Gryphon avg mpg vs lariat message center's

[PZX_2002]

Here is a test that I have done time and time again so this is accurate on my truck.
These are the readings I logged with the canned Gryph 87 tow tune:
message center = 12.0 mpg's
Gryphon = 14.5mpg's

So when it states 12.0mpg's it is really 10.7 using "good-o'l-fashion" tools, pen n paper. The message center on my pickup is off by -1.3 mpg's and as for the gryphon, I could not count that high.



2007 F150 SCrew
stock 4x4

[06FX41992]

Originally Posted by PZX_2002

Here is a test that I have done time and time again so this is accurate on my truck.
These are the readings I logged with the canned Gryph 87 tow tune:
message center = 12.0 mpg's
Gryphon = 14.5mpg's

So when it states 12.0mpg's it is really 10.7 using "good-o'l-fashion" tools, pen n paper. The message center on my pickup is off by -1.3 mpg's and as for the gryphon, I could not count that high.



2007 F150 SCrew
stock 4x4

Thats how it is for me too, only I don't have the message center readout. My Gryphon is reading 12.5-13.5 and when I do it by hand I get around 9.5-10.5. Its kinda frustrating, but most of the frustration is from the gas mileage itself. I guess 35 inch tires and a steel replacement bumper might have something to do it... Oh, ya, and a heavy right foot...

[Power Hungry]

One of the problems is that when the calculations for economy were written, it was for straight gasoline. Now with 10% ethanol blends being more prevalent, this changes things considerably as far as MPG predictions go but the algorithms have never been updated. The readings used to be considerably more accurate a few years back. I guess I'll have to revisit them and make some adjustments.

[Jackpine]

Originally Posted by Power Hungry

One of the problems is that when the calculations for economy were written, it was for straight gasoline. Now with 10% ethanol blends being more prevalent, this changes things considerably as far as MPG predictions go but the algorithms have never been updated. The readings used to be considerably more accurate a few years back. I guess I'll have to revisit them and make some adjustments.

Now THAT makes sense to me! Thanks, Bill.

- Jack