Yeah, I might even reach a decade backwards to an old Texas Instruments Calculator. There's a definite "Commodore 64" look and feel to the Gen 3 dash. Oh well, I prefer to think of it now as the "Classic" look.
100% gas 95% gas with 5% ethanol 90% gas with 10% ethanol 85% gas with 15% ethanol varying octane levels and combustion behavior based on other additives and your elevation and temp and such. The computer in the car makes an assumption on what kind of fuel you have in the tank but over time it adjusts. If the assumption is close to accurate then the MPG change will be minor. If the assumption is inaccurate the MPG change could be noticeable.
I'll stay out of the debate of whether cars "learn"....as I think it is semantic at it's heart. But I think the problem is when we apply human terms to inhuman objects or machines. I work with machines and have fellow operators that will deal with problems (and most likely take a break) by hoping a machine problem or breakdown fixes itself magically if they let a machine "rest". This nearly never really works. I usually make no friends at work when I explain it's a machine, and therefore doesn't really benefit from a random rest period. And that the "let it sit" period usually just becomes time wasted that could be used in actually fixing the problem. Computer controlled systems make the definition a little more difficult. Computers can adjust parameters given different input, but is that "learning"? Well, by my definition real learning requires self awareness. The Prius is advanced....but the continual reverse beep tells me, it's NOT that advanced.
One thing I like better about the gen 3. vs. gen 4. Instrument panel is the engergy flow monitor. 1. It seems to be quite a bit larger. 2. I prefer the arrows apearing and disappearing over the new look . I will get used to it I guess,and its great it has color now,but I do like the moving arrows more .
what gave you that idea? It learns on the fly every time you run the car. It does average the results over a longer period but it is a moving average and will definitely change from one half of the tank to the next if you have a change in fuel from the prior fillup(s). Every manufacturer uses logic they don't share with end users so I can't tell you how many off/on cycles vs time vs miles it would take to fully adjust but I don't understand why you believe it doesn't.
Even on the first tank, if the first tank of fuel is different than the mapping in the firmware the engine computer will adjust over time to the actual fuel vs the expected fuel. The only way it wouldn't adjust is if somehow the fuel mapping was 100% correct for the actual fuel in the car on the first try. Since it was shipped from the factory to the dealer with an empty or near empty tank and then filled up by the dealer the first tank will vary from dealer to dealer.
If I had to guess, I'd say the default fuel for the ECU's assumption is whatever the legally required blend is for emission and fuel economy testing. For the EPA, it an alcohol free blend of 93 octane, or 91 for California testing.
Here's my MPGS today coming into the office. 62-65mph freeway. 54*F, early, light traffic, a few uphills at the end of the drive. Still looking for the "sweet spot" on coasting.
KRMCG -- Your numbers are amazing. I have a challenge! My numbers (mostly on the highway) are above. Here are some data from the east coast: Fill up at 500 miles 9.3 Gallons (Second click) 53.8 MPG calculate 54.4 MPG on Display 105 Miles to Empty on Display
