What does the lie-o-meter watch??
#1
#2
The PCM also calculates an MFDES, (mass fuel desired each stroke) off of pedal position and other various sensors. It converts this MFDES into a VFDES, (Volume of fuel desired each stroke) which is the amount of cubic millimeters of fuel delivered to each cylinder on each firing event (found my multiplying the MFDES by an estimated fuel density). By keeping a counter of firing events off of the CKP and CMP sensors, the computer knows how many firing events have been completed, and calculates a total of how many total mm^3 of fuel have been delivered. This calculation is converted from mm^3 (which a cubic millimeter is .001 milliliters) to imperical gallons, and the milage traveled in the given distance is divided by this to come up with the estimated MPG.
The reason yours always reads high is because your actual VFDES is much higher than the commanded VFDES from the PCM, thanks to the Banks unit intercepting it and raising it before it reaches the FICM on the valve cover to allow more fuel delivery- therefore more fuel is actually being delivered to the cylinder than the PCM is aware of.
The PCM knows the capacity of the tank, and the percentage fuel that is read by the tank sending unit, and calculates how much volume of fuel is left in the tank, and multiplies this by its estimated fuel economy value to get your "Miles to Empty" estimation read by the overhead meter.
The reason it is not always accurate is because it is impossible to get an EXACT fuel delivery calculation. Alot of people gripe and complain (on stock trucks) about the accuracy of the gauge, but considering how it must be calculated, I think it does a very fine job. When you calculate by hand, you are making a single calculation and a small percentage error poses very little threat to an accurate figure. However, seeing that the computer recalculates on every single firing cycle, it has ALOT of chances to be off a very minute amount. As you can imagine, a very, very small error multipled thousands and thousands of times can total up to a pretty significant amount. I highly doubt any human being could make that many thousand hand calculations and come out as accurately as it does, so people shouldn't rag it so hard
The reason yours always reads high is because your actual VFDES is much higher than the commanded VFDES from the PCM, thanks to the Banks unit intercepting it and raising it before it reaches the FICM on the valve cover to allow more fuel delivery- therefore more fuel is actually being delivered to the cylinder than the PCM is aware of.
The PCM knows the capacity of the tank, and the percentage fuel that is read by the tank sending unit, and calculates how much volume of fuel is left in the tank, and multiplies this by its estimated fuel economy value to get your "Miles to Empty" estimation read by the overhead meter.
The reason it is not always accurate is because it is impossible to get an EXACT fuel delivery calculation. Alot of people gripe and complain (on stock trucks) about the accuracy of the gauge, but considering how it must be calculated, I think it does a very fine job. When you calculate by hand, you are making a single calculation and a small percentage error poses very little threat to an accurate figure. However, seeing that the computer recalculates on every single firing cycle, it has ALOT of chances to be off a very minute amount. As you can imagine, a very, very small error multipled thousands and thousands of times can total up to a pretty significant amount. I highly doubt any human being could make that many thousand hand calculations and come out as accurately as it does, so people shouldn't rag it so hard
Last edited by kw5413; 09-25-2006 at 11:01 AM. Reason: Changed one word - Language - Due To Tech Folder Link
#7
Trending Topics
#8
A few simple changes could actually make this calculator useful.
For starters, MPG is significantly different while towing. Keeping track of two averages, one in Tow/Haul mode and one out. The DTE calculation could take this into consideration.
Alternatively, the DTE calculation could be based on the current MPG since last reset, rather than on a useless average. At least you could have some control over the DTE calculation based on your current driving conditions.
For starters, MPG is significantly different while towing. Keeping track of two averages, one in Tow/Haul mode and one out. The DTE calculation could take this into consideration.
Alternatively, the DTE calculation could be based on the current MPG since last reset, rather than on a useless average. At least you could have some control over the DTE calculation based on your current driving conditions.
#9
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Plano TX and Brentwood TN
Posts: 10,626
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
[QUOTE=RVRoadie] Keeping track of two averages, one in Tow/Haul mode and one out. The DTE calculation could take this into consideration.
QUOTE]
You know I don't think I've ever had it in Tow/Haul mode as long as I've had it, and I usually am hauling something atleast once a week, be it the flatbed gooseneck trailer or the 4-horse trailer. I don't think I've ever had a problem with the tranny(yet anyway). As far as I can tell, it hauls pretty good without the Tow/Haul setting, but the only mountains that I deal with(or foothills rather) are in Tn. and the few hills around Beorne and Fredericksburg back home in Tx., so I've never really had to gear it low for pulling. Most I've lost, MPG wise, in hauling is round .2 to .3 on the mileage. Now I don't have time to do the hand calcs and besides that I just used the computer's calcs as a guideline, nothing more.
QUOTE]
You know I don't think I've ever had it in Tow/Haul mode as long as I've had it, and I usually am hauling something atleast once a week, be it the flatbed gooseneck trailer or the 4-horse trailer. I don't think I've ever had a problem with the tranny(yet anyway). As far as I can tell, it hauls pretty good without the Tow/Haul setting, but the only mountains that I deal with(or foothills rather) are in Tn. and the few hills around Beorne and Fredericksburg back home in Tx., so I've never really had to gear it low for pulling. Most I've lost, MPG wise, in hauling is round .2 to .3 on the mileage. Now I don't have time to do the hand calcs and besides that I just used the computer's calcs as a guideline, nothing more.
#10
Huh . . .
Originally Posted by PSD 60L Fx4
The PCM also calculates an MFDES, (mass fuel desired each stroke) off of pedal position and other various sensors. It converts this MFDES into a VFDES, (Volume of fuel desired each stroke) which is the amount of cubic millimeters of fuel delivered to each cylinder on each firing event (found my multiplying the MFDES by an estimated fuel density). By keeping a counter of firing events off of the CKP and CMP sensors, the computer knows how many firing events have been completed, and calculates a total of how many total mm^3 of fuel have been delivered. This calculation is converted from mm^3 (which a cubic millimeter is .001 milliliters) to imperical gallons, and the milage traveled in the given distance is divided by this to come up with the estimated MPG.
The reason yours always reads high is because your actual VFDES is much higher than the commanded VFDES from the PCM, thanks to the Banks unit intercepting it and raising it before it reaches the FICM on the valve cover to allow more fuel delivery- therefore more fuel is actually being delivered to the cylinder than the PCM is aware of.
The PCM knows the capacity of the tank, and the percentage fuel that is read by the tank sending unit, and calculates how much volume of fuel is left in the tank, and multiplies this by its estimated fuel economy value to get your "Miles to Empty" estimation read by the overhead meter.
The reason it is not always accurate is because it is impossible to get an EXACT fuel delivery calculation. Alot of people gripe and bitch (on stock trucks) about the accuracy of the gauge, but considering how it must be calculated, I think it does a very fine job. When you calculate by hand, you are making a single calculation and a small percentage error poses very little threat to an accurate figure. However, seeing that the computer recalculates on every single firing cycle, it has ALOT of chances to be off a very minute amount. As you can imagine, a very, very small error multipled thousands and thousands of times can total up to a pretty significant amount. I highly doubt any human being could make that many thousand hand calculations and come out as accurately as it does, so people shouldn't rag it so hard
The reason yours always reads high is because your actual VFDES is much higher than the commanded VFDES from the PCM, thanks to the Banks unit intercepting it and raising it before it reaches the FICM on the valve cover to allow more fuel delivery- therefore more fuel is actually being delivered to the cylinder than the PCM is aware of.
The PCM knows the capacity of the tank, and the percentage fuel that is read by the tank sending unit, and calculates how much volume of fuel is left in the tank, and multiplies this by its estimated fuel economy value to get your "Miles to Empty" estimation read by the overhead meter.
The reason it is not always accurate is because it is impossible to get an EXACT fuel delivery calculation. Alot of people gripe and bitch (on stock trucks) about the accuracy of the gauge, but considering how it must be calculated, I think it does a very fine job. When you calculate by hand, you are making a single calculation and a small percentage error poses very little threat to an accurate figure. However, seeing that the computer recalculates on every single firing cycle, it has ALOT of chances to be off a very minute amount. As you can imagine, a very, very small error multipled thousands and thousands of times can total up to a pretty significant amount. I highly doubt any human being could make that many thousand hand calculations and come out as accurately as it does, so people shouldn't rag it so hard
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Wheatina
1999 - 2003 7.3L Power Stroke Diesel
5
02-06-2007 12:37 PM