Post your ScanGauge setup & Adjust %

[FunkSkunk]

Hey guys, I know there is a bunch of us with Scangauges and thought it would be great if we all pooled together our info and shared our setups. This may help others when calibrating their SG if they have a similar or even the same vehicle. *I know there are variables to every car but this could be a helpful guide. So, for instance what was your fuel usage adjustment for your vehicle and maybe even post up what you like to have up on your SG screen while driving.



**based on the pic, I wonder what car can get 7mpg at 129MPH!!?

[Unforgiven]

Heh, if I get the scangauge, will try and see if I can match those numbers!! NOT lol

[RH77]

Only adjustment:

+10.1% Gallons

A little pessimistic, but it's like setting your clocks ahead 5 minutes so you're not late YMMV

I don't have X-Gauge (yet)...

RH77

[tasdrouille]

+8.7% on the Elantra. The real adjustment probably is around 5% but I like to know the number I see is a worst case scenario.

The TDI is just not accurate on the scangauge. I just use it as a relative incidator to see how I'm doing between trips. It would need a different correction factor for each rpm. In fact, it the correction factor could be just a linear equation formula, it would be much more accurate.

[smartzuuk]

Between 5 and 10% on a stock smart cdi diesel, and looks like 10 - 15% on the model 451 gas

A remapped smart diesel needs to be at 30% +/-

[IBrakeForNobody]

2008.5 Mazda3 hatch, 2.3L, 5spd auto...right now correction is +12.1% and it's just about dead-on.

[cfg83]

FunkSkunk -

I have a ScanGauge I. I set the engine to 1.9 Liters, the speed to +2% for my tire/odometer calibration, and the tank to 11 gallons.

I don't use the tank-to-tank fuel calibration function because I don't want to do the fill-up-to-the-top and then drive till it's at E or on fumes. I always fill from 1/4 to 3/4 full, which is about 5.5 gallons. For this reason, my day-to-day current MPG is only a *relative* barometer of MPG for me.

Here are my usual instant choices :

TPS IAT
MPG FWT

CarloSW2

[taco]

98 taco
engine 2.7
10.1 % fuel adjustment
+2 speed
cuttoff is set to 0 cause i dont use it idle is 14-15 on tps, 77 wide open. i was getting funky readings.

it is usually.1 pecent off by the most.

camry i am currently doing my first set up with it.

[Formula413]

I have my fuel calibration at +5% and it seems to be reasonably accurate. I don't use cutoff (set at 0) because I can't say for sure that my car does this. My TPS reads from 19 at idle to 92 at WOT. Right now my main display shows:
TPS MPG
LOD TRP (that's my abbreviation for trip gas mileage)
The bottom left spot is kind of a wild card. I put the horsepower gauge there often, since it is a good all around indicator of how hard the engine is really working. I just put load back there to experiment with what load when accelerating will produce the best FE. Sometimes I put coolant temp there, like when I am trying to figure out how big a hole I need in my grill block for adequate cooling, since the stock temp gauge is useless for this. Or sometimes I put IAT in there to see how much it deviates from ambient temperature. I have some fun manufacturer specific X-gauges for my Escort too: trans fluid temperature, torque converter slip ratio, fuel pulse width, gear ratio, torque. Mostly curiosities, although knowing what the converter is doing can be helpful.

[MetroMPG]

Any other Metro 1.0L owners want to chime in on this?

My speed offset is easy: 6% because of the transmission swap (the 8 valve SOHC 4-cyl car had smaller diameter wheels/tires).

My problem is I don't drive enough to get a chance to nail down the fuel offset. (Also, I haven't been trying very hard.)

I've had the SG2 set at +8.0% gallons for a while, but my fill today was way off: 7.83 gal actual vs. 8.82 shown on the SG. That's 12.6% high, which suggests I actually need a *negative* offset to be accurate.

Looking back through my log, the actual vs. SG reported gallons seems to vary a fair amount. And I almost always use the same gas pump.

[basslover911]

Mine is also really high, something like 10.5% or so...

Speed is +1

[Formula413]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

I've had the SG2 set at +8.0% gallons for a while, but my fill today was way off: 7.83 gal actual vs. 8.82 shown on the SG. That's 12.6% high, which suggests I actually need a *negative* offset to be accurate.

The 12.6% error just means you have to lower the 8% a little, not that you have to subtract 12.6 percentage points. According to some simple math 7% should be right on if your fillup was accurate. 7% is actually what I have been using (I reported 5% earlier) and it has been pretty close.

[Funny]

2002 Toyota Corolla S - 1ZZFE 1.8L engine: 9.9%+ on the Scan Gauge I.
This number is from many tanks of gas, and I can confidently say that this mileage figure is within 0.2% of actual mileage, every time.

Am I seeing a trend on the ~10%+ line here, or is it just a coincidence?
Darin, we may have you calling Ron about this . This would give an overinflated figure, right? One too many six packs in me to think about even this low-order math... perhaps in the morning...

[MetroMPG]

I filled up again today, after a long trip (750 km), and using a +3.0% fuel offset, the SG was still reporting more fuel used (6.68 gal) than the pump read (6.33 gal).

The 12.6% error just means you have to lower the 8% a little, not that you have to subtract 12.6 percentage points. According to some simple math 7% should be right on if your fillup was accurate.

Are you sure about that? If I remove the 8% correction from the SG's calc for fuel consumed (8.82 gal., in post #10), then the un-corrected amount is 8.17 gallons (8.82 / 1.08). It's still higher than the actual fill amount of 7.83 gallons. Am I doing it wrong?

I'm going to drop it to 0% correction factor for tomorrow's leg of the trip. I'm still predicting it'll end up needing a negative correction.

I wonder why it has changed from a positive offset to a negative one.

[Formula413]

I think I had it wrong earlier. If you were using a correction factor of + 8% and the SGII reported 8.82 gallons used, that means that it actually thought you burned 8.17 gallons, and applied your chosen correction factor to come up with 8.82. So based on that you should be using a correction factor of - 4%, which is about what you estimated. So yeah, go with that. As to why the correction factor seems to change, that's a good question. Mine was pretty accurate at + 5%, now it seems to work best at + 7%. Perhaps it is seasonal, I.E. the SGII is unable to account for changes in air density from different temperatures? This wouldn't seem to make sense however since it has access to IAT data. Does anyone know exactly how the SGII comes up with it's fuel usage estimate?

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by Formula413

As to why the correction factor seems to change, that's a good question. ... Does anyone know exactly how the SGII comes up with it's fuel usage estimate?

Aha! I think your question solved the riddle.

The SG calculates fuel consumption based on air consumption, and extrapolates fuel use with a formula based mostly on stoichiometric air-fuel ratios.

But I've changed my driving style. I used to do a LOT of pulse & glide (P&G), but now I mostly drive with load (DWL). In the Metro, P&G consists of a lot of non-stoichiometric, open loop acceleration. DWL keeps me in closed-loop stoich mode almost all the time.

So, the ScanGauge probably didn't know what the rich burn rate was/is, and obviously it was guessing wrong. It was underestimating it, which is why the offset that worked best when I was doing lots of P&G was +8%.

Also: maybe Linear Logic updated the SG's formula between versions? I've also gone from SG1 to SG2 since I first figured out that +8% offset.

Anyone else upgraded and noticed any difference?

Good reason to use a MPGuino.

[PaleMelanesian]

1996 Civic DX (d16y7) manual 5
Fuel +8% (or +12% with e10)

P&G driving all the time.

[RH77]

Originally Posted by PaleMelanesian

(or +12% with e10)

That's an interesting observation that I didn't take into account. I'm sure the Winter-blend is now in effect, so the adjustment may be needed.

-Rick

[PaleMelanesian]

Wayne G has registered a similar effect between summer/winter gas. We have the same year-round here, but a few months ago we switched to (almost) all E10 instead of straight gas.

[guudasitgets]

**based on the pic, I wonder what car can get 7mpg at 129MPH!!?

This gets 16mpg at race speeds, usually averaging over 110mph