MPG Observation - 1 week in...

[revelated]

UPDATE:

 

So today I got 42MPG average. Here is what I learned.

 

• The gauge IS false. Rather than showing you what is, it's showing you what could be. The fuel gauge, for example, went UP after driving 20 miles! This flies in the face of what I understand about the fuel tank and the sensor that powers it. It went up a whole quarter of a tank on its own after driving for a fair distance at 60MPH. Means I can't trust that gauge, and if the MPG is partially being driven from what the computer thinks the remaining capacity is, means the MPG can't be trusted either even as a close estimate.
• Turning on ECO Cruise but not allowing it free reign was the key. Combining my "Top Gun Maneuvers" with the ECO Cruise has yielded great MPG gains, even in fluctuating elevations.

The "Top Gun Maneuvers" basically mean, if I'm at a dead stop, I'm not going to drive in EV to get up to 20 before re-engaging cruise unless the cars ahead of me are slow. If they're not slow or there aren't that many, I'll just gun the accelerator to get up to 20MPH quickly, then engage ECO Cruise and from there use the cruise Set + and Set - to establish the maximum speed for that road, then allow the car to vary appropriately. If the cars ahead are doing weird braking then I'll handle the brakes rather than wait for ECO Cruise to slow down as I found it to be way too aggressive especially at low speeds. So functionally, I use the accelerator to get to cruise faster, brakes to regen energy better, and allow the cruise to handle the acceleration at the most efficient rate.

[hybridbear]

UPDATE:

 

So today I got 42MPG average. Here is what I learned.

• The gauge IS false. Rather than showing you what is, it's showing you what could be. The fuel gauge, for example, went UP after driving 20 miles! This flies in the face of what I understand about the fuel tank and the sensor that powers it. It went up a whole quarter of a tank on its own after driving for a fair distance at 60MPH. Means I can't trust that gauge, and if the MPG is partially being driven from what the computer thinks the remaining capacity is, means the MPG can't be trusted either even as a close estimate.
• Turning on ECO Cruise but not allowing it free reign was the key. Combining my "Top Gun Maneuvers" with the ECO Cruise has yielded great MPG gains, even in fluctuating elevations.

The "Top Gun Maneuvers" basically mean, if I'm at a dead stop, I'm not going to drive in EV to get up to 20 before re-engaging cruise unless the cars ahead of me are slow. If they're not slow or there aren't that many, I'll just gun the accelerator to get up to 20MPH quickly, then engage ECO Cruise and from there use the cruise Set + and Set - to establish the maximum speed for that road, then allow the car to vary appropriately. If the cars ahead are doing weird braking then I'll handle the brakes rather than wait for ECO Cruise to slow down as I found it to be way too aggressive especially at low speeds. So functionally, I use the accelerator to get to cruise faster, brakes to regen energy better, and allow the cruise to handle the acceleration at the most efficient rate.

The remaining fuel in the tank has nothing to do with MPG. The fuel use that is used to calculate MPG is based on the amount of fuel passing through the injectors into the combustion chamber. The fuel tank level only relates to DTE calculations. If you look on Engineering Test mode you will see that there are 2 different read outs for fuel level. One is the instant fuel level in the tank and the other is FLPM (Fuel Level Percent of Maximum). When you accelerate the instant fuel decreases and when you slow down it increases. Likely you were stopped on a downhill or spent long enough slowing down that the gauge changed to reflect the instant reading. I've seen this happen all the time, mostly when the tank is nearly empty. This has nothing to do with MPGs.

 

It has already been proven that acceleration should be done using the ICE to increase MPGs. There have also been discussions about BSFC and the fact that the ICE is more efficient under higher loads. You did not discover anything new. I encourage you to read some of the other threads on this topic rather than asking us to have the same discussions over and over again.

 

http://fordfusionhybridforum.com/topic/6606-why-hybrids-are-so-efficient/

http://fordfusionhybridforum.com/topic/5801-accelerating-in-the-2013/

http://fordfusionhybridforum.com/topic/6749-engineering-test-mode/

[jeff_h]

I encourage you to read some of the other threads on this topic rather than asking us to have the same discussions over and over again.

 

When has that suggestion ever stopped anyone before? One of these days if we can get someone to post in a single thread -

 

1) That they wonder how to track their order,

2) now have their order but wonder if extended warranty is worth it,

3) have been driving but hear cracking sound,

4) also wonder how long before an oil change, and

5) wonder why their MPG is not 47...

 

Then we would hit the 'redundant lotto'...

 

Maybe some existing threads already qualify, who knows.

 

Personally, I'll keep my EV-heavy driving habits, say what you will about them but I like them and I am doing OK-- have never used 'Eco-Cruise', maybe should see if that makes a difference.

Edited May 29, 2013 by jeff_h

[acdii]

Reading is to much work. Waiting for the audio tape version.

[kuzzi]

Ideally the ones who know where the "solution" threads are will be the first to reply to those types of questions with a link to said "solution" thread and subsequently close it for good.

 

Unless it was like this thread that linked to itself.

 

http://fordfusionhybridforum.com/topic/6799-twin-tailpipes-on-hybrid/

[fusionTX]

When has that suggestion ever stopped anyone before? One of these days if we can get someone to post in a single thread -

 

1) That they wonder how to track their order,

2) now have their order but wonder if extended warranty is worth it,

3) have been driving but hear cracking sound,

4) also wonder how long before an oil change, and

5) wonder why their MPG is not 47...

 

Then we would hit the 'redundant lotto'...

 

Maybe some existing threads already qualify, who knows.

 

 

You missed

 

6) Is this a good price / Did I get a good deal?

[hybridbear]

When has that suggestion ever stopped anyone before? One of these days if we can get someone to post in a single thread -

 

1) That they wonder how to track their order,

2) now have their order but wonder if extended warranty is worth it,

3) have been driving but hear cracking sound,

4) also wonder how long before an oil change, and

5) wonder why their MPG is not 47...

 

Then we would hit the 'redundant lotto'...

 

Maybe some existing threads already qualify, who knows.

You missed

 

6) Is this a good price / Did I get a good deal?

I created a thread to compile all these resources for new forum users here. Please feel free to add other links that I may have missed. Hopefully we can get the moderators to pin that topic so it will stay at the top

[acdii]

Whats a Moderator? Do they really exist here? :)

 

hint hint :kuko:

[corncobs]

Whats a Moderator? Do they really exist here? :)

 

hint hint :kuko:

I think hybridbear somewhat volunteered for this position ?

[acdii]

I think hybridbear somewhat volunteered for this position

I think so too!

[revelated]

The remaining fuel in the tank has nothing to do with MPG.

....

 

It has already been proven that acceleration should be done using the ICE to increase MPGs. There have also been discussions about BSFC and the fact that the ICE is more efficient under higher loads. You did not discover anything new. I encourage you to read some of the other threads on this topic rather than asking us to have the same discussions over and over again.

 

http://fordfusionhybridforum.com/topic/6606-why-hybrids-are-so-efficient/

http://fordfusionhybridforum.com/topic/5801-accelerating-in-the-2013/

http://fordfusionhybridforum.com/topic/6749-engineering-test-mode/

 

First statement lesson. Please.

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=calcMPG

 

I'm sorry, but it's illogical to say "the amount of gas you have in your tank has nothing to do with your miles per gallon". The keyword there is GALLON. If there's X GALLONS, the gauge *should* show you how many miles you can travel based on that volume. The volume will naturally go down faster if you're going at a faster speed, which means your MPG will go down. Intricate math about fuel injectors may tell you how the gauge computes that number, but that doesn't mean it isn't faulty; it's not "average miles per injection". If anything, it may explain why Ford is under fire for what is being investigated/sued as false ratings.

 

Let's assume for a moment it's a fuel injector calculation. Let's assume it's not calculating that properly due to a computer programming issue (which is my theory). It means Ford will be forced to recalculate OR fix the computer. What I'm saying is the gauge is faulty. That's it. It can't and shouldn't be trusted. The car's true gas mileage is often higher than what it's showing. Well, if people are planning budgets around that number (I'm not, but I know people who do), and it's proven that something is wrong, they should be punished, rightfully so. Either the quoted MPG is wrong or the computer is wrong. I'm simply saying that I don't think the quoted MPG is wrong, I say the computer is wrong. WHY it's wrong, doesn't matter.

 

TO your second statement, "...asking us to have the same discussions over and over again", first off, I didn't ask you to discuss the topic. Second, I see no posts that talk about taking over fine control from ECO Cruise. Now, if you didn't read my post clearly, that's not my problem, but acceleration using the ICE is only a small part of what I said.

 

Lastly, the point of a board is to discuss, whether you like or dislike what you consider "redundant" threads, the reality is that you're overlooking the way normal people browse forums - and I speak from decades of experience modding them. Users, especially new users, may or may not search. You can't compel it, and it's a waste of time getting frustrated over it. If it bothers you, ignore it. Their first inclination is to find the latest, newest posts that talk about their issue. Doesn't matter if it's been discussed. Also, new users will not navigate 30 pages to find their answer. They won't enter CAPTCHAs to do a search. They won't register to view photos. An effective forum does not discourage new posts, even those that may have already discussed a topic "...to death".

 

Effective forum members do not complain because "there isn't a single thread with all of these topics listed".

 

All that said, if you didn't want new members, simply say so. I have no problems leaving. Please don't bother with a snarky reply.

[corncobs]

@ revelated

 

I don't wanna give you a snarky reply but I wanna be careful with the following there are times where you just wanna respond FGI or RTFM.

 

Like the oil change topics there already a few of them it doesn't really help to add new once where new members or guests have to read twice as much and still find the same information in both threads.

 

One word about the fuel tank issue; we don't exactly know how much the tank can hold. I like a regular pint glass if you are really careful you can fill more than a pint into the glass. I see the fuel tank the same way it's rated 13.5 gallons but you can probably add more fuel filling it up into the filler neck.

That's why I trust the readout on the trip 1 about the gallons used more than what I would be able to get from the pump. On the other hand all measuring devices have tolerances so if you get one that is close to the optimum great best result possible, if you get one that barely made the spec well you might be of by a few tenth. Now I multiple devices on the edge a lot the spec well the result could be really bad.

 

Hopefully that wasn't snarky and you will be continue to be member. Take care.

[Guardian_Bob]

 

First statement lesson. Please.

 

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=calcMPG

 

I'm sorry, but it's illogical to say "the amount of gas you have in your tank has nothing to do with your miles per gallon". The keyword there is GALLON. If there's X GALLONS, the gauge *should* show you how many miles you can travel based on that volume. The volume will naturally go down faster if you're going at a faster speed, which means your MPG will go down. Intricate math about fuel injectors may tell you how the gauge computes that number, but that doesn't mean it isn't faulty; it's not "average miles per injection". If anything, it may explain why Ford is under fire for what is being investigated/sued as false ratings.

 

Let's assume for a moment it's a fuel injector calculation. Let's assume it's not calculating that properly due to a computer programming issue (which is my theory). It means Ford will be forced to recalculate OR fix the computer. What I'm saying is the gauge is faulty. That's it. It can't and shouldn't be trusted. The car's true gas mileage is often higher than what it's showing. Well, if people are planning budgets around that number (I'm not, but I know people who do), and it's proven that something is wrong, they should be punished, rightfully so. Either the quoted MPG is wrong or the computer is wrong. I'm simply saying that I don't think the quoted MPG is wrong, I say the computer is wrong. WHY it's wrong, doesn't matter.

 

TO your second statement, "...asking us to have the same discussions over and over again", first off, I didn't ask you to discuss the topic. Second, I see no posts that talk about taking over fine control from ECO Cruise. Now, if you didn't read my post clearly, that's not my problem, but acceleration using the ICE is only a small part of what I said.

 

Lastly, the point of a board is to discuss, whether you like or dislike what you consider "redundant" threads, the reality is that you're overlooking the way normal people browse forums - and I speak from decades of experience modding them. Users, especially new users, may or may not search. You can't compel it, and it's a waste of time getting frustrated over it. If it bothers you, ignore it. Their first inclination is to find the latest, newest posts that talk about their issue. Doesn't matter if it's been discussed. Also, new users will not navigate 30 pages to find their answer. They won't enter CAPTCHAs to do a search. They won't register to view photos. An effective forum does not discourage new posts, even those that may have already discussed a topic "...to death".

 

Effective forum members do not complain because "there isn't a single thread with all of these topics listed".

 

All that said, if you didn't want new members, simply say so. I have no problems leaving. Please don't bother with a snarky reply.

 

The computer may be wrong, have you confirmed that by the method in the manual?

http://www.motorcraftservice.com/vdirsnet/OwnerGuide_EU/MainContent_Test_Layout.aspx?year=&model=Fusion&bookcode=O21824&market=US&language=EN&chapterUid=G1518948&subUid=G1518955&topicHref=G1448580

 

Page 156 of the third printing of the manual.

 

It says specifically you must have over 1000 miles and to use several fill ups to figure it out. Run it to empty and fill it up multiple times, as with a 13.5 gallon tank a short fill may happen. By using 5, or dare I say 10 fill ups you'll minimize those variations and get a result that should be comparable.

 

Additionally, you're right, effective forum members don't just criticize. They read and contribute. May I suggest:

http://fordfusionhybridforum.com/topic/6816-useful-information-for-all-new-forum-users/

 

Finally, I don't know about anyone else, but generally I don't let any cruise control (eco or otherwise) have free reign. It can't see the sharp corner coming up for example. I'm not saying your argument is invalid, I'm just confused as to how you were driving before.

[acdii]

As someone in the current administration said,"what difference does it make?".

 

Drive the car, enjoy it, and fill the bugger up when it says you need gas.

 

Rule #1 Trust but VERIFY! Do not go exclusively on what the dash tells you because 99.9% of the time it will be wrong. Verify by calculating how many miles you drove on the number of gallons you used. That is the ONLY method that will give you the true numbers you are looking for, everything else is speculation. Also don't ASSume the readings on the dash are accurate, as the first three letters of assume are......

 

Since the tank volume will vary depending on temps, angle the car is on when being filled, and pump fill rates, you can never fill it the same way twice, you have to go by at least 3 fills before you get an accurate reading, and once you do that, then figure your DTE in your head. Consider your driving, if you have a few short trips mixed in with your normal trips, and they are high speed short trips(like mine), then figure on reducing your DTE. That dash readout is there for one purpose and one purpose only, to prevent YOU from running out of gas and being stranded, who really cares if it comes up shorter than how many you can actually go, its designed that way. If you drive past 0, and do run out of gas, no one to blame but yourself. If you run out of gas before it reaches 0, NOW you have something to bitch about!

 

Common sense, does anyone really have it any more?

[TX NRG]

I'm sorry, but it's illogical to say "the amount of gas you have in your tank has nothing to do with your miles per gallon".

Huh?

 

Miles Per Gallon is the miles driven divided by the gallons of gas burned. The amount of gas you have in your tank is not a factor in that equation; it hasn't been burned yet. And, past performance does not guarantee future results.

 

But I agree with acdii and his favorite -former- person in the current administration, what difference does it make? Drive it, fill it up, enjoy it. Repeat.