computer adjustment would be so handy
Thread Starter
|
Posting Guru
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
computer adjustment would be so handy
no to drone on and on about my scangauge, but...
everyone hates their onboard trip computer and the way it calculates gas mileage. i don't get why ford can't do what scangauge let me do. i can program a +/- adjustment factor.
scangauge's instructions for first-time use. fillup at the gas pump. "hit bla bla bla" and don't adjust the percentage. drive as usual. when below 1/4 of a tank, refill at the same pump at the same time of day facing the same direction. "hit bla bla bla" and use the arrows to adjust the percentage. mine was -8.3%. it says how many gallons it thinks i used and i change it to how many the pump says
i assume the overhead computer deal in fords uses the same calculation. that means mine would have been 8% off. a simple correction would have solved the problem. 3 tanks later and 1 minor adjustment, my mileage has been dead on scangauge vs by hand
everyone hates their onboard trip computer and the way it calculates gas mileage. i don't get why ford can't do what scangauge let me do. i can program a +/- adjustment factor.
scangauge's instructions for first-time use. fillup at the gas pump. "hit bla bla bla" and don't adjust the percentage. drive as usual. when below 1/4 of a tank, refill at the same pump at the same time of day facing the same direction. "hit bla bla bla" and use the arrows to adjust the percentage. mine was -8.3%. it says how many gallons it thinks i used and i change it to how many the pump says
i assume the overhead computer deal in fords uses the same calculation. that means mine would have been 8% off. a simple correction would have solved the problem. 3 tanks later and 1 minor adjustment, my mileage has been dead on scangauge vs by hand
Elder User
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 771
Likes: 0
From: Aurora
8.3% is a lot. It's pretty much common knowlege that all of the manufactures post 'ideal' mileage #'s on their vehicles, but you would think that their fuel flow sensors would be a little more acurate than that. At least the precision is there since your getting consistent #'s with the scan guage which uses the same sensors that the factory unit does.
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,147
Likes: 0
I gues it doesn't much matter, you get what you get anyhow. Ranger and gas mizer don't belong in the same sentence unless it's the 2.3 duratec. Some times knowing is worse than not knowing, it plays with your head ha ha.
Thread Starter
|
Posting Guru
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,265
Likes: 0
i agree, but it just seems like something ford is making a mistake not allowing this. if mine were to have the lie-o-meter, it would be lying too low (as in i actually get better mpgs - albeit 15mpg). just a little + and - button is all i ask for.
HEAR OUR CRIES FORD
HEAR OUR CRIES FORD
Post Fiend
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,147
Likes: 0
Yeah, I know what your saying. It's just getting alittle depressing, it's only march and gas is allready back up to 2.50 a gallon, what will summer hold for us? I guess I'm just alittle bumped out when it comes to talking about mpg. My truck actually does pretty good, but it's never good enough when gas prices are 3.00's, plus !!!!
Elder User
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
The Ford computer calculates this figure based on the actual duty-cycle on the injectors. Basically it takes the fuel pressure and the injector flow-rate, and multiplies it by the amount of time the injector is actually open, and averages that figure out over a certain distance to obtain the MPG figures. Believe it or not, this figure is DEAD ON ACCURATE.. that is, of course, assuming the injector is 100% perfect, fuel pressure is 100% accurate, etc.. etc... in other words.. "perfect" conditions, which we of course know almost never happens.
It looks like the scangauge gets its figures based off of the miles driven and the fuel level sensor. It "guesses" at how much fuel you use and you have to tell it how far off it is, so it's next calculation will be better - the only drawback to this is that you have to make sure you are accurate when filling it. This would be more accurate during "non-perfect" conditions, but has more potential for human error.
It looks like the scangauge gets its figures based off of the miles driven and the fuel level sensor. It "guesses" at how much fuel you use and you have to tell it how far off it is, so it's next calculation will be better - the only drawback to this is that you have to make sure you are accurate when filling it. This would be more accurate during "non-perfect" conditions, but has more potential for human error.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
tucker79
1999 - 2003 7.3L Power Stroke Diesel
0
Jan 18, 2016 06:12 PM
71 Muddbugg
1994.5 - 1997 7.3L Power Stroke Diesel
3
Nov 5, 2005 06:49 PM
