Gas mileage mystery

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChampaignTurbo
  • Start date Start date
C

ChampaignTurbo

I have a 1990 765 Ti...I get bad gas mileage...but wait there's more.
Itseems that I get about 140 iles to the first half tank...the second
half drains...I only get about 80 miles from the middle point of the
gage to E...If I fill up a half empty tank, I'm getting close (not
quite) 20 mpg...if I let it get near Empty I'm looking at about 14
mpg.

I've checked several times and unless someone has a clue for me to
investigate, I'll just keep filling up around half empty.
 
: I have a 1990 765 Ti...I get bad gas mileage...but wait there's more.
: Itseems that I get about 140 iles to the first half tank...the second
: half drains...I only get about 80 miles from the middle point of the
: gage to E...If I fill up a half empty tank, I'm getting close (not
: quite) 20 mpg...if I let it get near Empty I'm looking at about 14
: mpg.

: I've checked several times and unless someone has a clue for me to
: investigate, I'll just keep filling up around half empty.

that's normal on all volvos i've owned. check it out. run to red...
fill with 14.5 gals... at 1/2 point fill it... it will probably take
9+ gals... i've no good answer except don't believe the guage! it's
the nature of all 245s i've owned... red face arguments when i claim
that the tank is near empty and someone sees the guage at 1/2...
use the odometer... one tank should get you 280 smiles... or something
else is wrong....

relax, best

js




--
 
ChampaignTurbo said:
I have a 1990 765 Ti...I get bad gas mileage...but wait there's more.
Itseems that I get about 140 iles to the first half tank...the second
half drains...I only get about 80 miles from the middle point of the
gage to E...If I fill up a half empty tank, I'm getting close (not
quite) 20 mpg...if I let it get near Empty I'm looking at about 14
mpg.
Click to expand...
Don't know but I noticed that in a 2000cc Nissan sedan I had. Never really
checked other cars since (very often fill up at half empty anyway). That's
measured by km & litres not the fuel gauge. Has to be to do with tank fumes
or vacuum?
 
ChampaignTurbo said:
I have a 1990 765 Ti...I get bad gas mileage...but wait there's more.
Itseems that I get about 140 iles to the first half tank...the second
half drains...I only get about 80 miles from the middle point of the
gage to E...If I fill up a half empty tank, I'm getting close (not
quite) 20 mpg...if I let it get near Empty I'm looking at about 14
mpg.

I've checked several times and unless someone has a clue for me to
investigate, I'll just keep filling up around half empty.
Click to expand...
That is normal. The gas guage is an inexact indicator of
the amount of gas left in the tank. I worked in the
National Bureau of Standards (now National Institutes of
Standards and Technology), 1957-1969. I realized that
everyone in my car pool had mentally calibrated their gas
gauge. When the guage first indicates empty, there is still
a gallon or more of gas in it. That seems to be by design.
 
Marvin said:
That is normal. The gas guage is an inexact indicator of
the amount of gas left in the tank. I worked in the
National Bureau of Standards (now National Institutes of
Standards and Technology), 1957-1969. I realized that
everyone in my car pool had mentally calibrated their gas
gauge. When the guage first indicates empty, there is still
a gallon or more of gas in it. That seems to be by design.
Click to expand...

If Champ knows what the relative mpg's are, you would assume he's not basing
that on the fuel gauge. I didn't when I found the same thing.
 
I have a 1990 765 Ti...I get bad gas mileage...but wait there's more.
Itseems that I get about 140 iles to the first half tank...the second
half drains...I only get about 80 miles from the middle point of the
gage to E...If I fill up a half empty tank, I'm getting close (not
quite) 20 mpg...if I let it get near Empty I'm looking at about 14
mpg.
Click to expand...
I've checked several times and unless someone has a clue for me to
investigate, I'll just keep filling up around half empty.
Click to expand...

Gas gauges are not precise. The only way you can come close to
calibrating it is by doing repeated fillups; starting with a
full tank, write down the mileage (don't depend upon your memory),
then:

Run down to 3/4, fill up, write down mileage;
Repeat twice;
Run down to 1/2, fill up, write down mileage;
Repeat twice;
Run down to 1/4, fill up, write down mileage;
Repeat twice.

Now calculate the mileage in each case, based upon the exact miles driven
and exact fuel consumed. I think you'll find it's nearly the same in
each case, and determine that 1/2 on the gauge doesn't equal the tank
at 1/2 capacity.


Gary
 
ChampaignTurbo said:
I have a 1990 765 Ti...I get bad gas mileage...but wait there's more.
Itseems that I get about 140 iles to the first half tank...the second
half drains...I only get about 80 miles from the middle point of the
gage to E...If I fill up a half empty tank, I'm getting close (not
quite) 20 mpg...if I let it get near Empty I'm looking at about 14
mpg.

I've checked several times and unless someone has a clue for me to
investigate, I'll just keep filling up around half empty.
Click to expand...


The gauge is non linear... basically, the bottom half of the tank is
typically smaller on most vehicles because they are either tapered, or have
a twin tank setup (like the 760) or some other odd configuration that makes
the bottom half of the tank actually hold less fuel.

The sender doesn't care how much fuel is in the tank, it just knows where
the float is (relative to an odd shaped tank).

Almost all vehicles will reflect this, and this is normal.

I get around 21 mpg BEST or 18.5 worst from my 760GLE with a B280F 6, so I
would expect you to get around the same with the turbo... I'd get worse, cuz
I'd be always on the turbo :)

Cheers
 
I have checked at most of my fill-ups...resetting the trip odometer and
calculating the mileage one the precise amount of gas based on the
reciept. I have found that the first half gets better gas mileage than
the second half. I thought perhaps something with the pressure was to
blame. I will undertake this as a true science project and starting
with my next fill-up (soon considering the crappy mileage I'm getting)
and determine the gage's accuracy and the mileage for the various
scenarios.

Thanks,
Mike
 
I travel by interstate about fifty miles each day. In my S80 T6, when I
drive the speed limit, the computer registers about 27 miles per gallon. On
this same trip, when I drive 55 miles per hour, the computer registers
usually over 34 miles per gallon. Tom and Ray on Car Talk says that the
amount of air resistance is double for a car traveling 75 miles per hour
compared to 55 miles per hour, so this gas savings makes sense. I think I
will go slow.
 
I have a 1990 765 Ti...I get bad gas mileage...but wait there's more.
Itseems that I get about 140 iles to the first half tank...the second
half drains...I only get about 80 miles from the middle point of the
gage to E...If I fill up a half empty tank, I'm getting close (not
quite) 20 mpg...if I let it get near Empty I'm looking at about 14
mpg.

I've checked several times and unless someone has a clue for me to
investigate, I'll just keep filling up around half empty.
Click to expand...
If you look at the profile of a fabricated steel fuel tank they are
almost always narrow at the top fat in the middle and narrow at the
bottom. So from full to half the distance per volume measure is
decreasing and from half to empty the distance per volume measure is
increasing. The variable resistor that is the fuel sender is usually
linear wound so that it really represents distance travelled through its
sweep rather than volume of fuel consumed. Kind or like an electronic
dipstick. The blow molded plastic tanks are more boxlike but because
they can be easily formed to accomodate the available space they can
have even moew radical volume differences on cross section.

Bob
 
M.R.S. said:
.............
The gauge is non linear... basically, the bottom half of the tank is
typically smaller on most vehicles because they are either tapered, or have
a twin tank setup (like the 760) or some other odd configuration that makes
the bottom half of the tank actually hold less fuel.

The sender doesn't care how much fuel is in the tank, it just knows where
the float is (relative to an odd shaped tank).

Almost all vehicles will reflect this, and this is normal.

I get around 21 mpg BEST or 18.5 worst from my 760GLE with a B280F 6, so I
would expect you to get around the same with the turbo... I'd get worse, cuz
I'd be always on the turbo :)
Click to expand...
And the radial swing on most float arms would affect readings too, but the
tank could be shaped like a funnel if comsumption is measured properly,
which it sounds to me it is. Fill up after 200km and then after 400km - see
if it takes exactly double the fuel.
 
I once heard a talk by a guy who was a gas gauge engineer for Cadillac (yes,
there is such a job). He explained that with modern
microprocessor-controlled digital instrumentation they could make the gas
gauge perfectly linear, or whatever curve they choose. As he told it, the
profile was defined by their marketing group and was deliberately not
linear. As I recall, they had designed it to be very slow at the beginning
(so people feel good about their recent fill up), quick in the middle, and
slow again at the end (so that if you're running low you get a little extra
chance to get to a gas station).

I'm not sure about Volvo, but I think most manufacturers have gone away from
the float ball to some sort of linear submersion sensor with no moving
parts.
 
jg said:
If Champ knows what the relative mpg's are, you would assume he's not basing
that on the fuel gauge. I didn't when I found the same thing.
Click to expand...
I've re-read his post to see if I missed something in my
answer. He wrote in terms of miles per half tank of gas, as
indicated by the gauge. If the gauge isn't linear, it
doesn't translate accurately to MPG. I think my answer was
correct.
 
Robert said:
I once heard a talk by a guy who was a gas gauge engineer for Cadillac (yes,
there is such a job). He explained that with modern
microprocessor-controlled digital instrumentation they could make the gas
gauge perfectly linear, or whatever curve they choose. As he told it, the
profile was defined by their marketing group and was deliberately not
linear. As I recall, they had designed it to be very slow at the beginning
(so people feel good about their recent fill up), quick in the middle, and
slow again at the end (so that if you're running low you get a little extra
chance to get to a gas station).

I'm not sure about Volvo, but I think most manufacturers have gone away from
the float ball to some sort of linear submersion sensor with no moving
parts.
Click to expand...
That would be a weight gauge, which indicates the depth of
the gasoline layer in the tank. It would be affected by the
shape of the tank.
 
Bailey said:
I travel by interstate about fifty miles each day. In my S80 T6, when I
drive the speed limit, the computer registers about 27 miles per gallon. On
this same trip, when I drive 55 miles per hour, the computer registers
usually over 34 miles per gallon. Tom and Ray on Car Talk says that the
amount of air resistance is double for a car traveling 75 miles per hour
compared to 55 miles per hour, so this gas savings makes sense. I think I
will go slow.
Click to expand...
Think how much fuel consumption would drop if more people
did that. Is there a big difference in your commute time
when you lower your speed? If so, think of it as a way to
 
In <[email protected]>,
Bob said:
Think how much fuel consumption would drop if more people
did that. Is there a big difference in your commute time
when you lower your speed? If so, think of it as a way to
appreciate more music. <g>
Click to expand...

Same observation here. The speed limit on I-10 in LA is 70 mph. I used
to drive at 80 mph, and my fuel economy was about 25 mpg. I now drive
65 mph (in the right lane), and my economy is 32 mpg.

AC
 
Marvin said:
I've re-read his post to see if I missed something in my
answer. He wrote in terms of miles per half tank of gas, as
indicated by the gauge. If the gauge isn't linear, it
doesn't translate accurately to MPG. I think my answer was
correct.
Click to expand...

He wrote in terms of mpg, no more inference gals were measured by tank vol
than by pump vol, except the gauge is used as a guide for when to fill up...
as you do. While most gauges are inaccurate, most ppl don't use it to
measure mpg. Your answer is correct in that most gauges bottom out before
the tank does, but it's an assumption that is the reason for the mpg
difference. I experienced the same consistent mystery in a Nissan...
measured properly. Everyone assumed it was the gauge inaccuracy, but that
was not the cause.
 
Aawara said:
In <[email protected]>,

Same observation here. The speed limit on I-10 in LA is 70 mph. I used
to drive at 80 mph, and my fuel economy was about 25 mpg. I now drive
65 mph (in the right lane), and my economy is 32 mpg.

AC
Click to expand...

I don't subscribe to a conspiracy idea, but who benefits
mostly from higher speed limits - the oil companies and the
governments. Even with the low gas taxes that Americans pay,
they are still paying a lot more than if they drove at the
speed limit or if the speed limit was put back to 60 mph
(even I wouldn't suggest 55). A gallon of gas burned today
won't be available tomorrow, will it?
If we won't think about the collective good, then think
about our pocket books.
 
Robert Lutwak said:
I once heard a talk by a guy who was a gas gauge engineer for Cadillac (yes,
there is such a job). He explained that with modern
microprocessor-controlled digital instrumentation they could make the gas
gauge perfectly linear, or whatever curve they choose. As he told it, the
profile was defined by their marketing group and was deliberately not
linear. As I recall, they had designed it to be very slow at the beginning
(so people feel good about their recent fill up), quick in the middle, and
slow again at the end (so that if you're running low you get a little extra
chance to get to a gas station).
Click to expand...
Wonder what other bullshit features were in that car... exaggerated body
roll to make you think it went around corners faster? It would be taking
extreme liberties to deliberately make a gauge inaccurate, though they never
are perfect. It's also a big presumption that a mech/elec gauge could not be
made reasonably accurate or its behaviour could not be manipulated. If you
didn't fill the car & note the miles, the gauge is all you have to go on -
if it wasn't reasonably accurate, especially if by design, it wouldn't
impress me at all.
 
bobrs1000 said:
I don't subscribe to a conspiracy idea, but who benefits
mostly from higher speed limits - the oil companies and the
governments.
Click to expand...
. . . and drivers, who clearly want higher speed limits. Nobody is
forcing drivers to drive > 55. That's what the vast majority of us
want.

Rick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top