An analysis of the use of cruise control in a passenger car

Andrzejewski, Maciej; Merkisz, Jerzy; Nowak, Mateusz; Ziółkowski, Andrzej; Daszkiewicz, Paweł · 2020 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.14669/am.vol89.art3

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This study investigates the impact of cruise control usage on the fuel consumption of a passenger car equipped with a spark-ignition engine. Motivated by the correlation between fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, the research aims to verify whether maintaining a constant speed via cruise control is more efficient than manually adjusting speed to account for terrain variations. The authors note that while aerodynamic resistance increases with the square of speed, traditional cruise control systems maintain set speeds regardless of inclines, potentially requiring excessive fuel injection on uphill sections and unnecessary braking on declines. The experimental design involved road tests conducted on a 25 km section of the S11 expressway in Poland, characterized by a variable topographic profile with elevation changes exceeding 25 meters. The test vehicle was a Skoda Octavia III TSI meeting Euro 6 emission standards, equipped with a three-way catalytic converter. Fuel consumption was determined using a Portable Emission Measurement System (SEMTECH DS) that measured exhaust gas concentrations (CO, HC, NOx, CO2) and mass flow rates, applying the carbon balance method. Three driving strategies were compared to achieve an average speed of 130 km/h: a reference drive at a constant 130 km/h (using cruise control), a variable speed drive of 120 km/h uphill and 140 km/h downhill, and a more extreme variable speed drive of 110 km/h uphill and 150 km/h downhill. The results demonstrated that the reference drive at a constant 130 km/h yielded the lowest fuel consumption at 6.9 dm³/100 km. The variable speed strategies resulted in higher consumption: 7.2 dm³/100 km for the 120–140 km/h range (a 3.2% increase) and 7.6 dm³/100 km for the 110–150 km/h range (a 9.1% increase). The authors attribute the increased consumption in variable speed scenarios to the energy required for frequent acceleration and the disproportionate increase in aerodynamic drag at higher speeds. Specifically, the larger speed differentials in the 110–150 km/h test led to greater acceleration demands and higher aerodynamic resistance compared to the 120–140 km/h test. The study concludes that, contrary to the theoretical expectation that adjusting speed for terrain would save fuel, maintaining a constant speed via cruise control was the most fuel-efficient strategy in this specific real-world scenario. The authors suggest that simple speed adjustments based solely on the presence of inclines or declines, without optimizing for the specific gradient or aerodynamic factors, lead to higher energy expenditure due to acceleration losses and increased drag. This finding highlights the complexity of optimizing fuel consumption in real driving conditions and suggests that basic cruise control may outperform naive manual speed adjustments on hilly terrain.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-26; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• eco driving