Try that on hilly terrain...
Exactly.
Maybe these places:
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140314-flattest-states-geography-topography-science
Try that on hilly terrain...
When the car computer network of the future has all information about the terrain and traffic, elevation map, wind, weather and road conditions ahead and around, there would be no way for a weak human to beat that. Just no way in hell. Humans were not designed to process all that in the real time by millisecond and still drive.
Until then, human wins, as the brain has more information to work with. Not for very long though.
But I'm curious to know why you think cruise control will beat a human. If you think cruise control will hold a constant speed with less variation than a human, then I generally agree. If you're on perfectly flat terrain with no traffic and no variation in wind, then holding a constant speed should be better than varying speed with the same average. Because drag is proportional to the square of velocity, the extra fuel burned above the target speed hurts you more than the fuel saved below the target speed. But as soon as you throw hills and traffic into it, the answer is not so obvious anymore. In my anecdotal experience, driving on hilly terrain without cruise control, I seem to get better mileage by taking more of a constant throttle approach: gradually dropping below my target speed up hills and making it up on the downhills. Especially with turbo engines, using a lot of throttle to maintain a constant speed up steep hills seems to suck fuel quickly.
It says in the manual "don't use CC in hilly terrain."
I agree with the quoted text profoundly.
with the 2.5L, especially the CX-5 with it's decreased aerodynamics there is a target speed for optimal fuel efficiency, but with my 528i for example (naturally aspirated engine) 8th gear is tuned very long to be efficient on the highway. driving 100KM/H (65MPH) you are at roughly 1800RPM, while going 90MPH you are at 2500RPM where the engine conveniently makes max torque so the fuel efficiency between going those two speeds will literally not change. you can even go up to 100MPH and still get reasonable fuel economy with 6 cylinder cars like this.
this brings me on to the 6 speed skyactiv transmission most of us have. it's a well geared unit, but sixth gear is way too long for highway use until you are going a certain speed. this paired with the fact that its always upshifting to top gear to save fuel it makes the car just feel sluggish to get up to speed, so i've been using the manual mode lately and i've noticed that you're honestly better off keeping the car in fifth gear until you get past 70MPH, because this will keep the RPM's closer to max torque which is at 3250RPM. the closer you keep RPM's to where the engine is producing all it's torque, (2700-3000 is optimal) the less stress you will put on the motor which this allows the engine to rev easily and smoothly at an RPM it is happy at. this is why i strongly prefer having a manual transmission with these cars (although you can't even get the manual with the 2.5L in the CX-5, correct?) because 4,5 and 6th in the manual unit are geared shorter which would definitely feel better at higher speeds with this 4 cylinder engine.
You do know your 6 is geared differently, yes? And at 65 I will bet you all my $ that 6th will be easily more efficient than 5th- in my CX-5..all 200 bucks
Haha you knew it was coming..but honestly that's basically inside the margin of error and I concede that i drove somewhat more conservatively than normal...but cc is beatable particularly with some elevation change
You do know your 6 is geared differently, yes? And at 65 I will bet you all my $ that 6th will be easily more efficient than 5th- in my CX-5..all 200 bucks