Precision Fuel Consumption Measurement

Comparing different solutions

FMS Gateway G2 plus
Inventure CAN solution
VS
OBD
OBD solutions

Tested with a Renault Clio II 1.5 dCi  
on the same, short trip multiple times with similar conditions (weather, traffic)

4,1
4,6
2,45
3
2
4,2
4,1
1
Trip
Difference
[%]
9,3
+32,9
Avg. fuel consumption OBD [l/100km]
+87,6
+67
4
2,4
7,0
Avg. fuel consumption based on reference measurement system [l/100km]
Distance [km]
Map showing a start and a finish point

The tests were reproduced later with a different car: Mazda 6 Skyactiv-G145 2.0   

6
5
4
3
6,5
6,6
6,6
7,2
12,125
8,4
14,7
8,8
12,3
2
7,1
7,2
1
Trip
10,7
Avg. fuel consumption CAN [l/100km]
11,7
0,0
0,2
-1,4
3,4
-2,5
0,6
Avg. fuel consumption OBD [l/100km]
Difference
BC-CAN [%]
Difference
BC-OBD [%]
9,3
5,4
7,3
25,0
23,8
48,3
10,4
21,8
11
13,2
9,7
9,22
9,2
10,7
Avg. fuel consumption Board Computer [l/100km]
Distance [km]
8,45
14,33
9,1
Inventure services in numbers

Conclusions

➤ Significant differences from the fuel consumption recorded via CAN (and dashboard if it's shown there)

➤ The difference varies in every vehicle

➤ The difference is not constant even for the same vehicle -> Can’t be calibrated.

The chart shows that the BC- OBD has higher values than the BC-CAN
Talk to an expert

More Case Studies

A game-changing solution to benchmark your fleet performance

Data-driven decisions to improve your fleet performance

Read more
forklift
© Inventure Ltd. All Right Reserved 2023.
Privacy Policy
Powered by