Scan Gauge replacement, are there other options

Well, unfortunately, today my GPS unit fell off the windshield striking the face of my Scan Gauge...

So, I am in search of a replacement. I've had this one for several years.. seems I had the programming updated about four years ago. I'm not sure if it can be repaired or not.

Anyway, is there anything better at a comparable price? (I do have VCDS)

What's your thoughts?

I used a Scangauge2 for many years...I bought one about 10 years ago now. The screen started to fail so I replaced it with an Ultra-Gauge and I actually like it quite a bit better. I have mine on a windshield suction cup mount.

http://ultra-gauge.com/ultragauge/ultragauge_wired.htm

I find the ultragauge display better...clearer, more modern, etc.
It is about half the price of a Scangauge2 IIRC.

Downside...Ultragauge buttons are on the back side...a little less convenient to use compared to the Scangauge imho.

I hated the ultra gauge. It found a place in my suburban where it didn't annoy me until the suction cup failed and it fell into the hinge side of the driver's door and was crushed when I shut the door. If you never cycle between displays on the UG it might be fine, but the buttons on the back side where never my liking. Haven't missed its demise and bought a second ScanGauge used off xbay so there is one in each VW/TDI.
So for me there is/was no emplacement option for the SG that I liked enough to buy (again). Not going to do the phone Bluetooth thing. The gauge stays in the vehicle 24/7/365.

why not contact scangauge and see if they will fix or replace at a discount?

it is what it is.

I find for the Jetta, I prefer the Polar FIS +, but it is more expensive, and may or may not work on your specific car.

Only time I mess with Ultragauge buttons is when I refuel. I have four gauges showing at all times; I don't have a need to be flipping between screens when I'm driving.

Four of five cars in the family have Ultragauges. Fifth car is new (blue Golf) and I haven't gotten around to getting one for it yet. Been running the green Golfs with one for about 2 years now.

Thanks for the suggestions.

I use this SG on my ALH Vanagon. So, it is definitely put to good use. I almost always have a CEL when I start it up. Thus, SG is excellent to clear the code and drive on. Yeah, I know, fix the problem and the CEL will not come on. Well, there is one issue, DTC 0226 that I cannot seem to solve.

Anyway, I typically monitor four functions: Intake Air Temp, Coolant Temp, MPG and MPG AVE.

I have 8 on/below dash gauges that I monitor: EGT, Coolant Temp, Oil Temp, Boost, Vacuum, Volts, Oil pressure and Coolant system pressure ...

I guess I'll just pick up another SG.. And, I do plan to see if I can get this damaged one repaired.

They fixed or replaced mine a few years back when I had a button that didn't work, no charge.

Yeah, I sent this SG to the company 4 or 5 years ago when it quit functioning. They repaired it as well as updated the software. And, I know it was the exact same unit because it had a chip out of the plastic case.

So, I do plan to send it out to them to see what happens.

Is anyone familiar with this SG ... supposedly the latest version:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/261248811052?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

I went from the SG to the Ultra Gauge because I was getting erratic readings with the coolant temperature; it would default to the ATF temperature. I added the X-gauge, but that too was flakey at times. The only draw back with the UG was the warning signals indicating low fuel or what ever, but I found out how to disarm them; that plus no written owner's manual; on-line PDF only. The Scan Gauge does however have excellent customer service. I have my UG mounted on the steering column with vel-cro.

AndyBees said:

Yeah, I sent this SG to the company 4 or 5 years ago when it quit functioning. They repaired it as well as updated the software. And, I know it was the exact same unit because it had a chip out of the plastic case.

So, I do plan to send it out to them to see what happens.

Is anyone familiar with this SG ... supposedly the latest version:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/261248811052?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

Click to expand...

https://www.scangauge.com/products/

will display only two readings at a time. (with a cute little mpg graphic)

If they would upgrade there display the scangauge would be great. Imagine if it had a nice o-led display that was just a little taller, out to the edges of the current case size would be great.

Well, I found a pretty good deal on Amazon for a SG II ............ has shipped!

I do plan to send the old one to Linear Logic..

Can a scangauge correctly display MPG reported by the engine computer?

The Ultragauge is not capable of that. It can only see the MAF reading and calculate the MPG, which is completely wrong on a diesel. I think it assumes that you will burn a certain amount of gas for a given amount of air, but that doesn't work with diesel.

Sure, you can calibrate the Ultragauge, and then it will display reasonably accurate average fuel consumption, but instantaneous readings will still be unreliable.

Scan gauge after a few calibrations is usually within a couple mpg (sometimes right on exactly) of my actual paper/pencil calculation after fill up (as long as the driving routine isn't drastically altered such as towing, etc). My UG had a diesel set up option, but it was never as accurate or as easy to get set up as the SG.

My UG gives very accurate mpg readings; I rarely have to recalibrate that nor the distance traveled.

Like Jettawreck stated, after a few tank fill-ups (need to be consistent about fill-ups), the SG will get very close to real world numbers.

During both of the trips to Alaska (2014 and 16), I did total complete fill-ups at every fuel stop. My SG was within 1 mpg tank after tank. (In my ALH Vanagon...)

And, before retiring 9 years ago, I was driving my 2000 Jetta about 36k miles per year... I got pretty much the same results with it using SG.. Complete vented fill-ups is very important.

Below, is a pic of the SG during the 2014 trip to Alaska. You can see that the Average is 27.5 on that tank of fuel ... Well, for the trip, based on tank after tank of real numbers, it averaged 26.544 MPG (10,881.9 miles on 409.948 gallons).

Okay, so the Scangauge is the same as the Ultragauge in that it is only able to estimate fuel consumption based on various readings, and requires calibration.

What would be great is if either of those products was capable of simply reading the actual data from the ECU. The ECU knows how much fuel is being used, and the speed of the car, so the real data is there for the taking, no estimating or calibrating required.

For example, with VCDS you can read measuring blocks 015 and 018 to get your fuel consumption in L/hr and road speed. If you put those measuring blocks into VAG-Scope, it will give you an instantaneous fuel consumption reading.

I realize that Scangauge and Ultragauge are generic OBD2 devices, so of course they aren't going to be able to read manufacturer specific info like a VCDS can. They can only work with what is exposed to the world via OBD2, which is not the same on every car, other than perhaps a few data fields which are there due to regulatory requirements.

Mike_04GolfTDI said:

What would be great is if either of those products was capable of simply reading the actual data from the ECU. The ECU knows how much fuel is being used, and the speed of the car, so the real data is there for the taking, no estimating or calibrating required.

Click to expand...

Problem is, I don't think that "real data" isn't always that accurate is it?. Aren't the MPG figures displayed on the dashes of the newer models still somewhat unreliable? I see questions/discussions about them on here all the time...

And, there are other factors ............

-how accurate is the ECU data?
-did you get a "complete" fill-up each time?
-is the filling station data 100% correct at the pump?
-how much does two decimal places affect readings vs three or four?
-how accurate is VCDS
-how accurate is Scan Gauge?
-how does "rounding" affect data in all of the above?

I'm extremely happy with the results of my "old" Scan Gauge. I just hope the new one is as good. And, SG may be generic, but I've yet to find the DTCs it reveals to be wrong and it seems the "other data" it is capable of displaying is pretty much spot-on. In most cases, I'd believe the "other data" (engine temp, boost, air-temp, volts, etc.) would be more reliable than a dash mounted gauge specific to the data.

And, unlike my VCDS, primarily specific to my car and a few others , SG will work on any vehicle (even my 1995 Blazer). So, for what it is intended to do, I think it is an awesome little device. (I don't leave home without it.)

My Scan Gauge provides amazingly accurate MPG data, usually within a mile per gallon. Put another way, it's 98% accurate or better over the course of a 400+ mile tank.

It's simple to use, easy to read and proven to be trustworthy. It makes me constantly aware of what I have to do to get the best mileage I can achieve under any given circumstance.

I love the thing.

Rembrant said:

Problem is, I don't think that "real data" isn't always that accurate is it?. Aren't the MPG figures displayed on the dashes of the newer models still somewhat unreliable? I see questions/discussions about them on here all the time...

Click to expand...

Well, out of the box, the Ultragauge is wrong by a factor of about four. It thinks the vehicle used four times more fuel than it actually did. So very, very, very wrong.

The ECU data should at least be quite close, and that is a better starting point, even if some calibration or fine tuning was required.

Another problem is that the Ultragauge (and probably the Scangauge) cannot tell when the car is coasting in gear and using zero fuel. The ECU can, of course, but these tools can't detect that on a TDI at least. So, when I'm coasting in gear, the Ultragauge actually thinks I'm using more fuel. I believe this is because the turbo vanes are adjusted to keep the turbine spinning while coasting. Airflow goes up (I've watched the MAF reading) and the Ultragauge assumes even more fuel is being used, which is wrong.

If your driving conditions are very consistent, OBD2 gauges are probably quite accurate, after calibrating over a full tank. If you calibrate it with city driving, and then do a long highway trip, it'll probably way off. An ECU based reading wouldn't suffer from such variations.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy with the Ultragauge for $69 or whatever I paid, and I realize I shouldn't expect the manufacturer of Ultragauge to put in the effort that Ross-Tech has to decode data from the ECU. To do that for the myriad of different manufacturers would be a difficult task, and they'd have to charge $2000 for the Ultragauge, in which case nobody would buy it.

Nothing is going to be accurate out of the box! (automotive manufacturers are able to get things close because it's only for that one type of vehicle)

I got my UG set and it's been very accurate; but, that's because my driving is pretty consistent. UG in the wife's car jumps all over the place; it's her driving and not the gauge.

Coasting has the engine still metering fuel (based on idle demands). If you let off the accelerator while IN GEAR fuel flow stops (until you dip below 1,200 rpm): I didn't understand this initially; watching VCDS proves all this.

Do an Internet search and you'll find that it's almost impossible to accurately report FE based on monitoring fuel flow. I think that high-end race cars might be doing this, but it comes at big expense.

This stuff is all but a "guide." We're not doing moon landings here!

ScanGauge certainly does recognize when coasting in gear and using no fuel. In "instant" mode it will read "9999 mpg" as that's as close to infinite as it can display.
SG accuracy after a few calibrations has been more accurate than the OEM type displays in any of the vehicles I have owned with them and yeas I have ran them side by side to check.
Some of the computations done by the ECU such as liters/hr are assumptions of calculations based on things that in VCDS are labeled as mg/stroke or something to that effect. According to postings by Drivbiwire there is no such actual measuring done and those numbers are based on crank speed sensors and piston speed/acceleration (all stuff way over my head). So the data you think is better than what SG and UG is gathering and calculating probably really isn't more accurate or better starting point.

^ It sounds like the Scangauge is better than the UG, if it can detect coasting in gear. The UG cannot, on a TDI. (For other cars, yes, but not on a TDI).

According to the Ultragauge website, they are aware of this but state that with proper calibration data, it is a non-issue. Basically how I understand it is that while the instanteneous MPG will not be accurate all the time, the average over a whole tank or whatever will still be as accurate as other devices.
Ultragauge has a specific knowledge base article on this.

I own neither of these yet, but I am inclined to buy the UG because of the better price and much more attractive design. However, I don't expect to be flipping though pages and pages of gauges all the time, just set up one page with stuff I like to see.

I have owned VCDS for years and have never been able to get correct fuel economy. Maybe I'm too lazy to try to calculate algorithms for correction factors. I recently installed a BT OBD II dongle and purchased Torque Pro and it tells me I am using 0.61 GPH when the engine is at idle; once again causing me to re-calculate the information it gives me. I downloaded the free app "Fuel Economy" and from what I can tell so far, it reads the FE correctly right out-of-the-box, so to speak. Since I already owned an Android phone; for less than $10.00 I have a bunch of new "gauges."

Besides using my Scan Gauge, I have 8 gauges I monitor in my Vanagon.

In the pic below, the top left gauge is a two in one, (EGT and Coolant Temp)

Notice the Jetta Speedo .....?