Is it ok to remove anomaly tanks in your fuel log?

[Sean T.]

The past couple weeks I had a few bad tanks due to severe engine/transmission problems, including having to drive to school (~45min) with half the trip stuck in 2nd gear.

These tanks resulted in 19.50, 21.07, and 19.07 mph each for a tank of about 15-15.5 gallons.

I realize these aren't dramatic enough to be outliers (yeah I was a statistics nerd in HS), but they will have the following effect:

90-day will rise from 21.95 to 22.40 (a 2.04% increase)
Lifetime will rise from 22.00 to 22.07 (a 0.32% increase)
% above EPA will rise from 9.99% to 10.35% better than EPA.

Let me know what you all think. Personally I think it would be fair due to the other-than-normal driving circumstances. (I know people could bring up that this would be the same as denying a tank due to bad weather, but with an engine problem it's like driving a different car... does that make sense?)

Normally, I'd just go ahead and do it since it is MY fuel log, but I seem to remember controversy rising when another member tried to do this, so I figured I'd check...

[brucey]

I drove around several trips and got my worse recorded MPG at 14. something MPG, always in 1st gear. Snow is a ***** eh?

I still logged it.

Option 3 on the poll is probably the best. It's YOUR information and for YOUR use.

[Frank Lee]

Do whatever but keep in mind, if you then decide to make some sort of fe claim on a mod or technique or something, funky logs will not help you make your case... and yes when checking up on claims some of us do scrutinize fuel logs

[2000mc]

i thought thats why there was the details part, make note of weather - temps, blizzards... parts getting replaced...mods put on or taken down. i figure if youre a statistics nerd, the more info the better.

[Piwoslaw]

If you remove your worst tanks, then you should also remove your best (downhill w/ tailwind). The only tank I haven't entered was when testing my mods: I filled up before and after to make sure it didn't effect any other tanks. I think that was OK to omit since it was scientific research for better fe But to be fair, that tank is included in my private spreadsheet log on my computer.
All other tanks are included, even the worst ones with snowchains, or hauling cargo, or whatever etc.

[RobertSmalls]

It depends on what you're trying to measure with your fuel logs. I say log it all, so it reflects the way you actually drive and maintain your car. Me, I went an entire tank or two with a bad thermostat. If I didn't want that ugly data in my fuel logs, I should have identified and corrected the problem instead of driving like that for months.

What if someone decided he wanted to record his car at its best, so he only kept fuel logs during the summer?

Which reminds me, I have a fuel receipt in the glove box from a month ago. I'll update my logs with one good and one disappointing entry when I fill up this week.

[thatguitarguy]

Maybe you should ask more questions of yourself because this is your log.

What are you trying to prove/accomplish?
Are you trying to impress somebody?
Are you impressed by somebody else's skewed data?
Is it about the science, or a pretty graph?
Is 3 low/high tanks in a row an anomaly or a trend?
Do you remove trips with a lot of EOC, because heck, the engine wasn't even on?
Are you adjusting the nut, or adjusting the data?

Driving around in 2nd gear is not "other-than-normal" for a lot of people, it's just daily rush hour traffic. For a lot of people, grill blocks, air dams, EOC, or turning off at a light, or removing wipers and mirrors, and A/C, and alternators, are "other-than-normal".

The fuel logs are just a tool, and can only be accurate if used properly.

It would be a lot more work, but a more accurate and realistic tool would be a spreadsheet that calculated miles per dollar, including all the costs of using a car. This would include everything you spend money on to keep a car on the road including payments and interest, taxes, parking, repairs, maintenance, tolls, licensing, insurance, tickets, towing, etc.

Then we would get to see if it would be more economically feasible to own a nice new 2010 Prius, or a 1995 Metro. Or even a bicycle and a bus pass.

[Sean T.]

I'm not only removing bad tanks. I've had worse tanks, and to be honest 21 isn't that bad for me. I wouldn't think of removing them if it was due to snow or traffic.

My fuel log is just so that I can keep track of what kind of mileage my car is getting, and with the engine troubles I feel that it doesn't fairly represent my mileage.

And for me, three tanks is less than a month. We tried to figure out what the problem was, and ordered the parts we thought I needed, when that didn't fix it, I tried as soon as I could to get the car into the dealership to get it fixed.

I will still be leaving the tanks in the fuel log, but I will put the data in the details section and change the figures to 0 miles and 0 gallons.

[pgfpro]

To me the fuel log is your own tool to keep track of what changes did what?

Poor fuel inputs are just as good as Great fuel inputs.

The data is very important, no matter what the outcome.

[cfg83]

pgfpro -

Originally Posted by pgfpro

To me the fuel log is your own tool to keep track of what changes did what?

Poor fuel inputs are just as good as Great fuel inputs.

The data is very important, no matter what the outcome.

Yeah. I understand the desire to compete with others and have the best tanks possible, but I also think you can document what happened in the details log. Storing all the fuel logs makes the fuel log portion of this forum more accurate in regard to real world conditions.

Ha ha, if you want, you could publish a "Good TRex" and a "Bad TRex" fuel log. That way the totality of data would be there, but the best tanks could put the best light on your car.

But it's your log, so it's your choice,

CarloSW2