I’m in north Texas the grade doesn’t change that much…
‘23 Malibu has wildly inaccurate fuel range
- Thread starter ATex7239
- Start date
I think you might be overestimating the analytical capabilities of the lower-percentile motoring public.
Most Fords I have owned in recent years have had an overoptimistic estimate of average fuel mileage from the factory. I've adjusted the engineering parameter to get a more correct reading, and once I did that, the range remaining and the actual amount of gas it took at fill ups matched up much, much better.
Example: My 2016 F150 read high by about 7.5% on estimated MPG. On a 36 gallon tank, assuming the use of the full tank, the estimate of range would be quite high before I made the correction.
Odds are you have something similar going on, and Ford has the same issues. Our 2021 Explorer does as well. (It reads about 6% high compared to reality, consistently)
Example: My 2016 F150 read high by about 7.5% on estimated MPG. On a 36 gallon tank, assuming the use of the full tank, the estimate of range would be quite high before I made the correction.
Odds are you have something similar going on, and Ford has the same issues. Our 2021 Explorer does as well. (It reads about 6% high compared to reality, consistently)
Weird. I have had 2 Ford trucks, 3 cars, and 1 van… all were pretty good. I guess like most things the experiences vary.
I liked Ford's approach to miles to E in my 2010 Escape. It was VERY accurate even across varied driving styles, adapted the range estimate smoothly over the course of the tank and went mile by mile down to 0 And when I got down to 0 and filled the tank it really was almost empty based on gallons of fuel added. The in-dash MPG calculator was also fairly accurate. If I reset it at the beginning of a tank and then compared its number to the hand-calculated number at the next fill-up it was always quite similar.
Now, on my Volt, yeah, I have no idea what GM was doing, and I don't think they knew either. Below a certain point it just says LOW. To me, when it's low, is when it matters the most how many miles to E you have and the word LOW is useless.
I tested it and ran it out of gas on purpose (made sure I had plenty of battery left for when I ran out of gas of course). When I left home I had 60 miles of gas left. I drove about 50 miles before it turned off the engine and switched me to battery only with a "propulsion power reduced, engine not available, add fuel" message.
Compared to Ford's very accurate one that gave actual miles the entire time this logic, or lack of logic, is frustrating. This thing was a whole 10 miles off! And just in general it bases your range off way too short of a driving sample IMO. A hard acceleration onto the highway makes the estimated gas range go way down.
On the other hand, the battery/electric range estimation works A LOT better. Although it's called the "guess-o-meter" by Volt people for a reason, it's a lot smarter. If only they had applied the same algorithm to the gas part of things!
So, I would agree, Ford definitely has GM beat with this type of stuff.
Now, on my Volt, yeah, I have no idea what GM was doing, and I don't think they knew either. Below a certain point it just says LOW. To me, when it's low, is when it matters the most how many miles to E you have and the word LOW is useless.
I tested it and ran it out of gas on purpose (made sure I had plenty of battery left for when I ran out of gas of course). When I left home I had 60 miles of gas left. I drove about 50 miles before it turned off the engine and switched me to battery only with a "propulsion power reduced, engine not available, add fuel" message.
Compared to Ford's very accurate one that gave actual miles the entire time this logic, or lack of logic, is frustrating. This thing was a whole 10 miles off! And just in general it bases your range off way too short of a driving sample IMO. A hard acceleration onto the highway makes the estimated gas range go way down.
On the other hand, the battery/electric range estimation works A LOT better. Although it's called the "guess-o-meter" by Volt people for a reason, it's a lot smarter. If only they had applied the same algorithm to the gas part of things!
So, I would agree, Ford definitely has GM beat with this type of stuff.
Last edited:
Maybe the fuel level sensor or the consumption rate measurement, or both are inaccurate. If the error were constant I would apply an empirically derived correction factor.
This topic reminds me a little of the ETA feature on the GPS. The ETA remains ever flexible and based solely on remaining distance and current speed.
This topic reminds me a little of the ETA feature on the GPS. The ETA remains ever flexible and based solely on remaining distance and current speed.
Last edited:
Range is a function of fuel economy and tank capacity.
Once you've driven a car for a decent number of miles, you know what to expect.
The HAH seems to predict range pretty accurately.
The lowest I've gone was 34 miles remaining and the car took 13.1 gallons in its 12.9 rated capacity tank.
I'm guessing that it had maybe .6 gallons remaining, so real tank capacity is maybe 13.7-.8 gallons.
Right now I have enough range remaining to get to 777 miles total on this tank with indicated average on this tank of 55 mpg.
Upon refill and hand calculated it'll be more like 56 mpg and change based upon past experience.
Incidentally, the fuel pickup does not move with fuel level. It always draws from the bottom of the tank so there's no need to be concerned about somehow picking up bad gad when running the tank low.
Once you've driven a car for a decent number of miles, you know what to expect.
The HAH seems to predict range pretty accurately.
The lowest I've gone was 34 miles remaining and the car took 13.1 gallons in its 12.9 rated capacity tank.
I'm guessing that it had maybe .6 gallons remaining, so real tank capacity is maybe 13.7-.8 gallons.
Right now I have enough range remaining to get to 777 miles total on this tank with indicated average on this tank of 55 mpg.
Upon refill and hand calculated it'll be more like 56 mpg and change based upon past experience.
Incidentally, the fuel pickup does not move with fuel level. It always draws from the bottom of the tank so there's no need to be concerned about somehow picking up bad gad when running the tank low.
I have had 2 of the newer body style malibus , a 2016 and a 2021, both with the 1.5 ltr, and both were very economical to run and wernt an expensive car to buy , recent trip thu canada from detroit to niagara falls averaged over 40mpg , one 60 mile stretch got me a solid 48.5
4WD
$50 site donor 2024
My sidekick is renting a new Malibu and I’m renting a new Blazer - asked if he used it - said it had a gas gauge and never does use those … this whole thing makes me wonder how many do …
Similar threads
