cruise control or not ?

Submitted: Thursday, Jan 26, 2006 at 20:06
ThreadID: 30149 Views:1915 Replies:12 FollowUps:3
This Thread has been Archived
Went to Adelaide to help a mate bring home a 'new to him' Pajero 3.2DiD from the Govt auctions. He has a Jeep Cherokee 2.5TD and we went in that and we both drove home after.
He, not used to the car only sat on 90 kms from Adelaide to Burra. It was getting dark not too far out of Burra, and it is our practice to go no faster than 80Kms from dusk because of the skippys. We saw a big one on the roadside watching us at Hallett. You never know where they are going to be.
Anyway, from Burra straight up the Barrier Highway home. He had cruise control on, none in the Jeep, but I just followed him. Filled up both cars before leaving Adelaide and again this morning here in Broken Hill. result, Pajero 42.6 litres, Jeep 50.2 litres. Mileage 504 Kms.
Was it the cruise control that made the difference ? I consider that I am a fairly economical driver, and he was never more than 500 metres in front of me.
This is very economical in my book, but obviously only 80KPH for a lot of the way.
Personally I put it down to the cruise control for the difference in the mileage.
It may take an hour or so longer to get home at 80KPH but we dont waste an hour or more visiting panel beaters or accessory shops looking for new spotlights because skippy has reshaped them. So the time evens itself out, and the pocket is in better shape too.
My mate is wrapped in the Pajero too, especially since he filled it up and saw the consumption.
I have a 12HT Sahara and I know I don't get that economy.

Dave
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Darian (SA) - Thursday, Jan 26, 2006 at 20:16

Thursday, Jan 26, 2006 at 20:16
I'm with you Dave re slowing down a bit - so much potential to save $ in the long run - as you say, you could almost guarantee a prang up there otherwise - overall, when we cruise slower in the outback on trips, we see more, we reduce tyre issues, we save fule (big time) and we save wear and tear on the car and other hardware overall..... its amazing how much better a trip can be ! Re the fuel costs... does it have to be cruise control ? I have heard adverse economy comment re CC (but I'm not personally in the picture) - why couldn't the Paj be more economical than the Jeep ? BTW- which model Paj and what did he pay ?
AnswerID: 151150

Follow Up By: Dave198 - Thursday, Jan 26, 2006 at 20:27

Thursday, Jan 26, 2006 at 20:27
Darian, the reason I thought it would possibly be the CC that had something to do with it is that the Pajero (1994 GLX) is bigger, presumably heavier but above all a 3.2 litre, the Jeep is only a 2.5 litre.
As you say, the scenery goes by a little slower, but the fuel and tyre saving allow me to travel a little further on my $$$.
Cost of the Pajero $33800.

Dave
0
FollowupID: 404736

Reply By: Dave198 - Thursday, Jan 26, 2006 at 20:31

Thursday, Jan 26, 2006 at 20:31
Slips, the year model was 2004 GLX Pajero

Dave
AnswerID: 151154

Reply By: Darian (SA) - Thursday, Jan 26, 2006 at 21:08

Thursday, Jan 26, 2006 at 21:08
Phew - thats better re the year - and a fine vehicle it would be too - far as I know (and I often know little) the economy is down to technology a whole lot more than capacity these days - if you have a look at the specs for some of the latest diesels (eg - the Mercedes in the latest Jeep Grand - the Jag in the latest Discovery) they have amazing power, economy and low emissions from relatively small motors - while not in the same class as the aforementioned, maybe the Jeep is ordinary on economy while the Paj is a leap ahead ? I know an 80 series Toyota (hose out model) with the 1Hz whose owner would want 10L/100km (unladen) at worst for that journey !
AnswerID: 151170

Reply By: Member - Andrew(WA) - Thursday, Jan 26, 2006 at 21:25

Thursday, Jan 26, 2006 at 21:25
The Paj 3.2DiD is well documented for its economy.

I use to have a 2000 model Paj with the petrol 3.5 V6....loved the car to drive but economy is at the other end of the scale compared to the diesel. That's why I got rid of it.

Only real complaint I had with my Paj..other than poor fuel economy...is the rattles!

I hate the rattles! and there seemed plenty of them when off road.

I bought the Patrol...no more rattles, and good economy but the Paj was nicer to drive!
AnswerID: 151178

Reply By: Member - Royce- Thursday, Jan 26, 2006 at 21:44

Thursday, Jan 26, 2006 at 21:44
Since cruise control, I feel pretty sure that I am getting better mileage. By no means scientific... but logical. Constant speed should use a little less?

AnswerID: 151187

Reply By: Member - Jeff M (WA) - Thursday, Jan 26, 2006 at 22:03

Thursday, Jan 26, 2006 at 22:03
I've had cruise control on manual petrols, petrol auto's and my current diesel auto (never had it on the deisel manual). I reckon it can go either way. Used correctly I reckon it does save fuel.

For example: If we are loaded to the hilt there are some stretches of road that doing the speed limit is hard yaka for the beast, you know the hilly cornery type stretches of highway posted at 110km/hr. Now the truck feels fine at those speeds stability wise but it has to work real hard to keep that speed, so I find if I'm using the right foot and not the cruise I tend to just let it slow down going up those steep hills and let it plod along (providing I'm not holding anyone up). But if the cruise is on it'll rev the guts outta the bugger and try and keep that speed through those sections sucking back the fuel in the proccess. However if I set the cruise back to say 90k's it can quite happily handle that with minimal strain. On the open flat highway it does save fuel because it's just holding the speed spot on, it also helps stop you creeping faster and slowing down continually risking both speeding fines and wasted fuel usage.

But if I ever get another vehicle which doesn't have it, it'd be the first mod to go on I reckon. I have some back problems and being able to have my feet evenly spaced on the floor and not continually holding muscles in my legs and back to keep the right speed helps alot on those long drives... A few beers when you get there also helps too! ;-)
AnswerID: 151193

Follow Up By: Rob DG - Friday, Jan 27, 2006 at 12:11

Friday, Jan 27, 2006 at 12:11
I agree with Geoff. Cruise Control is focussed only on speed and it doesn't care what it has to do to maintain it. So if you hit a hill it will drop it back a gear and redline if necessary to maintain the speed.

Used properly its a good tool. When I'm towing I put it on to give my leg a rest adn get the blood flowing if the vehicle can maintain the speed in top gear most other times when towing I prefer to be able tojudge the engine speed. I've noticed on Cruise control that depending on the terrain I can still get huge variations in top gear according to the on board computer and the tacho can show a 400rpm variation for the same speed.

In short I would think that the Pajero has a technology advantage and the Jeep probably had to work a little harder.
0
FollowupID: 404865

Reply By: Willem - Thursday, Jan 26, 2006 at 22:07

Thursday, Jan 26, 2006 at 22:07
Cruise Control on our XTrail seems to keep the fuel economy pretty constant at 10/100 at 110kmh(or thereabouts). If we drop down to 80km the fuel consumption drops to 8/100.

Am considering to fit it to the GQ as well.

Yes, there are plenty of nasty roos between Hallet and Broken Hill.
AnswerID: 151195

Reply By: eerfree - Thursday, Jan 26, 2006 at 23:39

Thursday, Jan 26, 2006 at 23:39
All
Don't you wish they would instal a neat little footrest alongside the throttle pedal?
I would screw a doorstop in there but I am a bit worried about where the screw point would end up.

eerfree
AnswerID: 151215

Reply By: rustytruck - Thursday, Jan 26, 2006 at 23:44

Thursday, Jan 26, 2006 at 23:44
I've found that on my old Paj, it would do better on cruise control on the open flat country but poorly in the undulating/hilly country. It tended to floor the throttle to try and maintain the speed. The diesel Patrol I have now (a cruise control retrofit) does exactly the same. My belief is that it is totally terrain dependent.
AnswerID: 151217

Follow Up By: Member - Jeff M (WA) - Friday, Jan 27, 2006 at 12:32

Friday, Jan 27, 2006 at 12:32
You explained it so much simpler than me!! LOL Man I over complicate things! :-)
0
FollowupID: 404871

Reply By: Member - Marquis - Friday, Jan 27, 2006 at 09:09

Friday, Jan 27, 2006 at 09:09
>> Pajero 42.6 litres, Jeep 50.2 litres. Mileage 504 Kms.

This is typical "unloaded" mileage for a Pajero DiD (about 8.5L/100km)

Cruise Control is a must far as I am concerned:
1) Help stay under the speed limit
2) Driver does not feel as tried on a long trip
3) Allows you more time to look at the road (or ....) and not at the speedo
AnswerID: 151231

Reply By: arthurking83 - Friday, Jan 27, 2006 at 21:19

Friday, Jan 27, 2006 at 21:19
Ever since my "knee accident" in '97, every car I have has (or I have fitted cruise)!

Some seem to be worse than others for maintaining economy, and it depends on the torque characteristics.

I find aftermarket jobs(that run off the manifold vaccum) tend to be not quite so wasteful, but drop speed in hilly terrain!

I (assume) it's due to the fact that there isn't quite the same amount of vaccume to pull the accelerator as far as the foot can!!

All my "factory fited" cars (saabs, rovers) have all had enough vaccum from the motorised pump, to keep the car at the set speed!

But even my XF falcon wagon(with the $190 Supercheap criuse, i fitted) struggled to maintain speed on some hills!! (with all its torque!!)

There is definitely econmy hit when using cruise in hilly country.
In my current Saab('92 Turbo) I can 'save' 1.5km/l, when not using cruise!!
( I can only go so far, though, before the knee gives up!)

On any relatively flat country(Mallee, Hume Melb-Albury.....etc) there is no economy hit
AnswerID: 151368

Reply By: Morgan VIC - Saturday, Jan 28, 2006 at 12:59

Saturday, Jan 28, 2006 at 12:59
Great to see there are some other smart drivers around "our practice to go no faster than 80Kms from dusk because of the skippys". Recently on my way to Walget a Dunnydore passed me at what I estimate 120k while I was doing 75k. About 30k up the road I came across the Dunnydore as one hell of a mess due to a large skippy. I helped load his stuff in the back of the truck and gave them a lift into Walget. We were to far out for mobile phone reception.
We both enjoy our cruise control and do find it does improve fuel economy in flat country. From a safety point of view I find you definitely do not get so tired.
AnswerID: 151447

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)