52.3 mpg!
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,810
Rep Power: 321
OK I don't want to be too picky but your screen text is in German (metric) and your results are in Mpg (imperial)... not sure about this one.
Seems odd no?
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,363
From: SF Bay Area, CA
Rep Power: 170
Something fishy on that mileage. And note also that the average speed is 27MPH which does not match 4885 miles in 100 hours. Something is off.
Last edited by adias; Dec 11, 2012 at 11:40 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 15,575
From: Los Angeles, CA
Rep Power: 682
Trending Topics
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 317
From: USA
Rep Power: 28
You guys are so ridiculous. Ludo clearly is using a flux capacitor. I got one too. Get the same mileage. Well, I have a replica, not the brand name one, but it works the same! There are some left on eBay. Here yah go:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Back-To-The-...item3a762bc10e
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Back-To-The-...item3a762bc10e
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 298
From: San Diego
Rep Power: 27
This is correct. That isnt 'mpg since' that's just 'mpg actual' or however they word it in the PCM personal settings. Damn guy is tricking us! Haha.
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 279
From: Northern California
Rep Power: 34
Love the replies! No flux capacitor installed, no coasting downhill @27mph for 100 hours either 
Also, I didn't replace the flat-six with a Fiat 500 engine or added an electric component.
I think this just gets to show how lousy the software can be. None of this really adds up, as adias pointed out. By definition, 4885mi/99.59h = ∅49mph, which makes no sense for a daily driver that is used in city traffic a lot. ∅27mph is actually quite realistic (and probably not too bad for an environment with lots of 25mph speed limits and traffic lights!). Since the mileage matches the odometer, I assume the hours driven are off and should be actually 4885mi/27mph = 181h. Which also makes sense given that I have the car for 6 months now as it implies 1h/day. So my bet is that the total time is wrong.
The ∅mpg number is clearly outlandish. I've never gotten more than 28mpg--and that was going 75mph on a flat freeway. So, 52mpg is basically 2x the actual number. No idea why, I guess it's just a bug. But funny!
Also, I didn't replace the flat-six with a Fiat 500 engine or added an electric component.I think this just gets to show how lousy the software can be. None of this really adds up, as adias pointed out. By definition, 4885mi/99.59h = ∅49mph, which makes no sense for a daily driver that is used in city traffic a lot. ∅27mph is actually quite realistic (and probably not too bad for an environment with lots of 25mph speed limits and traffic lights!). Since the mileage matches the odometer, I assume the hours driven are off and should be actually 4885mi/27mph = 181h. Which also makes sense given that I have the car for 6 months now as it implies 1h/day. So my bet is that the total time is wrong.
The ∅mpg number is clearly outlandish. I've never gotten more than 28mpg--and that was going 75mph on a flat freeway. So, 52mpg is basically 2x the actual number. No idea why, I guess it's just a bug. But funny!
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,363
From: SF Bay Area, CA
Rep Power: 170
Love the replies! No flux capacitor installed, no coasting downhill @27mph for 100 hours either Also, I didn't replace the flat-six with a Fiat 500 engine or added an electric component.
I think this just gets to show how lousy the software can be. None of this really adds up, as adias pointed out. By definition, 4885mi/99.59h = ∅49mph, which makes no sense for a daily driver that is used in city traffic a lot. ∅27mph is actually quite realistic (and probably not too bad for an environment with lots of 25mph speed limits and traffic lights!). Since the mileage matches the odometer, I assume the hours driven are off and should be actually 4885mi/27mph = 181h. Which also makes sense given that I have the car for 6 months now as it implies 1h/day. So my bet is that the total time is wrong.
The ∅mpg number is clearly outlandish. I've never gotten more than 28mpg--and that was going 75mph on a flat freeway. So, 52mpg is basically 2x the actual number. No idea why, I guess it's just a bug. But funny!
Also, I didn't replace the flat-six with a Fiat 500 engine or added an electric component.I think this just gets to show how lousy the software can be. None of this really adds up, as adias pointed out. By definition, 4885mi/99.59h = ∅49mph, which makes no sense for a daily driver that is used in city traffic a lot. ∅27mph is actually quite realistic (and probably not too bad for an environment with lots of 25mph speed limits and traffic lights!). Since the mileage matches the odometer, I assume the hours driven are off and should be actually 4885mi/27mph = 181h. Which also makes sense given that I have the car for 6 months now as it implies 1h/day. So my bet is that the total time is wrong.
The ∅mpg number is clearly outlandish. I've never gotten more than 28mpg--and that was going 75mph on a flat freeway. So, 52mpg is basically 2x the actual number. No idea why, I guess it's just a bug. But funny!
Last edited by adias; Dec 12, 2012 at 11:51 AM.