Please, No more MPG Threads Using the Computer....

[SoldonSubie]

......IT DOESN'T WORK!!!!!

 

Sorry, this isn't meant to be a flame but I am getting tired of reading fantasy MPG threads where people give #'s that are straight off of the lousy trip computer.

 

The trip computer # can easily be manipulated by how you drive the first 5 or 10 miles after reset. Trust me, I've done it.

 

The only way to gauge true MPG is to do the folowing:

 

1) Fill your tank.

2) Reset the trip ODO.

3) Drive.

4) Refill your tank.

5) Divide miles driven into gallons filled.

6) There, you have your MPG

 

To get a true RANGE of MPG you should do this a few times. If possible try to do it at the same gas station.

 

My real world, mixed in town and highway MPG in my OBXT is 19 to 20 for winter and 21to 22 for summer. The computer has given me numbers that range from 17 to 24 over the same range.

 

BTW, I have driven several thousand miles on a base, 4EAT OB 2.5i and my numbers on that model are around 23.

[-TT-]

and your point is.....?

 

(everyone that is really concerned about measuring MPG knows how to obtain an accurate MPG number)

[SoldonSubie]

and your point is.....?

 

(everyone that is really concerned about measuring MPG knows how to obtain an accurate MPG number)

 

Too many threads have people responding with data pulled from the computer which is inaccurate.

[c-lo]

mine tells me I'm getting 21.9-22.5mpg:icon_tong

[ilh]

Whatever. Every time I have checked my computer vs. the tank fill method the difference has been < 1mpg, with the computer on the high side. Close enough for me.

[SoldonSubie]

Whatever. Every time I have checked my computer vs. the tank fill method the difference has been < 1mpg, with the computer on the high side. Close enough for me.

 

 

Same here, under normal driving conditions. However, do you really believe guys that are claiming they get 30 MPG in the LGT? I can manipulate my computer to do that if I drive down hill at no more than 45MPH. But, in no way do I believe I am getting that kind of MPG.

[legacy2005]

lol..someone has a burr up his ass. take a deep breath soldon.

 

my trip computer says 16.7mpg. why the hell would i wanna do the math when there is a computer that does it allrdy for me and is within standard deviation specs.

[hondas123]

Same here, under normal driving conditions. However, do you really believe guys that are claiming they get 30 MPG in the LGT? I can manipulate my computer to do that if I drive down hill at no more than 45MPH. But, in no way do I believe I am getting that kind of MPG.

 

Yep, I've done it. 30 mpg and compared with the old fashioned way. Why is that so hard to believe? I know I'm not alone either.

[f1anatic]

However, do you really believe guys that are claiming they get 30 MPG in the LGT?

 

YOU sir, can believe whatever you want.

 

I strongly believe in my 30-32 mpg that I can routinely get with my Legacy. Because time and time again the difference between your stated method and my trip computer is 0.7-0.8 mpg. It doesn't get any simpler for me. Fill the tank to the brim and 2 seconds after I start the engine I reset the trip meter. From there it is academic. There's no dicking with the trip meter, there's no manipulation. It is not my fault that I often fill my tank in the suburbs and then take the highway straight into down town at 10 AM when traffic is fairly light. And what do I see...30.7 - 31 mpg. What do I see at the end of the week, after bumper to bumper traffic... when i go fill my tank again ? 20.3 - 21 mpg. Which amounts to a 19.4 -20.2 mpg from the pen & paper calculation.

 

So...your post is a waste of time. All of us know how much their trip computer cheats. And it is usually less than 1 mpg.

 

And please learn how to drive. That pedal that you call "throttle" is not a bicycle pedal but something that you should imagine is pushing against an egg. Learn how to shift between 2000 and 2500 and be patient with getting up to speed. Be patient with morons trying to race you and don't race past 70 mph. Use cruise control.

 

THAT WILL GIVE YOU 30 mpg on the highway !

[PeterJMC]

Yup I'm no dolt... I computer reported 29.(something)mpg on the trip meter. And I calculated the good 'ol fashion method and came up with 28.8mpg. Close enough for me!

 

There has been on occasion (rare) where it was 1-2mpg shy... but usually it's accurate up to .3-.9

[c-lo]

Yup I'm no dolt... I computer reported 29.(something)mpg on the trip meter. And I calculated the good 'ol fashion method and came up with 28.8mpg. Close enough for me!

 

There has been on occasion (rare) where it was 1-2mpg shy... but usually it's accurate up to .3-.9

 

DAmn! what kind of driving do you do??? mine is half non stop traffic, half stop and go and I get 22.5 at best! I strive for more but she just can't give me anymore!

[melayout]

The computer calculates it from how many miles on the trip and the estimated gallons from the injector pluses.

 

It's doing the calculation for you and it's always a tad mite bit optimistic.

 

If you can get the computer to read 30MPG down the hill, then if you actually calculated it manually you'll get like ~29. That doesn't affect the future MPG readings again because it's just doing the same math you'll do.

 

Please remove * from posterior.

[TCL28]

What's up with that?

[Windex]

I can do 30mpg any day of the week, but that's in CDN gallons (imperial)

 

seriously though, anyone here claiming 30mpg in an LGT must be:

 

-driving 55 or lower on the highway with no traffic

-drafting a semi

-coasting down hill

 

- and most importantly, not counting the city mileage they're doing as part of the calulation. I love the braggards who come out saying "I get 30 mpg" without the qualifying "on a 30 mile non-stop highway stretch, with 18mpg city mileage before and after". Tell me what you get from a tankfull, not from a short highway stretch, and then tell me what kind of driving you did.

 

If everyone here gave their true calculated (not by the inaccurate trip computer) mileage, it would be around 25-26 for realistic all-highway-long-trip-at 65mph or below drives, and down to 17-18 all city. Most of us would fall in the middle.

 

For the record, I get 22-23mpg consistently with 80% highway 20% city.

 

Yeah, I got a calculated 27mpg in my LGT once, with a tailwind on a 300km trip - big freaking deal. it's not like that trip reflects the mileage one can reasonably expect from the car on a regular basis. I think Seldon is trying to say that there are too many on the board who are quick to quote a mileage figure they got on a highway trip once, along with the optimism of the trip computer, and misrepresent it to be what they get from their LGT every time...

 

I'm siding with Seldon on this one.

[SLegacy99]

Wait wait. Ya'll have computers in yours that tell you stats about your cars. LUCKY. I kill for a thermometer.....And I never found out what happened to my power driver seat that was supposed to be standard on the '99 Limited. If you have it please let me know.

[jduk]

It's fairly accurate.. my computer is usually 0.5-1.5 mpg optimistic. Not bad.

[hondas123]

The facts are IMO..

 

1. The trip computer is accurate compared to the old fashioned method. (at least in my car)

 

2. YES, you can get 30+ mpg in a LGT. Can you do it on a regular basis? No. But on an extended highway trip, using cruise control it's acheivable. I've done it on several occasions.

[PeterJMC]

I did 29mpg crusing at 70-75. You don't need to go that slow... I've done a lot of MPG tests on my car and you don't get the best MPG driving around 55mph. From the many tanks I've gone through you get the best milage 3000-3500 rpm which I guess is just getting into boost.

[melayout]

I can do 30mpg any day of the week, but that's in CDN gallons (imperial)

 

seriously though, anyone here claiming 30mpg in an LGT must be:

 

-driving 55 or lower on the highway with no traffic

-drafting a semi

-coasting down hill

 

- and most importantly, not counting the city mileage they're doing as part of the calulation. I love the braggards who come out saying "I get 30 mpg" without the qualifying "on a 30 mile non-stop highway stretch, with 18mpg city mileage before and after". Tell me what you get from a tankfull, not from a short highway stretch, and then tell me what kind of driving you did.

 

If everyone here gave their true calculated (not by the inaccurate trip computer) mileage, it would be around 25-26 for realistic all-highway-long-trip-at 65mph or below drives, and down to 17-18 all city. Most of us would fall in the middle.

 

For the record, I get 22-23mpg consistently with 80% highway 20% city.

 

Yeah, I got a calculated 27mpg in my LGT once, with a tailwind on a 300km trip - big freaking deal. it's not like that trip reflects the mileage one can reasonably expect from the car on a regular basis. I think Seldon is trying to say that there are too many on the board who are quick to quote a mileage figure they got on a highway trip once, along with the optimism of the trip computer, and misrepresent it to be what they get from their LGT every time...

 

I'm siding with Seldon on this one.

The trip computer thing is a non-issue. It's simple math not magic and that's Seldon's contention.

 

If someone wants to report their mileage calculated from a point on the highway to another, WHO ******* cares. Whether you use the computer or manual calculation you'll be within 1 MPG.

[f1anatic]

Hey champ, get this ? 104 miles from Port Washington, Wisconsin to Chicago IL. 30.9 mpg. Turned out to be 30.2 mpg when calculated the old fashioned way. Even better...I did it on cruise control at 70 mph (3000 rpm).

 

As everyone knows...from this place north of Milwaukee to Chicago ...it is all DOWNHILL with HUGE TAIL WINDS ! Milwaukee Wisconsin is located at about 6000 meters above the sea...and Chicago is just a mere 200 meters above the sea level. As you can see, i drove mostly downhill...Man...you should have seen the wind ! I bet I was doing like 15 knots just on tail wind alone !

[f1anatic]

Even better. A few weeks ago...from Skokie IL to Downtown Chicago. Again...heavily downhill, stormy tail wind !

 

 

Cruise Control at 60 mph. Right after pitstop ! 13 gallons of Exxon's finest !

 

:iam:I admit, I was being towed on a flatbed truck !

[SoldonSubie]

Hey champ, get this ? 104 miles from Port Washington, Wisconsin to Chicago IL. 30.9 mpg. Turned out to be 30.2 mpg when calculated the old fashioned way. Even better...I did it on cruise control at 70 mph (3000 rpm).

 

As everyone knows...from this place north of Milwaukee to Chicago ...it is all DOWNHILL with HUGE TAIL WINDS ! Milwaukee Wisconsin is located at about 6000 meters above the sea...and Chicago is just a mere 200 meters above the sea level. As you can see, i drove mostly downhill...Man...you should have seen the wind ! I bet I was doing like 15 knots just on tail wind alone !

 

 

So, you went 104 miles on 3/4 of a tank? Maybe you should learn to drive.

 

Actually, the trip computer is just a conspiracy put there by big oil.......

[SoldonSubie]

The computer calculates it from how many miles on the trip and the estimated gallons from the injector pluses.

 

It's doing the calculation for you and it's always a tad mite bit optimistic.

 

If you can get the computer to read 30MPG down the hill, then if you actually calculated it manually you'll get like ~29. That doesn't affect the future MPG readings again because it's just doing the same math you'll do.

 

Please remove * from posterior.

 

Then why is it the same trip UP the hill, not coasting but foot on throttle (for you f1 :-)) reads well below 20?

 

How about this. Is the car more fuel eficient in 4th or 5th (overdrive) gear? Try it. At the same speed and distance coast in 4th and then drive with you foot on the throttle (again f1)in 5th and the trusty computer indicates that you are more fuel efficient in 4th despite the fact that there are more RPMs.

[wy4tt]

I'm going to start a thread about not starting threads to tell others not to start threads about mpg and the onboard computer.

 

I see your point, Soldon, but if you don't want to read "optimistic" reports of others using their LGTs (and the computers they came with), then don't. Matter of fact, you seem to pretty much know everything related to fuel economy and the LGT, so you can easily dodge related threads, right?

 

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but the computer is a tool. It's not perfect, but it's still very useful when you understand it's limitations. Of course, if you want to spend your time trying to figure out ways to "trick" your computer, and develop corresponding conspiracy theories, that's ok too.

[SoldonSubie]

I'm going to start a thread about not starting threads to tell others not to start threads about mpg and the onboard computer.

 

Wy4tt:

 

That was hilarious! Seriously, I am not being sarcastic or trying to argue with you here. That was funny.

 

I didn't start this thread to get into an argument about fuel economy. I guess my bad as I should have known where this was going to go. My simple point is that the computer, while nice as an indicator, is unreliable. That's all.