How to Setup UltraGauge

[j12piprius]

I changed these today and might as well show them here.

screen 1 ~ main screen on all the time
[ MAP ] [ trip average mpg ]
[ short fuel trim ] [ instant mpg ]
[ intake temp ] [ battery voltage ]
[ coolant temperature ] [ trip miles ]

screen 2 ~ only by manual ~ all stats recorded at fill ups
[ miles overall ] [ o2 sensor bank 1 ]
[ gallons overall ] [ trip mph ]
[ average mpg overall ] [ trip time ]
[ average mph overall ] [ level gallons ]

I used to use % engine load but switched to MAP (manifold absolute pressure),
go to 90 MAP on pulses, and make sure to not exceed matching RPMs when shifting.

[SilverCrown9701]

Originally Posted by johnlvs2run

I switch mine around but am using these currently.

[ MAP ] [ instant mpg ]
[ mph ] [ average mpg ]
[ coolant temperature ] [ trip miles ]

MAP = intake manifold absolute pressure

I used to use % engine load but switched to MAP, and make sure it doesn't go into open loop, which is a little hard because the foot throttle is not easy to attenuate.

Sometimes I have used 3 screens on auto every 20 seconds, and just change the trip miles to something else, for example battery voltage or bank 1 oxygen sensor 1.

I'm just figuring out that I can use manual screen change with the down button, instead of auto, so I can switch to a more complete second screen just periodically, instead of having them change automatically. Normally though I just use the one screen.

I guess it's vehicle dependent, but are these gauges the best to use to provide feedback for increasing fuel economy other than the instant and average MPG??


Also, how much of a difference does enabling VE (Volumetric Efficiency) make in terms of fuel economy accuracy??

[j12piprius]

Originally Posted by SilverCrown9701

I guess it's vehicle dependent, but are these gauges the best to use to provide feedback for increasing fuel economy other than the instant and average MPG??

I use primarily pulse, and dwl combined with either dfco or engine on coasting, depending on terrain. I use MAP for acceleration and DWL, and Instantaneous MPG for DWL and coasting. My goal is to keep increasing the trip average mpg so I keep watching that too. I watch mph for a general guide to my speed. Coolant temp is for any adjustments to keep temperature in a narrow range and to keep the the fan off. I tried VE (Volumetric Efficiency) and didn't find it to be useful. I don't keep track of fuel used on a gauge, as I don't drive much except on trips and always fill up in plenty of time. I keep a record of when I get gas and fillups. Instantaneous gallons per hour seems a useful gauge but I've not used it much.

[jcp123]

Originally Posted by SilverCrown9701

I noticed that the lower my Throttle Position, the better my FE. If I keep it below 16, then it boosts my mileage.

However, I also noticed that if I keep the throttle position too low, then I begin to lose speed and risk coming out of overdrive.

Is there a better way to use throttle position than what I'm currently doing??

Throttle position is tricky. Sometimes you have to keep it a bit more open than you'd like knowing there's a climb up ahead.

[Fat Charlie]

Originally Posted by SilverCrown9701

I guess it's vehicle dependent, but are these gauges the best to use to provide feedback for increasing fuel economy other than the instant and average MPG??

It's not just vehicle dependent, it depends on conditions. No one particular value means higher mpg, as such, in all weather, traffic and road conditions- except instant and average mpg.

You can learn from the other values, but these are the ones you're applying them to get.

[SilverCrown9701]

I will have to try MAP. What range using MAP is good for FE??

% Engine load and TPS are very sensitive and I am not sure how much help they're really providing. It's frustrating watching them!

[j12piprius]

My aim when accelerating is to stay as close to 90 % engine load as possible, without exceeding it, as above 93% is open loop which uses more fuel.

My plan for MAP is much the same. I'm using the metric MAP gauge which goes up to 100. See here for The donkey CRX's comments about using a (non metric) vacuum gauge. You can choose either one. MAP is a digital vacuum gauge.

[SilverCrown9701]

Originally Posted by johnlvs2run

My aim when accelerating is to stay as close to 90 % engine load as possible, without exceeding it, as above 93% is open loop which uses more fuel.

My plan for MAP is much the same. I'm using the metric MAP gauge which goes up to 100. See here for The donkey CRX's comments about using a (non metric) vacuum gauge. You can choose either one. MAP is a digital vacuum gauge.

I have on occasion used the lower end of % engine load for extending coast distances, and plan to experiment more with this using MAP. However this might not be a viable technique with my engine, because of the higher rpm's.

I have tried accelerating around 80% load in my car but it seems it wants to extend the shift at certain RPM ranges until I lift up slightly on the pedal to cause a downshift.

From a physics standpoint, wouldn't accelerating at target load % for a designated time, which prolongs the downshift, consume more fuel versus accelerating enough to shift through each gear to get into overdrive??


-Extended acceleration with drawn out downshifts @ X-RPMs until target speed.

OR...

-Shortened acceleration with quicker downshifts @ X-RPMs until target speed.


Example: I have accelerated from a stop up to 2,000-2,400 RPMs and held it in that RPM range using a certain throttle pressure until I get into overdrive............is this the wrong way to accelerate?



I may be wrong in that theory, correct me if I am. I know that my car being an automatic is a strike against me in terms of fuel economy but I love challenges and I'm treating like this like a game to get the highest "score" I can to save myself some money.

[jcp123]

That's why I never used load in anything, most especially my slushbox. It shifts too late and can risk a downshift as well.

[j12piprius]

Originally Posted by SilverCrown9701

From a physics standpoint, wouldn't accelerating at target load % for a designated time, which prolongs the downshift, consume more fuel versus accelerating enough to shift through each gear to get into overdrive?

Right. Overdrive is basically a downshift to generate more power at higher rpm's. A more detailed explanation is here.

In my automatic, that has no gauge, I use moderate throttle to get up to the highest gear as soon as possible (lowest mph), continue moderately accelerating in high gear (not overdrive), then shift into neutral and coast. The object is to keep the rpms as low as possible for the speed.

I would probably watch the instant mpg gauge carefully to see how to adjust.