Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > Instrumentation
Register Now
 Register Now
 


Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-07-2010, 11:08 AM   #11 (permalink)
Hypermiler
 
PaleMelanesian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,316

PaleCivic (retired) - '96 Honda Civic DX Sedan
90 day: 69.2 mpg (US)

PaleFit - '09 Honda Fit Sport
Team Honda
Wagons
90 day: 44.06 mpg (US)
Thanks: 606
Thanked 423 Times in 277 Posts
The tank size has no bearing at all on the mpg readings. It only affects the "Miles to Empty" and "Gallons to Empty" readouts. I pretty much ignore it.

Engine size and fillup offset are what you should worry about.

__________________



11-mile commute: 100 mpg - - - Tank: 90.2 mpg / 1191 miles
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PaleMelanesian For This Useful Post:
Daox (01-07-2010), MetroMPG (01-07-2010)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 01-07-2010, 03:51 PM   #12 (permalink)
Batman Junior
 
MetroMPG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 21,828

Blackfly - '98 Geo Metro
Team Metro
Last 3: 70.09 mpg (US)

MPGiata - '90 Mazda Miata
90 day: 53.56 mpg (US)

Winter beater Metro - '00 Chevrolet Metro
90 day: 61.98 mpg (US)

Fancy Metro - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage top spec
90 day: 58.72 mpg (US)

Even Fancier Metro - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage top spec
90 day: 61.46 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,530
Thanked 6,324 Times in 3,271 Posts
Carlos' point is also key: realize the ScanGauge reads in US gallons.

You can effectively change the MPG readings to display imperial gallons using the fuel offset if you want to.
__________________
Latest mods: 3-cylinder Mitsubishi Mirage. EcoMods now in progress...
Ecodriving test:
Manual vs. automatic transmission MPG showdown



EcoModder
has launched a forum for the efficient new Mitsubishi Mirage
www.MetroMPG.com - fuel efficiency info for Geo Metro owners
www.ForkenSwift.com - electric car conversion on a beer budget
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2010, 04:06 PM   #13 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London UK
Posts: 95
Thanks: 3
Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleMelanesian View Post
The tank size has no bearing at all on the mpg readings. It only affects the "Miles to Empty" and "Gallons to Empty" readouts. I pretty much ignore it.

Engine size and fillup offset are what you should worry about.
Sorry for not responding for soo long, I have been very busy.

I appreciate all the responses.

My question is that if you say fillup offset affects the accuracy then the tank size does also technically as when im filling up I input the offset im inputting it against 10 gallon tank size rather than 10.6 gallons....
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2010, 04:22 PM   #14 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London UK
Posts: 95
Thanks: 3
Thanked 7 Times in 4 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG View Post
Carlos' point is also key: realize the ScanGauge reads in US gallons.

You can effectively change the MPG readings to display imperial gallons using the fuel offset if you want to.
I have read that if I tell i have a 10 gallon tank (uk gallons) and then input the first fuel adjustment in UK gallons then all other values will be in UK values.

Im not too bothered if the fillup adjustment factor only affect the miles to emtpy becuase I can ignore this knowing my avg and instant mpg values are accurate.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2010, 04:35 PM   #15 (permalink)
Pokémoderator
 
cfg83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,864

1999 Saturn SW2 - '99 Saturn SW2 Wagon
Team Saturn
90 day: 40.49 mpg (US)
Thanks: 439
Thanked 528 Times in 355 Posts
alexander.foti -

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexander.foti View Post
I have read that if I tell i have a 10 gallon tank (uk gallons) and then input the first fuel adjustment in UK gallons then all other values will be in UK values.

Im not too bothered if the fillup adjustment factor only affect the miles to emtpy becuase I can ignore this knowing my avg and instant mpg values are accurate.
I am actually bad when it comes to this. I never "calibrated" my old SG-I beyond engine size. The engine size is critical. Double the engine size and you will see your reported MPG drop like a rock.

In my fuel log I use my odometer (after GPS correction factor) and (US) gallons measured at the pump. This puts me at the mercy of gas pump innacuracies, but you can't have everything, so I can live with that. I use the same pump when available, but not at the expense of my or another's convenience.

Because I don't have a calibration factor, my instant and average MPG may be off. However, I consider them to be valid *relative* barometers, and I am fine with that.

CarloSW2
__________________

What's your EPA MPG? Go Here and find out!
American Solar Energy Society
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2010, 01:18 PM   #16 (permalink)
...beats walking...
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,191
Thanks: 179
Thanked 1,521 Times in 1,122 Posts
...just curious. How many times does one have to "tweek" the GALLONS-used offset ("calibration") before things 'settle-in'?

...once, twice, three times, ...continuously????
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2010, 03:18 PM   #17 (permalink)
ECO-Evolution
 
Lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 1,482

Iron Horse (retired) - '97 Iron horse Intrepid

Ninja - '08 Kawasaki 250R
90 day: 76.23 mpg (US)
Thanks: 17
Thanked 44 Times in 33 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Tele man View Post
...just curious. How many times does one have to "tweek" the GALLONS-used offset ("calibration") before things 'settle-in'?

...once, twice, three times, ...continuously????
With mine it was 2 times but I was careful to fill at the same pump and run it till the low fuel light came on before refill. From that point on it was pretty rock solid. Once in a while it would be different but I would wait and see if the next tank after that was also different before I made any tweek assuming it could be pump or fill error.
__________________
"Judge a person by their questions rather than their answers."

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2010, 04:03 PM   #18 (permalink)
...beats walking...
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,191
Thanks: 179
Thanked 1,521 Times in 1,122 Posts
...I asked the question because I'm now on my first tank 'after' doing the initial calibration, and (obviously) there's a BIG difference between the previous (pre-calibration) AVG and MPG numbers and what I'm seeing now.

...and, I, too, waited until the "empty" light came on, figuring that the larger the GALS-value, the more likely to be correct (ie: "percentage" of the whole). But, since the "correction" value was only 0.X while the actual gallons pumped were 0.XXX, it's also apparent there's a big discrepancy in accuracies. In my case, I had to 'round' 9.868 actual gallons up to 9.9 'adjust' gallons (+13.7% per SGII).

...again, just a curiousity question.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2010, 05:44 PM   #19 (permalink)
ECO-Evolution
 
Lazarus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 1,482

Iron Horse (retired) - '97 Iron horse Intrepid

Ninja - '08 Kawasaki 250R
90 day: 76.23 mpg (US)
Thanks: 17
Thanked 44 Times in 33 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Tele man View Post
...I asked the question because I'm now on my first tank 'after' doing the initial calibration, and (obviously) there's a BIG difference between the previous (pre-calibration) AVG and MPG numbers and what I'm seeing now.

...and, I, too, waited until the "empty" light came on, figuring that the larger the GALS-value, the more likely to be correct (ie: "percentage" of the whole). But, since the "correction" value was only 0.X while the actual gallons pumped were 0.XXX, it's also apparent there's a big discrepancy in accuracies. In my case, I had to 'round' 9.868 actual gallons up to 9.9 'adjust' gallons (+13.7% per SGII).

...again, just a curiousity question.
Here's a link to a post about the off set. It looks like they can be all over the map from 2- 15%. So the 13.7% does not seem to out of line.
__________________
"Judge a person by their questions rather than their answers."

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Lazarus For This Useful Post:
gone-ot (01-24-2010)
Old 01-24-2010, 06:09 PM   #20 (permalink)
...beats walking...
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,191
Thanks: 179
Thanked 1,521 Times in 1,122 Posts
...I somehow missed finding that page when I fumbled around looking for information; I appreciate the direct link...Thanks!

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to calculate MPG / fuel economy formula MetroMPG DIY / How-to 29 11-25-2013 07:47 PM
87 octane vs 89 octane kill-9 General Efficiency Discussion 51 02-14-2013 02:12 PM
Engine braking without using fuel idea Dane-ger EcoModding Central 38 02-04-2010 11:35 AM
Effect of fuel octane number on FE hummingbird EcoModding Central 32 10-28-2009 01:50 AM
Basic EcoDriving Techniques and Instrumentation SVOboy Instrumentation 2 11-17-2007 12:38 PM



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com