dgk wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 04:59:05 GMT, "news.west.earthlink.net"
> <anon@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> >My 86 Accord low fuel warning light has always illuminated at about 220
> >miles after filling and I could count on 75-100 miles remaining on the tank.
> >
> >I have had a 99 Accord for 2 years, and the fuel light has come on 4-5
> >times, but at inconsistent mileage, and I usually fill up when I think the
> >gage is reading too low to go further. This weekend I ran out of gas, and
> >the low fuel light never came on. The gage was below empty, but I had a can
> >of gas in the trunk, so I drove to see if the light would ever come on.
> >
> >Why would the low fuel light be intermittent and so inconsistent on the
> >newer Honda?
> >
> >
> >John
> >
> >
>
> Isn't it considered bad form to run the gas tank so low? The reasoning
> I recall is that stuff settles to the bottom and you don't really want
> that being sucked into the engine. Of course, if you do it all the
> time, I guess the sludge is sucked in in small stages so perhaps isn't
> as bad as doing it all at once. But I'm just a lurker. Perhaps the
> knowledgeable folks will chime in.

That's not the only reason. The biggest reason I see is that the fuel
pump, if in the tank, uses the gas for cooling. Running tank too low
reduces it's ability to be cooled by the fuel.

 

High Tech Misfit wrote:
> Bucky wrote:
>
>> news.west.earthlink.net wrote:
>>> Why would the low fuel light be intermittent and so inconsistent on
>>> the newer Honda?
>>
>> I don't know, but my 2001 Civic's fuel light is worthless, I don't
>> even pay any attention to it whatsoever. And the fuel gauge is very
>> inconsistent too.
>
> I've noticed strange gauge behaviour in my 2004 Civic as well. The
> "top half" seems to go down more quickly than the "bottom half". But
> I really can't complain; the car did 42mpg on a recent road trip.

Same thing with my 2004 Accord, it may be due to an odd shaped tank while
the sending unit is linear. I had an older Camry where the top half of the
tank would last twice as long as the bottom half.

>
> On the other hand, the gauge in my '93 Accord was the opposite. The
> "bottom half" went down more quickly than the "top half".
>
> I never let the tank get low enough on either car to trigger the
> light.

 

High Tech Misfit wrote:
> Bucky wrote:
>
>> news.west.earthlink.net wrote:
>>> Why would the low fuel light be intermittent and so inconsistent on
>>> the newer Honda?
>>
>> I don't know, but my 2001 Civic's fuel light is worthless, I don't
>> even pay any attention to it whatsoever. And the fuel gauge is very
>> inconsistent too.
>
> I've noticed strange gauge behaviour in my 2004 Civic as well. The
> "top half" seems to go down more quickly than the "bottom half". But
> I really can't complain; the car did 42mpg on a recent road trip.

Same thing with my 2004 Accord, it may be due to an odd shaped tank while
the sending unit is linear. I had an older Camry where the top half of the
tank would last twice as long as the bottom half.

>
> On the other hand, the gauge in my '93 Accord was the opposite. The
> "bottom half" went down more quickly than the "top half".
>
> I never let the tank get low enough on either car to trigger the
> light.

 

High Tech Misfit wrote:
> Bucky wrote:
>
>> news.west.earthlink.net wrote:
>>> Why would the low fuel light be intermittent and so inconsistent on
>>> the newer Honda?
>>
>> I don't know, but my 2001 Civic's fuel light is worthless, I don't
>> even pay any attention to it whatsoever. And the fuel gauge is very
>> inconsistent too.
>
> I've noticed strange gauge behaviour in my 2004 Civic as well. The
> "top half" seems to go down more quickly than the "bottom half". But
> I really can't complain; the car did 42mpg on a recent road trip.

Same thing with my 2004 Accord, it may be due to an odd shaped tank while
the sending unit is linear. I had an older Camry where the top half of the
tank would last twice as long as the bottom half.

>
> On the other hand, the gauge in my '93 Accord was the opposite. The
> "bottom half" went down more quickly than the "top half".
>
> I never let the tank get low enough on either car to trigger the
> light.

 

The past poster is correct about the sending unit being linear, and the
tank being tapered. As well, some sending units don't see a reduction
in the amount of fuel in the tank for some time.... You drive for 100
km (60 miles), and the guage hardly moves from a full tank. Once it
starts to drop, it drops faster than you might expect. As for running
with low fuel levels, we live in a cold climate (Ontario Canada) and
running with low fuel levels increases the amount of condensation in
the tank, when days are warm and nights considerably colder. I try not
to run my vehicles with less than a half tank.

L Alpert wrote:
> High Tech Misfit wrote:
> > Bucky wrote:
> >
> >> news.west.earthlink.net wrote:
> >>> Why would the low fuel light be intermittent and so inconsistent on
> >>> the newer Honda?
> >>
> >> I don't know, but my 2001 Civic's fuel light is worthless, I don't
> >> even pay any attention to it whatsoever. And the fuel gauge is very
> >> inconsistent too.
> >
> > I've noticed strange gauge behaviour in my 2004 Civic as well. The
> > "top half" seems to go down more quickly than the "bottom half". But
> > I really can't complain; the car did 42mpg on a recent road trip.
>
> Same thing with my 2004 Accord, it may be due to an odd shaped tank while
> the sending unit is linear. I had an older Camry where the top half of the
> tank would last twice as long as the bottom half.
>
> >
> > On the other hand, the gauge in my '93 Accord was the opposite. The
> > "bottom half" went down more quickly than the "top half".
> >
> > I never let the tank get low enough on either car to trigger the
> > light.

 

The past poster is correct about the sending unit being linear, and the
tank being tapered. As well, some sending units don't see a reduction
in the amount of fuel in the tank for some time.... You drive for 100
km (60 miles), and the guage hardly moves from a full tank. Once it
starts to drop, it drops faster than you might expect. As for running
with low fuel levels, we live in a cold climate (Ontario Canada) and
running with low fuel levels increases the amount of condensation in
the tank, when days are warm and nights considerably colder. I try not
to run my vehicles with less than a half tank.

L Alpert wrote:
> High Tech Misfit wrote:
> > Bucky wrote:
> >
> >> news.west.earthlink.net wrote:
> >>> Why would the low fuel light be intermittent and so inconsistent on
> >>> the newer Honda?
> >>
> >> I don't know, but my 2001 Civic's fuel light is worthless, I don't
> >> even pay any attention to it whatsoever. And the fuel gauge is very
> >> inconsistent too.
> >
> > I've noticed strange gauge behaviour in my 2004 Civic as well. The
> > "top half" seems to go down more quickly than the "bottom half". But
> > I really can't complain; the car did 42mpg on a recent road trip.
>
> Same thing with my 2004 Accord, it may be due to an odd shaped tank while
> the sending unit is linear. I had an older Camry where the top half of the
> tank would last twice as long as the bottom half.
>
> >
> > On the other hand, the gauge in my '93 Accord was the opposite. The
> > "bottom half" went down more quickly than the "top half".
> >
> > I never let the tank get low enough on either car to trigger the
> > light.

 

The past poster is correct about the sending unit being linear, and the
tank being tapered. As well, some sending units don't see a reduction
in the amount of fuel in the tank for some time.... You drive for 100
km (60 miles), and the guage hardly moves from a full tank. Once it
starts to drop, it drops faster than you might expect. As for running
with low fuel levels, we live in a cold climate (Ontario Canada) and
running with low fuel levels increases the amount of condensation in
the tank, when days are warm and nights considerably colder. I try not
to run my vehicles with less than a half tank.

L Alpert wrote:
> High Tech Misfit wrote:
> > Bucky wrote:
> >
> >> news.west.earthlink.net wrote:
> >>> Why would the low fuel light be intermittent and so inconsistent on
> >>> the newer Honda?
> >>
> >> I don't know, but my 2001 Civic's fuel light is worthless, I don't
> >> even pay any attention to it whatsoever. And the fuel gauge is very
> >> inconsistent too.
> >
> > I've noticed strange gauge behaviour in my 2004 Civic as well. The
> > "top half" seems to go down more quickly than the "bottom half". But
> > I really can't complain; the car did 42mpg on a recent road trip.
>
> Same thing with my 2004 Accord, it may be due to an odd shaped tank while
> the sending unit is linear. I had an older Camry where the top half of the
> tank would last twice as long as the bottom half.
>
> >
> > On the other hand, the gauge in my '93 Accord was the opposite. The
> > "bottom half" went down more quickly than the "top half".
> >
> > I never let the tank get low enough on either car to trigger the
> > light.