is there to relieve the boredom, not to save fuel.

I use CC often, I’m going to stop using it as much, and see what kind of difference I see.

 

[rwsmith123]

If there are traffic lights or traffic, CC doesn’t do any anticipation there. For instance if you see a red light up ahead you can coast or slow down a bit so it turns green before you get there so you don’t have to stop.

 

[GTA_Hatch]

Adaptive CC also seems hard on the brakes. It can't anticipate gradually slowing when approaching a slower car ahead. Brakes, gas, brakes, gas....

 

[16LXMT]

Cruise control has been inefficient on fuel since it was invented.

 

[justasimpleman]

If there are traffic lights or traffic, CC doesn’t do any anticipation there. For instance if you see a red light up ahead you can coast or slow down a bit so it turns green before you get there so you don’t have to stop.

I don’t use it in city environments with a lot of potential stop/go. And I always turn it off and coast if there’s a stop coming up.

Adaptive CC also seems hard on the brakes. It can't anticipate gradually slowing when approaching a slower car ahead. Brakes, gas, brakes, gas....

i always have it at the closest setting, so it doesn’t slam on the brakes if there’s a car a mile ahead of me lol. I can’t stand that.

Cruise control has been inefficient on fuel since it was invented.

I’ve always thought it was the other way around... just now realizing how inefficient it really is.

 

[Habanero]

I would not take that computer as gospel because of course you are not getting 46 MPG to begin with. If so that means you could go 600 miles on a tank a Prius doesn't even do that. To test this you can fill up your tank to the brim then see how far you get on it. Most I have gotten is 450 miles which is 37MPG and that is with eco always on and I don't speed. If MPG is important to you I would use the ECO button you can always turn it off if you want to.

 

[Osobigg]

Most of the community here would be a better computer than the Cruise Control. We can see, predict, and adapt to the environment, predicting the road ahead. Whereas the Honda needs to react to sensory input it detects in reaction to road conditions & inputs, and usually will over-compensate due to it.

I regularly beat my CC on fuel economy

 

[justasimpleman]

I would not take that computer as gospel because of course you are not getting 46 MPG to begin with. If so that means you could go 600 miles on a tank a Prius doesn't even do that. To test this you can fill up your tank to the brim then see how far you get on it. Most I have gotten is 450 miles which is 37MPG and that is with eco always on and I don't speed. If MPG is important to you I would use the ECO button you can always turn it off if you want to.

I understand I’m not getting 46 for the duration of the tank. Just certain drives will get me better MPGs than others.

 

[justasimpleman]

Most of the community here would be a better computer than the Cruise Control. We can see, predict, and adapt to the environment, predicting the road ahead. Whereas the Honda needs to react to sensory input it detects in reaction to road conditions & inputs, and usually will over-compensate due to it.

I regularly beat my CC on fuel economy

Definitely something I’ll be trying to see what difference I can make.

 

[Gruber]

I think if you do CC for fuel economy, you definitely should be on ECON, because it changes some behaviors of the CC/ACC. For example it might not pursue the set speed so rigorously.
But generally, a driver trying to save gas will do better. CC will only beat on mpg a driver driving his normal undisciplined style with constant pushing back and forth of all the pedals available in the car.

 

[saiko21]

I never use CC at all as I feel bored when computer controls the car and I get sleepy

Sponsored