edmunds Inside Line: Spy Photos: 2013 Dodge Viper Getting Cruise Control....

I tried using CC once, it sucked the car was revving and letting off by itself (hilly area), never use it myself. Also this looks like adaptive CC not the button that looks like it has 2 cars on it on the upper right.
 
Cruise control is a must. When (not if) I buy a Viper, I'd be doing like a 2000 mile road trip in it. My right foot is not looking forward to that. :lol:
 
Honestly I don't like cruise control, it might be the hilly area my highways travel through but I'd rather just drive the car myself, better MPG's too when you can anticipate terrain changes beforehand. When it comes to the viper it's not a big deal at all, I'll be suprised when it gets Mercedes-esque TC that you can't turn off whatsoever.
 
Viper: Lift it, put on huge tyres, select top gear, idle your way home at motorway speeds.

You don't need big tires for that. The picture you posted is of a stock Viper. :p
 
I wish more people used cruise control. It's really annoying when I'm cruising along at a constant highway speed, and the person in front of me is constantly slowing down and speeding up because of hills and whatnot.

You get better gas mileage using cruise control, too.
 
You don't need big tires for that. The picture you posted is of a stock Viper. :p

Yeah, however it doesn't idle at 1200rpm... you'd be much slower than 60mph. The picture was for prizrak to illustrate it's very far from 100mph at low revs, not for you.


Dogbert: :nod: constant speed = lowest consumption and fastest arrival.
 
Huh? What did I do now?
The fact that you took my 100mph at 1100rpm literally :p
You get better gas mileage using cruise control, too.
Unless there are constant elevation changes, with your foot you can just keep it at the same spot and the car speed up/slow down normally while using the same amount of fuel, CC will open up throttle on uphill sections to keep same speed.
Dogbert: constant speed = lowest consumption and fastest arrival.
[narf mode]actually constant fuel flow = lowest consumption.
constant acceleration = fastest arrival, as you did not mention road conditions and the need to actually stop at your destination or the fact that car is limited in its top speed :)
[/narf mode]
 
Last edited:
The fact that you took my 100mph at 1100rpm literally :p

OK, I'll remember to ignore anything you post in the future that closely resembles facts, numbers, statements, opinions, etc because it might be in jest.

Unless there are constant elevation changes, with your foot you can just keep it at the same spot and the car speed up/slow down normally while using the same amount of fuel, CC will open up throttle on uphill sections to keep same speed.

The CC will open throttle uphill and close throttle downhill, resulting in constant speeds. Your constant foot would slow down uphill and speed up downhill, resulting in varying speeds.
Varying speeds mean you spend more time at slower speeds and less time at faster speeds, hence your average speed drops compared to a constant speed.
Varying speeds mean you are either too slow uphill or in risk of speeding tickets downhill.
Varying speeds mean you get excess punishment from aerodynamic drag during the downhill sections without being compensated on the uphill sections.

Here's an example: If you constantly go 100km/h you will do 100km in one hour. If your speed varies, let's say you switch between 90 and 110, you will have to do 45km at 90km/h and 55km at 110km/h to get 100km done in one hour.
The penalty for going 10km/h faster is greater than the reward for going 10km/h slower, and you do more distance at the higher speed. As a result your consumption will go up.
Additionally, if there is a speed limit equal to or slightly lower than the average speed you run the risk of tickets at the higher speed.

[narf mode]actually constant fuel flow = lowest consumption.

:no: If you let the fuel flow constantly while going downhill at or near terminal velocity you are doing nothing to speed up, that fuel is entirely wasted.

constant acceleration = fastest arrival, as you did not mention road conditions and the need to actually stop at your destination or the fact that car is limited in its top speed :)
[/narf mode]

You people have speed limits to worry about, good luck with your constant acceleration.
 
I used my truck's cruise control the other day and it worked like a charm. Those three repairs done to it by the previous owner seem to have been worth it. :p
 
This August will be the 4th drive to the N?rburgring and back for me (1000 km one way) and the first with cruise control. I've cruise controlled my dad's A6 for such long journeys before and it is a must! Especially with my right knee as I had an operation on it 20-odd years ago and it starts hurting a lot if it's constantly under (even limited) stress.

Otherwise I use it in town, when there's little to no traffic ahead of me or on long-ish straight local roads, otherwise it's too dangerous indeed.
 
OK, I'll remember to ignore anything you post in the future that closely resembles facts, numbers, statements, opinions, etc because it might be in jest.
There are things that are clearly exaggerations and done for comedic value and things that are potentially relevant. You seem to take everything as the latter, obviously no production car will do 100mph at 1100rpm not even the Veyron simply because no one ever gears cars like that (again street use)
EDIT: Assuming we are talking about gasoline powered 4-stroke engines that are not modified in any way and unmodified street use vehicles.
The CC will open throttle uphill and close throttle downhill, resulting in constant speeds. Your constant foot would slow down uphill and speed up downhill, resulting in varying speeds.
Varying speeds mean you spend more time at slower speeds and less time at faster speeds, hence your average speed drops compared to a constant speed.
Varying speeds mean you are either too slow uphill or in risk of speeding tickets downhill.
Varying speeds mean you get excess punishment from aerodynamic drag during the downhill sections without being compensated on the uphill sections.

Here's an example: If you constantly go 100km/h you will do 100km in one hour. If your speed varies, let's say you switch between 90 and 110, you will have to do 45km at 90km/h and 55km at 110km/h to get 100km done in one hour.
The penalty for going 10km/h faster is greater than the reward for going 10km/h slower, and you do more distance at the higher speed. As a result your consumption will go up.
Additionally, if there is a speed limit equal to or slightly lower than the average speed you run the risk of tickets at the higher speed.
From Wikipedia Driving over "rolling" terrain, with gentle up and down portions, can usually be done more economically (using less fuel) by a skilled driver viewing the approaching terrain, by maintaining a relatively constant throttle position and allowing the vehicle to accelerate on the downgrades and decelerate on upgrades, while reducing power when cresting a rise and adding a bit before an upgrade is reached. Cruise control will tend to overthrottle on the upgrades and retard on the downgrades, wasting the energy storage capabilities available from the inertia of the vehicle.
Something that I observed IRL as well, according to my MPG gauge I was getting better MPG than CC on the same hilly road.
If you let the fuel flow constantly while going downhill at or near terminal velocity you are doing nothing to speed up, that fuel is entirely wasted.
[narf mode]Terminal velocity wasn't mentioned in the original post[/narf mode]
You people have speed limits to worry about, good luck with your constant acceleration.
[narf mode]speed limits were not mentioned in the original post[/narf mode]
Also speed limit to me == road conditions.
 
Last edited:

You forgot to include the [citation needed] from the article. Additionally, physics would like to disagree as I posted already. Any anecdotal observation is affected by millions of factors - did you make sure the wind was the same? That your average speed was the same? Traffic conditions? Temperature? Load? etc etc etc - the CC vs foot aspect is just a small part of the puzzle. Having a different headwind than before will skew every single result, you'd either need a huge dataset or controlled conditions or a brain that considers the physics.
 
You forgot to include the [citation needed] from the article. Additionally, physics would like to disagree as I posted already. Any anecdotal observation is affected by millions of factors - did you make sure the wind was the same? That your average speed was the same? Traffic conditions? Temperature? Load? etc etc etc - the CC vs foot aspect is just a small part of the puzzle. Having a different headwind than before will skew every single result, you'd either need a huge dataset or controlled conditions or a brain that considers the physics.
I didn't forget to include anything, I linked to it, if I wanted to keep anything "hidden" I wouldn't have linked to it.

Consumption has to do with flow rate not with speed. If you flow 1 litre an hour under "manual" power and 1.1 litres an hour under CC you will consume more under CC. Depending on how hilly the terrain is you could take your foot of the gas completely and maintain speed downhill something that CC won't ever do. Also keep in mind that CC will not tolerate a single mph drop in your speed meaning that it will start accelerating before you normally would.

Either way I have yet to see any actual proof from you of your theory even anecdotal or Wikipedia based...
 
Only if you do not pay attention to the road ahead.

so i assumes you're one of the nutsacks that is reeling a car in at a speeddifference of 1kmh, but sees a car coming on the third band and moves over early because otherwise he would be boxed in, and have to break? and then taking fucking ages to get by the car in front?

it's more important to monitor the cars coming from behind you than the ones in front when in cruise control
 
Last edited:
Consumption has to do with flow rate not with speed. If you flow 1 litre an hour under "manual" power and 1.1 litres an hour under CC you will consume more under CC.

Volume per time is unrelated to fuel consumption in volume per distance or distance per volume. For example, idling along in first I will have low volume per time but enormous volume per distance while idling in sixth will have even higher volume per time but much lower volume per distance.

Depending on how hilly the terrain is you could take your foot of the gas completely and maintain speed downhill something that CC won't ever do.

That's simply wrong. If the downhill bit is steep enough to overcome friction/drag my CC will step off the gas completely and indicate 0.0l/100km consumption, as observed every day twice when going down the Holtenau bridge over the Kiel Canal:

https://pic.armedcats.net/n/na/narf/2011/07/21/20090521112515_Containerschiff_Holtenau.jpg

It's steep enough to have gravity outweigh drag and friction if there is no headwind.

Maybe it's your CC that flails?


Also keep in mind that CC will not tolerate a single mph drop in your speed meaning that it will start accelerating before you normally would.

What's wrong with that? The energy it puts in to the car is only wasted if you apply the brakes or if you travel excessively fast. You won't go excessively fast because you're on cruise control, and you won't apply the brakes in normal driving because you are a thoughtful driver who observes the road ahead and disables the CC to let the engine brake for you long before you reach any obstacle, converting that delicious kinetic energy into saved fuel.

Either way I have yet to see any actual proof from you of your theory even anecdotal or Wikipedia based...

As you wish. Here's why you should avoid varying speeds and prefer constantly going along at your average speed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)#Power
tl;dr: The power required to overcome aerodynamic drag grows with the third power of the speed. Going 25% faster requires 100% more power for overcoming aerodynamic drag, while the slower bits do not require 100% less power - on average you lose fuel.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AiR
Top