Throttle control instead of cruise control.

[Exdro]

That's simply not the case. CC uses KERS to slow the car when going downhill.

Not in the ZSEV

 

[Kayged]

In an ice car cruise is far more fuel efficient, i can't see an ev being any different personally.

When using cruise control in the ZS EV the speed of the car is controlled by the throttle and the brake so if for instance you start going down hill and the car goes above the desired speed it will use the brakes to slow it down and therefore you lose out on the regeneration you would get if you just eased off the throttle. Thus, currently in an EV it can be less economical to use cruise control.

 

[Kayged]

That's simply not the case. CC uses KERS to slow the car when going downhill.

That is not what it say's in the manual.

 

[Exdro]

I think we are talking chalk and cheese here. No KERS on ZS with CC. This may be the case with MG5.

 

[m4rmite]

When using cruise control in the ZS EV the speed of the car is controlled by the throttle and the brake so if for instance you start going down hill and the car goes above the desired speed it will use the brakes to slow it down and therefore you lose out on the regeneration you would get if you just eased off the throttle. Thus, currently in an EV it can be less economical to use cruise control.

Then why do i show up to 50 amps negative on the dash

 

[StEvnut]

Whilst driving on motorways, I often use cruise control. But I think I’d like to be able to set the power use instead. For instance, set the power at 10, if I’m at a speed I’m happy with, then I’ll obviously go a bit slower up hill and faster downhill. I’d also like to be able to set it to zero for long descents, not neutral, but saving me holding the accelerator there. What do you think?

Steady speed works for me! Power drops down hill, and even a slight regen. Obviously to maintain speed up hill you and cruise need more power. If it’s safe to do so, you could go back on throttle up hill but from experience I’d say you’d be struggling with only 10% power.
enjoy experimenting.

 

[Severnless]

When using cruise control there is no KERS, so you lose any regeneration on the downhill stretches. As others have said, if you want maximum efficiency, not to say safety. You drive rather than let the car do it. That's not to say that CC or ACC isn't useful on occasion,

Nope on the MG5 the car uses KERS to slow down ( this is the MG5 part of the forum)
The MG ZS uses the brakes to slow down when using ACC
Ask me how I know?

 

[Severnless]

Then why do i show up to 50 amps negative on the dash

Because extro has a MG ZS!

 

[m4rmite]

Because extro has a MG ZS!

Then his statement should read Thus, currently in a ZS EV it can be less economical to use cruise control.

You would have thought both models would use the same system, unless they are testing each for good and bad.

 

[Severnless]

Then his statement should read Thus, currently in a ZS EV it can be less economical to use cruise control.

You would have thought both models would use the same system, unless they are testing each for good and bad.

Got to say that in the Mg ZS when using ACC to slow down it’s very abrupt, you certainly know about it, whereas the 5 is a hell of a lot smoother using KERS to slow using CC.
It’s certainly as good as the Merc E class I have ( just not driven it for alllooonnnggg time!)

 

[Petriix]

That is not what it say's in the manual.

I think we are talking chalk and cheese here. No KERS on ZS with CC. This may be the case with MG5.

This is the MG5 subforum...

 

[Kayged]

This is the MG5 subforum...

I just noticed that lol, looks like everyone is correct for their model, was sure this started in the ZS forum lol.

 

[Cocijo]

Got to say that in the Mg ZS when using ACC to slow down it’s very abrupt, you certainly know about it, whereas the 5 is a hell of a lot smoother using KERS to slow using CC.
It’s certainly as good as the Merc E class I have ( just not driven it for alllooonnnggg time!)

It’s a little smoother in eco.

 

[Adee]

Whilst driving on motorways, I often use cruise control. But I think I’d like to be able to set the power use instead. For instance, set the power at 10, if I’m at a speed I’m happy with, then I’ll obviously go a bit slower up hill and faster downhill. I’d also like to be able to set it to zero for long descents, not neutral, but saving me holding the accelerator there. What do you think?

Going back to the original post, my view is that it only takes a slight gradient to affect the power requirement of the car. So, even for a modest upward incline (for example), your speed would drop VERY significantly to the point where, even if you weren't inconveniencing the car(s) behind, you would get frustrated and stick your foot back on the throttle! You could experiment by trying to keep the power needle in the same place as you drive along but I don't think you'd want to keep it up for long

 

[Petriix]

Going back to the original post, my view is that it only takes a slight gradient to affect the power requirement of the car. So, even for a modest upward incline (for example), your speed would drop VERY significantly to the point where, even if you weren't inconveniencing the car(s) behind, you would get frustrated and stick your foot back on the throttle! You could experiment by trying to keep the power needle in the same place as you drive along but I don't think you'd want to keep it up for long

That's not my experience. It's just about smoothing the power out rather than wasting loads of energy to maintain the same speed up the hill. On a motorway I'd typically be doing 65mph and might slow to 60 on the way up and do 70 on the way back down.

 

[Adee]

That's not my experience. It's just about smoothing the power out rather than wasting loads of energy to maintain the same speed up the hill. On a motorway I'd typically be doing 65mph and might slow to 60 on the way up and do 70 on the way back down.

I wouldn't disagree with that driving style, which is essentially a different way of keeping your avergage speed roughly constant, rather than using cruise control. I do the same thing and it seems intuitive (even if the end result is the same).
Back of a fag packet calculation.......
The MG5 would roughly consume about 15kW on the level at 60mph.
If my calculations are right, a 5% gradient would require an ADDITIONAL 18kW of power to maintain 60mph (just based on loss to potential energy/height). And even a 2% gradient therefore about 7kW. I haven't managed to work out how much these gradients would affect your speed if you tried to maintain 15kW power consumption but I suspect it would be pretty significant. Must be possible I suppose