I do not consider 1016 miles a short distance. Filled to the top every time. Even if it was only filled to the top at the first and last fill, the data would still be valid for the trip.

what about not filling past click stop?
 

There will be sloshing in the tank, and also there are vent tubes.

in real world driving does a 100% to the brim of the filler neck very high point above the tank lead to any leakage when the accelerations, braking, cornering, and normal sloshing are factored in?


It would be interesting to do a test for about 5 to 10 tankfuls when always just stopping the fuel tanking operation to mitigate that issue some with a slosh air pocket and then comparing those results to those from a road trip of constant fill to the brim refueling.

I would bet that the result, if any difference, would be withing the margin of error for winter/summer fuel, road conditions, temperature, ect. But it would be revealing if the result was an improvement. Then it would require further research to eliminate other variables.

No, I meant the individual distances were short....in each case, influence of variables will be greater.

Do you have a 603 pump on your '98? I'm curious what kind of power you're putting down.

code
 

Evan, but the big question is what engine code/message is hidden on your display?

Good eye. Evan, we're going to have to put an asterisk by your mileage record! ;)

License plate lamp is out... :P Mileage will be artificially higher because the alternator isn't powering that 5 watt lamp.

I put zilch stock in his numbers. His mpg will always fall between the EPA's published numbers. The quoted numbers he listed above are not the complete EPA statement available. Those are the headliner numbers. His model may be so aged that perhaps they weren't publishing for that model at the time his car was built. Or, he's completely unaware of this.

The numbers he's quoting are outliers or exaggerated. As reflected in the short gallon numbers, or perhaps his calculation method or car's odometer isn't calibrated.

The EPA changed how their stated mpg numbers are calculated at least once over the years.

That's a fact. When the guy from AZ started claiming his W210 turbodiesel got over 48 mpg here on a 2-gallon fill - well, you know what his claim was.:D

No, still the electric pump...

I'm curious what kind of power I'm putting down too but not $75 curious it would take to dyno the car. Maybe some time if I have a little extra cash.

Here's a shot of the gauges when I stopped to fill it up this evening. I did the math and regretfully, the numbers are not as impressive as they would seem to be based on the fuel gauge.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y71...ps6d62dc85.jpg

What a relief, you replaced the license plate bulb.

Did I miss it? What's the final mpg number?

Based on the chart, it looks to me like 1157 miles, and 29.68 gallons used (not including the initial 6.082 gallons which I assume were for the before-trip fuel up) = 38.96 mpg, which would be incredible mileage.

If the initial 6.082 gallons were actually part of the trip, then the MPG is 32.33, which would seem to be more in the expected range.

Steve.

What I don't quite understand is why the OP stopped and filled up so often.

That's not KarTek's chart....that was from GregMN.