-
Hey Guest one of our sponsors Progressive Parts is running Black Friday and Cyber Monday offers - more details here
When standing still the computer says 0,7 L/hour if the aircon is off and between 0,8 an 0,9 when it's turned on. Mine's a 1,9 tdi with an ABT chip btw.
The cruise control uses less fuel if it's not to busy on the roads, if one has to anticipate a lot what the others are doing it's best to use your own foot, at least in my opinion.
The cruise control uses less fuel if it's not to busy on the roads, if one has to anticipate a lot what the others are doing it's best to use your own foot, at least in my opinion.
I remember reading an article some time ago about fuel usage and cruise control. It basically said that on normal level roads cruise control will save you fuel but in hilly areas you are better to control the speed yourself. This is because the cruise control cuts off the fuel on a downhill stretch to stop the speed from rising and pumps extra fuel through on an uphill to try and keep the speed. When you control the speed yourself you generally allow the car to build a little speed on the downhill which is carried into the uphill stage and then back off slightly on the uphill allowing the car to fall below the target speed, which is more efficient.
If needed, you would also drop down a geat on steeper climbs where as the cruise control would add as much fuel as possible in an attempt to maintain the speed without changing gear. I guess automatics might be better in this area.
If needed, you would also drop down a geat on steeper climbs where as the cruise control would add as much fuel as possible in an attempt to maintain the speed without changing gear. I guess automatics might be better in this area.
In respect to air con, in my expierience it only uses a very small amount extra fuel. I read somewhere (cant remember where though) that it uses less fuel than th edrag created by opening your window - plus it does actually cool the air rather than it being the same temp as the air outside.
At the end of the day these things are all gadgets which are great at doing what they do so who cares if they cost you an extra coupke of p per mile to use them!
At the end of the day these things are all gadgets which are great at doing what they do so who cares if they cost you an extra coupke of p per mile to use them!
The figure 7% springs to mind for air-con but can't remember where I heard it.
BJM is right though if you opened a window, sunroof or tilted the sunroof that is probably as bad.
For me with hayfever air-con of a godsend, as you keep cool without letting the pollen in...
BJM is right though if you opened a window, sunroof or tilted the sunroof that is probably as bad.
For me with hayfever air-con of a godsend, as you keep cool without letting the pollen in...
cruise control for some reason uses slightly more, but iam purely judging this by something i seen on a tv motoring show, poss top gear.
fultirtil
Guest
I have made a few controlled "runs" w/ and w/o Cruise control. From home to work it is around 15 km. What I drive is Leon Mk2 1.6.
A warm summer morning it consumed approx. 6.4L/100km with Cruise on; air con off.
Next day same weather conditions, tried to achieve the same speed (100km/h) and it consumed 6.5L/100 km.
I did this for a whole week. and the difference was not any higher than 0.1L/100km in favor of "cruise on"
With a pants on fire drive or a sunday morning drive air con wierdly adds the same amount: 1 L/100km
A warm summer morning it consumed approx. 6.4L/100km with Cruise on; air con off.
Next day same weather conditions, tried to achieve the same speed (100km/h) and it consumed 6.5L/100 km.
I did this for a whole week. and the difference was not any higher than 0.1L/100km in favor of "cruise on"
With a pants on fire drive or a sunday morning drive air con wierdly adds the same amount: 1 L/100km
Similar threads
