Influence of Cruise Control Use on Vehicle´s Consumption

Loman, Michal; Šarkan, Branislav; Skrúcaný, Tomáš · 2021 · Crossref

DOI: 10.2478/logi-2021-0002

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 passenger vehicles, motivated by the need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from road transport, which accounts for a significant portion of greenhouse gas emissions in the European Union. While eco-driving techniques are often promoted to lower consumption, the specific effect of cruise control—a system that maintains constant vehicle speed—on fuel efficiency remains a subject of inquiry. The research aims to quantify whether activating cruise control offers fuel savings or disadvantages compared to manual driving, particularly on highway sections where such systems are commonly used. The experimental design involved real-world driving tests conducted on a 12.2 km section of the D1 highway between Bytča and Žilina, Slovakia. The test vehicle was a Ford Focus II facelift, a Euro 4 compliant diesel passenger car. To ensure data accuracy, the vehicle’s technical condition, including tire pressure, was verified prior to testing. Measurements were taken using a diagnostic device connected to the vehicle’s On-Board Diagnostics (OBD) port to record fuel flow, engine power, engine speed, and vehicle speed. Each driving condition was tested three times under similar ambient conditions to minimize variability. The two conditions compared were driving with cruise control activated at a set speed of 120 km/h and driving without cruise control, where the driver manually controlled the accelerator pedal. The route included a relatively flat section followed by a 4 km ascent with a 63-meter elevation gain. The results indicated that fuel consumption was higher when cruise control was activated. The average fuel consumption with cruise control was 8.16 l/100 km, whereas manual driving resulted in an average of 8.10 l/100 km, representing a difference of 0.06 l/100 km. Graphical analysis of the data revealed that cruise control maintained constant engine power and speed, preventing the natural fluctuations seen in manual driving. In manual driving, the driver adjusted throttle input based on terrain, reducing power during descents or flat sections and increasing it during climbs. Cruise control, however, maintained a steady power output regardless of minor topographical changes, leading to slightly higher fuel usage. The study noted that while the measured difference was small due to the short test distance, the trend suggests that cruise control does not inherently save fuel in this context. The authors conclude that while cruise control increases fuel consumption slightly compared to attentive manual driving, it provides significant benefits in terms of driver comfort and reduced fatigue, particularly on long-distance highway trips. The system allows drivers to remove their foot from the accelerator and maintain focus on the road. Consequently, the paper recommends the use of cruise control where appropriate, prioritizing driver comfort and safety over marginal fuel savings. The findings suggest that drivers can influence emissions through their choice of driving technique, but the convenience offered by cruise control may outweigh the minor increase in fuel consumption for many users.

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.

• exposure measurement