I would say that ACC over a long trip, would be more economical than manual input.
Well it certainly is for me
If you've managed 395 then allowing for the error in the DIS, take away 9% or 10%, that will bring it down to 356 "real" miles
edit:
ACC vs Fuel Economy papers:
http://www.ecomove-project.eu/asset.../ITSDublin-paper54Themann-energyefficient.pdf
http://papers.sae.org/2015-01-0296/
http://papers.sae.org/2014-01-0298/
Well it certainly is for me
If you've managed 395 then allowing for the error in the DIS, take away 9% or 10%, that will bring it down to 356 "real" miles
edit:
ACC vs Fuel Economy papers:
http://www.ecomove-project.eu/asset.../ITSDublin-paper54Themann-energyefficient.pdf
http://papers.sae.org/2015-01-0296/
http://papers.sae.org/2014-01-0298/
Last edited: