A diesel on cruise driven by a human will beat a petrol(gasoline) driven by a computer.
The problem with our 2016 CX-5 in the hills as described above it downshifts to maintain speed but the real problem is going down the other side of the hill. If steep and/or long it throws on the brakes to keep the car from going too fast and you lose energy to heat.
The first car I bought with cruise control was in 1988. I loved it.I am surprised that most people don't use it. I have a family member who never uses it because it is "dangerous".
The problem with our 2016 CX-5 in the hills as described above it downshifts to maintain speed but the real problem is going down the other side of the hill. If steep and/or long it throws on the brakes to keep the car from going too fast and you lose energy to heat. On my 2013 I could move the shifter to manual and it widened the range before it downshifted and I don't think it put on the brakes going down hill but I am not sure. Have not tried the M on the 2016 yet to see if the range is wider as the 2.5 has a bit more power and downshifting has not been as big a problem...
Oh and my point still stands, regardless of the circumstances. A diesel on cruise will beat a human driving a diesel. A car driving through hill country on cruise will beat a human.
no way in hell.
(rofl2)
Agreed. If maintaining Same speed was not a necessity i cal climb up hugging my 6th but cruise will drop you to fifth or 4th.
no way in hell.
(rofl2)
You didn't post your route, your average speed, weather, traffic conditions, tire pressure.
You also didn't post a result without cruise control on the same route under the same conditions.
Seems like a troll.
But I'm curious to know why you think cruise control will beat a human. If you think cruise control will hold a constant speed with less variation than a human, then I generally agree. If you're on perfectly flat terrain with no traffic and no variation in wind, then holding a constant speed should be better than varying speed with the same average. Because drag is proportional to the square of velocity, the extra fuel burned above the target speed hurts you more than the fuel saved below the target speed. But as soon as you throw hills and traffic into it, the answer is not so obvious anymore. In my anecdotal experience, driving on hilly terrain without cruise control, I seem to get better mileage by taking more of a constant throttle approach: gradually dropping below my target speed up hills and making it up on the downhills. Especially with turbo engines, using a lot of throttle to maintain a constant speed up steep hills seems to suck fuel quickly.
Haha. Love it. Ok. 70.