2014 3170 dash

[cruiserjohn]

I am try to get the mpg tohow and only thing I see it trip a and b

[bclemens]

Miles per gallon? No setting like that on the Ford E450. Only old school method.

[DXSMac]

Even if you had that option, it wouldn't be reliable. I have kept mileage spreadsheets for YEARS. I currently have a car that is a hybrid, and the screen gives me the MPG readout, but by the time I buy gas, it's NEVER EVEN CLOSE to what the screen says..... Usually about five MPG lower than what my screen is reading.

If you want MPG, gotta keep spreadsheets. I have one in Excel that has been useful to me for years. Before Excel, I was using a steno pad.

[ATVer]

Auto meter makes an MPG gauge that has for my RV always has been within a couple tens when I check it manually. It's a simple plug and play and has the ability to calibrate it if it isn't reading correctly for your application.

[MrJoe]

I've found the odometer/speedo isn't very accurate in any stock vehicle. I've been using the GPS to calculate mileage. It makes a big difference in accuracy. Warning: Using the GPS will make you sad!

[ATVer]

Originally Posted by MrJoe

I've found the odometer/speedo isn't very accurate in any stock vehicle. I've been using the GPS to calculate mileage. It makes a big difference in accuracy. Warning: Using the GPS will make you sad!

You are correct that GPS can make you sad since GPS typically under states the miles traveled by as much as 5% as stated by garmin which seems high to me. As I understand it GPS monitors do not measure the impact of elevation changes which are measured by your vehicle speedometer. Think of it as a triangle so when you go up or down hills you are traveling on the slope side but the GPS measures the base side which is slightly less. Some GPSs try to compensate for that but the general consensus is distance is mostly under reported to some extent.

[MrJoe]

Originally Posted by ATVer

You are correct that GPS can make you sad since GPS typically under states the miles traveled by as much as 5% as stated by garmin which seems high to me. As I understand it GPS monitors do not measure the impact of elevation changes which are measured by your vehicle speedometer. Think of it as a triangle so when you go up or down hills you are traveling on the slope side but the GPS measures the base side which is slightly less. Some GPSs try to compensate for that but the general consensus is distance is mostly under reported to some extent.

Now my head hurts... http://www.forestriverforums.com/for...gps-52577.html

[ATVer]

Originally Posted by MrJoe

Now my head hurts... http://www.forestriverforums.com/for...gps-52577.html

Some more good info here but I still standby my statements that the GPS will understate distance traveled. The GPS operates on two dimensional positioning not three (elevation). If you take a GPS on an airplane (I have done it) it will give you speeds, distance, and location but any elevation data is derived from map data not satellite triangulation. I was flying at 30000 feet and it said I was 1100 feet because that was the terrain elevation of the Latitude and longitude coordinates that I was flying over. However this is all kind of moot because comparing to speedometer data adds a whole lot of error factors which can impact the results. Since most people use speedometer data if you want to compare what your mpg is to others you probably should use speedometer data. New electronic speedometers are pretty accurate today. My head hurts now too!!