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

[azca]

I get 26 on freeway for past 10k miles

 

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.

[Hyudra]

mine always says like 2-5 mpg higher than what i'm really getting. it's kinda annoying. i've seen 30mpg on the computer, and im sure i could get it if i cruised 400 miles non-stop on the highway.

[mccorry]

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.

 

I think everyone who is a regular on here... or does a search.. will agree with you. 1 to 1.5 MPG over actual. No reason to get all exited about it.

[f1anatic]

So, you went 104 miles on 3/4 of a tank? .

 

Maybe you should think ! I reseted the trip meter when I left.

 

We went there as a group to see the fall foliage. one of the cars in our group was a BMW 330xi. The events conspired against my fueld economy on our way there...but I returned on my own...so I could pace myself.

 

Face it. Your driving skills just suck if you think the LGT cannot be fuel efficient.

 

The other OBVIOUS thing you failed to realize is that more or less by reporting the numbers from the trip computer...we are basically all reporting numbers that have the same error associated with it. meaning...we can directly compare fuel efficiency. So what it is 1 mpg off the reality. If I get 32 mph and you get 24 mph on the highway ...then certainly even if we weigh the last ounce of gas ...I still put you to shame when it comes to fuel efficiency.

 

Learn to think. Learn to drive. Lern to complain LESS !

[Brady]

http://burnedimage.afraid.org/temp/gas1.jpg

 

http://burnedimage.afraid.org/temp/gas2.jpg

 

http://burnedimage.afraid.org/temp/gas3.jpg

 

The last 2 days of this tank were in stop and go traffic, or just over 120 miles of stop and go rush hour traffic.

 

The first portion of the tank covered about 190 miles of freeway traffic, and about 90-100 miles of winding and hilly country roads.

 

I think that 30 mpg is possible, if you have the patience for it.

[wy4tt]

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.

I hear ya, and I agree completely. Sorry if I sounded a little edgy. I must say though, I think the computer's estimate is fairly reliable in the strict sense of the word, in that it is probably consistently off by the same amount (1-2 mpg). Heck, it's probably more consistent than my math.

[SoldonSubie]

I hear ya, and I agree completely. Sorry if I sounded a little edgy. I must say though, I think the computer's estimate is fairly reliable in the strict sense of the word, in that it is probably consistently off by the same amount (1-2 mpg). Heck, it's probably more consistent than my math.

 

 

 

No problems on this end. That is what discussions are all about.

 

I actually agree with you in that under my regular commute which has both highway cruising and stop and go suburban driving I am within 0.5 to 1.5 MPG of the computer.

 

Meaning at this time of year I get readings in the 22 to 23.5 range and my real mileage is 21 to 22 (at most). However, for the odd tank fill that reads 24 to 25 I still really get 21 to 22.

[SoldonSubie]

Maybe you should think ! I reseted the trip meter when I left.

 

We went there as a group to see the fall foliage. one of the cars in our group was a BMW 330xi. The events conspired against my fueld economy on our way there...but I returned on my own...so I could pace myself.

 

Face it. Your driving skills just suck if you think the LGT cannot be fuel efficient.

 

The other OBVIOUS thing you failed to realize is that more or less by reporting the numbers from the trip computer...we are basically all reporting numbers that have the same error associated with it. meaning...we can directly compare fuel efficiency. So what it is 1 mpg off the reality. If I get 32 mph and you get 24 mph on the highway ...then certainly even if we weigh the last ounce of gas ...I still put you to shame when it comes to fuel efficiency.

 

Learn to think. Learn to drive. Lern to complain LESS !

 

 

F1:

 

You need to grow up or maybe develop some manners. I simply stated, as many in thread have agreed, that the trip computer MPG calculator doesn’t work very well.

 

So your response is that I can’t drive and I don’t think and that I am a complainer?

 

I read some of your old posts and now I am convinced that you are a first class moron. Have a nice life arguing on the internet.

 

BTW, on your glorious trip from second city to Milwaukee how did you determine that you got 30 + MPG? Well Mr. THINKER?

 

It seems that you didn’t THINK very much and only used your trip computer. Well, well, well.

 

How do you know how much gasoline you actually used? You don’t. Why don’t you think about that for a bit. OK, I guess you are done as you have maxed out your brain power.

 

The only way to know how much gas you actually used is to fill up before you leave, reset the trip odometer, take your little drive and fill up again when you get there. You didn’t do that.

 

30MPG is a fantasy in an LGT without a 0.50:1 6th gear.

 

The point of the thread wasn’t to argue about the LGT’s mileage but to simply state that if such arguments were to be had, to please use better data.

[f1anatic]

 

I simply stated, as many in thread have agreed, that the trip computer MPG calculator doesn’t work very well.

 

BTW, on your glorious trip from second city to Milwaukee how did you determine that you got 30 + MPG? Well Mr. THINKER?

 

Since historically every other time I filled the tank and compared the trip computer MPG with the pen and paper calculation , the results were consistently less than1 mpg...it stands to reason that it shouldn't be different that time around. Why would I have to fill it up and paper calculate when i know based on past experience that I will be within 1 mpg?

 

You call me first class moron. Mind over matter. I don't mind you and you don't matter to me. But I leave you with a few thoughts.

 

1) You do not know how to drive. Let me rephrase it to fit "my label of first class moron".

30MPG is a fantasy in an LGT without a 0.50:1 6th gear.

Your driving skills utterly suck !

2) The trip computer for most of us is consistent (even if consistently off by 1 mpg) thus it serves as a reliable indicator of the fuel economy. People tell you this time and time again...yet you seem to not understand. Most of us are actuallyrelatively happy with how it works.

3) Go complain about fuel economy on your Legacy elsewhere. I never complain about the fuel economy. I complain about gas prices. Different story !

[LotusSeven]

The energy (in the form of hot-air) going into this thread would probably boost my mileage by at least 3 or 4 mpg.

 

As an independent LGT wagon observer:

 

1. My trip computer is accurate to about +/-3 percent over almost any driving condition, which I consider very accurate.

 

2. I routinely get a (measured by gallons to fill the tank) 21-22 mpg in short-hop suburban driving and a consistent 27-28 mph at average 70 mph highway cruising. Given the laws of physics related to aerodynamic drag, that could easily translate to more than 30 mpg at 55 mph or less, if one wanted to drive that slow.

 

There certainly can be conditions when the digital mpg indicator is not dead accurate, but in my experience, it's pretty close most of the time and is sensitive and useful enough for almost any practical purpose. Also, from posted comments, the LGT mpg indicator seems to be remarkably consistent from car to car, which has some value as a relative indicator.

[SoldonSubie]

Since historically every other time I filled the tank and compared the trip computer MPG with the pen and paper calculation , the results were consistently less than1 mpg...it stands to reason that it shouldn't be different that time around. Why would I have to fill it up and paper calculate when i know based on past experience that I will be within 1 mpg?

 

You call me first class moron. Mind over matter. I don't mind you and you don't matter to me. But I leave you with a few thoughts.

 

1) You do not know how to drive. Let me rephrase it to fit "my label of first class moron".

 

Your driving skills utterly suck !

2) The trip computer for most of us is consistent (even if consistently off by 1 mpg) thus it serves as a reliable indicator of the fuel economy. People tell you this time and time again...yet you seem to not understand. Most of us are actuallyrelatively happy with how it works.

3) Go complain about fuel economy on your Legacy elsewhere. I never complain about the fuel economy. I complain about gas prices. Different story !

 

You proved my point with your posts. #20 and then #29. Thank you for participating in the post.

[SoldonSubie]

The energy (in the form of hot-air) going into this thread would probably boost my mileage by at least 3 or 4 mpg.

 

 

Agreed!

[johndas]

You guys are all a bunch of morons...kidding...How about this...who here can get the worst gas mileage?...now that is worth talking about!

 

Simply because it is then that we would be having fun!

 

Boost on mofo's!

[Garandman]

I log all fuel use, and record the computer mpg (usually) as well as actual in the log.

 

It's all over the map. It appears the buffer is much smaller than a full tank. So if your driving for the last part of the tank is typical, it will be fairly accurate. But if your driving changes over the tank, it's not. I think I'll email SOA just to see what kind of amusing answer I get. We have a Dodge Caravan with similar computer and I never did get a straight answer from DC or a dealer on how it works.

[springnr]

VVG, the computer is calculating and displaying how the fuel is being used. So if you have driven only a few miles since reseting it will bounce around and then stabilize towards the end of the tank.

 

I never reset the B trip so it self resets every 10,000 miles. Try selecting the B trip and if it has several thousand miles on it should give a pretty good indication of your average fuel use.

 

32,000 miles, calculated mileage. Looks like I'm trending up to 23 MPG as an average.

[LIZARD]

OMG!!! I can't believe I justed waisted 6 min. reading this crap!!! Next time start a thread about not starting crappy threads!!!

peace.

[mustangendsley]

For "windex" Grand Junction is 4,600 ft and going to Denver is about 5,100. Which you go up hill all the way to Denver and reach alt about 12,000 on vail pass and ehisenhower tunel. about 260 miles one way trip. I can go 75 mph at cruse control and reach 30 mpg at the edge of Denver. Im kind of tired with people saying you can't get 30mpg in a 5 speed 2.5 GT. and yes I used the math way and I get the same, maybe 1mpg off. It isn't a race car so get your foot out of the gass all of the time.

[johndas]

Wow!!!!

[LawGT]

I get HORRIBLE gas mileage in the city, approx 15-16 mpg. However, when I do get out of the city and drive in the hwy, I have seen readings in the 29-30mpg...cruise control at 70mph, rpms at 3000.

 

This made me think of something else...

 

In the city I have tried everything to increase my mpg. I have accelerated slowly, shifting before 3K rpms etc., but with no success. The last couple of days I have tried a new method while driving in the city: keeping my rpms as close to 3K as possible while lightly accelerating to maintain the appropriate speed. For example, if cruising from stop sign to stop sign in the city (those bastards are in every corner!), i shift to 2nd and hold revs at 3K (with light gaspedal pressure to maintain speed), and not shift to 3rd and have lower rpms (the same would apply if Im cruising a little faster, I would hold 3K in 3rd, etc). I have noticed that on my car, if I do this I get 22 displayed in the trip computer, vs 13-15 mpg if I shift to 3rd and have lower rpms.

 

My speculation is that the car appears to be "tuned" to be the most fuel efficient at 3K rpms (maybe somethig to do w/ boost and A/F ratios?). It seems somewhat counterintuitive, however... on boost equals more gas, but it does work for me. I also tried this in the hwy. I found that on my car, I get the best mpg in the hwy by cruising w/ CC on at 70mph and 3000 rpms (or just slightly below 3000 rpms) in 5th gear. I tried cruising at 60mph, 65, etc in 5th, but the numbers were not as good. From 68-70 mph appears to be the sweet spot.

[LawGT]

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 !

 

I posted my note w/o seeing this... I totally agree. THose numbers are completely w/in reason. My numbers at 3000 rpms are a little lower, but not by much. I thikn temperature also plays role. On warm days I seem to get better hwy mileage.

[feersum dreadnaught]

OK, after watching the hissy fits, I tried it myself.

 

computer indicates 26.7 mpg for the tank full. odometer reads 382.7 miles for the tank full. Gas pump reads 14.977 gallons to refuel (to first click, just like last time, so no "top off" errors).

 

math method yields 25.55 mpg.

 

result is computer is precise to 0.1 mpg, yet only accurate within +- 1 mpg.

 

good enough for every day use, once I check few more tank fulls to assess the repeatability of the computer.

 

As we all know (those of us in the quality management world) the degree of acceptability or utility of data is measured by the indicators of precision, accuracy/bias, representativeness, comparability, completeness and sensitivity.

 

Or just post your thoughts on this forum, and receive immediate feedback...

[outahere]

......

....................

5) Divide miles driven into gallons filled.

6) There, you have your MPG

 

This gives you GPM, not MPG.

[dark_rex]

My real world, mixed in town and highway MPG in my OBXT is 19 to 20 for winter and 21to 22 for summer.

 

Mine are the same. I run a calc for every tank (very simple), and my best ever was 24 (all highway) but is typically 22 summer, and 19 or so for winter.

 

dR

[ilh]

BTW, the MPG gauge only shows to the nearest 0.3mpg, not 0.1mpg.

[feersum dreadnaught]

BTW, the MPG gauge only shows to the nearest 0.3mpg, not 0.1mpg.

 

you're kidding, right? they put in the computer, and a digital read out, then have it round to the nearest 0.3 mpg?

 

OK, now I'm pissed. I'm going right to the top of SOA on this one.

 

I could almost understand the lack of a real GT STI (cause I can't afford it anyhow), and I already have a 5-MT, non-limited wagon, so screw the rest of the US that wanted one of those, but cheating us out of knowing mileage to the nearest 0.1 mpg is just wrong.

 

I hope they are following this thread closely. well, not too closely, I don't want them to activate the secret ECU transponder and make my GT studder when slightly accelerating from 2,500 - 2,502 rpm...