Honda Insight Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I seem to be getting much better mileage than most CVT owners and I am wondering if this is because I use cruise control.

I can easily achieve 72MPG cruising between 55-60. Anyone else with a CVT have cruise installed?

Peace
-Jon

_____________________________________
2001 Honda Insight CVT (best segment 76.1MPG / 53 miles)
2005 Toyota Sienna (20.2 LMPG)
1968 Mercedes Benz 404s Swiss Army 4x4 (16MPG leaded only!)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
231 Posts
Resist said:
I wonder as well but I do know cruise will accelerate when your foot might not.
I think a cruise control would probably help my gas mileage. I don't have a cruise right now, and I try to maintain a speed of 65 using just my foot. What happens is that I get distracted, and I end up going 70 or 75 quite often. A cruise controll would help slow me down.

What's a good aftermarket cruise control for the Insight? I know there are other threads on this, but most of them are pretty old, and perhaps outdated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
Question: is the 72 your lmpg, current average mpg on Trip A, or what what appears on the instantaneous fe display?

I ask this because I can easily sustain 72-90 mpg on the instantaneous fe display when driving 55-60. But my Trip A average is generally 55 (lmpg 55.9) due to the rest of the daily driving situations.

And of course, it's a CVT
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
44 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Segment Mileage is what I was referring to

Question: is the 72 your lmpg, current average mpg on Trip A, or what what appears on the instantaneous fe display?
This is the average trip MPG. I scored 74.7 as my best one way commute (around 60 miles on mostly level grade cruising at 55) I peaked at 53.1 Miles at 76.1 MPG. I can regularly acheive this kind of mileage using cruise control but if I use my foot I cant get out of the high 60's

Peace
-Jon

_____________________________________
2001 Honda Insight CVT (best segment 76.1MPG / 53 miles)
2005 Toyota Sienna (20.2 LMPG)
1968 Mercedes Benz 404s Swiss Army 4x4 (16MPG leaded only!)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
I suppose this really all depends on the layout of the terrain.

With previous automobiles, I could always achieve better mpg with foot vice cruise control just due to a human can anticipate the upcoming momentum of a hill where the cruise does not and "guns it" when needed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,211 Posts
I find on highway trips with gently-rolling hills (typical North Texas stuff) the Rostra gets me virtually the same mileage I can muster at highway speeds (65-70+ mph)... 50-55mpg. It doesn't forget there's a hill coming up, and always gets super high instant mileage readings on the way down. I don't always have such mental acuity between traffic, phone conversations, emails, and listening to goobers on talk radio. Yes, I could "hang up and drive" but that's so 20th century. <g>

I can beat it in town and under 50 mph. And if crusing speed is a steady 45-60 mph. But on the highway, it's surprisingly smart.

Is Rick Reese's Insight a CVT :?:

My LMPG at 29600, air on Econ/73 always: 55.2 :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
2hybrids said:
I suppose this really all depends on the layout of the terrain.
i'd counter that it depends on the layout of your brain.

my experience with using cruise controls is limited, and i've never designed one. in my estimation, however, cruise control is concerned with keeping RPM constant. it does whatever it takes to acheive that. after having driven the insight, i've come to believe that the "constant speed" is only the tip of the iceberg. clearly, the absolute bottom of the iceberg of fuel consumption is how much fuel one is consuming. i am not ready to assert science here, but i believe that to be the result of several factors combined, one of which is throttle position, another is the load the engine is under ( this is monitored by the O2 sensor?, or MAP, or some other devices where i don't know exactly which ). perhaps the engine load is the most important factor, as it would seem to denominate what throttle is required to achieve any specific constant RPM.

if one is concerned with keeping speed (ie, RPM) constant, one is paying regard only to the instantaneous requirement of that RPM under the conditions of the moment. there is no evaluation of the future.

if one is concerned with keeping fuel consumption to an overall constant minimum, one is willing to trade a short-term "over RPM bound" situation (eg, any situation where you keep constant throttle even though your RPM and thus MPH/KPH exceed what you would've set cruise control at) for a long term median of the same target RPM.

or, in other words, a human can control an average over an arbitrary interval of time, whereas the cruise control has a fixed or limited (likely short) average in which it has to work. it's not its fault, really, it's blind.

now that i'm thinking about it, the engine load might be a bit more "important" than the throttle... as an example, i'll pick a throttle position and then hit the upside of a hill - MPG seems to decrease more rapidly than MPH depending on the grade of the hill.

man, there's some fantastic math in all this that i would probably have a chance at tackling had i screwed up Calculus I three times due to being an ***.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
88 Posts
Dooood...I'm like, on my 6th beer and you messed me up with that!!!!!

I'll reread your post again in the morning to fully comprehend the mathmatical part.

All I was shaying was - the human eye can anticipate and see an upcoming situation and react (unlike myself right now). The car cannot, so its kneejerk reaction causes fe loss. Having used cruise for more than 20 years, experience tells me I get better fe with my foot on the gas. Ask me that again after about 600 miles though.

say there Sailor...you are purdy cute ;)
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top