ScanGauge - amazing or..?

[Spidybot]

Hi All

New to this forum and from a part of the world, where extreme fuel prices have been common for many years, I'd like to discuss ScanGauge II readings.

I have two cars, one that suits my needs and another that suits my economy.
Both are Hyundai brand, both are commonrail turbo intercooled and both are fairly new.
One is a Terracan 4x4 Automatic, powered by a 163 hp 4-cyl. 2.9 litre the other is a Getz (might be marketed under different model name in other countries), powered by a 82 hp 3-cyl. 1.5 litre.

Manufacturer specs. according to EU standards says 11 km/l (25.87 mpg) for the Terracan and 22.7 km/l (53.39 mpg) for the Getz.

So far I've been pretty close to the specs (even slightly better on the Getz when driving outside city limits), the Terracan is harder to push beyond.

I've just fitted a Scangauge II to the Terracan, selected ISO to get it connected and did all the setup stuff incl. speed verfication against GPS. Made some inital runs, both ways, on the same flat road to see how things worked out (using cruise control to eliminate 'human error'). The tranny enganges permanently at 65 km/h (GPS speed), so figures have no 'tranny slip' influence.

What amazes me is the reported consumption:

80 km/h = 10,87 km/l = 25,82 mpg
90 km/h = 10,53 km/l = 25,00 mpg
100 km/h = 9,35 km/l = 22,20 mpg
110 km/h = 9,90 km/l = 23,51 mpg
120 km/h = 9,26 km/l = 21,99 mpg
130 km/h = 12,99 km/l = 30,84 mpg

Right, fuel efficiency might improve at higher rpm, but the jump between 120 and 130 km/h seems unreal?

All other readings are meaningful, even mpg during acceleration/coasting etc.

Any comments and suggestions most appreciated.

[FastPlastic]

Does it shift somewhere between 120 km/h - 130 km/h? Seems really high for a gear but who knows for a car in Europe. The higher gears tend to be taller and you'll notice when you get to maxing out the gear because you'll see a big jump in the MPG's when it does shift. It might seem big, but with the turbo and possibly gearing it may just be a sweet spot in the engine tuning. My Cherokee will jump about 4-5MPG's when I push it just past that last gear. Just one of the reasons the scangauge II is worth the money. Finding those sweet spots without it is almost impossible.

[JasonG]

Originally Posted by Spidybot

Hi All


The tranny enganges permanently at 65 km/h (GPS speed), so figures have no 'tranny slip' influence.

What amazes me is the reported consumption:

80 km/h = 10,87 km/l = 25,82 mpg
90 km/h = 10,53 km/l = 25,00 mpg
100 km/h = 9,35 km/l = 22,20 mpg
110 km/h = 9,90 km/l = 23,51 mpg
120 km/h = 9,26 km/l = 21,99 mpg
130 km/h = 12,99 km/l = 30,84 mpg

While we dont have that nice littel Getz here something doesnt seem right.
You said the engine engages permanantly at 65kmh? Please define.
65 kmh seems awfully low for the torque converter to lock-up at.
Most cars dont lock-up until highway speeds are reached at 100-110 kmh.
Do you mean it makes its last shift at 65? if so it may be locking-up at 120, which explains the slight FE drop as the engine loads a bit. Then at 130 the diesel finds its curve and is ready to cruise.
Alternate question, at 130 how far is the pedal down? Most of the way? Just guestimating but 1.5L X 82HP + small turbo = maxing out at 130 I would think, unless your car looks like Bassjoos'

Oh, and welcome

[Spidybot]

Well, first I'd like to clarify that the ScanGauge is on the Terracan - not the Getz. Will have to get back about that little sipper, once the ScanGauge goes there.

I think manufacturers' ideal numbers are the same no matter the market: Optimize gear ratios to make best compromise for the car in question. Don't think they change it much between US and Europe. Used to have a Suzuki 4x4 2.0 diesel that was optimized pretty accurately: By going from 235/60 to 255/65 tires the consumption went 20% up.

The Terracan is actually built on the Mitsubishi Grand Pajero frame & platform, updated with Hyundai's own engine bolted to a Borg Warner 4 speed tranny. The box shifts for the last time at approx. 65 km/h (unless load tells it not to) and almost immediately after that locks the converter - at least at low loads. Hitting the pedal or keeping a high acceleration will cause the lock to wait, and the faster the car goes, the more 'soft & sliding' the locking. I can feel and hear rpm drop at lockup - and it shows clearly on the ScanGauge MPG readout as it improves instantly. When locked the rpm and speed relation becomes linear, also telling that there's no slip.

Just made another test run (2x30 miles, freeway out, minor roads home) and it seems to read varying mpg as expected while keeping the impressive figures at high speed. Nice, ofcourse, but still on the edge of believable.

Doing extended cruising at 130 isn't easy around here as speed limits are 110 or less except on certain freeways (130).

[Spidybot]

Just wanted to report on the 3-cyl 5-door Getz as promised.

I've played with the ScanGauge and compared the results to the calculated consumption over 66875 miles.

The car is driven by the wife, with no other efforts to save than normal awarenes & careful driving. The 60000 miles were driven mostly as 2x30 miles daily, but due to new job the rest has been like 2x5 miles. Conditions include 5 summers and 4 nordic winter seasons.
It includes a little trailer hauling and some highway holiday cruising w/ full load.

The average is 51,755 mpg.
Best mpg is 95 reported by ScanGauge at a constant 38 mph. Interesting although not very useful.

This car is marketed under various model names and with either 3- or 4-cyl. 1.5 liter diesel engine. Both with turbo and intercooler.

[99LeCouch]

That looks better than the Accent we get here.

Did you figure out if the high-speed results were accurate? I know they are for my gas-powered V6 monster-engined car. Then again I don't usually do 130 km/h (~80 mph) since the speed limits aren't that high here.

[Spidybot]

After filling the tank and adjusting the ScanGauge accordingly a number of times, the readings seem more accurate. A little better mpg overall, but the picture is still the same: Amazing mpg while at higher speed.

On the other hand I've had some rushhour jam driving and that certainly is not the preferred way to run this 4x4. Rouhgly doubled the consumption