2019 Ranger MPGs

[llm.flyfisher]

I need to start calculating mpg by hand as I log every fillup and the mileage, so not a big deal to figure the actual mileage. Just haven't done it yet with few miles on the truck.

Sponsored

 

[EcoRanger]

I need to start calculating mpg by hand as I log every fillup and the mileage, so not a big deal to figure the actual mileage. Just haven't done it yet with few miles on the truck.

That's the only way to get an accurate MPG.

 

[FX4Offroad]

I was post 385.. Lariat FX4 loaded

 

[Ric]

Lariat SuperCrew 2WD. I put it in Sport mode when city driving which is about 30% of the time. I set cruise control to 80 on the highway. I punch it sometimes just for fun.

 

[Snorebaby]

Here is my Computer vs. Hand Calculated mpg. It averages out to be 1.2mpg higher according to the truck. 87 octane, mix of city/highway most of the time. The highest mileage were trips to Atlanta and Charleston, SC

 

[chuck stein]

That's the only way to get an accurate MPG.

Why? The ECU should be calculating using a fuel volume & miles driven, no? Or if it does not have a fuel volume sensor then there's plenty of ways to do it using throttle position and/or PWM % on the injectors.

But let me ask from the other angle, with the hand calculations has this proven the in-dash # to be wrong, and if so by how much?

 

[HenryMac]

Why? The ECU should be calculating using a fuel volume & miles driven, no? Or if it does not have a fuel volume sensor then there's plenty of ways to do it using throttle position and/or PWM % on the injectors.

But let me ask from the other angle, with the hand calculations has this proven the in-dash # to be wrong, and if so by how much?

Look at Snorebaby's chart in Post #395 above, it shows the variance in the far right column.

 

[ZCoker]

XLT 2wd 600 miles mainly all city Florida traffic. I’ll take it.

 

[chuck stein]

Look at Snorebaby's chart in Post #395 above, it shows the variance in the far right column.

So over say 1,000gal used (~20kmi) the err is 1,000mi, or ~5%. Is that significant in context of "MPG's" ?
In other words, if the truck spec is 20/24 then with error (if the math is all 100% accurate) it can be 19-21city, 22.8-25.2hwy.

Row #14, if it's $2.50/gal and 17gal are pumped in, how does he get $42.60 ? Maybe excel rounding?

The other unknown is, if you pump in 17gal and drive 250mi, how exactly do you know you used exactly 17gal? What if actual gas used was 16.95gal? If a trip has a bunch of downhill then the calculations will be off. A gas pump does not expense exact amounts of fuel either.

I would probably also rely more on ECU math than an excel sheet that has many unknowns in it. It would be good though to know exactly how Ford calculates fuel use via ECU. I believe Honda was using PWM % and time on the injectors to calc fuel use over time, then would avg them up to the display.

 

[Gizmokid2005]

So over say 1,000gal used (~20kmi) the err is 1,000mi, or ~5%. Is that significant in context of "MPG's" ?
In other words, if the truck spec is 20/24 then with error (if the math is all 100% accurate) it can be 19-21city, 22.8-25.2hwy.

Row #14, if it's $2.50/gal and 17gal are pumped in, how does he get $42.60 ? Maybe excel rounding?

The other unknown is, if you pump in 17gal and drive 250mi, how exactly do you know you used exactly 17gal? What if actual gas used was 16.95gal? If a trip has a bunch of downhill then the calculations will be off. A gas pump does not expense exact amounts of fuel either.

I would probably also rely more on ECU math than an excel sheet that has many unknowns in it. It would be good though to know exactly how Ford calculates fuel use via ECU. I believe Honda was using PWM % and time on the injectors to calc fuel use over time, then would avg them up to the display.

This is a lot of nonsense really. I absolutely trust my own math over the ECM and computer itself.

I've been calculating mileage on all my vehicles by hand since 2006. It all depends on how accurate you input your data. if you use the full cost (which has a 9/10 cent cost in most of the US, that is $3.00 is really $3.009/gal), as well as using the smallest measurement you can (thousandths of a gallon, and tenths of a mile), you get very very accurate mileage representations which will very rarely match the computer mileage. Every vehicle I've ever driven has been a bit generous in its calculations. You cannot use more gas than you put in, and you cannot go a different distance than your odometer says (not accounting for tire size or different differences/etc that affect the readings). The "gotcha" to this is that you use the same method to fill your vehicle to help account for variances in temperatures/etc (filling until it clicks, wait 30 seconds, fill again until it clicks and then stop), using the same station/pump as much as possible to account for small variances in pump calculations (weight and measures validations in the states should (and will) catch any egregious dispensing errors that would have a meaningful impact on your numbers).

This is what I was using for my Mustang which gave me tenth of a mile readings for my odometer and trip (which the Ranger strangely doesn't give in either, only whole numbers):

With my Ranger, I haven't driven much before I shattered my ankle and haven't been able to drive, but the story is roughly the same:

Ultimately, if you're consistent with your fueling process as well as your recording process (regardless if your spreadsheet is rounding, which it could be while still using "proper" accurate numbers in calculations), you will always have more accurate readings than the computer is currently set to, especially since there's a variable that can be altered to change the way the ECU calculates the mileage display ( https://www.ranger5g.com/forum/threads/fuel-calculator-adjustment.2996/#post-38732 ).

 

[chuck stein]

I take the scientific approach.
So, what i was saying was, the "diff" being calculated in excel sheet can easily be accounted for by margin of error. There are a few variables that can introduce that error into the math (do you account for variances in fuel mixes?). There's a ton of error in topping off and expecting the readout on pump to be accurate. I see nothing there that tells me the ECU is wrong, but I do see manual math that shows a diff.

The "MPG" number is kinda meaningless when the two most significant variables are YOUR $$, and HOW FAR YOU WENT. In essence, $ per mile is a more meaningful number than mi per gal of fuel, and the $/mi will be very locale specific due to fuel price diffs.

Regardless if you use the manual math or ECU #, you put in $X and went Ymi.

I still not sure there is any meaningful comparison to be done between your math and someone else who does it a tad differently in another state. Or is this just a math vs ECU thread for MPG number?

If we know more about how the ECU calculates fuel use, then we can debate in more detail.

I take a slightly different approach to MPG. I pump gas in, then drive, and when the needle gets low, I pump in more gas, drive some more.

But hey, everyone is free to calc their MPG's and compare them. Some will then think they have the best truck with the highest MPG #, while others will have a really bad MPG # and think their truck is a lemon. ZCoker has the best this far at 26MPG.

And then you have vehicles like my MB that steals kinetic energy from the wheels and puts it back into the battery, thus reducing overall MPG's (because coasting reduces the inertial distance the vehicle goes).

 

[jwk2295]

What are all the new owners getting for gas mileage?

Thanks

Jake

With 3,000 miles on FX4, I am averaging around 22 mpg with a mix of 60/40 highway/city miles and fairly conservative driving habits.

 

[HenryMac]

.... Ultimately, if you're consistent with your fueling process as well as your recording process, you will always have more accurate readings than the computer is currently set to....

With all due respect... hogwash (I said with all due respect)

Are you tracking idle time? You know, stuck in traffic, sitting at stop lights, remote starting, etc.?

 

[Gizmokid2005]

With all due respect... hogwash (I said with all due respect)

Are you tracking idle time? You know, stuck in traffic, sitting at stop lights, remote starting, etc.?

Why? That accurately affects your MPG. Fuel burned at 0mph is a hit to your MPG in the same way that coasting down a hill at infinite mileage is a boost in the opposite direction.

Unless you're actually counting all of the times that your vehicle isn't using fuel at all, or not moving at all, there's no argument here. Your computer calculations are also affected by sitting at a stoplight, burning fuel and not moving equals 0mpg calculations.

You burned fuel in that tank, you didn't increase miles. Your MPG takes a hit for that, more fuel used, less miles traveled.

 

[Snorebaby]

@chuck stein For the question of math...I input to the 1/1000 gal. that the receipt shows. ex: 7.053 gal. The $ amount is a calculation of gal's and total cost. For simple purposes, I just have excel show to the tenth. All traffic/idle time/roads are considered when comparing one fillup to another. I also do not disable the Auto Start/Stop. I only put in gas at the lowest flow rate (first notch) and don't add any more after the click (unless to add 1 or 2 cent to even the amount, kinda ADD with even/odd numbers). I try to use the same pump/station and there will be small variations, but not as much as I am seeing. I only use 87 octane.

A lot of the mileage is when I drive to-from work (when I am not riding my Goldwing to-from work), 12 miles one way with 8 miles of it Interstate, 2 traffic lights and one stop sign and cruise set at 70mph. I also notice a difference in Summer/Winter gas. It shows more prevalent in the motorcycle

I started hand calculating several years ago to keep an eye on the performance of my motorcycles. Because I travel back roads alot, gas stations may not be available all the time, I have to plan mileage stops. It just carried over to the Ranger because of the controversy with mileage when it first came out.

My wife's '13 F-150 302 Crew Cab 2wd gets 15-16mpg around town (same routes if we take the Ranger) and 22-23mpg Hwy. Her computer and the hand calc's are fairly close, within .3gal whereas the Ranger is farther apart. So around town I am a little better but HWY is very disappointing.

.

Sponsored