Guardian_Bob

95% confidence does not imply 95% accuracy. Be careful conflating the two. They mean different things. What your talking about is confidence intervals for statistically significant behavior. How likely cause A is to result in effect B. And to your point, it wouldn't take thousands of dollars of expensive equipment, you could simply measure the weight of the gas tank. I suspect Ford is using a flow meter, but that doesn't mean the calculations can't be done to adjust for the variables. I pointed this out to Ford service, they are going to have the CSM for the region contact me. It is worth having others check this out as well. This is one small thing that can have a big effect. It also could explain why some cars appear to be better in MPG than others.

Actually, you missed mine. Why should the car ever under report the fuel consumption by 5%? Mileage can be affected easily by tire size, inflation, etc. These items cannot be corrected by the computer. Fuel consumption doesn't have that issue. You can correct for time (evaporation?), temperature, etc. X gallons go in, X gallons go out. You should always get an accurate number for that.

Odometer, no. But the speedometer I have checked. It is dead on using my phone GPS as confirmation. (Cruise control set speed, confirmed with phone on many occasions.) My trip this morning was (according to my phone, checked with Google maps) 26.3 miles. Assuming that's accurate, the computer claimed my trip was 25.9 miles (rounded down as the computer always does for the trip). I know some days it says 26.0, and others 25.9 (driving the same route) so I believe it should probably round up. 26.3-26=0.3. 0.3/26.3=0.0114 or 1.1% under. If instead we use 25.9, 26.3-25.9=0.4. 0.4/26.3=0.0152 or 1.5% under. Given tire inflation (can change your speed by +/- 10%) this is fairly reasonable.

So I know all of you have been waiting for this, but I wanted to make sure my data was correct. 5% difference. Well that doesn't sound so bad, at least until you do the calculation. Average fill up is 10.366 gallons so I'm missing more than a half gallon every time I fill up.

Absolutely you're right that you cannot fill to the same level each time, which is why I was suggesting using 5 fill ups. Over time that error will fall into the noise range. For example, over 5 fill ups at 10 gallons a piece you'd expect to have the computer be at 50 gallons. So if the fill up is off by a half gallon, that'd result in 49.5 gallons, off by 1%. So you'd expect the computer and your notes to be pretty close at that point. The goal is to check the actual input vs the amount the computer says came in.

So I'm seeing a discrepancy between my measured MPG (based on the pump counting the number of gallons going in) and the number of gallons consumed on the Trip display. My next experiment (in about 3 weeks, after I have the fuel thing fixed) will be to reset the trip counter and check after 5 fill ups. That said I don't want to do this alone, as one data point does not make a trend. Is anyone willing to check the number of gallons the pump reports going in over 5 fill ups and the amount of gas consumed in the trip computer?

Galaxy S3 has a similar issue. Here's the thing, text messages use a different Bluetooth profile than calls. The call profile is a standard now, that's why calls always work. The text message profile is just becoming a standard. As such some manufactures don't implement it correctly. It also might be implemented to spec, but the sync system doesn't understand (different interpretations of the spec). Long story short, I'm hoping 3.6 fixes this issue, but I'm not holding my breath. Both Ford and Samsung can point fingers at each other, so it wouldn't surprise me if this doesn't get fixed.

?? Better? It makes the MPG look worse. 31.1 truncated vs 31.2 rounded.

So I was looking back at a picture I took a couple of weeks ago, Trip 2. I've left that counter alone since I've gotten the car. It claims 927.2 miles @ 31.1 MPG consuming 29.72 gallons of gas. Great, so I take 31.1 MPG and multiply by the number of gallons consumed (29.72) and I get 924.292 miles. That doesn't add up, or so you might think. If you take the gallons 29.72 and divide it by the number of miles 927.2, you get a MPG of 31.19785. Rather than rounding, the computer is truncating after the first digit. This is likely true with all items. So what does this mean? Distances, gallons and MPG are likely understated by less than one tenth (or hundredth as the case might be) of a mile (gallon, etc.) but are never overstated. The computer is tracking more digits than it shows (otherwise this truncation would cause a much bigger difference than 0.3%). I've got way too much free time on my hands.GB

So I think I've finally broken in my car. Yesterday morning, 44.9 MPG, afternoon 45.3 and this morning:

Well my static came back this morning, not as much, but still there. Looks like it isn't fixed.

Since it is now fixed, I had a bad code for my keypad, 11211. 1&2 are the same key. I had a stupid "hacker's" dream. 11111 and my car would unlock. I'll post a picture later.

I was in Los Gatos all week while the dealership worked on my car. This fixed the stop static completely for me. \o/

So the problem with the code, isn't a locating problem, or anything like that. I know what the code is. The code is bad. It does something they say in the manual not to do. And since it is the factory code you can't change it/fix it without a new body control module.

Best I can tell from the images, it is the same 3.5.1 update applied twice more. Odd looking to say the least.