The reason I am removing cruise control is because I don't like using it because I have to constantly adjust it or turn it off when get near other traffic and its very annoying to me. Also I would like to remove anything from my engine bay that I dont use.


I did a search on electronics board and they said to plug up the 2 holes, without a picture I have no idea what 2 holes they are talking about. I labeled the hoses I know associated with the cruise a, b, c, etc.

I need help to know what to remove, what to connect?

If anyone has a pic of 87-90 v6 engine bay without cruise Id kill to see it.

 

Take vac line D and connect it directly to C. Or, better yet, get rid of vac lines C and D and plug up the hose coming off of the plenum tee. That vacuum tank doesn't do much, if anything, and if I could get the damn thing out, I would put it up for sale.

There are no holes to plug on the vacuum modulator itself. You can leave the brake valve hose in place without any problems. Better yet, save some weight--remove the whole damn modulator and earn some money.

:edit: BTW, if you remove the modulator, you are going to have 2 holes to plug so road crap doesn't end up in the engine bay from the wheel well...

 

Success, I removed the cruise and even the harness. I was quite an ordeal to remove the cruise cable without taking off the intake manifold, but I did it.

 

Not to be a smartass or anything... but why not just simply not use the cruise It's not like you're saving weight by loosing the stuff

 

Because you lose about 2 MPG to the damn modulator ...

Want proof? First time I took the bird to Ohio, using the cruise control: 24 MPG. Second trip, no cruise because it was malfunctioning: 26.7 MPG.

 

point still stands. If you dont like it, don't use it . I dont see why it must be removed Your cruise wasnt working properly. It should keep a constant speed which is nicer to the skinny pedal, and be "better" diffrent driving conditions are what got you 2mpg off

 

Can't prove that point, can you? Hell, I got better mileage with the t-tops off and no cruise than I did with them in and the cruise running. And with the tops out I also had a head wind, slowing me down.I can consistantly get 25+ MPG without the cruise, and with the cruise, the mileage goes down.

My dad experienced the same phenomenon with our Olds Firenza, which had a 2.0 OHC L4. That's why he never uses cruise control, even on the 2000 Gran Prix he bought last year. I drove most of the way to OH the first time (in the GP), with the cruise running. We had to stop a lot sooner for gas than we normally do, and we didn't have a car full of crap that trip.

I forgot to mention this trip was made when the cruise actually worked...

Does anyone know why this is? Because the modulator uses ENGINE VACUUM to run. The less vacuum, the more gas you use to continue at the same speed. How do I know? When the 2.8 was still going fine, it had very low vacuum, and would usually stall at stops. It took GALLONS PER MILE to keep going, not the other way around.

 

I duno whats up with that then. I drive a truck that gets 9mpg on a lucky day. When I use cruise I get like 10mpg