'00-'04 Avalon: odometers reset w/ ignition?

Some years ago this NG carried a thread about the trip odometers on the
2000 - 2004 Avalons. It was claimed that the trip odometers reset
themselves to zero if the ignition switch was turned off. This seemed
very implausible, but the claimant insisted and was supported by some
other posters.

If true, the trip odometers would be nearly useless.

Owners of the '00 - '04 Avalon: what's the truth?

Brent
"How many of our daydreams would darken into nightmares
if there seemed any danger of their coming true."
-- Logan Pearsall Smith

I think they were talking about the average gas readout. My trip odometer in
my 2001 does not reset itself when the car is turned off. But the average
gas readout does making it useless. I think that was changed in 2003.


"Brent" <bsecombe@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:190720052237245696%bsecombe@yahoo.co.uk...[color=blue]
> Some years ago this NG carried a thread about the trip odometers on the
> 2000 - 2004 Avalons. It was claimed that the trip odometers reset
> themselves to zero if the ignition switch was turned off. This seemed
> very implausible, but the claimant insisted and was supported by some
> other posters.
>
> If true, the trip odometers would be nearly useless.
>
> Owners of the '00 - '04 Avalon: what's the truth?
>
> Brent
> "How many of our daydreams would darken into nightmares
> if there seemed any danger of their coming true."
> -- Logan Pearsall Smith[/color]

In article <N3tDe.6388$oZ.1928@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>, Art
<begunaNOSPAMPLEASE@mindspring.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> I think they were talking about the average gas readout. My trip odometer in
> my 2001 does not reset itself when the car is turned off. But the average
> gas readout does making it useless. I think that was changed in 2003.[/color]

Thank you, Art. That's useful.

Brent.

This can't possibly be true.

Having the odometer, or anything else for that matter, reset because the key
was turned off would completely destroy any reason for collecting and
displaying such information. I have a BMW that is equipped with a stop
watch, when the key goes off, the timer stops, then resumes again when the
key is turned on again. The idea is that the operator is interested in
timing something that is pegged to the vehicle actually running. The
odometer is something that the operator will want a cumulative display from
the last time it was reset, not from the last time the key was switched on.

In article <ntCdnVNXisWhaULfRVn-2Q@ez2.net>, J Strickland
<spam@nospam.net> wrote:
[color=blue]
> This can't possibly be true.
>
> Having the odometer, or anything else for that matter, reset because the key
> was turned off would completely destroy any reason for collecting and
> displaying such information. I have a BMW that is equipped with a stop
> watch, when the key goes off, the timer stops, then resumes again when the
> key is turned on again. The idea is that the operator is interested in
> timing something that is pegged to the vehicle actually running. The
> odometer is something that the operator will want a cumulative display from
> the last time it was reset, not from the last time the key was switched on.[/color]

When it comes to the behaviour of a programmed computer, almost
anything can be true. I'm in Art's debt for confirming that the bug was
associated with the MPG calculation. As you believe and he confirmed,
that flaw renders the feature eseentially useless.

Toyota uses a 5-year model cycle with a facelift for the 4th year. I'm
puzzled why, as Art reported, Toyota waited until the 2003 facelift to
correct the situation.

Brent
"That is the essence of science: ask an impertinent question,
and you are on your way to a pertinent answer."
-- Jacob Bronowski

In article <210720051638089436%bsecombe@yahoo.co.uk>,
Brent <bsecombe@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[color=blue]
> When it comes to the behaviour of a programmed computer, almost
> anything can be true. I'm in Art's debt for confirming that the bug was
> associated with the MPG calculation. As you believe and he confirmed,
> that flaw renders the feature eseentially useless.[/color]

I don't think it was really a flaw/bug, but simply the way Toyota intended
it to work, and it did not make the fuel consumption info useless. I
think Toyota simply thought that people were interested in seeing
instantaneous and average fuel consumptions during a single drive, rather
than over a longer period.

Doesn't it work the same way in many other brands of automobile?
[color=blue]
> Toyota uses a 5-year model cycle with a facelift for the 4th year. I'm
> puzzled why, as Art reported, Toyota waited until the 2003 facelift to
> correct the situation.[/color]

Probably took that long for word to get back that customers would prefer a
longer period average.

Merritt

I have had 2 Chryslers with the same feature and 2 Fords as far back as 91
model year. THe Chryslers both held on to the average economy until you
reset it. I believe the Fords did too but I would not swear on my life. I
think it would have bothered me if they did not like the Avalon bothered me
right away.


"Merritt Mullen" <mmullen8014@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:mmullen8014-F41704.16382121072005@netnews.asp.att.net...[color=blue]
> In article <210720051638089436%bsecombe@yahoo.co.uk>,
> Brent <bsecombe@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> When it comes to the behaviour of a programmed computer, almost
>> anything can be true. I'm in Art's debt for confirming that the bug was
>> associated with the MPG calculation. As you believe and he confirmed,
>> that flaw renders the feature eseentially useless.[/color]
>
> I don't think it was really a flaw/bug, but simply the way Toyota intended
> it to work, and it did not make the fuel consumption info useless. I
> think Toyota simply thought that people were interested in seeing
> instantaneous and average fuel consumptions during a single drive, rather
> than over a longer period.
>
> Doesn't it work the same way in many other brands of automobile?
>[color=green]
>> Toyota uses a 5-year model cycle with a facelift for the 4th year. I'm
>> puzzled why, as Art reported, Toyota waited until the 2003 facelift to
>> correct the situation.[/color]
>
> Probably took that long for word to get back that customers would prefer a
> longer period average.
>
> Merritt[/color]

In article <mmullen8014-F41704.16382121072005@netnews.asp.att.net>,
Merritt Mullen <mmullen8014@mchsi.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> In article <210720051638089436%bsecombe@yahoo.co.uk>,
> Brent <bsecombe@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>[color=green]
> > When it comes to the behaviour of a programmed computer, almost
> > anything can be true. I'm in Art's debt for confirming that the bug was
> > associated with the MPG calculation. As you believe and he confirmed,
> > that flaw renders the feature eseentially useless.[/color]
>
> I don't think it was really a flaw/bug, but simply the way Toyota intended
> it to work, and it did not make the fuel consumption info useless. I
> think Toyota simply thought that people were interested in seeing
> instantaneous and average fuel consumptions during a single drive, rather
> than over a longer period.
>
> Doesn't it work the same way in many other brands of automobile?[/color]

Hi Merritt --

Tthe only experience I've had with such onboard computers was with my
'89 Scorpio. It allowed the driver to determine when the MPG
calculation was reset.[color=blue]
>[color=green]
> > Toyota uses a 5-year model cycle with a facelift for the 4th year. I'm
> > puzzled why, as Art reported, Toyota waited until the 2003 facelift to
> > correct the situation.[/color]
>
> Probably took that long for word to get back that customers would prefer a
> longer period average.[/color]

You're likely right. I wasn't considering the time to propose,
implement and approve a design change. I guess I'm too accustomed to
doing the mods on my own computers.

Brent
[color=blue]
> Merritt[/color]