I have had my 1995 Accord LX 4-door for 16 years, and it has always had a sluggish-reacting cruise control. My previous 1983 Accord had a right-on cruise control, as much as the limited power of the car would allow. The 95's cruise control does work, but if I set it at 75 on the freeway on flat ground then start climbing a hill, it will drop down 5 or more mph, then gradually accelerate back up to 75. As I crest the hill and start down the other side, it may go as high as 85 before slowing back down to 75. I have been told that there is no adjustment on the control module, the only option is to replace it. Is that the correct solution? If so, how hard is it to replace? I understand it is located under the dash on the driver's side, and consider myself reasonably competent at undertaking tasks such as this. Any info/advice would be greatly appreciated!

 

Well to be honest you may not notice any difference in replacing the device. Before I swapped my auto to a manual I also had cruise control. I had the same complaint, it was just too delayed so I removed it. I believe it had to do with the ratio of the tranny and the power the engine made.

 

The 95 Accord has a manual transmission, as did my 83. The 95 has a lot more power than the 83, but the cruise control doesn't work nearly as well. The 83's control would respond immediately, but the 95's takes a long time to figure out whether to accelerate or decelerate. Did Honda forget how to make cruise controls in the mid-90's?

 

My cruise control is the same way. I think the problem lies in the fact that the car is underpowered for its sized. There are LOTS of benefits to purchasing an underpowered car, and those very benefits are the reason most of us end up with them. The car is ultra reliable (due to not being a power monster), the fuel economy is great, etc.

If you were driving the car with your foot, you would see the incline coming, and in anticipation of needing more acceleration, you would press on the gas a little more. The cruise control can only tell that the car is going over a hill after it starts to climb. By this time, the gas pedal would have to go down significantly to maintain the same speed you were going before. In essence, we have an 'economy' cruise control. Yes, it is a little annoying that you loose speed, but if you have ever compared your fuel economy from driving with your foot, versus driving exclusively with cruise control, you will see that cruise control on the Accord results in a significant improvement in fuel economy.

My BMW will maintain its cruise control speed dead on accurate, however, my BMW uses A LOT more gas than my Accord. It has a lot more reaction to pressing the gas pedal than my Accord does.

If you are driving in mountainous areas, the cruise control would be horrible. Cruise control works best in relatively flat areas. I do get the same annoyance as you though, so when I see a hill approaching, I press the gas pedal a little more in anticipation of the hill, and 'help out' the cruise control to get over the raise in the road without struggling too much, as it does on its own.

 

As I stated in my previous messages, the 95 Accord has considerably more power than my 83 Accord had, yet the 83 responded immediately to need for acceleration or deceleration. Likewise, my wife's 98 Subaru Outback with similar power (but MUCH worse fuel mileage) to the Accord has a cruise control that responds immediately to need for acceleration or deceleration. It's the response time I'm complaining about, not the power of the car. If Honda could make a good cruise control in 1983, why couldn't they in 1995?

 

the cruise control normally has a cable that connects to the throttle body to keep the speed steady. make sure its within spec. download a FSM and correct if necessary

 

Well you're talking a huge difference in technology. 83 used different motor, trans, gearing etc. Its the same car yet it's not. It most likely comes down to design

 

like he said, he has had the car for 16 years (since new) never been different. Most likely not an issue with the device as it has never changed

 

Sounds like the consensus is that replacing the control module will do no good, it's just a crappy cruise control. I've had it checked at a Honda dealer and an independent shop, and they both told me the mechanical parts of the control (I assume that would include the cable that connects to the throttle body) were fine, and the only thing they could think to do was change the control module. It's a great car, 141K miles on it with minor repairs, too bad they couldn't make a good cruise control.

 

there should be cables attached to your intake/throttle body - one its gas and 1 is cruise - 2 10 mill wrenches and taking the slack out of the line is an ez fix.

 

Maybe you could get one from the pick-and-pull. They usually carry a 30 day guarantee, so if it doesn't fix your problem, take it back.

 

a 1995 Accord is 19 years old. why are u always quibbleing with me. dont u have recreational marijuana in colorado. try some and mellow out

 

he stated he had it for 16 years. Just noticing you giving out bad info, or an answer just to answer. You remind me of some working at Vato zone or Oreillys. Just sayn

 

19-16=3 years he didnt own it. just noticing u starting fights. and u always got something to say. u remind me of someone who lives in the middle of nowhere. no social skills. but i know u are ALWAYS right

 

I didn't mean to start any arguments, I just wanted the cruise control to work properly.

 

I have extensive experience driving my 94 Accord 5 spd with the cruise control. As I admit, the cruise control is a little annoying with not maintaining the speed, but it never stopped me from loving the car, and loving the increased fuel efficiency I get from using the cruise control. I get 0.5, 1, 1.5 or 2 MPG better using the cruise control consistently over using my foot.

This past weekend, I drove my Wife's 1999 Accord with A/T transmission on a trip for 6 hrs each leg, so I spent 12 hrs driving her car this weekend and I use the cruise control a lot (when deemed safe). I drove on I-95 from Virginia to Pennsylvania, which is mostly flat. I was thinking about your question as I drove the car. One thing I can definitely say, when I am approaching a incline, the car will not be able to maintain the speed. The cruise control pushes the gas pedal a lot more than I am conformable to 'try' to maintain the speed. The car simply does not have the guts to maintain the speed perfectly. I usually cancel the cruise control, and use my foot to push the pedal over these inclines. With cruise control, the car pushes the pedal down 3/4 of the way, whereas I only want to push it 1/2 way or less. Even when I floor it, the car takes a while to get up the speed to maintain it accurately. Only a human brain can overcome the computer, to anticipate an incline approaching, build up a little more speed before going up the incline to maintain the speed.

My wife normally gets 28.5-29mpg when she drives. This weekend, I got 30.5 MPH on one leg of the trip and 30.8 MPG on the other leg of the trip. I am a believer in cruise control (when safe), while my wife is not, so I get a little better fuel efficiency when I drive.

 

Verify your TB and IAC are clean and gunk free. If the IAC is hanging open it may be forcing an overspeed event, that you normally wouldn't notice off CC as you would brake.

On the '95 EX Coupe, CC is a tad sloppy, 2-3MPH changes are not uncommon during slight elevation changed. Increased grade does seem to have a bit of lag for the CC to command more power.

Remember, these are older CC systems that rely on speed sensors may not monitor MAP(load) sensor changes, and solely rely on a speed threshold for change in speed control.