maddogrc
Member
what if one of the connector pins where the scangauge plugs into is a dud?
i guess you'd be expecting no fuel readings at all then, hmm...
Help Support Nissan Navara Forum:
what if one of the connector pins where the scangauge plugs into is a dud?
i guess you'd be expecting no fuel readings at all then, hmm...
dec0guy
Member
Mine also works on gas mode only, not sure if that changes anything though?
maddogrc
Member
wait, your saying none of your diesel A or B settings allows for the fuel usage to work, also?
dec0guy
Member
Choosing DieselA or DieselB won't read any of the fuel consumption figures. Not sure what else it will/won't read.
On Gas setting the only thing it does not seem to read in the manifold pressure (MAP).
maddogrc
Member
mate, thanks, seriously, thanks! i finally feel like i'm not the only guy who has this issue, lol
i always thought i just had a faulty scangauge and then a faulty OBD when the 2nd scangauge i got didnt work also.
MAP wont work as we dont have a Mass Air Pressure sensor, only Mass Air Flow sensor. (i think thats the right terms?)
the only difference between diesel A/B and GAS is the way it reads the fuel consumption from the engine (the rate at which fuel is used). when i first had it on GAS it said i used 130L when my 75L tank ran out meaning i hate to adjust the calibration a crap load. i havent bothered to get it fully calibrated yet so i just use the voltage, intake air temp, coolant temp and speedo reading on the gauges menu.
i've looked up some custom/X gauge functions online and i cant seem to get any to work. i wouldnt mind transmission oil temp, fuel level (between 1.00 and 0.00 with 1 being a full tank and 0.00 being empty) and a few others.
but i'm glad i aint the only person with this issue
i always thought i just had a faulty scangauge and then a faulty OBD when the 2nd scangauge i got didnt work also.
MAP wont work as we dont have a Mass Air Pressure sensor, only Mass Air Flow sensor. (i think thats the right terms?)
the only difference between diesel A/B and GAS is the way it reads the fuel consumption from the engine (the rate at which fuel is used). when i first had it on GAS it said i used 130L when my 75L tank ran out meaning i hate to adjust the calibration a crap load. i havent bothered to get it fully calibrated yet so i just use the voltage, intake air temp, coolant temp and speedo reading on the gauges menu.
i've looked up some custom/X gauge functions online and i cant seem to get any to work. i wouldnt mind transmission oil temp, fuel level (between 1.00 and 0.00 with 1 being a full tank and 0.00 being empty) and a few others.
but i'm glad i aint the only person with this issue
K
KraftyPg
Guest
One missing or dud pin could cause any number of errors or false readings just like in any electrical connector. But without the wiring diagram you'd never know which pin did what. However 1 dead pin would have to effect more than just one part of the operation given that not all the pins in the socket are used for data transfer any way.
Also taking into account that the plug that connects to the gauge itself is a standard RJ45 plug (the same as Ethernet) and only has 8 pins it's kind of hard to expect every pin in the socket to be connected to something. I think you'll find if you do a search on OBDII plug you'll actually find that there is only a hand full of pins used and they depend on what protocol your vehicle is.
So while your statement is right I would also expect more problems that just the fuel readings
dec0guy
Member
Maybe it's a Nissan Navara thing? Only had the scanguage for a couple of days so will play with it for a while and figure out how it all works.
K
KraftyPg
Guest
Although I've noticed this previously until today I hadn't noticed the extent at which it effects the results these gauges will give you.
I did a short trip this arvo (around 24ks) at about 80kph and my average fuel usage for the trip was 13.5 lts/100 according to the gauge. At that kind of speed I was fairly p'd off with those figures so on the return trip I watched the gauge a little more closely.
At one point I have a long drag up a hill from stop start, without flooring it but allowing the vehicle to gain speed gradually (below 2000 rpm) the scan gauge was reading 75 Lts/100.
Of course I can accept that I was using more fuel going up hill than at 80ks on the flat but whether or not the 75 figure is close is beside the point. The fact that to make an average the 75 figure must be used it's no wonder the average figure is so much higher than the real figure.
Even for as short as 10 seconds the 75 figure will greatly alter the rest of your figures especially when the majority of other figures are so much lower and considering at times I could get it as low as 2.2 lt/100 it's easy to see why averages must really be used as a guide only and not a true reading of what the vehicle is actually doing.
That said I still wouldn't be getting rid of this toy for anything
I did a short trip this arvo (around 24ks) at about 80kph and my average fuel usage for the trip was 13.5 lts/100 according to the gauge. At that kind of speed I was fairly p'd off with those figures so on the return trip I watched the gauge a little more closely.
At one point I have a long drag up a hill from stop start, without flooring it but allowing the vehicle to gain speed gradually (below 2000 rpm) the scan gauge was reading 75 Lts/100.
Of course I can accept that I was using more fuel going up hill than at 80ks on the flat but whether or not the 75 figure is close is beside the point. The fact that to make an average the 75 figure must be used it's no wonder the average figure is so much higher than the real figure.
Even for as short as 10 seconds the 75 figure will greatly alter the rest of your figures especially when the majority of other figures are so much lower and considering at times I could get it as low as 2.2 lt/100 it's easy to see why averages must really be used as a guide only and not a true reading of what the vehicle is actually doing.
That said I still wouldn't be getting rid of this toy for anything
merchant
Member
Does Scangauge have competitors in the market? If so, who are they and what is there product called?
Would hurt to do i bit of research before jumping in and buying one. The read out seems a bit primitive.
Would hurt to do i bit of research before jumping in and buying one. The read out seems a bit primitive.
D
Dave
Guest
Just bought me one.
Dave.
Dave.
D
Dave
Guest
Not cheap Jase, $500 US.
Dave.
Dave.
The ECUDataScan looks like a pretty neat unit. It would need Australian maps, and a means of updating those. I'd also want the ability to transfer the logs to some storage device (eg SD card, or direct to a PC). It would also be nice to have it become the audio gateway for the phone and transmit its audio output on FM so you can hear it through the car's sound system, just like the Tom Tom 430.
K
KraftyPg
Guest
Having just done a shade under 4000 ks across the Nullabor this week I can say I'm ready to paint over the dash and rely on the scangauge 100%. I hardly used the dash gauges on the trip. I know the speedo is out and therefore the odo is also out but until this week I didn't realise that the fuel gauge is only accurate at the top and bottom of it's scale.
The Scangauge's fuel reading was out but about 2 litres on every fill but it was reading low so it was better than the car gauge where the bits between 1/4 and 3/4's seems to give me about 1/8 of the total ks.
Apart from the fuel and the speed things like economy and water temps were brilliant to have at hand when I needed then, especially when it hit 44 in Renmark the other night.
For the record because I remember reading it in another thread my Nav sat no higher than 95 degrees on the water temp and that was after doing an average of 97kph for nearly 8 hours in temps up to 44.
The Scangauge's fuel reading was out but about 2 litres on every fill but it was reading low so it was better than the car gauge where the bits between 1/4 and 3/4's seems to give me about 1/8 of the total ks.
Apart from the fuel and the speed things like economy and water temps were brilliant to have at hand when I needed then, especially when it hit 44 in Renmark the other night.
For the record because I remember reading it in another thread my Nav sat no higher than 95 degrees on the water temp and that was after doing an average of 97kph for nearly 8 hours in temps up to 44.
maddogrc
Member
good to hear mate!
and if anyone is interested in getting a scangauge, i may have one for sale if it doesn't fit on my new car
and if anyone is interested in getting a scangauge, i may have one for sale if it doesn't fit on my new car
D
Dave
Guest
Already bought mine, should be at my place monday.
Can wait to play with it.
Dave.
Can wait to play with it.
Dave.
Jon
Member
Dave do the ZD30's even have an OBDII port? I didn't think our older vehicles would be compatible with it?
I have had my Scanguage for a few weeks now and I am still learning things with it. I am still calibrating the L/100K setting and was wondering how many times others have had to adjust the litres after a fillup before it remained consistant with the actual litres used.
I have had a problem with the kilowatt X=Guage function, where the guage would turn it self off after about two minutes. When I changed to another guage the problem went away. It doesn't really bother me as the KW figures didn't appear to be right anyway.
I have mine mounted between the Nav's instrument panel and the drivers side windscreen pillar. it sits at a nice angle to read.
I have had a problem with the kilowatt X=Guage function, where the guage would turn it self off after about two minutes. When I changed to another guage the problem went away. It doesn't really bother me as the KW figures didn't appear to be right anyway.
I have mine mounted between the Nav's instrument panel and the drivers side windscreen pillar. it sits at a nice angle to read.
K
KraftyPg
Guest
When it comes to filling up and the litres used mines been fairly close but never exact and really who knows what exact is. While we hope the servos pumps are giving us an accurate reading there is possibly some slight differences.
What I have found in the last week is that when filling up my scangauge is usually no more than 5 litres different to the pump reading. The other day I put 78 litres in the tank according to the pump and the scangauge was telling me I had 5 litres left, both figures are close enough for me to know I needed fuel. I don't know what sort of volume would be in the pipe between the tank and the nozzle but I always fill the tank to the very top, although I know scangauge says not too because I figure while scangauge may not know it's got that extra bit in it I do.
Given that all fuel calculations scangauge does are averages and not real time you have to accept some differences here and there. I know my speedo is out by 7ks at 100 which means that scangauge's distances are different to the odo at the end of the day, I also know that when scangauge tells me I'm using 85 LPH for a brief second it's used that in an average calculation which can throw out your readings if you choose that moment to monitor things.
The bottom line is still that these things work on averages and should only be used as a guide not as gospel. If you want to work out fuel economy for a tank use the entire tank and do the maths, you'll find it will be different to scangauge, but it should be close enough for most people using the gauges to monitor their driving on the road.
What I have found in the last week is that when filling up my scangauge is usually no more than 5 litres different to the pump reading. The other day I put 78 litres in the tank according to the pump and the scangauge was telling me I had 5 litres left, both figures are close enough for me to know I needed fuel. I don't know what sort of volume would be in the pipe between the tank and the nozzle but I always fill the tank to the very top, although I know scangauge says not too because I figure while scangauge may not know it's got that extra bit in it I do.
Given that all fuel calculations scangauge does are averages and not real time you have to accept some differences here and there. I know my speedo is out by 7ks at 100 which means that scangauge's distances are different to the odo at the end of the day, I also know that when scangauge tells me I'm using 85 LPH for a brief second it's used that in an average calculation which can throw out your readings if you choose that moment to monitor things.
The bottom line is still that these things work on averages and should only be used as a guide not as gospel. If you want to work out fuel economy for a tank use the entire tank and do the maths, you'll find it will be different to scangauge, but it should be close enough for most people using the gauges to monitor their driving on the road.
