Thom

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.

L Alpert

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.

L Alpert

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.

L Alpert

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.

COH

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.

COH

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.

COH

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.