> I made an interesting observation and would like to
> hear views/opinions from list members.
>
<snip>

> Having moved from a very fuel efficient Golf to the
> After a lot of thinking and some testing this week I
> found out why.  When I drive to work on the highway I
> use cruise control.

<snip>

> I guess the answer is, if you want better fuel
> consumption don't use cruise control.
>
> Has anyone else found this to be true or is it a well
> known fact that I have never heard of (being that this
> is the first car I have owned that has CC)
>
> Gary
> 91 Vanagon
> 74 Bus
> 93 Cabriolet

Gary --

First, let me say that I think cruise control is the greatest thing since
sliced bread!  I haven't owned a car without it since I don't know when.

That said, I do think it's possible that CC can cut mileage on a "low
powered" vehicle if the terrain is hilly.   If you would try to be a "human
CC" and maintain speed in hilly terrain in your Vanagon, you'd have to floor
the pedal -- or at least come close -- many times to attempt to keep an even
pace.  Of course, WOT = high fuel consumption.  I don't believe the downhill
portions of a hilly drive with correspondingly small throttle angles make up
for the uphill fuel consumption.

I've got a '91 Carat and tried this -- it was verrrry interrrresting.

In the case of a more powerful vehicle, I think the car on CC would be the
economy champ over manual control (set at a reasonable speed, of course).  I
also own a new Corvette which, at cruise in hilly driving, requires only the
smallest of throttle position changes because of the engine's available
torque and power.

Even the potentially higher fuel consumption, however, won't make me give up
my Carat's cruise control.  Not only does it relieve my right foot, but in
commuter traffic it relieves my brain of potential road rage by helping me
not react to the "it's a race and you're in my way" rush hour idiots.    :-)

David Stell
Norman, OK