Technical 'REAL' MPG Vs 'Trip Computer'???
- Thread starter ytareh
- Start date
Currently reading:
Technical 'REAL' MPG Vs 'Trip Computer'???
The gauge fibs !
Here's the Pandas on Fuelly - http://www.fuelly.com/car/fiat/panda/all
I record the guage reading so you can see how my 1.2 dynamic has a degree in lying
Trev
Sure thats ridiculous ,so your computer is over reading by about 13mpg!!!!!?????Not much point in having it at that rate if its so unreliable ....I did a few very casual checks on the 1.1 I had on loan last week and reckon it was doing 43-50mpg-it didnt have trip computer...If I thought my 100 hp was over reading ,let alone by 13mpg, Id be gutted!Do people really reckon Summer gives much more mpg vs Winter?I would have though 1 or 2 at most .
doctorchris
Established member
My experience, with a 4x4 Climbing and now a 4x4 Cross, is that the fuel computer over-reads by 3mpg on a consistent basis.
alanterrill
New member
Yes- mine consistently reads around 4 - 5 mpg higher than it actually calculates on Fuelly.
Ours reads very accurately, I have logged every tank for 30000miles and its rarely out by more than 1mpg either way and it can be above or below the calculated method.
The accuracy of the garage fuel pumps is questionable, at 1 station I still had a range of 80miles and then put 34.7litres in. The computer wasnt accurate that day!
The accuracy of the garage fuel pumps is questionable, at 1 station I still had a range of 80miles and then put 34.7litres in. The computer wasnt accurate that day!
Last edited:
I think a guy here stated recently that he literally had to push the car the last few yards to the pump and could still only get 32.7 litres in so Id be taking a measured can to that station next time !If it were significantly over measuring I think youd be justified in raising hell!
DrThomasFink
New member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 14
- Points
- 3
First test with my new 1,2l over 3000 km indicates that the bugger gives at least 10% better values that the real consumption is!
Worse yet:
If you use the fuel saving motorbrake downhill it still says 2,0 l/100 km while in fact the consumption is zero!
That is very misleading. May be bordering to illegal because it does not encourage to save fuel!
I mailed to fiat but they did not even acknowledge the mail.
Worse yet:
If you use the fuel saving motorbrake downhill it still says 2,0 l/100 km while in fact the consumption is zero!
That is very misleading. May be bordering to illegal because it does not encourage to save fuel!
I mailed to fiat but they did not even acknowledge the mail.
1.1 dosen't have trip in UK.
Its only an approximate indication. This is determined using a pre-programmed logic gate system and will never be 100% accurate.
Going down hill in gear, remove foot from accelerator and injectors will shut-off fuel.
I presume the fuel saving motorbrake means engine braking. In other words, just taking your foot off the gas. My fuel reading on the trip thingy usually says 147mpg which is as high a figure as it goes.
The problem I have with the cutting off fuel flow is, I've had an engine cut out before while driving and it feels nothing like engine braking. Surely, logic dictates there must be some fuel getting to the cylinders.
Having become fuel consumption obsessed, I've been tracking how the Panda MJ is doing, even down to attempting to see if there is a difference in the types of roads driven on and how that affects fuel mileage.
I have the following figures:
2007 - Trip computer mpg = 50.9mpg Actual = 54.1mpg
2008 - Trip computer mpg = 52.0mpg Actual = 56.5mpg
2009 - Trip computer mpg = 52.7mpg Actual = 55.7mpg
2010 - Trip computer mpg = 50.5mpg Actual = 54.2mpg
The actual brim to brim figures worked out with a calculator are better than the trip computer figures 19 times out of 20 by typically 8 to 10%.
The best figures seem to be on cross country national speed limit roads even when driving quite vigorously with a fair amount of overtaking. 70 on motorways are not the best as I think the Panda is hampered by its shape.
By comparison, when we took Mrs. Beard's 1.4 Stilo on holiday the trip computers were consistently optimistic by 15 to 20%. On one run the actual figure was 41.2 whereas the trip computer showed 51.5.
I also put into my diary, on some occasions, the cost of fuel when I filled up. I think that this makes interesting reading. But then I'm a bit sad.
07/12/07 - 105.9 pence per litre.
03/04/08 - 112.9 ppl.
17/04/08 - 114.9 ppl.
02/05/08 - 117.9 ppl.
16/05/08 - 119.9 ppl.
05/06/08 - 126.9 ppl.
17/06/08 - 127.9 ppl.
29/06/08 - 129.9 ppl.
09/07/08 - 129.9 ppl.
19/07/08 - 130.9 ppl.
28/07/08 - 125.9
04/10/08 - 117.9
16/11/08 - 111.9 Sainsburys Manchester
16/11/08 - 115.9 Tesco Middlesbrough
All the above diesel was bought at Sainsburys Manchester except the one fill up in the 'boro.
When we were in Poole using the Stilo in May 2008, petrol at Tesco went from 112.9 on the 28th to 115.9 on the 30th.
Well that was incredibly boring.
The problem I have with the cutting off fuel flow is, I've had an engine cut out before while driving and it feels nothing like engine braking. Surely, logic dictates there must be some fuel getting to the cylinders.
Having become fuel consumption obsessed, I've been tracking how the Panda MJ is doing, even down to attempting to see if there is a difference in the types of roads driven on and how that affects fuel mileage.
I have the following figures:
2007 - Trip computer mpg = 50.9mpg Actual = 54.1mpg
2008 - Trip computer mpg = 52.0mpg Actual = 56.5mpg
2009 - Trip computer mpg = 52.7mpg Actual = 55.7mpg
2010 - Trip computer mpg = 50.5mpg Actual = 54.2mpg
The actual brim to brim figures worked out with a calculator are better than the trip computer figures 19 times out of 20 by typically 8 to 10%.
The best figures seem to be on cross country national speed limit roads even when driving quite vigorously with a fair amount of overtaking. 70 on motorways are not the best as I think the Panda is hampered by its shape.
By comparison, when we took Mrs. Beard's 1.4 Stilo on holiday the trip computers were consistently optimistic by 15 to 20%. On one run the actual figure was 41.2 whereas the trip computer showed 51.5.
I also put into my diary, on some occasions, the cost of fuel when I filled up. I think that this makes interesting reading. But then I'm a bit sad.
07/12/07 - 105.9 pence per litre.
03/04/08 - 112.9 ppl.
17/04/08 - 114.9 ppl.
02/05/08 - 117.9 ppl.
16/05/08 - 119.9 ppl.
05/06/08 - 126.9 ppl.
17/06/08 - 127.9 ppl.
29/06/08 - 129.9 ppl.
09/07/08 - 129.9 ppl.
19/07/08 - 130.9 ppl.
28/07/08 - 125.9
04/10/08 - 117.9
16/11/08 - 111.9 Sainsburys Manchester
16/11/08 - 115.9 Tesco Middlesbrough
All the above diesel was bought at Sainsburys Manchester except the one fill up in the 'boro.
When we were in Poole using the Stilo in May 2008, petrol at Tesco went from 112.9 on the 28th to 115.9 on the 30th.
Well that was incredibly boring.
If it helps make anyone feel better the nearly new facelift Panda hire car I have this week is showing 7.1l/100km on the computer at the moment.
I've just done a full tank comparison on Fuelly.com & the on-board on our Chrysler, the on-board is 17.3, fuelly gives 18.4MPG.
http://www.fuelly.com/driver/gareth111278/grand-voyager
http://www.fuelly.com/driver/gareth111278/grand-voyager
tipouno
New member
Just fill up 1.2 eco dynamic Panda. Trip computer say 52.2 mpg.
Actual fill to fill calculation = 48.03.
Next check will be on my 1.4 Dynamic Idea.
Actual fill to fill calculation = 48.03.
Next check will be on my 1.4 Dynamic Idea.
On this subject, we know the speedos over read a fair bit, but presumably the trip/odometer does record the true mileage as opposed to an artificially sped up number? I did a small fill up of 15 litres or so the other day and Fuelly calculated as 23.9 MPG in my 100HP. No spirited driving at all, just short town trips. It's a very low figure whichever way you look at it, but some of the blame lies in my larger rolling radius from the 195/45r16 tyres it wears giving under-reading mileage numbers.
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2006
- Messages
- 1,031
- Points
- 240
No way! I'm going to be keeping a *sharp* eye on mine then. I bought it to be my "save the planet" car, on short trips back and forth to work I get 21/22 out of my Impreza and 17/18 out of the Mercedes.. which is a 5.5 litre V8!!
If I get less than 30 out of the Panda I'm going to be
Cheers,
Plug
