2019 Ranger MPGs

Msfitoy

Well-Known Member
First Name
Sid
Joined
Mar 5, 2019
Threads
60
Messages
7,702
Reaction score
22,445
Location
North Carolina
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger, 2003 MINI Cooper S, 2021 Honda CT125
Occupation
Automotive, Industrial Designer
Vehicle Showcase
1
The vehicle has a lifetime avg MPG's readout? Hmmm, where does it store all that data to calculate a "lifetime" number? Or, what math does it use to obtain this lifetime number?

And just for clarity, a lifetime avg is kinda meaningless. If you avg say 20MPG for 10yrs and then a bad sensor makes it run 18MPG, you'll never see that diff in the math used to get avg, etc.
Beneath Trip 1 and Trip 2 is Fuel Economy...the milage displayed there cannot be reset...I tried...
Sponsored

 

chuck stein

Well-Known Member
First Name
chuck
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Threads
2
Messages
163
Reaction score
29
Location
someplace close by
Vehicle(s)
Tacoma-now-gone
This is where I think you're misunderstanding. This isn't how it works. You're likely looking at 1440 data points (every 5 seconds for 2 hours) at 22mpg, then one datapoint at 0mpg, that 1 out of 1440 data points is not going to bring your average down like that. The vehicle doesn't calculate an average without proper weighting. This can be done in various ways, by storing all 1440 data points, or storing the average and the number of data points in that average (so two values, 22 and 1440) and then calculate the new average by adding one to the data point.
We went full circle on this. The ECU is not storing 1440 data points, or is it? Having 1440 data points over 2hrs does make it ez to calc the running 5sec avg for that specific 2hr window. But we are discussing "lifetime" avg, so where are all the data points coming from to calc the "lifetime" avg? If the ECU tries to use "feedback" the avg calc math comes out wrong.

Lets use you 5sec 2hr 1440 data points as example with feedback. Each 1440 is a block.
Block-A = 22mpg avg
Block-B = 21mpg avg
avg of that = 21.5

But that can't be right math for a "lifetime" calc, here's why.

Take 100 blocks with each block = 22mpg avg, in those 100 blocks the mpg avg = 22mpg
But now comes along block 101 that had 19mpg avg. The lifetime avg is not (22+19)/2=20.5, it's ((100*22)+19)/101=21.97029702970297

I suspect the ECU is using %PWM on injectors and total mileage on odo, or it has a fuel flow meter somewhere and uses that with odo to give lifetime mpg # (it's no average). ECU already stores total miles, so all it needs is a place to store total gals consumed. There are two ways to get consumption, 1) flow meter, or 2) use %PWM on injectors.

Me still curious about this "lifetime" number.
 

Gizmokid2005

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2019
Threads
12
Messages
1,240
Reaction score
1,748
Location
GA
Website
gizmokid2005.com
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ford Ranger XLT 4X4 SCrew
Occupation
SQL Developer
Vehicle Showcase
1
We went full circle on this. The ECU is not storing 1440 data points, or is it? Having 1440 data points over 2hrs does make it ez to calc the running 5sec avg for that specific 2hr window. But we are discussing "lifetime" avg, so where are all the data points coming from to calc the "lifetime" avg? If the ECU tries to use "feedback" the avg calc math comes out wrong.

Lets use you 5sec 2hr 1440 data points as example with feedback. Each 1440 is a block.
Block-A = 22mpg avg
Block-B = 21mpg avg
avg of that = 21.5

But that can't be right math for a "lifetime" calc, here's why.

Take 100 blocks with each block = 22mpg avg, in those 100 blocks the mpg avg = 22mpg
But now comes along block 101 that had 19mpg avg. The lifetime avg is not (22+19)/2=20.5, it's ((100*22)+19)/101=21.97029702970297

I suspect the ECU is using %PWM on injectors and total mileage on odo, or it has a fuel flow meter somewhere and uses that with odo to give lifetime mpg # (it's no average). ECU already stores total miles, so all it needs is a place to store total gals consumed. There are two ways to get consumption, 1) flow meter, or 2) use %PWM on injectors.

Me still curious about this "lifetime" number.
You're still misunderstanding.

You don't need to keep all 1440 data points. The ECU doesn't give you "block A" and "block B" numbers.

It averages in realtime. See my image from my prior post. It stores that over 1440 data points you have 22mpg, then you add another data point at 10mpg, so now you have 1441 data points equaling 21.99mpg (1440*22 + 10*1 = 31690 / 1441 = 21.9916). It's a weighted average so the computer doesn't need to store hundreds of thousands of data points. It' not a calculation of flow, PWM or miles as an overall statistical calculation.
 

Thawk21

Member
First Name
Tyler
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Threads
5
Messages
11
Reaction score
10
Location
Indiana
Vehicle(s)
Raptor
Crazy seeing how good mpg everyone is getting. Mine has 950 and filled up twice since I got it. First tank I got 17mpg and 2nd I got 16mpg. Basically only being driven 15 miles a day on back country roads. No highway at all. Hope it gets better. My Raptor wasn't too far behind these numbers.
 

ben8jam

Well-Known Member
First Name
Ben
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Threads
15
Messages
155
Reaction score
225
Location
Los Angeles
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger XLT
Crazy seeing how good mpg everyone is getting. Mine has 950 and filled up twice since I got it. First tank I got 17mpg and 2nd I got 16mpg. Basically only being driven 15 miles a day on back country roads. No highway at all. Hope it gets better. My Raptor wasn't too far behind these numbers.
It doesn’t. 1800 miles in with mostly similar driving on city roads. And also 16-17. If I were commuting on freeway it does get up to 22-24. But alas I don’t do that much freeway.
 


Lunchbox88

Well-Known Member
First Name
Logan
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Threads
3
Messages
335
Reaction score
303
Location
Missouri, USA
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger SuperCrew FX4
Crazy seeing how good mpg everyone is getting. Mine has 950 and filled up twice since I got it. First tank I got 17mpg and 2nd I got 16mpg. Basically only being driven 15 miles a day on back country roads. No highway at all. Hope it gets better. My Raptor wasn't too far behind these numbers.
Ive posted about my similar results. Commute is just a few miles but all city. Probably avg 16.6-18.0 for the city driving depending on traffic and how much highway I hit during the week. Its better than my old ranger for sure but certainly not the 20mpg thats claimed. (Yes its completely stock, even the tires, and Im on 93). Highway mileage seems much more closer to what its advertised at though.
 

Doc

Well-Known Member
First Name
Doc
Joined
Dec 24, 2018
Threads
80
Messages
4,372
Reaction score
17,290
Location
Live oak fla
Vehicle(s)
2020 HPP Mustang, 2021 Ranger STX,2022 Subaru WRX
Occupation
Retired
Still 21.7 sport mode only ..all country 60 mph..
Regards
 

jsphlynch

Well-Known Member
First Name
Joe
Joined
Oct 16, 2018
Threads
11
Messages
907
Reaction score
2,436
Location
WV
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ford Ranger XL
Basically only being driven 15 miles a day on back country roads.
Commute is just a few miles but all city.
Sounds like you guys are doing pretty short drives. Watching the instantaneous MPGs, it looks like mine gets really lousy mileage until the engine really warms up, at which point I start getting the advertised MPGs. The effect of the cold engine seems worse on this truck than any other vehicle I've owned. If you're doing all your driving during that "still warming up" phase, perhaps that explains why your trucks are underachieving.
 

Deleted member 1634

Sounds like you guys are doing pretty short drives. Watching the instantaneous MPGs, it looks like mine gets really lousy mileage until the engine really warms up, at which point I start getting the advertised MPGs. The effect of the cold engine seems worse on this truck than any other vehicle I've owned. If you're doing all your driving during that "still warming up" phase, perhaps that explains why your trucks are underachieving.
This is exactly my experience for most of my tanks recently. We don't travel as much in the winter months, so most of my driving is just my work commute (8 miles/12 minutes each way), with maybe a trip into town (12 miles/15 minutes) once a week. So the truck basically doesn't have enough time to get up to temp and run efficiently. Especially when it's around or below 0F most mornings. Mileage has suffered greatly because of this, but it's something I knew was going to happen.
 

JeffM

Well-Known Member
First Name
Jeff
Joined
Dec 1, 2019
Threads
4
Messages
100
Reaction score
200
Location
Houston TX
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger XLT
Just had my worst tank ever, 20.1 mpg,but it was all really short trips (5-10 miles) on heavily congested suburban roads.
 

Lunchbox88

Well-Known Member
First Name
Logan
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Threads
3
Messages
335
Reaction score
303
Location
Missouri, USA
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger SuperCrew FX4
Sounds like you guys are doing pretty short drives. Watching the instantaneous MPGs, it looks like mine gets really lousy mileage until the engine really warms up, at which point I start getting the advertised MPGs. The effect of the cold engine seems worse on this truck than any other vehicle I've owned. If you're doing all your driving during that "still warming up" phase, perhaps that explains why your trucks are underachieving.
Completely possible, just sharing my experience because we all dont get these crazy good MPG numbers. My commute is about 12 ish minutes. MPGs might be a bit worse in the winter but its fairly close to what I got in the heat of the summer as well.
 

ben8jam

Well-Known Member
First Name
Ben
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Threads
15
Messages
155
Reaction score
225
Location
Los Angeles
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ranger XLT
Idling really kills the calculated MPG. I’m doing the ford sync update and watching in real time the avg fuel for this trip session dropping .1mpg at a go. Started at 15.7 now at 14.7! Fun times....

I had thought my morning remote start was hurting the mpg reading.
 

Gizmokid2005

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2019
Threads
12
Messages
1,240
Reaction score
1,748
Location
GA
Website
gizmokid2005.com
Vehicle(s)
2019 Ford Ranger XLT 4X4 SCrew
Occupation
SQL Developer
Vehicle Showcase
1
Idling really kills the calculated MPG. I’m doing the ford sync update and watching in real time the avg fuel for this trip session dropping .1mpg at a go. Started at 15.7 now at 14.7! Fun times....

I had thought my morning remote start was hurting the mpg reading.
Idling really kills *actual* mileage too! Start/stop can be an annoyance, but it sure helps to cut down on that.
 

Deleted member 1634

Idling really kills the calculated MPG. I’m doing the ford sync update and watching in real time the avg fuel for this trip session dropping .1mpg at a go. Started at 15.7 now at 14.7! Fun times....

I had thought my morning remote start was hurting the mpg reading.
This is exactly why I was going to wait to update my Sync until I had at least an hour or so trip planned. That way I wasn't just sitting around wasting gas.
 

chuck stein

Well-Known Member
First Name
chuck
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Threads
2
Messages
163
Reaction score
29
Location
someplace close by
Vehicle(s)
Tacoma-now-gone
You're still misunderstanding.

You don't need to keep all 1440 data points. The ECU doesn't give you "block A" and "block B" numbers.

It averages in realtime. See my image from my prior post. It stores that over 1440 data points you have 22mpg, then you add another data point at 10mpg, so now you have 1441 data points equaling 21.99mpg (1440*22 + 10*1 = 31690 / 1441 = 21.9916). It's a weighted average so the computer doesn't need to store hundreds of thousands of data points. It' not a calculation of flow, PWM or miles as an overall statistical calculation.
The ONLY way to calc MPG is to have fuel usage and ODO #. Fuel use can only be calculated from a fuel flow meter, or using math and %PWM on the injectors sampled say every 0.05sec.

Your math "(1440*22 + 10*1 = 31690 / 1441 = 21.9916)" looks faulty to me (in context of "lifetime avg").
Taking your math, lets say:
1440*22 = block-A
10*1 = data point #1441
12*1 = data point #1442

Now what's the avg after data point #1442 has been measured?
Sponsored

 
 



Top