Martinjmpr
Wiffleball Batter
(Xposted from t4r.org.)
Well, I finally took the time on Sunday to install my Scangauge.
I have been using an Ultra-Gauge (hereafter abbreviated UG) since October, 2010. I really came to like the way it displayed my MPG and DTE (Distance to Empty) and it became my de facto "fuel gauge" (since we all know the stock fuel gauge on the 3rd gens is crap.)
However, after we got a trailer in January, I decided I needed something to monitor the transmission temps. I kept hoping that UG would upgrade their software to display tranny temp, but they never did and according to their web site there are no plans for them to do so in the future. So, it was either go with a separate tranny temp gauge or just get an Scangauge II (SG) which can be programmed (via the X-gauge feature) to show auto tranny temp.
So, with a big trip to Moab coming up, I went ahead and ordered the SG from Amazon, as well as a Satellite Radio mount to mount it to the dash.
I've had the SG for about 4 days now, and these are my first impressions:
First off, the pluses:
The SG appears to be a very sturdy, well built unit. The UG, by contrast, feels a little bit "cheap."
The SG makes it very easy to change which gauges you want to display on the "gauge" menu, and you can even do it while you're driving. The UG, OTOH, needs to be 'set up' ahead of time.
Finally, the SG wins hands down in the "mounting flexibility: The cable is a separate piece and the end that does not connect to the OBD connector appears to be a standard network cable - meaning you can mount the SG almost anywhere. Another plus for mounting flexibility: All adjustments on the SG are on the front, whereas with the UG you need to be able to access the buttons on the back in order to operate it.
Also, there are two input points for the network cable on the SG, one is on the right side the other on the back. This makes it possible to "flush mount" the SG.
Now the minuses: The display on the SG is lame. It may have been "state of the art" in 1996 but in this day and age my cell phone and cheap little MP3 player have better displays. The Scangauge limits its gauge names to 3 letters (so transmission temperature, for example, comes up as TFT, or Transmission Fluid Temperature.) The size of the SG display also limits how much information can be displayed on its big, chunky, blocky letters, meaning no more than 4 gauges at one time.
By contrast, the UG has a bigger, more detailed, easier to read display that can show up to 6 gauges at once, and that uses more understandable abbreviations (like "Avg MPG", "Inst MPG" and "Intake Air Temp."
Another strike agains the SG is that it cannot be calibrated as precisely as the UG. There is no method (that I've found - corrections welcomed by any SG experts out there) to correct the SG's calculation of distance.
The SG allows you to correct for speed, but not distance (IOW, if the car's trip computer shows that you went 100 miles but you actually went 104.4, you can put that 4.4% correction into the UG so it will show correct distance traveled in the trip meter.) Not only that, the SG will only do speed adjustments in whole percentages, whereas the UG will let you do distance corrections (which also corrects for speed) at up to 3 decimal points (i.e. 1.243%)
Setting gas tank size is also a difference: UG lets you put actual size (18.5 gallons for our 3rd gen 4runners), whereas SG only does full gallons (so it's set at 18 gallons.)
Again, none of the items listed above are neccessarily bad, but to me they point a picture of a device that was "perfected" around 1999 and after that, was just left to wither on the vine.
As far as mounting, the blocky, chunky SG doesn't fit easily anywhere. You can see from this photo that I mounted it on the dash with a mount intended for a satellite radio, using some very strong double-sticky tape.
For reference, here's the UG mounted in my 4runner back in 2010:
The UG comes with a factory suction cup mount. The suction cup is better than most, but it's still a suction cup and it will come un-stuck, usually at the worst possible time.
However, when I re-mounted the UG into my DD Mazda, I used a satellite-radio dash mount (one nice thing about the UG is that it has an "inverted-T" mount on the back, meaning it can be mounted using any standard sat-radio mounting system.)
My final gripe with the SG: The Tank-to-empty display is part of the "trip" computations and not part of the "gauge" displays, meaning it's not possible to display both the MPG/Trans Temp and the Tank-to-empty at the same time. Yet, there are times when I want to know both, so I end up having to reach up to the gauge and push buttons. Not a big deal, i guess, but by contrast, the UG gives you three "screens", each screen has up to 6 gauges and you can put whatever gauges you want in whatever position on whatever screen you want.
Obviously, a lot of these gripes are simply coming from having to change from one tool to another.
Still, considering that the UG costs less than half of what the SG costs, I don't think my complaints are without foundation. SG may have been "king of the hill" for a long time, but there is competition now and if they don't step up their game and modernize their device, they're going to be left in the dust.
Of course, the SG will do a lot of "performance" type measurements that the UG can't do, so perhaps the SG appeals to a different customer.
I've got a trip to Buena Vista coming up this weekend, pulling the trailer, so it will be the first real 'test' of the SG. I'll see how it does, and will probably keep it on for my Moab trip in April. However, if I don't start warming up to the SG soon, it will come out and I will simply install an aftermarket dedicated trans temp gauge. Without the trans temp feature, there's no reason to prefer the SG to the UG and I would simply get another UG to go back into the 4runner.
Well, I finally took the time on Sunday to install my Scangauge.
I have been using an Ultra-Gauge (hereafter abbreviated UG) since October, 2010. I really came to like the way it displayed my MPG and DTE (Distance to Empty) and it became my de facto "fuel gauge" (since we all know the stock fuel gauge on the 3rd gens is crap.)
However, after we got a trailer in January, I decided I needed something to monitor the transmission temps. I kept hoping that UG would upgrade their software to display tranny temp, but they never did and according to their web site there are no plans for them to do so in the future. So, it was either go with a separate tranny temp gauge or just get an Scangauge II (SG) which can be programmed (via the X-gauge feature) to show auto tranny temp.
So, with a big trip to Moab coming up, I went ahead and ordered the SG from Amazon, as well as a Satellite Radio mount to mount it to the dash.
I've had the SG for about 4 days now, and these are my first impressions:
First off, the pluses:
The SG appears to be a very sturdy, well built unit. The UG, by contrast, feels a little bit "cheap."
The SG makes it very easy to change which gauges you want to display on the "gauge" menu, and you can even do it while you're driving. The UG, OTOH, needs to be 'set up' ahead of time.
Finally, the SG wins hands down in the "mounting flexibility: The cable is a separate piece and the end that does not connect to the OBD connector appears to be a standard network cable - meaning you can mount the SG almost anywhere. Another plus for mounting flexibility: All adjustments on the SG are on the front, whereas with the UG you need to be able to access the buttons on the back in order to operate it.
Also, there are two input points for the network cable on the SG, one is on the right side the other on the back. This makes it possible to "flush mount" the SG.
Now the minuses: The display on the SG is lame. It may have been "state of the art" in 1996 but in this day and age my cell phone and cheap little MP3 player have better displays. The Scangauge limits its gauge names to 3 letters (so transmission temperature, for example, comes up as TFT, or Transmission Fluid Temperature.) The size of the SG display also limits how much information can be displayed on its big, chunky, blocky letters, meaning no more than 4 gauges at one time.
By contrast, the UG has a bigger, more detailed, easier to read display that can show up to 6 gauges at once, and that uses more understandable abbreviations (like "Avg MPG", "Inst MPG" and "Intake Air Temp."
Another strike agains the SG is that it cannot be calibrated as precisely as the UG. There is no method (that I've found - corrections welcomed by any SG experts out there) to correct the SG's calculation of distance.
The SG allows you to correct for speed, but not distance (IOW, if the car's trip computer shows that you went 100 miles but you actually went 104.4, you can put that 4.4% correction into the UG so it will show correct distance traveled in the trip meter.) Not only that, the SG will only do speed adjustments in whole percentages, whereas the UG will let you do distance corrections (which also corrects for speed) at up to 3 decimal points (i.e. 1.243%)
Setting gas tank size is also a difference: UG lets you put actual size (18.5 gallons for our 3rd gen 4runners), whereas SG only does full gallons (so it's set at 18 gallons.)
Again, none of the items listed above are neccessarily bad, but to me they point a picture of a device that was "perfected" around 1999 and after that, was just left to wither on the vine.
As far as mounting, the blocky, chunky SG doesn't fit easily anywhere. You can see from this photo that I mounted it on the dash with a mount intended for a satellite radio, using some very strong double-sticky tape.
For reference, here's the UG mounted in my 4runner back in 2010:
The UG comes with a factory suction cup mount. The suction cup is better than most, but it's still a suction cup and it will come un-stuck, usually at the worst possible time.
However, when I re-mounted the UG into my DD Mazda, I used a satellite-radio dash mount (one nice thing about the UG is that it has an "inverted-T" mount on the back, meaning it can be mounted using any standard sat-radio mounting system.)
My final gripe with the SG: The Tank-to-empty display is part of the "trip" computations and not part of the "gauge" displays, meaning it's not possible to display both the MPG/Trans Temp and the Tank-to-empty at the same time. Yet, there are times when I want to know both, so I end up having to reach up to the gauge and push buttons. Not a big deal, i guess, but by contrast, the UG gives you three "screens", each screen has up to 6 gauges and you can put whatever gauges you want in whatever position on whatever screen you want.
Obviously, a lot of these gripes are simply coming from having to change from one tool to another.
Still, considering that the UG costs less than half of what the SG costs, I don't think my complaints are without foundation. SG may have been "king of the hill" for a long time, but there is competition now and if they don't step up their game and modernize their device, they're going to be left in the dust.
Of course, the SG will do a lot of "performance" type measurements that the UG can't do, so perhaps the SG appeals to a different customer.
I've got a trip to Buena Vista coming up this weekend, pulling the trailer, so it will be the first real 'test' of the SG. I'll see how it does, and will probably keep it on for my Moab trip in April. However, if I don't start warming up to the SG soon, it will come out and I will simply install an aftermarket dedicated trans temp gauge. Without the trans temp feature, there's no reason to prefer the SG to the UG and I would simply get another UG to go back into the 4runner.
