Jump to content

Is your fuel gauge accurate?

Suregrip391
 Share

Recommended Posts

Suregrip391 Enthusiast

Suregrip391

Posted
Posted

Hi guys, came here to discuss my fuel level “possible issue”, I just bought a 25 2500HD, 6.6 gasser, and wanted to see how accurate the gauge was. Knowing I have a 36 gallon tank, that is 9 gallons per 1/4 tank. I had just over 3/4 tank of gas so I went to fill up thinking I will only need 8-8.5 gallons to do so. It took just over 11 gallons. Is that normal? Will it get more accurate the lower the tank gets maybe? To me, 3 gallons is a lot to be off, no? What are your experiences? 

newdude Senior Enthusiast

newdude

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Suregrip391 said:

Hi guys, came here to discuss my fuel level “possible issue”, I just bought a 25 2500HD, 6.6 gasser, and wanted to see how accurate the gauge was. Knowing I have a 36 gallon tank, that is 9 gallons per 1/4 tank. I had just over 3/4 tank of gas so I went to fill up thinking I will only need 8-8.5 gallons to do so. It took just over 11 gallons. Is that normal? Will it get more accurate the lower the tank gets maybe? To me, 3 gallons is a lot to be off, no? What are your experiences? 

 

 

The gauge has some buffering to it, especially if you have an LT or higher with the new digital dash.  I'd say that yes, once it reaches somewhere around 3/4-1/2 a tank that the gauge gets more in line with fuel remaining.  

 

In my 1500 LT with the new dash, you could drive 50-75mi and the gauge barely even moves from the F mark.  When the light comes on and says either 40mi or turns to LOW, when I fill it there is about 1.5-2 gallons remaining at that marker.  

 

 

Edited by newdude
marpel Enthusiast

marpel

Posted
Posted

Previously, '12 Sierra 1500 6.2L gas, currently, '22 Sierra 2500HD 6.6L gas. Drive a few times per year to/from Van BC, Can/Denver Co, USA so a lot of gas stops en-route. Every time I fill/filled both trucks when near 1/2 tank, the amount added is always more than the gauge would suggest (and I never go beyond when it auto click-stops). I actually pondered whether the tank was not symmetrical between upper half and lower half (or some components - pump etc sat on the bottom, taking up space) and the gauge was measuring the 1/2 way point vertically (ie if tank is 20 inches tall, the gauge measured 1/2 full at 10), rather than volume. But that would be silly.....

Crazy Canuck Enthusiast

Crazy Canuck

Posted
Posted

When mine says it's empty, I can usually get 130+ liters in her, that's where I want it to be as accurate as is can be.  In the middle, I think it is overly optimistic.  It stays 'full' for a long time - i think this it to give people a warm fuzzy feeling longer.

  • 4 weeks later...
davidm767 Enthusiast

davidm767

Posted
Posted

The Banks iDash does a great job giving you a percentage of actual fuel. The GM gauge can be off as much as 15% percent from indicated from the actual level. Since you have a gasser it may not be AS beneficial to run the iDash as much as the Duramax is, but it gives you a better information than stock gauges.

lineman1234 Enthusiast

lineman1234

Posted
Posted

On my 2024 3500 gasser, the fuel gauged is about as close to what it sais as measuring. I would have to go did the note out in it, but. Im not worried about 3/4, i filled around 1/2, and 1/4 then when the light came on for better get fuel, to get a reference for travels. I really wanted a reference for when towing the camper so i didnt get to low depending on what i was getting for fuel mileage that day. No wind, head wind, tail wind, all play when towing the 5ver, tank to tank. 

Flatus Enthusiast

Flatus

Posted
Posted

If I am at 3/4 tank, mine also takes about 11 gallons to fill up. I have found that the app is actually pretty accurate. I usually use it to predict how many gallons it will take to fill up.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Forum Statistics

    250.5k
    Total Topics
    2.7m
    Total Posts

  • Member Statistics

    342,947
    Total Members
    8,960
    Most Online
    Sothpaw27
    Newest Member
    Sothpaw27
    Joined

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 452 Guests (See full list)

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      www.enginelabs.com/news/what-i-learned-today-bearing-clearances-vs-oil-viscosities/     www.enginelabs.com/news/oil-viscosity-can-the-numbers-be-misleading/ The Big Lie… Coming full circle to the reason Lake discusses the Porsche engines in particular. Based on the 2000 samples in the SPEEDiagnostix database, increasing the oil viscosity in these engines, even those run on the track, showed no significant difference in results.   The smoking gun was in the oil chemistry. That is where the data shows higher instances of more wear. Molybdenum was the key; the higher the amount, the less the wear. Speed postulates that higher viscosity oils have more thickeners to artificially inflate their viscosity numbers. These thickeners lose viscosity under shear, and the result is that not all oils of the same viscosity have the same shear stability.   Having enough viscosity is the most important characteristic, but according to Speed, once that required viscosity level is reached, additive chemistry matters more than additional viscosity. Speed also states, oil pressure problems on the racetrack aren’t a viscosity problem; it’s an oiling system problem. Running a thicker oil is just a band-aid for an underlying oiling system problem.
    • Grumpy Bear
      Some Assembly is Required

      By Grumpy Bear · Posted

      Can it still be Assembled II?   Viscosity on the decline by various means. Heat on the rise making that worse. Engine RPM in the tank. Smaller motors with more boost trying to emulate an electric motor. Full torque, zero rpm. Then we will triple the OCI. Argh.    But wait....there is more. LSPI has pushed a shift from Ca to Mg and as that cost more PLUS the run to lower sulfur compounds the TBN is moving in the wrong direction for the increased OCI's demanded.    That not being enough to placate a demand for a parameter they can't measure the other sulfur bearing compounds are also under attack. That would be zinc and phosphorus sulfonate compounds. To some degree those are being replaced with boron esters and others, i.e. titanium ect. All of which have shorter service lives. And there there is the "Secrete Sauce" marketing for AW adds that 'Can't be detected by UOA's" but trust me because I (the blenders) never ever lie.    Spoiler alert; ALL additives are sacrificial! Smaller amounts of the old blended with less robust versions of the new do not equal longer service lives. So what are the blenders recommending? Wait for it.......   MOVING THE GOAL POSTS! OMG      Let's declare the long standing TAN/TBN crossover irrelevant and tell people that soot is a great 'graphite' based lubricant which can aid tribo films. Wait, what? Let's declare that the standards used for oxidation and nitration were to conservative and can be expanded. Let's tell them that because GDI fuel dilution, although being a VISCOSITY KILLER and an acid generator is actually okay because we have better base oils that limit viscosity failure limits. (Said knowing this is measured in fractions of a centipoise and in bases not commonly used in shelf oils)   Lying from the heart is not just the new normal but we have a public, a very young public, that is so ignorant of the facts and so sure of their "RESEARCH" into AI driven models base in regurgitated  instead of scientific research based unvarnished, peer reviewed FACTS that the incoming guard is loosing their grip on reality and the OEM's are tickled pink while the blends bend the knee.    You have an ever limited set of tools to work with. And sooner or later those will be taken from you as the API and the EPA strangle the last remaining fluids from the system. What you have left is your wits. If you care to use them.    At some point in the very near future it will not longer be possible to do "What is best for the machine", and be replaced with "The best you have access too". You WILL be rewarded with half the life and twice the cost. That isn't that hard to predict.         
    • Chuck FB
      Software Update

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I trust you saw the other comment where he knew what he was talking about !. Yes, these darned newer vehicles with all their so smart they are stupid technology, goes and drains the battery down. As you might see my other comment, I installed a Noco 5 battery tender under the hood and at this point still have the cord routed so I have to lift the hood and then plug it in but am typically parked in a garage or a shed so its not risking the engine hood in the wind. That way I am assured or hopefully so of not finding I have a battery drawn down and can't even start the truck and that also damages the battery to draw it down too far. 
    • Chuck FB
      Software Update

      By Chuck FB · Posted

      I guess no surprise my guesses were wrong !, at least now I know if I ever happen to see it grayed out in my own truck as to what is going on.    I never happened to catch my truck with it grayed out, it seemed every time I would test to see if there was an update it never found anything and yet more than once I would check to see if there was an update and there was nothing, then a day later or even that same morning I would drive to town and after more than one engine shut down in town as I did my errands it would pop up that there is an update now ready to install and the only place I have a connection to the internet is at home by wifi so its not as if it grabbed the download while driving. I don't trust these new vehicles due to all the crap they can decide to do while sitting for some days not running and run the battery down so most of the time if I know the truck will sit for a few days I plug in the battery tender I have mounted under the hood and so the only time the truck must have downloaded software was when it was sitting in the garage where the signal is awful but I have that tender plugged in and somehow it managed to download it. I honestly detest all this crap, way to easy to leave a person stranded.    Since I don't trust any of it I don't do the install of the already downloaded software until I get home and sometimes have even sat in the truck to watch what its doing as its going through the process to its conclusion as its not like it is set up that it will tell you the next time you fire up the engine that the update that was initialed actually installed or installed properly. Yes I can go into the updates and see the list. After I go through the install where I feel its safe to do so in case it breaks down as a result, I will plug in the battery tender after the fact to recharge as I don't know how much power its taking just to do the install and that can take a while for it to install. 
    • nfisherman
      Software Update

      By nfisherman · Posted

      Thanks for the reply. All settings were correct and the engine was off, as it was supposed to be. It turned out to be something simple. I took a drive for about an hour. I must have had a low battery without knowing it. The voltage gauge on the display looked ok. At the end of my drive, I shut off the engine and the update prompt came up and it updated normally. It’s ironic because one of the features of the update is a reduction of battery drain. 

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...