My 2003 Renault Clio 1.5 dCi - 3.61L/100KM TANK!
 

Hi Everyone - I am a long time lurker on here - in fact, over three years ago, I posted a thread up about improving the economy (I was getting about 30 imperial MPG) I got out of my 1983 Austin Mini!

Because I ran that car on a shoestring, I couldn't really give it the attention it needed, to get the economy it should have (there was something wrong with the ignition advance, I believe).

Since then, I have been mostly car-less - I did spend some time driving my other half's 1.3 petrol Ford KA which between us we got about 44 imperial MPG out of. And more recently, I spent a lot of time driving rental cars for work, most of which were 1.6 diesels that saw over 60 imperial MPGs (90% motorway doing 70-75mph).

Anyway, me and my OH (who will be sharing the car, and won't drive quite as economically as me) bought a car just over a week ago - and it's a bit different to the usual that you will see on here, because we're from the UK (as you probably guessed by the classic Mini, and imperial MPG's).

It's a 2003 Renault Clio with a 1.5 turbo diesel engine producing 80hp, it weighs about 1000 kilos and the official EU economy figures are:
Urban: 53.3 MPG (44.4 US, 5.3L/100km)
Extra Urban: 76.3 MPG (63.6 US, 3.7L/100km)
Combined: 67.3 MPG (56.0 US, 4.2L/100km)

That sounds like a lot - but for those that don't know - the EU economy tests are a lot 'easier' than the US ratings. If the car got an EPA figure, it would probably be about 45 US mpg highway / 36 US mpg city.

I haven't ran a full tank through it yet (the car has a 50L capacity), and the economy readings from Torque Pro on my phone don't seem to be accurate... so who knows what I will get. It will probably be on the low side with room for improvement :).

It would be nice to see 71 MPG (59 US, 4L/100km) with a little effort which would put me well in the top 10 on here for diesel. Usage will be mixed, stop start city driving, a 40 mile each way motorway journey a couple of times a week, and some fun weekend trips.

Here are a couple of pics from the day we picked her up:
http://imgur.com/zFy2wYK.jpg
http://imgur.com/szx7YLP.jpg

It's not fast or sexy but it will hopefully make up for that in its running costs.

Goals and Intentions
 

Well, I guess I should go a little more into my goals and intentions.

Firstly, I want to keep the car a nice place to be, by that, I mean I will be keeping the standard sound deadening, stereo, rear seats, and using the AC when its hot (though luckily that isn't too often in the UK). I will also be keeping the spare wheel because I don't want to be left stranded with a puncture.

Secondly, I am not sure yet how much in the way of mods I will explore. When we got it, the front wipers needed replacing, so I swapped them for Bosch Aerotwin ones which are a more modern, low profile design (they old wipers are visible in the above photos) - they probably do a tiny bit for reducing drag - but I mainly got them because they are better than stock wipers.

I also fitted some Team Heko wind deflectors, which probably increase drag slightly when the windows are closed - but I wanted some anyway (they reduce turbulence with the windows down, and keep rain off the door card too).

I am not sure what to do with the wheel trims yet, I am thinking about removing them... the question is, are they more aerodynamic than the bare steel wheel?...

The stock ride height is quite high (though body roll and road holding are pretty good), but I doubt lowering the car would pay for itself in fuel savings. Perhaps an air dam would be more effective...

I have also been thinking about a grill block... but am concerned about how this would affect the front mount intercooler and air intake temperatures.

I am currently running tire pressures just a touch over the recommended levels (35psi on the front, 32psi on the rear vs 32/30 recommended). When the tires need replacing, I will be going for a low rolling resistance option, but the current tires have a lot of life left in them.

Lots of things to think about... what do you all think?

Probably.

Leave the area in front of the IC open, and block the rest, you can also leave the intake side open or make a deflector into the intake. That's how I did it on my TDI.

Not my engine bay, but the same model - http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c4...2022010243.jpg

In stock form, the air intake runs to the side of the engine bay and opens out by one of the headlights.

I can block the upper grille without affecting the IC, and I would keep an eye on how this affects intake temps... which might not actually be too bad given it doesn't directly use the front grille.

Alternatively, I could reroute the air intake to the front grill, and do a partial block.

Which would be the better option here?

Thanks :).

Bit of an update here, I refilled my car after 347 miles (though it did have just over 1/3rd of a tank left) - it took 28.31 litres.

That works out at 55.73 UK MPG (46.4 US, 5.07L/100km) - which is about 17% below the car's official UK combined figure - and about equal with what I would expect its US highway rating to be (if it had one).

I am relatively pleased with that as a starting point. The mileage was split up with about 1/3rd motorway (cruising at about 75 indicated), 1/3rd country driving (average speed of about 50, lots of hills etc - had a bit of fun in parts - which was obviously detrimental to FE) and 1/3rd stop start city traffic (5 miles to work - average speed of about 10mph).

Since I last posted, I have changed the diesel filter (where I lost a small amount of fuel) and the cabin and air filters. The wheel trims have also come off - because one of them had split - on the lookout for an aerodynamic replacement (or possibly lighter alloys, if funds allow).

I am hoping to improve on this figure over the next tank. I have already put 210 miles on it (two trips of 104 miles (plus 2 town miles) with an average speed of about 50 for both - 70% motorway at around 75 and 30% country at various speeds - but not much traffic on either). I intend to drop my motorway cruising speed by about 10%, and may also raise my tyre pressures (but they were still the same for the last 210 miles). I am changing my oil and filter soon - using a quality fully synthetic 5w40 (current oil is unknown).

I looked at a grille block, but the intercooler pretty much covers the entire area that is open... so am probably going to leave it.

I have been keeping an eye on temps, my engine tends to run at around 85C and warms up reasonably quickly. my intake temperature runs at around 8C above ambient, which at this time of year means about 15-20C - I am not sure what is best for FE here?

It would be nice to see a 10% improvement this tank, and I still have my sights on the top 10 diesels (perhaps before the year is out?), which means I need to get about 54 US MPG (65 UK, 4.3L/100km).

Also, most of my driving so far has included two people in the car, and also the odd boot full of stuff too!. Going forward, there will be more miles with just 1 occupant and little 'cargo'. I am not sure how much difference this makes but it must be something?

New pics just because:
http://imgur.com/6KYu0qM.jpg
http://imgur.com/StjE4BG.jpg

My Dad-in-law has a Nissan Note with a 1.5 dCi, but the closest he's ever come to ecodriving was when he was my passenger. But I'm sure it's hardly different from my 1.6 HDi, so the same engine mods should work.

Grille block. If you are debating how much to cover, then make it openable. Behind the grille the airflow is channeled to the radiator and to the intercooler - each can be independently closed off. As you won't have too many cold starts when it's -20C, then no need for you to block the IC at all.

Prewarming the engine with a 550W coolant heater and a 125W heating pad under the oil pan does wonders if you can organize a place to plug in. I've added insulation to the bonnet, oilpan and intake ducts (turbodiesel engines should be hot, but with cold air intake, both for power and economy). This makes the prewarming more effective, but also keeps the engine from cooling too much when parked for 1-3 hours while running errands.

An engine kill button will let you EOC without reseting the onboard computer. In my case, it keeps the power steering active and (more importantly for Mrs P) does not reset the radio/CD player;)

The Clio's rear is not Kammback-friendly, but bumping the tyre pressure (try max sidewall minus 10% for starters) equals free MPGs:cool:

It is driving technique that gives the most savings (15-30%), but works even better when paired with mods. For example grille blocks keep your engine warm, but efficient driving keeps the blocked engine from overheating.

I'm lucky to have a wife who also drives the speed limit and cares about saving fuel* :D And even though she does not engine brake as often, nor does she EOC at all, she can still get figures very close to mine:)

*) Does not apply to all Significant Others;)

Thanks for the detailed response Piwoslaw

As far as I can tell (memory from a glance a few days ago), the IC covers all of the grill openings, the grill at the top is even partially 'closed' (there is solid plastic behind the 'mesh' angled towards the IC).

I live in a flat, so I don't think I will be able to pre-warm. The bonnet already has some (presumably factory fitted) insulation... maybe some more should help. The air intake seems pretty effective already (air is 8-9 deg C above ambient). Perhaps I should look into an undertray with insulation...

I -think- my car has electric power steering rather than hydraulic. I will have to look at how much wiring is involved (and how much benefit there is vs. engine on coasting).

Kammback is beyond what I would want anyway (to be honest, I will probably be more focussed on technique than anything). I am still not sure about bumping the tyre pressures regarding grip/road holding and wear (keeping it even).

My SO does not drive aggressively, but does not have the most eco mindset either.

A common week for us going forward will be me using the car 2 or 3 days, making two 35-40 mile trips (90% motorway) separated by a few hours, and her using the car on the other 2 or 3 working days, making two 5 mile stop-start trips separated by a full day.

My Kangoo has EPAS, everything continues to work while EOC (the odo does loose miles though so I use GPS for that). The kill switch is really just for LHD vehicles where the ignition switch is on the right, so they have to kill the ignition and shift with the same hand. If the Clio is anything like the Kangoo, the wiring is extremely difficult to get at.

With a turbo diesel, EOC is probably not worth the savings vs potential risk of turbo damage. I used to EOC the T5 sometimes but only if the turbo had already been given a good chance to spool down.

The European fuel numbers are hard to beat. But it is possible.

Take a look at my car.

Best tank of this summer is 5,2l/100km.
1302km on the odo with around 72l to fill up.

Exactly. That's why I only kill the engine when rolling to a red light, or when I know that I'll get close to 1 km of EOC (my record is 6km in the Alps). Shorter distances are just not worth it.

Aha I am going to give it a shot! 4.2l/100km is what I need to hit the combined rating... which would give me a 1100km range on 46-47 litres (tank capacity is 50).

Thanks both - sounds like it probably won't be worth it...


I have just been looking at my semi-regular 38 mile commute. Just over 30 miles of it is motorway which I should be able to get pretty consistent cruising speeds on. The remainder of the miles have posted speed limits of 30, 40 and 50 - which I would be following where traffic allows.

Most of my motorway miles have been at around 70-75 up to now, unless traffic dictated less.

Focussing purely on that 30 mile section for a minute - If I cruise at 70-80mph (averaging 75) - I should cover 30 miles in 24 minutes.

If I cruise at 65-75 (averaging 70) it would take 25 minutes 43 seconds. At this speed, I would still be moving relatively well with the flow of traffic.

If I go for 60-70 (averaging 65), I would cover the distance in 27 minutes 42 seconds. This speed would be problematic because I would be moving faster than the lorries, but would be holding people up whilst overtaking them.

Finally, there is 55-65 (averaging 60) - It would take 30 minutes but would be a 'better' drive than the 60-70 option, because I would be cruising along with the HGVs (which would also encourage me to slow uphill and speed up down, as they do).

I intend to give the 60ish MPH option a go today, for the sake of leaving 5 minutes earlier, I could probably see a 20% improvement in MPG (rough guess from the 14% decrease in speed).

I used to to half that commute on the motorway, Honda civic 2.2 diesel...
A few observations.
80 mph cruise control, you spend most of your time slowing down and speeding up for those doing the speed limit... No go.
70mph you end up matching the traffic flow until the inside two lanes are blocked by slower vehicles. Which means changing speed again. No no.
The fastest mpg rout is to find a coach, they regularly do the full 70mph . Just latch onto the rear of the coach at a safe distance, you'll probably jump about 10mpg increase over the distance with a low loss of time
Next slowest is to tag onto a fast lorry (one that's overtaking other lorries) brilliant as long as the speed is high enough you can slot between lorries when they overtake.
That used to be the best most reliable option, with the lower speed also you could be nearer to gaining 15mpg over the trip.
The most efficient I found (from a base line of 50mpg)
Was to follow a car carrier fully loaded, the turbulence from them is huge so they literally open up a huge pocket of air for you to enjoy, that netted me +18 mpg.
Which in fact ended up being a better result than sitting behind a 53mph lorry...
Consistency is everything though. :)
The car is rated at 53mpg but the driving like a normal person in normal traffic you'd get 50mpg so that's my base

Cheers

My car has the newer version of your engine. I suggest to do go for a partial grill block in the colder days because it warms up faster, improves aerodynamics and on slower runs the coolant stays at optimal temperature. You can semi block both the upper and lower openings.
I would advise against EOC and using too low viscosity eco oils or fully extended oil change intervals, these cars have very delicate turbos and engine bearings and it`s just not worth risking it.
As for aerodynamics the easiest thing is to check all underpan plastic covers are intact and maybe adding a small front air dam from black rubber. Vauxhall Astras use it and it does the job while being discreet and doesn`t shatter when it gets hit.

Good luck!

Thanks for the advice - as mentioned above, I am not going to bother with EOC, and the oil I am using meets the manufacturers spec - I intend to change every 9-10k (much shorter than the official interval which I believe is 15 or 18k).

I am still not sure about a grill block, but like the idea of a possible air dam. Do you know where I can buy said black rubber from?


I tried following lorries on my travels today - but most were too slow as you mention. I ended up averaging 54mph on the way in (no traffic) but was rarely content behind a lorry because I was DWL - scrubbing speed on climbs and gaining on descents.

I have followed coaches in the past, they are definitely the unicorn of vehicles to follow because they often travel at 65-70 and displace a fair bit of air as you said. I hadn't thought about car carriers... I will look out for both.

Car carriers are amazing.
I generally tend to pick a driver and follow on the motorway, let them punch the hole in the air, a nice van or a 4x4 and just sit at the normal distance away from them and you'll see an increase in mpg.
Or anything with the I'm limited to 70mph sticker on the back lol

Also a while ago it used to be trendy to use leguna splitters. Easy to fit :) measure your bumper width and pop to the scrap yard, you'll probably pay a fiver for something suitable

Been looking at this splitter/air dam - Genuine Skoda Fabia Front Bumper Splitter / Spoiler Part No. 5J08070619B9 | eBay

Although for a Skoda Fabia, there are a lot of reports online that it is a great match for a Clio. I know full DIY would probably be a little bit cheaper but this is still only £16 delivered (or likely £11-£12 if I call my local Skoda dealer).

They look pretty good - but it appears to only be an inch deep - I am not sure what noticeable MPG benefit there would be.

That's what most people think, but research showed that this need not be the case. This should sort the grip issue:
"Inflation pressure does not affect grip": Autospeed article.

Interesting - might try moving the pressure around and see how it affects things first hand...

How much negative camber does the Clio run? It's around that age they started putting lots of negative camber on the rear of literally anything! Over pressure and negative camber will ruin your tires in no time!
11,000 miles from my last set, 3/4 of the tyre was still plenty legal, inner edge was like a slick!
I didn't like those tyres at all so I didn't mind, but Any gain in my mpg was lost with the cost of 2 new tyres.

No idea. How/where can I check?

I have found a post online saying the Clio 172's and 182's run about -1.5 degrees in stock form - but they are the sports models.

I am not a fan of the tires - cheap budget ones by Rovelo (RHP 778's IIRC) - but they are quite young (I think they have less than 5k on them) so it wouldn't be economical to switch them to a better LRR one.

It's a bit annoying really, it looks like the tires will have cost the previous owner around £37 a corner (fitted), when I can get much better tires for £41-48 (fitted) - I don't know why anyone thinks it is worth the saving.

Yeah, it's false economy in a way.
If you park the car on a level surface and take a picture from the back of the car along the length of the side of the car so both rear wheels line up with the bottom of the picture you should be able to see if the camber is quite aggressive.
Odd shot to describe... I'll try find an example

http://www.xoutpost.com/attachments/...ear-camber.jpg

You can actually see the rear wheel leaning in at the top, if you can see it clearly I wouldn't run overly high rear Tyre pressure as it'll just lean on the inside edge and use the first 1/4 of the tyre as it won't squash down enough to use the rest

Just a quick update, changed the oil and filter today and pumped the tires up to 40psi all around (max sidewall is 44). 2/3rds of the way through this tank though so expect benefits to show up in the next one.

Will check the camber when I get a chance vibrating_cake - though I don't think there is much/any. It certainly isn't as much as in your picture.

Does anyone know if wheel alignment is worth it FE wise?

Continuing to cruise at around 55-65mph on the motorway.

Filled up today - and what an exciting fill up it was.

I have driven 469 miles since the last fill, and consumed 30.91L of fuel - meaning I have already beat the official UK combined figure of 67.3MPG!!!.

The figures come out as:
4.1 L/100 km
57.41 mpg (US)
68.97 mpg (Imp)

This is a huge improvement from my first full tank where I got 55.7 UK MPG - some of it is down to the fact that a lot more of these miles were motorway, but I also reduced my cruising speed from 70-75 to 60-65 halfway through this tank (next tank should be all at reduced speed :) ).

I changed the oil to a good fully synthetic and upped the tire pressures in the last 20 miles of this tank - so I expect those benefits will show another bump next time.

My 90 day average is now so close to the top 10 diesels, and I should be well in once that relatively poor first tank drops out.

re. the camber on the rear, there definitely is some... its still hard to tell how much of the tire is actually 'used' though. Do you think I should drop some out of the rears based on these pics:

http://imgur.com/v41YJUu.jpg
http://imgur.com/dYTaHqS.jpg

That's a perfect picture! Hmm, you have nice rounded edges on those tyres! I doubt you'll have a problem at all.
They look to sit a lot better on the tarmac than what I'm comparing them to.
When I've actually got a minute I'll try take a pic to show what I mean. But that looks fine from my eyes anyway.
Brilliant tank btw!!!

Hi, i am just joining in, as it looks like we have cars with same engine. (although I was never able to get as good tank as you). I am looking forward to see your progress, all good advices have already been posted before. Maybe one: Buy an OBD2 plug and install Torque Pro into your phone, or get any other instant MPG readout. It helps a lot. If you will discover how DFCO work in this engine, let us know please. From my observations it seems it kicks in only in 1500 to 2000 rpm area and under that ECU puts fuel to help engine running.

Every diesel I've ever driven DFCO'd from little over 1000rpm down to idle. Even a pretty old Transit did that. OBD gauges may not report DFCO correctly, ie Ultragauge can't show diesel DFCO at all.

In my HDi fuel kicks in just above 1000 rpm when engine braking, while idle is ~850 rpm. Also, idle is slightly higher while the vehicle is rolling, as is the fuel consumtion (0.58-0.60 liter per hour while coasting vs 0.48-0.52 at standstill).

Thanks for the replies everybody :).

Mine has the K9K 702 - which one is yours? I see your car is a lot newer than mine.

I have an OBD2 plug and Torque Pro already - though the MPG figures it gives do not seem to be right - it tends to show low 60's (Imp/UK) for economy on the motorway - but I must be getting more than that based on my actual tank averages. However, just using the adjustment won't work because it seems to be accurate to what I would expect in town driving situations.

I will see if the fuel flow meter (or something similar) works so that I can use it to work out DFCO and will post my results up.

Could anyone advise if a Scangauge II / E would provide more accurate readings than Torque Pro?

Or if there an issue with the data provided by my car that means it wouldn't make a difference.

As for that I cannot be sure, i am just a BFU concerning cars. K9K almost sure, but furher specification I wiil have to look for (hopefully it is written somwhere under the hood?).

About OBD2 readers I believe its cars ECU that determines what can OBD2 scanner read or access, as it sends data out. I have tried one OBD2 adaptor and hanfdul of different software apps with same results - my ECU reports speed, RPM, coolant temp, fuel rail pressure, turbo boost, engine load and thats all (i think - I am sitting home). there is a widget that shows all available sensors to you in Torque pro). I believe that Scangauge will report exactly the same data, as it is all my ECU sends out. But perhaps some more fortunate user will confirm this (I believe Piwoslaw has both??)

-- the instant MPG readout and average MPG is way off in my Torque pro app too, but it is useful to get instant feedback. If it shows 5,3 l/100 km instaed of 7,2 l/100 km, I know I am driving more efficient even if the figures are way off. So I didn´t even bother to calibrate it ;-)

You should be able to work out what engine you have based on the power output and age.

Yeah I know the ECU puts out what it puts out, and the app uses that data, however the MPG that torque shows is a calculation based off of its interpretation of the data (AFAIK).

I decided to try the fuel economy torque plugin today, ( https://play.google.com/store/apps/d...lEconomy&hl=en ) - but it still didnt work, here is its interpretation of a journey that was mostly 56mph sitting behind a fast lorry (with slow town driving at the start and finish):
http://imgur.com/G7quJWd.png

Now, the presentation from the app is lovely, I really liked it - but its figures are still wrong - I estimate that along that journey I was actually achieving something in the 70's or 80's (imperial/UK MPG).

Torques standard read out was closer at 60 UK MPG - but still quite a way off!

If I turn on Torques 'enhanced' calculation, I would expect it to show something like 40 UK MPG (I haven't used the enhanced calculation much since I first tried it for a couple of miles as it was even worse, hence the estimate here).

I am not confident that any of these read outs are giving me an accurate picture... I know you say that I can still use the readings to know when I am doing better - but I think (in my case) that won't always be right... because the figures seem to be much closer to the real picture in stop start town driving - which casts doubt over the whole calculations in my mind...

I have used Torque successfully in the past on a petrol car (of a similar age) where it was consistently 10% out.

Perhaps my car isn't pushing out enough data to calculate properly?

your guess is as good as mine, but I would second that. I have read somewhere on Torque forum that diesel support is not complete (but i t was years ago). I assume that MPG calculation is based on engine load, RPMs and injection pulse width and Torque cannot calculate it properly for diesels not having enough data. In my opinion this would be better candidate for trying:https://play.google.com/store/apps/d...eeo.rtadvanced as it *should* access more data. But I doubt Torque can handle it other than to display.

last "official" answer on official Torque Pro forum i have found is silence. (see: Forums — » Torque OBD ECU Scanner » Torque Discussion / Ideas » MPG Calculation for Diesel PUTorque)

(BTW: you dashboard looks very similar to mine - and in previous versions of Logan there was instant MPG readout option on that odometer display. But around 2009 they cancelled it "because it was distracting drivers too much - as they told me. Don´t you have one? (I have just average MPG, always 0,3 l/100 km too optimistic.)

It looks like that extra-renault sensors app does not influence MPG read outs... it is also advertised for newer cars (Clio III onwards - mine is a Clio II) so doubt it would work.

My car doesn't have it's own MPG read out... but the some of the higher trim models did (though I believe they still didn't do instant - just trip).

I am now wondering if my volumetric efficiency could have anything to do with it... I cant find any specific figures for my car/engine, but have read that turbo diesels can have an efficiency at and over 100% (it is currently set at the default 85%).

I might post up in the torque forums and see if I can get a response...

EDIT: Thread posted, http://torque-bhp.com/forums/?wpforu...topic&t=6498.0 - let's see what happens.

I have five different fuel economy gadgets and they all have issues one way or another.

In the case of diesels and my unthrottled petrol engines, you will likely find that absolute accuracy is simply not possible via OBD instruments. Remember that a diesel is constantly changing it's AFR and this is not typically reported via OBD, so your gauge just guesses at it.

I believe some of the cheaper units may just assume stoich and rely on user calibration, which will be way off if you normally drive in the city then go on a long trip.

Having said that, a lot of TDI owners have SGII's and on my own TDI I've had good results with a calibrated SGII. SGII is expensive and in some ways basic, but it works really well.

The best way to accurate numbers is to tap into the factory economy signal with an MPGuino or UTComp. Your car will likely have this signal even if it doesn't have the display (that's the case with VWs).

Thanks for the info - it's a shame that cars don't just output the rate at which fuel is flowing and the current speed for instant MPG - and the total fuel and miles covered for trip MPG. I guess that would be too simple.

I am not too keen on spending £100+ on SG II which will still be an approximation (even if a bit better than Torque).

Now that sounds more like it.

The UTComp 3 looks fantastic - and I could get it for circa £60 delivered to my door - half the cost of a Scan Gauge.

Also, I am sure I could find somewhere very OEM looking to mount it too.

The only problem I guess (and its a pretty big one) would be tapping in to the OEM MPG signal... firstly, I have no idea whether the ECU will be activated to send that out, and secondly, I have no idea where.

My concern would be that if the signal is not activated, then I would have to see if Renault could do it for me - they would either charge a fortune or refuse. I cant find anyone doing something similar before, is there anyway I can check before spending the £££?

Any idea how I can find out what wire the signal is actually meant to be sent down as well?

EDIT: Think I am going to tackle the EGR valve this weekend - not sure if it will have an MPG impact cleaning it up but it is worth doing anyway, as they are rarely looked at and often clogged.

Double EDIT: I found some wiring diagrams which claim to be for a Clio II - http://www.elektroda.pl/rtvforum/download.php?id=534876

Diagram 5 covers the instrument cluster, and includes some details for the 'trip computer' - labelled A1.

There are multiple wires for it - one of which is Orange (Or) and goes to the 'fuel gauge sender unit/fuel pump', there is also a line to a Pink (Sa) wire that leads to a note to 'see diagrams 10 - 13 - engine management'.

To be honest, I don't know what i'm looking at - Is there anyone here that can make more sense of it? I presume that if we identify the 'MPG wire', I can check its actually there, and perhaps even somehow check its active (voltage?) before actually spending money on a display/gauge...

Image just for those browsing who don't want to download the PDF:
http://i.imgur.com/WFrivEV.jpg

Nope, I only have the SGII (but 2 of them, so you were close!). I'm not counting the on-board computer, as it is a dirty liar and cannot be corrected, ahem, recalibrated. Mine does not report fuel pressure nor oil temp (though I doubt my Pug has a sensor for the latter?). My suspicion is that load is calculated from other parameters (RPM, intake manifold pressure, injector timing, etc.), but I cannot confirm whether it is calculated by the SGII directly, or by the ECU and then sent to SGII. The latter case would be cool if I ever make an OBDuino-based load-dependent throttle, but I'm sailing Off Topic...

just crossed my mind:

How about make two (or three...) vehicle profiles - one for city driving, the other for highway. I know it is not elegant solution, but this way you can calibrate your mileage separatly and not loosing precision in start-stop city driving, which seems to be close enough.

It is certainly a possibility.

Just as an update, not any real progress since my last post - though I am due to get another fill up in the next few days - I will be sure to post when I do. I still need to clean the EGR valve and think I might end up fitting a small front air dam too.

I swapped out the OEM radio today for a Pioneer DEH-X8700DAB... not really on topic 'eco' wise but having access to digital radio, and bluetooth audio should make me more content behind the wheel (and therefore happier at a slower cruising pace)... so you never know!

One thing that I guess could be on topic, is the internal mounted DAB antenna I got - no aerodynamic burden (though the OEM FM antenna is still in place) - though it will be interesting to see how well it performs as it was only £10 and online reviews say that more traditional roof mounted styles give much stronger signal.

reception seemed fine on the driveway, time will tell on the move.

http://imgur.com/5VEV6pu.jpg
http://imgur.com/5WPddte.jpg