Cruse Control

thescouselander

iolanthe07 wrote: »

Since returning from living in the USA I resolved never again to buy a car with manual transmission. Driving is just so much more relaxed and stress free in an auto.

I agree, automatic all the way for me. There's no reason not to now auto boxes are so good. Auto boxes are becoming more and more common on more expensive brands and I reckon this will trickle down until most of us are driving them - give it 10 years I think.

Iceweasel

thescouselander wrote: »

I agree, automatic all the way for me. There's no reason not to now auto boxes are so good. Auto boxes are becoming more and more common on more expensive brands and I reckon this will trickle down until most of us are driving them - give it 10 years I think.

I agree - autos are faster, more economical, and I can have much more control than with a manual.

If you want to take control yourself, the gear changes are much faster and perfect smooth every time.

I was a late convert have suffered from bad experiences with Ford and even M-Benz 3-speed boxes of decades long past.

A modern 8-speeder gives near seamless changes - not even the most dyed-in-the-wool stick-stirrer can compete with them.

A few of the hair-shirt purist sports car drivers bemoan the fact that they can't find a decent 2nd hand Porsche or Ferrari with a manual box these days.

Ferrari don't offer manuals any more IIRC the last time they did there were so few takers it wasn't worth their while offering it.

NBLondon

Iceweasel wrote: »

A modern 8-speeder gives near seamless changes - not even the most dyed-in-the-wool stick-stirrer can compete with them.

I agree - there's a huge difference between the first time I drove an auto (Rover 420 in the 90s) and the most recent (Jaguar XF in 2013). For almost all of the driving I ever do, I can't tell the difference.

A few of the hair-shirt purist sports car drivers bemoan the fact that they can't find a decent 2nd hand Porsche or Ferrari with a manual box these days. Ferrari don't offer manuals any more IIRC the last time they did there were so few takers it wasn't worth their while offering it.

It used to be that when driving hard on e.g. windy mountain roads, you wanted a manual so you could choose when to change down/ stay in a lower gear because you could see what was coming next and the gearbox couldn't. But like you say, many of the target buyers are rarely going to drive in those conditions and a modern semi-auto box with paddles meets the need for those who do. I tried a New Mini Cooper auto about five years ago and I think I only needed/wanted to shift for myself two or three times in a whole day.

None of which answers the question of why cruise control would be better when paired with an auto box than with a manual.

On the occasions I get to enjoy a country A- and B-road drive, I wouldn't use cruise control since a) the speed changes too frequently to make it an advantage or b) I'd be driving the old MG instead.

Joe_Horner

bigjl wrote: »

The XF and XJ are very hard on rear brakes, but I think that is not just due to Cruise Control using the rear brakes to control speed but because the traction control does and they are fitted with a speed limiter which also does. Often under 20k miles!

Don't know much about the Clio system though, but I wonder if most current vehicles fitted with stability control and traction control aswell as Cruise Control may be a little harder on brakes than with older less sophisticated cars?

Only if you drive them in a manner that needs the traction control etc to keep you on the road. If you keep within the car's grip limits they do nothing but monitor and don't affect brake wear at all

Iceweasel

NBLondon wrote: »

It used to be that when driving hard on e.g. windy mountain roads, you wanted a manual so you could choose when to change down/ stay in a lower gear because you could see what was coming next and the gearbox couldn't. But like you say, many of the target buyers are rarely going to drive in those conditions and a modern semi-auto box with paddles meets the need for those who do.

100% spot on there.

My current car has a close-ratio sport gearbox with the steering-wheel paddle-shifters and I very rarely need to use them - I might think that I can make a better gear choice than the auto-box with all it's magic wizardry - but I know that I cant.

Only when ascending hairpin bends in the Alps have I found that I needed to retain gears rather than allow the box to change up momentarily before changing back down.

I have driven a manual with Cruise Control and it was great for motorway/dual carriageway use where there were no serious inclines.

Of course a decent driver would change done a gear when the need arose - but many are likely to stay in a high gear so that the CC will open up the throttle in an attempt to maintain speed - and eventually even with the equivalent of one's foot being hard to the floor, the laws of physics win and the car will start to slow down and eventually labour the engine.

bigjl

Cruise Control is also very effective at doing a DPF Regen.

Was told that by a Jag Assist Tech, thought he was on the wind up, but it works, not sure if it works for every make as only tried it on a Jaguar.

But Inassume the ECU ensures some diesel is always injected to prevent the Regen being interrupted.

bigjl

Joe_Horner wrote: »

Only if you drive them in a manner that needs the traction control etc to keep you on the road. If you keep within the car's grip limits they do nothing but monitor and don't affect brake wear at all

What are you talking about?

Ever driven a Jaguar with speed limiter on? Or Cruise Control?

Ever pulled out of a junction in the wet with 600NM of torque? Traction Control is there to maintain traction it isn't a magic fix for every driving eventuality.

Traction control won't stop you losing control if you can't drive, stability control might but that isn't the same thing is it? Because this is a thread about Cruise Control and possible heavier brake pad wear.

Which you get with the powerful Diesel Jags, FACT.

So apart from trying to pick fault in others experiences what is your opinion on pad wear in the general context of this thread?

Joe_Horner

bigjl wrote: »

What are you talking about?

[...fruitloop rant at a simple observation...]

So apart from trying to pick fault in others experiences what is your opinion on pad wear in the general context of this thread?

Wow! Have you got toothache this morning or something?

And, for the record, yes I have driven vehicles with lots of torque in the wet (and on snow, and on ice) and without traction control.

Ability to apply appropriate power for the road surface is just as much a part of "not exceeding the limits" as not going into a corner too fast. Or weren't you aware that it's all the same grip you're using whether accelerating, braking or cornering?

k18dan

I was always under the impression that Standard Cruise Control will and can apply your brakes.

Say you are driving at 50mph and your CC is set at this speed also, if you come to a massive downward hill and coming off the throttle will not kill the speed enough to keep you to 50mph, the brakes will be applied to help reduce the speed.

Obviously this is rare.. as in most parts coming off the gas will slow down enough when at cruising speed i.e the motor way

I guess using CC around town where there are many steep hills your brakes with be used more.

I'm talking about standard cruise control btw not adaptive cruise control :money:

EssexExile

k18dan wrote: »

I was always under the impression that Standard Cruise Control will and can apply your breaks.

Things have moved on since I last bought a new car but I've never had one where the cruise control uses the brakes.