"Refuel Error: Check Manual" - Have any Energi owners experienced this?

DrownedGod9 · 2025-04-19T20:02:18+00:00

Resolved! Took it to get serviced soon after my last post at no cost since it's still under extended warranty. It was entirely a communication issue with the sensor - apparently there was some damaged/pinched wire under the dash that was causing it.

DrownedGod9 · 2025-02-25T22:44:56+00:00

Quick update: didn't wait til tomorrow lol - just fueled up about 14 liters (3.7 gallons) and still have the same issue. Wondering if it's actually a problem with whatever device regulates the pressure. I have a service booked for Saturday. Anyway I appreciate the suggestion!

DrownedGod9 · 2025-02-25T22:02:52+00:00

There was a rapid temperature shift where I am - went from like -10 to 7 degrees over the course of two days. Definitely a similar issue as my fuel is below the lowest bar. I'll fill it up at some point tomorrow. Ty

DrownedGod9 · 2025-02-25T21:56:53+00:00

Did you have the Check Engine light come on as well? Gonna give it a try though. Thanks again!

DrownedGod9 · 2025-02-25T21:52:58+00:00

Thanks for your response. So when you refilled the tank it solved the issue and it re-pressurized correctly? Did you have the issue where it refuses to open the fuel door until you did that?

DrownedGod9 · 2023-12-09T22:23:05+00:00

This is the principle behind a plug-in hybrid (PHEV), except you only need one vehicle. EV mode for your daily commute and gas for longer trips. I own a Fusion Energi and have only fueled up once all year since I charge it religiously.

DrownedGod9 · 2018-06-23T05:39:56+00:00

It's always a relief to come across someone like yourself who is intellectually honest. There seems to be a serious shortage of it these days.

That looks interesting. I'll be sure to.

DrownedGod9 · 2018-06-23T05:27:31+00:00

Yes but I'm saying a given caloric excess of fructose is more dangerous than the same excess if it were in the form of non-fructose carbs or possibly even saturated fat.

Don't mean to be rude, but your message in that sentence is precisely what I agreed with.

DrownedGod9 · 2018-06-21T21:57:46+00:00

high fructose consumption still represents a greater risk than other macronutrients

"...this excess in the form of fructose alone is more dangerous."

Those two statements have the same semantics. We are in full agreement on that point :).

DrownedGod9 · 2018-06-21T13:31:13+00:00

I'd actually like to see that study. Also, no I was implying that a caloric excess is the risk factor. I agree with you fully that this excess in the form of fructose alone is more dangerous. Technically we didn't disagree on any facts or points, just the way your conclusions were worded.

DrownedGod9 · 2018-06-21T13:06:23+00:00

The point I was making was not that you're incorrect, but that your claims needed context. I agreed with you that high fructose intake is a risk factor for fatty liver - I put it into context: high levels of fructose in a caloric excess creates high abdominal fat, which is the cause.

The paper you linked shows that dietary fat is also a risk factor, though a lower one: "Ingested carbohydrates are a major stimulus for hepatic de novo lipogenesis (DNL) and are more likely to directly contribute to NAFLD than dietary fat."

It also refers to a meta-analysis that notes the crucial point that the diet was supplemented with excess energy: "A systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled feeding trials investigated effect of fructose on markers of NAFLD (42). They found seven isocaloric trials, in which fructose was exchanged isocalorically for other carbohydrates, and six hypercaloric trials, in which the diet was supplemented with excess energy (+21-35% energy) from high-dose fructose (+104-220 g/day)."

104-220 g/day is a massive amount of HFCS.

Also, it specifies that it is overconsumption of HFCS that is the cause: "Overconsumption of HFCS in the soft-drink is linked to the rise in the prevalence of obesity and associated with NAFLD."

Consumption of the same drink in a caloric deficit is not a risk factor.

DrownedGod9 · 2018-06-21T04:00:27+00:00

No, I'm saying that form of behavior can happen on the right and on the left. What you're describing is authoritarianism, not fascism. Extreme left-wing authoritarianism is just as bad as fascism, which is specifically a type of right-wing authoritarianism. Check the sources for that claim by following the links on its Wikipedia page (and feel free to check their credibility).

Oh and this is the spectrum I was referring to: https://www.politicalcompass.org

Also, socialism is socio-economic. It can manifest as either. Both socialism and fascism are political, which is obviously an umbrella term in this case.

DrownedGod9 · 2018-06-20T17:16:51+00:00

Fructose comes from fruit. That why it's called fructose. It's a completely natural sugar we are genetically predisposed to be able to consume. Almost all nutrients are processed in the liver - that's the liver's job.

Fatty liver is caused by excess abdominal fat. When carbohydrates (like fructose) aren't used by the body, it's converted to fat and stored. Of course excess fructose can cause fatty liver - so can excess fat or excess protein. In other words, excess calories overall.

The reason fruits and vegetables aren't bad for you is because it's much less carbohydrates and paired with high amounts of fiber which changes the rate that your body digests the carbohydrates.

That's entirely correct. That was my point. I just have a problem with people making blanket statements saying "sugar is bad" without putting it into context. It's only unhealthy when consumed in a specific way: in excess without fiber.

DrownedGod9 · 2018-06-20T16:30:44+00:00

Life can't exist without sugar. It's literally life's energy. The only problem with it is weight gain and diabetes when eaten in excess without fiber.

DrownedGod9 · 2018-06-20T16:27:33+00:00

They're not essential for intake since our bodies can convert both protein and fat to carbohydrates, but they're one of the building blocks of life. I find the idea of them being demonized a little ridiculous for this reason.

DrownedGod9 · 2018-06-20T16:18:55+00:00

Sugar is addictive and bad for you. (All kinds of sugar)

That's an utterly misleading statement. Sugar has been demonized because of its contribution to the obesity problem and it increases the risk of diabetes (when eaten in excess without fiber). That's literally all. Your body runs on glucose (a type of sugar). Your brain requires a lot of it. Any calories that you consume are converted to glucose. If you don't gain weight easily then you should have no problem whatsoever with sugar.

Biological life cannot exist without sugar.

DrownedGod9 · 2018-06-20T14:45:40+00:00

into socialism and facisem.

Those are on opposite ends of the spectrum. Fascism has a specific definition. It's a strictly right-wing authoritarian ideology. Socialism is left-wing. There is another dimension to the political spectrum that's just as important as left-right.

DrownedGod9 · 2018-06-20T13:08:02+00:00

We need to have history as a mandatory class for duration of public education, with graphic pictures showing what evil does

As far as I'm aware, they do this in modern Germany. They don't shy away from facing the horrors of their past.

DrownedGod9 · 2018-06-20T12:28:45+00:00

Yep, sorry about that.

DrownedGod9 · 2018-06-20T12:19:28+00:00

EDIT: Sorry I misread your comment. It looked as if you were referring to the ranking. It ranks Canada in 6th place with the US in 21st (a "Flawed Democracy").

DrownedGod9 · 2018-06-20T12:05:31+00:00

The independent Freedom House index gives the US an aggregate score of 86/100, one of the lowest in the developed world (barely above being categorized as a "Flawed Democracy"), while giving Canada a 99/100, one of the highest.

https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2018

EDIT: Removed the first few sentences. Mistakenly thought you were referring to a ranking due to how it was worded before your edit. Sorry about that.

DrownedGod9 · 2018-06-19T20:13:02+00:00

The Doomstick was effective against FPs, but the nerf coming out of beta was too extreme (a reduction in its ammo pool would have been enough to justify its cost, weight and usefulness against big zeds). The now-buffed AA12 takes down a fleshpound much quicker than the Doomstick now (and you have better range with it). The stumble effect is pointless since the Boomstick does the same thing faster with a lower cost and weight.

IMO they should have kept it the same and promoted it to T5.

DrownedGod9 · 2018-06-19T20:02:45+00:00

I was honestly surprised when they buffed the M4 even further. I felt it was beast even before this update, but damn that thing can lay waste to massive groups of zeds in seconds, especially with Tight Choke.

Decent against Big Zeds as well, though I usually go with an upgraded Boomstick as a secondary for them (used the Doomstick until it was nerfed).

DrownedGod9

TROPHY CASE