Pleasant surprise

ShinerBock wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

4x4ord wrote:
I felt the computer was more reliable than hand calculating with my 2011 Powerstroke.

Huh?!? How is that even possible?

Good engineering....

Per huntindog even a pencil whipped figure can be wrong. Having said that I had good coorilation between the computer and pencil

For the love of God man, get off of Ford's knob. I like Ford's too, but jeez. I can understand being a fan boy(a little), but it is getting to the point to where it is illogical and no rational thought just to say your favorite is the best. Please, come down to earth a little and accept the fact that NO truck make does things perfectly and all have their flaws. You are starting to act like Cummins in thinking that whatever you own is better than anything else simply because you chose to own it.

LOL.... I didn't purchase my truck because it's computer can accurately measure its fuel economy but the fact remains it measures fuel economy very accurately and that's no accident.

FishOnOne wrote:

ShinerBock wrote:

4x4ord wrote:
I felt the computer was more reliable than hand calculating with my 2011 Powerstroke.

Huh?!? How is that even possible?

Good engineering....

Per huntindog even a pencil whipped figure can be wrong. Having said that I had good coorilation between the computer and pencil

For the love of God man, get off of Ford's knob. I like Ford's too, but jeez. I can understand being a fan boy(a little), but it is getting to the point to where it is illogical and no rational thought just to say your favorite is the best. Please, come down to earth a little and accept the fact that NO truck make does things perfectly and all have their flaws. You are starting to act like Cummins in thinking that whatever you own is better than anything else simply because you chose to own it.

4x4ord wrote:


The computer accurately measures the fuel used. When hand calculating there is room for error if the truck is filled differently from one fill to the next. (either different method of filling or on account of the truck sitting a little different, different nozzle). I drove the truck from Texas to Alberta Canada pulling a 20,000 lb trailer when the truck was new. I hand calculated at every fuel stop and found it to be remarkably accurate. Then out of the blue my hand calculation disagreed with the display. The display showed worse than the calculator. I thought it was odd that all of a sudden the truck was getting a little better fuel economy......then the next fill the hand calculation worked out to be worse than the display and I realized that I must have not quite got the truck full the one time.

Huh?!? That makes even worse sense.

Your fuel tank can only hold so much and there isn't going to be a major difference(i.e. more than 1 gallon) from one fill up to the unless you were filling up on a huge incline difference from the last fill up or the pump is off. Either one is highly unlikely statistically. Even if you did put a half a gallon difference (which is unlikely) then it will only alter the result by .3 mpg and even less if you were towing since the less fuel mileage you get the less difference it makes.

And no, the computer does not physically measure fuel used. It uses an algorithm with readings from multiple sensors to determine the estimated fuel used with miles traveled.

LIKE2BUILD wrote:

bluie5 wrote:
I pulled my Jayco....onboard mileage computer...said that I was getting a little over 12 mpg...It was reading 21 to 23 mpg empty. ....The best I could get towing with the Cummins was 10.5 mpg towing and 19 mpg empty.

What year was the Cummins? Can be the difference in old technology vs new technology. Could also be gearing etc.

Funny thing I've noticed on my '14 Ram with 6.7L Cummins.....I get better fuel mileage (at least on the dream-o-meter) running 80MPH vs 70MPH. This is running empty, not towing.....I would NOT tow my trailer that fast.

I know that bucks traditional thought, but I have a hypothesis as to why. At 80 MPH the engine is running a little under 1800 RPM and at 70MPH it's about 1500RPM. The specs on the engine show that peak torque(800 lb-ft) is made at 1700 RPM. See specs at Cumminshub.com. So, what I might guess is at that point of peak torque the engine is getting the most bang per quantity of fuel and running at a fairly high efficiency. I could be completely way off base here, but at least it's a rambling thought.

KJ

No, it's not out of the question. Hitting the right combo of torque powerband, gearing, wind resistance and particularly the double OD autos that IMO are really only meant for like 70+mph could mean better mileage at a faster speed.
By the same token, just off the cuff messing with the mileage meter, my truck doesn't show much different in instant mileage at higher rpms in 5th or low rpms in 6th at like 60 mph.

We bought our 05 chev new. Tested the dic for fuel used and mileage against math. It was the same. 06 we towed to branson and when driving I fill the inbed tank to overfill almost. Set the fuel used and later looked to see 44 gals used so at the time it hit 45 I switched tanks. filled and same over filled almost. Looked at the pump and 45 gallons exactly. But in 09 the speedometer had a problem and after the fix it changed perfect to close enough. Now I really just drive and fill when needed. Truck is old and same for me.
chevman

ShinerBock wrote:

4x4ord wrote:
I felt the computer was more reliable than hand calculating with my 2011 Powerstroke.

Huh?!? How is that even possible?

Good engineering....

Per huntindog even a pencil whipped figure can be wrong. Having said that I had good coorilation between the computer and pencil

ShinerBock wrote:

4x4ord wrote:
I felt the computer was more reliable than hand calculating with my 2011 Powerstroke.

Huh?!? How is that even possible?

The computer accurately measures the fuel used. When hand calculating there is room for error if the truck is filled differently from one fill to the next. (either different method of filling or on account of the truck sitting a little different, different nozzle). I drove the truck from Texas to Alberta Canada pulling a 20,000 lb trailer when the truck was new. I hand calculated at every fuel stop and found it to be remarkably accurate. Then out of the blue my hand calculation disagreed with the display. The display showed worse than the calculator. I thought it was odd that all of a sudden the truck was getting a little better fuel economy......then the next fill the hand calculation worked out to be worse than the display and I realized that I must have not quite got the truck full the one time.

ShinerBock wrote:

Bionic Man wrote:
Funny how so many people are sure that the "lieometer" is inaccurate across the board.

I hand calculate every fuel tank and keep it in an app on my phone. We have 4 cars currently. 3 of them are consistently with about .5 MPG of what I hand calculate (My Cayman, Yukon XL and RAM). One (300 C) varies a lot more - both showing higher as well as lower than actual MPG.

I track my mileage on my aCar app and the computer is consistently 2 mpg ahead of actual. My 2011 Ford was about 2 mpg ahead as well.

I agree , both our vehicles truck, and car from two different companies are consistently the same 2-3 mpg ahead of the actual mileage. 2013 ford Escape, and 2014 Ram.

ShinerBock wrote:

4x4ord wrote:
I felt the computer was more reliable than hand calculating with my 2011 Powerstroke.

Huh?!? How is that even possible?

LOL, I was trying my best to figure that one out myself! :h

4x4ord wrote:
I felt the computer was more reliable than hand calculating with my 2011 Powerstroke.

Huh?!? How is that even possible?