Error average regen mileage on 2.4 Alfa 159

[fredvr]

Hi Yani, it seems that the average value in the last 5 regen average is the last mileage value not the average, I have noticed it a few time, the variation is too big between 2 readings for an average.

Can you confirm this?
Thanks.

Car Alfa 159 2.4 2010 EDC16C39.

[yani]

It is defined as the average value.
In my JTDm 1.9 it goes down to ~150 km with city short trip driving... and goes up to almost 1000 km with highway-only driving.

[fredvr]

Thanks for the answer Yani, I just noticed that I had done a lot of Mway driving and the average had gone up to >500.

Then less than 1000Km later with a mixture of Mway, mountain open roads and little town it had gone down to 250 which is the value I get when I do 50%town and 50% little B roads.

I was expecting the average to be higher, as I am quite tuned in to the regens, I always drive with Instant Fuel consumption on, and it did not seem to happen that quickly, this is why I made the comment.

But you wrote the software so you know.
By the way do you have Damos files for the EDC16C39? or do you know where I can get hold of one?
Thanks

[fredvr]

Hi Yani, these numbers still puzzle me:
I have just tested the car again
I felt the last regen on the Mway yesterday and have done about 250K since which is confirmed by the value in "last odometer regen" and filter is 45% clogged which is normal for 200km of Mway and 50km of windy hilly roads at a fair rate.

The average is now down to 145k, impossible as before the trip I checked and got 250km average.
The last odometer reading was 230 before the trip and did about 50 before the regen started (280) not changing the average significantly.

The math goes as follows:
I had done ~250 average over the last 5, even if we condider the last regen done at 0km
((250 x 4) + 0)/5 = 200 not 145
But I know that the last one was done at 250 (not 0) so the average should still be 250 no?

This is why I doubt the average number.

Thanks for taking the time to look at this.

[fredvr]

Yani, I re-confirm the average value is wrong.

Another test:
before the start of the test average over 5 regen: 146km
Last regen : 410km (actually followed it through checked @ 45% then @ 66% clogging of the fliter)
~ 40km after the regen checked again, 27% clogging
But very weird average is now 320km

If the calculation is the way you say, average should have been: 199km

I believe it takes the average of the last 2 here (146 + 410) /2 = 278 and then add the distance from the last regen ~40 km

278 + 40 = almost 320 (I did not write down exactly the value for 40 think it was just over)

I am convinced the average is wrong, I am not saying your software is wrong, probably it is within the EDC soft.

But it is not a value to rely on.
Cheers
Fred

[yani]

You've done quite a research on this small detail...
Anyway, I tested it on my car (1.9JTDm) and I can confirm that it has exactly the same behaviour as you say - the value seems to be the average distance from last 2 regenerations.
Unfortunately, Fiat's documentation says that it is an average from last 5 (which is obviously wrong in our cars). We don't know for sure if it is the same in all EDC16 CF4 ECUs or only specific version of the firmware. So, I will leave the message as (saying last 5) and will put a note that it is probably from "last 2"...

[fredvr]

Thank you for your answer Yani, much appreciated.
It is a small detail but for me with average over 5, it would show me the "health" condition of the FAP, especially as I reprogged the car myself shut the EGR and kept the FAP, till it gives me problems.

Over 2 does not have a meaningful value, only for interest.
I am an engineer, and generally if I dig my teeth into something, I go till the end.
I want to find out the WHY?

You gave it to me THANKS.

The only thing I would like to see Multiecuscan do at the moment is a faster scanning rate, again very important when I log to find out the reactivity of the turbo, variable geometry, and fuel rate.
For good it would have to be twice per second.

Anyway thanks again for taking the time to looks at this problem.

[yani]

For fastest scanning rate you need a KL/VAGCOM interface.
You have to set KWP2000 Timings to "Fast" or "Optimal" (check which setting works better for your car) in Settings (it is in the interfaces section).
With one parameter I get more than 900 reading per minute when using the "Fast" setting.

[fredvr]

Thanks Yani, That is GREAT news, I have a KKL interface.
I will try as soon as I can get to my car at the week end.