Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
smartzuum

General Ongoing Fuel Economy Discussion

1,833 posts in this topic

Well... as I said, it is the manufacturer that claims it to be more accurate than the stock display.

But, I did run it bone dry - or pretty damn near close anyway - on my trip to Kelowna on the Hope-Princeton Hwy. The sign said "Gas and Diesel, 63km" or something like that and my computer said I could go another 75 (this is accurate to the 5km supposedly, so that could be as low as 70.1 or as high as 79.9 I guess). The car's display hit zero while the computer still read 1.9L. It counted down and when the computer said zero, I still had to drive another 5 k to get to the station. It still computed that I could drive another 5km when I pulled into the station.

So in reality, I think both displays are generous and err on the side of caution - just the stock display does it more cautiously than the MDC computer does. I never did run out of fuel, yet both displays said I had ZERO litres left.

Also, the MDC computer would be inherently more accurate since it reports to 0.1L while the stock one reports to the 0.5L.

Yes, you are right - it is getting it's information from the exact same sensor... but how it is DISPLAYED is what is more or less accurate.

From MDC's claims and my observations, I stand behind the statement that the MDC computer reports more accurately.

Incidentally, they also make claims that their outside temperature report is more accurate than the car's stock display, and this I have absolutely verified. Again, same sensor... so how is this possible? Well, I don't know for sure but I assume the sensors provide raw data that is not necessarly in the form that is reported. In other words, we see degrees celcius, where as the sensor might send its signal in some completely different scale... so some algorithm, possibly with assumptions on variables, are used to report what is displayed, and it is here that perhaps the stock computer and the MDC computer use differing algorithms and/or variable assumptions. I got curious so when the car's display showed 32 degrees and the computer's showed 27 degrees I checked the thermometer hanging on my garage wall and it was just a hair below 27.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible the stock temperature reading includes a humidity adjustment while the bordcomputer reading is just straight temperature (like the thermometer)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm.. i doubt it. Even my "every sensor you can imagine" Caddy didn't have one for humidity - I doubt they put one on the smart :) Unless the stock computer is taking some blanket guesses at what humidity is, but then I'd rather it be a straight thermometer, wouldn't you?

But I guess anything's possible :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We filled up yesterday and got 3.4/100 at 1900 km's, which brings the overall average down to 3.7/100. We are very happy with that. And we're still breaking it in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You go get mixed! He cannot be permitted to run away with the economy championship, unchallenged!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine may never go under 4.0

"If you want it to handle like a performance automobile....Drive it like one!"

Sean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha... ok, so what if you want it to carry 4 passengers... just shove them in and two more seats will appear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I got another 4.1 which keeps my average at 4.2. One day I may break into the 3's ...that may be when the hubby starts taking it to work so there is less in town driving and more hwh driving....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The low 4s is very good for urban driving (or fast highway driving for that matter).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add me to the 600 club! 601km using 22.038L of fuel for a rating of 3.67L/100km. I'd like to thank the big-rig that let me draft him home from Toronto doing 90km on the 401. I had to do a lap of Bowmanville to get to the 600km mark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add me to the 600 club! 601km using 22.038L of fuel for a rating of 3.67L/100km. I'd like to thank the big-rig that let me draft him home from Toronto doing 90km on the 401. I had to do a lap of Bowmanville to get to the 600km mark.

Hurray for mattdaddy ......... drafting works wonders.... :bowdown:

What was showing as left in the tank when you fueled up 0.5 ?? 1.0 ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.05 was showing. Each time I've filled up at .05, the first blob doesn't fill in after the fill up. It does fill up after about 10 kilometers or so. I wonder if dropping the sensor down so low keeps it from returning to max right away.

I feel like I'm a complete woman now... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WTG mattdaddy!

Craig! Dude, your average is 3.5 now (actually about 3.54)! Man, I am at 3.91 overall, never going to catch up now...Excellent work! I got 3.54 on today's fill, which included some slow slogging around Victoria.

I guess it's not helping me that I have the top down nearly all the time.

Ren? got 3.2 in his cabrio driving from Montr?al to Qu?bec at 95 km/h....with no A/C and the top up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Overall average is dropping. Now about 4.7. I think for city driving, trying to stay between 1500 and 2200 RPM is helping. It encourages slow acceleration and laying off the accelerator. You know, low-resistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I squeaked out a 3.59 on my last tank, which included the hour+ long parade drive in 1st gear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, low-resistance.

The downside of this is that one uses the brakes to slow down, more than the engine. It's actually more comfortable and feels more like driving other cars. :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all fairness my average is lower than everyone else's for two simple reasons.

I picked up my car on April 8th .... spring. The car as yet has no winter driving which the rest of you have and therefore my results are probably somewhat skewed in comparison.

The second is that I have probably the perfect drive everyday (other than the distance) in which I can do 90% of my drive at between 80 to 90 kph in sixth at around 1800 to 1900 rpm, some days I get really lucky and can catch a break behind an 18 wheeler which helps even more.

As the weather eventually gets to cold my results will climb while those on the west coast will probably not be affected as greatly.....

:diablo: damn you west coast......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if you time your impending move out here (sooner or later... everyone comes) just right, you can catch a westerly wind just in time for winter.

- Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to, I hear the diving out there is exceptional and of course the skiing is world class ..... Imagine a 300 ft wreck dive in the morning and skiing all afternoon.....

I did manage to catch a different wind on the way home tonight, escorted wide load for about 60k, school portable I think, I didn't even need to get real close the thing left practically a vacuum behind it............

post-62-1120613122_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's it. Call it lugging, or call it being an under-powered goofball in traffic, I can't keep doing what I'm doing now without losing all sense of the "fun" of driving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just filled up today...my first tank since finding out how to manage my fuel economy more effectively and managed 3.86L/100km (about 1L better than I was getting), with almost all of my driving in the city. Thanks for all the help guys!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eddie just got off the phone with me 2 minutes ago and reported that he has firmly joined the 700 club! He was running on foam for 30+ km but achieved exactly 712 km on 23.503 L, or 3.3 L/100 km (85.6 MPG)! Way to go Eddie! :ballons:

He just managed to find a 24h Husky to the immediate west of Edmonton in the nick of time.

According to him, the speed was between 90 and 100 km/h.

A fine achievement, I'm sure you'll agree!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...my first tank since finding out how to manage my fuel economy more effectively and managed 3.86L/100km (about 1L better than I was getting)...

A fine achievement, way to go!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

    Chatbox
    You don't have permission to chat.
    Load More