DTMAce's Forum Comments
Showing comments 1-30 of 198 by DTMAce.
I really don't want to know how much of my life has been spent in the seat of a car... LOL
posted by DTMAce April 28, 2012 at 5:55 PM
Just gave me something to suggest. You should add a "force update" button on the badge page!
I will be adding more fuel ups soon enough though. No sense in testing it. But if that doesn't work I will let you know.
posted by DTMAce April 22, 2012 at 8:48 PM
I already have the side bar collapsed. Not a big deal really, just found it today, wanted to mention it.
posted by DTMAce April 18, 2012 at 4:13 PM
No, there aren't any vehicle specific forums located on Fuelly. This is a general question/website feedback tool, used to help Fuelly members with questions and problems using the site, and occasional general advice on how to make the most of the site/mileage/experience.
And welcome to Fuelly!
posted by DTMAce April 16, 2012 at 2:43 PM
Maybe that in itself will encourage people to be more accurate in their reporting. Why try to fudge it and make it work with inconsistent data, instead of having it work with what is reported?
You already track data on an as-reported basis. For example, look at my 1994 Z. I only drive it during the warmer months, so it sits all winter. But the way the site tracks it with regards to fuel entries, it only shows the months I actually put fuel in the car. So by that math alone, you should be able to also do a daily, using the data gathered on those days/months recorded.
Use a simple mileage total for each month divided by the actual number of days that month. It will give you an average of miles per day for that month. This will change as you add fill ups of course during the month, and/or this could be a rolling month, showing your mileage average as it increases/decreases on each fill up.
Use the sum of all recorded mileage. Divide that by the number of REPORTED months. Then you can break that down by an average of 30 days. Though it will be slightly more accurate to use the previous example, this will provide a more realistic average over the ownership of the vehicle since registered and while actively updated. Either way should eliminate gap problems though.
Just an idea, you can run with it how you want. lol
Otherwise, you would have to change your entire recording structure, to count all days, not just the ones that are reported on, and figure averages that way. If that was done, your numbers would change EVERY day, fill ups added or not, because it would be adding and calculating constantly as the days go by.
My Excel sheet does this already, it uses a "Today" entry to give it the current date and uses logic (and lots of math) to count the days from a "start" date to calculate how much time to figure averages like mileage per day, hour, week, month, year, etc. I can use one fill up and know what the sheet predicts for a yearly average.
Granted, that would be a tad overkill for here. lol
But basic info, like a miles per day (and have it be for the entire garage) would be useful.
posted by DTMAce April 15, 2012 at 4:51 PM
I look at highway speeds as those where the transmission is able to run in its highest gear for more than a mile (or kilometer). You are going to get your best mpg on most vehicles at 45-65 (70-100k). MPG only goes down as you go faster, and driving less than 45 on many vehicles causes (on many automatic transmissions) the transmission to shift down and up too often.
I achieve my best results between 50-60, once the transmission has achieved overdrive and lockup.
But each individual experience may vary. The percentage can be calculated two different ways:
Percentage of mileage driven at city or highway, or percentage of fuel used while driving city or highway. Problem is, for nearly all of us its a guesstimate. Unless you were tracking what distance you actually drove on each, there is no accurate way to know for sure.
posted by DTMAce April 11, 2012 at 6:41 PM
I have a feeling that if you moved the forum to a traditional style forum rather than a blog style, you would see plenty more traffic here, with people asking for advice, etc more than stuff about the site itself.
Of course, that does require some additions, such as moderators, forum setup/conversions, etc.
posted by DTMAce April 3, 2012 at 7:48 PM
Just to add and clarify. Higher octane actually raises the detonation point of the fuel so its harder to ignite. This is for higher compression engines, typically found in higher performance vehicles. Using premium for a regular engine car is not going to benefit you much, if anything. But if you have a car that requires premium, using non-premium can actually cause spark knock.
And speaking of spark knock, if you are suffering from that with your current octane level of fuel, go up one level and see if that helps make it quit. Spark knock is premature detonation of fuel, which means your engine actually needs a higher octane to prevent it from doing that.
Having said all that, many modern engine/computer systems can adjust some to compensate for incorrect fuel to a point, but you really should use what it is called for.
posted by DTMAce March 30, 2012 at 5:47 PM
That's above average for US cars as a whole. But that's all. Hell my 1994 Beretta gets 30-35 pretty easy. And it has a V6 and an auto transmission.
posted by DTMAce March 27, 2012 at 7:17 AM
Sadly, I have been here, done this, discussed this at length with PB over a year ago and things remain the same.
I in fact setup my personal Excel sheet to calculate this some time ago for me, using the data exported from Fuelly into it. Works perfectly, but the sad truth of the matter is I have YET to use a partial fuel up entry on Fuelly. I always fill the tank of all the vehicles I drive. However, should I do an entry on here with a partial, my sheet will calculate the MPG from the subset of the partial(s) + the next full fill up. In fact it will do this for up to 10 partials in a row if need be. And yes it was a lot of calculations in the sheet to make that happen! LOL
I can see why PB would not want to incorporate this for two reasons:
One, it can be a problem such as how many tanks in a row will have to be provided and the extra work in creating the calculations for them to work properly.
Two, it will complicate this for the users who do not care if the partials are individually listed or not, providing the overall MPG averages are benefiting from it. Not to mention that for the tank that combines the partials, the statistics for that tank will be incorrect, regardless whether the MPG is correct or not.
I just find it easier to avoid the problem by avoiding partials in the first place, or combining them on paper before adding the entry on Fuelly. I have done this once or twice for the van, as a result of my other half not filling the tank up when she put gas in it. At least I got a receipt and could calculate the costs and fuel, etc.
posted by DTMAce March 25, 2012 at 6:38 PM
Stop and go driving is not going to lend to great gas mileage. Known fact.
Look at my Caravan in my profile. Since the other half has been using it only in the city with NO highway driving, the mileage has dropped to half of what I was getting when driving it mostly highway. It went up some the last two tanks, due to a trip in the middle, but it still had a lot of city mixed in.
Personally I don't think you are having a mechanical or electrical problem, I think its reflecting your current usage. But that is my perspective.
posted by DTMAce March 4, 2012 at 12:00 PM
That was mentioned in the other thread that was posted by PB. I agree, real world usage, not "what I like" usage.
Besides, not like it was going to impact it that much anyway.
posted by DTMAce March 3, 2012 at 2:34 PM
I see a couple problems.
Your reported mileage is incorrect on every entry. They appear to me as:
They should be:
You have put a period where you thought you needed a comma but you need nothing there at all.
That is your first problem.
As for the rest, Fuelly attempts to give you an overall averaged based on your total data. Obviously it works better with full tank to full tank fill ups.
Currently its trying to give you an average over only 650 miles (or 1050K) because of the mistake in your mileage entries.
posted by DTMAce March 1, 2012 at 10:41 AM
My black beretta has a WAI right now, but its winter, so MPG is still ugly. But it should get better. The aqua beretta always gets better mpg, and it has the stock airbox. Both have the same engine and transmission.
posted by DTMAce February 25, 2012 at 4:37 AM
Fuelly is not setup to calculate partial fuel ups in that method.
They do count in the overall however, so your averages, and overall mileage will reflect the total distance/units of fuel.
I myself have queried this very issue, as I had found ways to self calculate the differences so that they didn't have to affect my fill-up to fill-up mileage. In those instances basically your above example applies.
However to use it here, I combine the two fuel-ups, using the odometer (or trip) for the actual full tank fuel up, add the cost of the partial(s) and the full tank together and divide that by the number of total fuel units to get your price per unit, etc.
Bit of a pain, but its a way to deal with them if you don't want to report a partial here. The only problem with this is, the per tank costs won't be reflected as accurately, but the overall total and averages will.
The spreadsheet I use here, actually can work with up to 10 partial tanks in a row. They simply get added to the next full tank.
For the record however, I try always use full fill ups. Use the method of always half full or full. That way it doesn't cost as much to keep it full, plus you always have plenty in the case of an emergency.
posted by DTMAce February 21, 2012 at 8:02 AM
You are correct for the model averages. That is how they are supposed to be calculated, as an average of what people are getting, not an average of all cars mileage / units of fuel in total of that car group.
I would rather know what average MPG people get on their individual averages, rather than the distance/consumption. That can throw the actual averages such as in your example.
posted by DTMAce February 18, 2012 at 6:04 PM
Also don't forget, those claims are in UK gallon ratings, not US. So they will appear to be even less over here, but still, noteworthy and will get great mileage vs many of the offerings.
posted by DTMAce February 17, 2012 at 8:41 PM
My only point to add to this, is when you throw out that tank, you also throw out the amount you spent, so it affects more than your mpg. As I said before, the impact will be non-noticeable after you have had a few. I have had to get 3 tanks in a row at 12 mpg to actually cause the average to go down from 20.9 to 20.8. Crazy.
Its your fuelly, but still, something to think about.
posted by DTMAce February 16, 2012 at 3:47 PM
Dude, no reason to leave out a bad tank MPG due to maintenance.
I have had a couple of sessions such as these, I just made a note about it, and left it as is. Tracking your fuel mileage isn't like sorting good from bad fill ups.
Just because someone gets a bad mpg one tank (in my case, the van) does that mean I should not report it, so it doesn't throw my numbers? No. All those are considered part of your real life usage. So don't throw it out, just add it in, it will be fine. The average will swallow the difference and months, years from now, the impact of that will be nothing on your average.
My van has over 160 fill ups. Nearly 45 thousand miles. The fiance is driving it for in-town use right now. The MPG has gone from an average of over 21 to 11 with her driving. I still count them, even though they are actually dragging my average down. You only have one that will affect it only slightly. Don't worry about it! Winter for me also brings my averages down, but I still count them.
posted by DTMAce February 12, 2012 at 5:55 PM
Here, this is why:
posted by DTMAce February 3, 2012 at 7:11 AM
Matrix, depends on what gallon measurement you used I think. I believe Canada uses a UK gallon vs the US gallon doesn't it? US gallon is 3.785 L vs UK gallon of 4.546 L. So... 11.9x 4.546 = about 54L divide that by the US 3.785 and you get 14.2 Gallons.
Does that help?
posted by DTMAce January 24, 2012 at 8:12 AM
It doesn't. Here in the U.S., most states only have you pay tax once, when you first buy the car/plates. Then all you have is a plate renewal cost each year after that. Some states go by the type of vehicle when calculating the plate fees, other states go by the value of the vehicle when it was new.
None of them really care about what size the engine is, or its displacement. And I would about bet that most of the erroneous entries are from U.S. vehicle owners here.
posted by DTMAce January 16, 2012 at 7:39 AM
Fuelly Pro. Interesting idea. Also could have many of the customized features lots of people ask for too. LOL
posted by DTMAce January 10, 2012 at 8:30 AM
My only problem with that is, having them retired, still allows the site to benefit from their statistics. By removing them, you remove that statistic from the site right?
I can understand the active vehicles being limited, but not the retired ones. Once they are retired, they just become a statistic.
On an alternative point, you could have an option to demote them to just the car info, deleting any reference to the original member, pics or details maybe. Like letting us have up to 6 retired vehicles, and if removed from that, we would have the choice to make them a site statistic when removing it. (in case of problems with deleting things like mistakes such as test entries, or retiring by mistake, etc)
Since this site is geared toward helping others with mileage, why would we want to lose vehicles that were contributing? You could have this same feature also take into account actual number of fill ups,as I know many vehicles often don't make it past a fill up or 2.
Just a thought.
posted by DTMAce January 10, 2012 at 7:24 AM
Figured it was something like that. Just happened while I was using the site, so wasn't sure what was up. Working now at least. LOL
Thanks for the update.
posted by DTMAce January 7, 2012 at 10:50 PM
My response would have been. Take a picture of the pump when you are done filling up with your phone and then one of your odometer. That way you will have it. Providing of course you have a picture taking capable phone. lol
I do this, when either the pump fails to print me a receipt or I forget to get one from the cashier. But I'm pretty anal about getting all my purchases entered, so I guess I don't have as much issue with it as you may have.
As to an actual card, I doubt you will find one that is setup for personal use in that fashion, however you can always quiz MasterCard, Visa or Discover to see if they offer cards with the feature, and what bank(s) may support this.
posted by DTMAce January 7, 2012 at 5:50 PM
I like the fact that my nearly 18 year old beretta can get over 30 on trips. And that's with a 6 cylinder on gas. I have seen more modern cars get well less than that, kinda scary.
But its all about how you drive it, and I have learned how to make the most of the tank. When I want to....
posted by DTMAce January 3, 2012 at 3:33 PM
Not buying that really either. I bought a new car once. I still get about the same mileage I got when it was new off the lot. So I doubt it has that much impact, maybe a few MPG, but not as much as shown here.
posted by DTMAce January 2, 2012 at 7:27 AM
Might be issues with how they are driving. Could be more City than Highway. Maybe they have a lead foot. lol
posted by DTMAce December 31, 2011 at 6:56 PM
The only way you could use a partial tank theory to accurately calculate mileage, is if you started with a bone dry tank, put in 4 gallons, drove it till it was bone dry again, then you could calculate mileage for those 4 gallons, using odometer readings from the empty to empty cycle. Problem with that is, you have to run out of gas all the time to be accurate.
So the best way is to use full to full tanks. For those with hard money issues, don't let the tank get less than say half full. Keep it full, rather than run around on empty. Its easier to put 2-3 gallons in it to keep it full and easier on your pocket book, plus that way in the case of an emergency, you HAVE plenty of gas when you need it. :D
Plus you can accurately track your Mileage that way.
posted by DTMAce December 31, 2011 at 9:15 AM