Does cruise control use more fuel?

wazza

html,body{border:0px;margin:1px;} td {border:1px dotted #CCCCCC;} Does cruise control use more fuel?
This applies to modern cars.

This is my style of driving a car without cruise control. I accelerate gently, not sluggish or harshly. When i get to my desired speed i lift my foot slightly off the accelerator so that i am cruising at the desired speed using as less fuel as possible. When i go down a hill i lift my foot off the accelerator and let gravity do the work. Only apply accelerator when required. (No i am not the type who does 56.00 mph on the motorway, i do like to drive my car to the full within legal speeds of course ;-) )

Imagine you are on the motorway with the cruise control set at 70 mph. You have to apply brakes which automatically disengages the cruise control. When you press resume does the cruise control make the car accelerate harder than normal hence using more fuel?

On a long journey is it economical to use cruise control compared to manual input (your right foot)?

Pew_Pew_Pew_Lasers!

CC may use ever so slightly more fuel than normal, but not so much that I've ever noticed.

The value of CC is that it makes a long journey a hell of a lot less tiring.

Harry_Flashman

I must admit that I've only just got a motor with cruise - it feels like it uses more fuel, but I can't prove it yet.

cheesecake0117

Using it will use more fuel than driving at the same speed without it. However it is genrally more efficiant over longer journies as it will cancel out the effect of any minor changes in speed that would be made through normal driving. provided you look far enough ahead and change lane early you should not need to touch a thing.

missile

I would suggest cruise control is more efficient. You only touch the brakes to disengage. It would be more efficient to gently accelerate back to cruising speed, rather than "resume".

Hintza

missile wrote: »

I would suggest cruise control is more efficient. You only touch the brakes to disengage. It would be more efficient to gently accelerate back to cruising speed, rather than "resume".

I think this would be my main observation. It can sometime seem like an F1 start when you hit resume from a low speed.

There are some fairly windy roads round us and I try and have some fun setting the cruise control so I can drive it at a constant speed (can make some corners a bit hairy though).

For me I think it helps me stay a lot calmer and I'm more likely to stick (closer) to the speed limit wheras without it I might have pushed harder on some sections of motorway.

System

It may or may not use more fuel but the morons who set their cruise control and end up crawling past you on the motorway at 1/2 MPH faster than you really wind me up.

Hintza

!!!!!! wrote: »

It may or may not use more fuel but the morons who set their cruise control and end up crawling past you on the motorway at 1/2 MPH faster than you really wind me up.

What speed would you like people to overtake you at?

10JH

I have no scientific proof, but reckon it does!

On my car (Mini), I hate it. It seems to quite aggressively accelerate regularly, especially when going up a slight incline.

I only use it as a result when going through the 50mph sections through road works on the motorway.

Rolandtheroadie

!!!!!! wrote: »

It may or may not use more fuel but the morons who set their cruise control and end up crawling past you on the motorway at 1/2 MPH faster than you really wind me up.

What I hate is the morons that DONT use it but if someone overtakes them, speed up to get back past. Then (unknown to them due to their poor attention span and psycological need to go past a car thats "only just" going faster than them)slow down again so the process is repeated again.
My only problem with cruise control would be when you go to brake after it being on for a while. It can sometimes be a bit nervy.

cyclonebri1

Hintza wrote: »

What speed would you like people to overtake you at?

He's actually got a good point there, certainly won't help traffic flow. Some drivers do engage CC then engage 3rd lane if you get my drift.

I've never had a car with cruise control (that worked), but I would imagine it will use more fuel.

Speed limits providing, it would probably be more economical to do all the accelarating downhill and maybe drive slight faster downhill and slighly slower uphill, again traffic flow has to be a consideration