CrashOverride
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2018
- Threads
- 45
- Messages
- 711
- Reaction score
- 395
- Location
- Under a hood
- Vehicle(s)
- 2015 Mustang GT
Well, truth be told most gauges are like that. The gas gauge is averaged so it doesn't splash all over the place giving erratic readings...and even then, sometimes it is not calibrated for an irregular tank (e.g. stays at "full" for 50 miles, then drops like mad at the bottom). I know for a fact the temp gauge on my older SRT-4 was also averaged because under boost, the actual temp would go up and DCX didn't want owners freaking out about it. I don't like gauges that calculate the values, but again, with the SRT-4 the EGT PID was calculated for cat temp protection enrichment, the torque request tables were estimated and a bunch of other stuff that would be expensive and sometimes almost impossible to measure (turbo impeller RPM for example). This is coming from a guy that would want a wideband o2 sensor for each cylinder...LOL the engine management system would cost as much as the car.Its not likely to be an accident IMO. That's why I am so interested in the reason. Aside from how it effects me, I find the gyrations and machinations of manufacturers fascinating. Maybe some corp lawyer worried about getting sued over the gauge not actually showing the oil temp but rather a guestimate of what the oil temp should be when other sensors have specific values (which is what it was). Should we relabel the gauge "possible oil temp" or just remove it?
I wish the digital gauges and temp gauge we have were more meaningful. I don't want "low"/"high" I want numbers and I'll decide if it's low or high. Yeah, I know you can go to the numbers page as posted above, but I want needles when I'm driving, not 10-point font.
And your laziness is not just you...ForScan is easy. My X-pipe sitting in the garage...Not as easy (Granted not terrible) but yeah the laziness is contagious
Sponsored