gallons per mile display

[wentzr]

MPG vs GPM. Think they're the same? Think again...
(From Good magazines current transportation issue, an interview with Richard Larrick):
"Imagine that you are traveling uphill for 100 miles and you're getting 10 mpg, and you just turned around and drove down the same hill for 100 miles and get 100 mpg on the way downhill. And the question is: what is your average mpg over that distance?
It feels like it should be about 50, but it turns out it's 20.

The amount of gas you're using to go 100 miles when you're getting 10mpg is 10 gallons. And when you're getting 100 mpg as you're driving 100 miles, you use just one gallon. So you're using a total of 11 gallons to go to go 200 miles, and that gets yo a little bit under 20 mpg."

I'm sure many readers here are fully aware of this, but I'm curious if anybody has come up with or thought of a mod that could display your gallons per mile on a trip?

[JimIsbell]

Originally Posted by wentzr

MPG vs GPM. Think they're the same? Think again...
(From Good magazines current transportation issue, an interview with Richard Larrick):
"Imagine that you are traveling uphill for 100 miles and you're getting 10 mpg, and you just turned around and drove down the same hill for 100 miles and get 100 mpg on the way downhill. And the question is: what is your average mpg over that distance?
It feels like it should be about 50, but it turns out it's 20.

The amount of gas you're using to go 100 miles when you're getting 10mpg is 10 gallons. And when you're getting 100 mpg as you're driving 100 miles, you use just one gallon. So you're using a total of 11 gallons to go to go 200 miles, and that gets yo a little bit under 20 mpg."

I'm sure many readers here are fully aware of this, but I'm curious if anybody has come up with or thought of a mod that could display your gallons per mile on a trip?

Why in the world would you think it was 50mpg? That isnt even intuitive. And Miles Per Gallon is obviously NOT the same as Gallons Per Mile.

10 miles per gallon means you get 10 miles from a gallon of gas (Miles divided by Gallons)
10 gallons per mile means you get 1/10 mile from a gallon of gas (Gallons divided by Miles)

They are two entirely different equations.

Its simple math, not rocket science.

[wentzr]

Originally Posted by JimIsbell

Why in the world would you think it was 50mpg?....
Its simple math, not rocket science.

This was a quote from a professor who wrote an article arguing that most americans don't understand fuel efficiency works..I didn't come up with the example but it is a very common misperception that if you take two trips, to get your average mpg you just average the mpg.. 30 and 90 for an average of 60 is what I would have used.. But I didn't think the analogy needed explaining. ;/

Anywhoo yes they are totaly different equations. Exactly my point. Two metrics of measuring the same concept might give drivers even more feedback enabling a higher understanding, in the end hopefully increasing their mpg by changing their driving style. Like I said most of us get it, no its not rocket science but that was only brought up to introduce another interesting way to measure fuel economy.

[Hybrid-Battery-Repair]

Originally Posted by wentzr

I'm curious if anybody has come up with or thought of a mod that could display your gallons per mile on a trip?

How about your liters per 100 kilometers (which is an international standard, unlike GPM)? Press the metric button.

[uhtrinity]

Originally Posted by wentzr

MPG vs GPM. Think they're the same? Think again...
(From Good magazines current transportation issue, an interview with Richard Larrick):
"Imagine that you are traveling uphill for 100 miles and you're getting 10 mpg, and you just turned around and drove down the same hill for 100 miles and get 100 mpg on the way downhill. And the question is: what is your average mpg over that distance?
It feels like it should be about 50, but it turns out it's 20.

The amount of gas you're using to go 100 miles when you're getting 10mpg is 10 gallons. And when you're getting 100 mpg as you're driving 100 miles, you use just one gallon. So you're using a total of 11 gallons to go to go 200 miles, and that gets yo a little bit under 20 mpg."

I'm sure many readers here are fully aware of this, but I'm curious if anybody has come up with or thought of a mod that could display your gallons per mile on a trip?

That's why your lifetime display can drop much faster than it will come back up.

[wentzr]

Originally Posted by ogregev

How about your liters per 100 kilometers (which is an international standard, unlike GPM)? Press the metric button.

I'm not a fan of displaying my entire display in metric just as i doubt Europeans drive around with the US display mode.

Of course, GPM is not a standard, that's actually my point! Measuring consumption by Gallons (OR LITERS) per distance is a much more accurate way to measure efficiency than what IS the standard of measurement in America - MPG. In America the standard is MPG, not liters per 100 kilometers... it is what it is and I'm not here to argue metric vs US.

I'm here bringing this topic up because as far as I understand, this is a DIY community interested in going BEYOND what the car gives us as opposed to relying on what we're all familiar with that is already built into the car...

I guess for now the answer for people like me who are looking for other more accurate ways to measure fuel consumption (in EITHER us or metric) is to drop $170 USD and buy a scangauge.

[Hybrid-Battery-Repair]

Originally Posted by wentzr

I'm here bringing this topic up because as far as I understand, this is a DIY community interested in going BEYOND what the car gives us as opposed to relying on what we're all familiar with that is already built into the car...

I guess for now the answer for people like me who are looking for other more accurate ways to measure fuel consumption (in EITHER us or metric) is to drop $170 USD and buy a scangauge.

First, I have a ScanGauge and it is useless because it will not measure lean burn, so the MPG ratings are way off.

Secondly, my point was that it already does what you want. Just the unit multiplier is different.