Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
strawboss

Let's Rephrase That Shall We?

15 posts in this topic

Today I filled the tank in my 450 and as I always do calculate my MPG....old school I know but that's the only Imperial measurement I still use....Liters per 100 km just doesn't "click" with me. :rolleyes:

So, 65 MPG B) .....then for some reason ran the miles driven into the MPG I know I get driving my truck.

So here it is, to drive 260 miles I burn 4 gallons in my 450 but to drive the same distance in my Tacoma.....13.5 to 14 gallons.... :blink: someway/somehow that measure really sinks in....weird eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got to fill mine across the pump from a loaded F-350 dually last week. "So what mileage does that little thing get?" Pretty good. Tell you in a moment. This tank is 475 km.***Gotta fill up the foam before I know for sure.*** $29.72! Christ, fuel is expensive these days, isn't it?Have a nice day!I'm way too polite to object to, but I do rub it in a bit at times. :rolleyes: Guilty small pleasures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got up to 495 km last week and it took $27 to fill it with V-Power diesel. 2.5L left in reserve but the pump read close to 21L. I guess fuel is cheaper in Alberta than other parts of Canada right now! ($1.33/L for standard diesel)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My truck has decent fuel economy even though it's massive and moded and gets around 1000km/100l tank now looking at the smart does around 500l/22l tank, crap that's allot of volume over time if you look at that way. I fill both the truck and smarts up dailey and burn a solid 1500l of diesel a month easy and upwards to 3000l in the dead of summerThe smarts I do a mininum of 430km just comuting daily without actualy driving for work and each car I fill up every day if not every other day. . And basicly oil changes all around every week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why mpg (distance per volume) is a misleading number, and why SI units are "quantity of expendable per unit of work," i.e.: litres per 100 km.

That's why Americans don't really honestly care about fuel economy as quoted. The Ford Fusion owner gets 30 mpg and looks at the Prius owner and says, "Your car ain't that great, it gets only 10 mpg more than mine." But to go the same 360 miles, the Fusion uses 12 gallons while the Prius only used nine. That is an easier number to compare.

But where mpg really confuses the issue is when comparing different categories of vehicles. Which saves more fuel, trading a 12 mpg 1996 Tahoe for a 24 mpg 2014 Honda Pilot? Or dumping a 30 mpg 2001 Civic for a 40 mpg 2014 Jetta TDI? Easy math, to go let's say 240 miles, the Pilot will use 10 gallons less than the Tahoe, while the TDI will only use two gallons less than the Civic.

And that's why l/100 km is the better unit for comparison, because it clearly demonstrates the huge savings possible when actually comparing vehicles over a driven distance. In essence, strawboss, you did the math for yourself at the pump, in a roundabout way: you're comparing the quantities used for the same distance driven, while using mpg -- a unit with which you claim you feel more comfortable -- compares distances for a fixed quantity of fuel. Your commute doesn't change depending on which car you drive, but the volume of fuel used to get to your job (the mall, the gym, whatever) does.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/101942...no-really-it-is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MPG never made sense to me, even before this country was metric. L/100 makes so much sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya, I know....L per 100 km is more logical but I figure I'm "right hemisphere dominant" in this issue & I have to use this clumsy conversion process to "drive" it home ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will never get used to the L/100km thing.

To me it makes NO sense whatsoever.

Taking a SINGLE unit of volume (whether it is litres or gallons) and telling you how far that should take you makes way more sense to me than telling me that in order to go 100 kms, I should use xx.x units of fuel.

To each, his own, I suppose. I, for one, can convert (ballparking) the L/100kms to MPG for those of us who are old school and prefer the simpler way. In fact, if you must use the metric system, I find it easier to quote numbers in the kms/L method.

When chatting with people who are curious about the car, the inevitable question is about fuel mileage, and in almost every case, they prefer to hear the numbers in MPG. Case in point, another thread in this site has a link posted that leads you to a dealership in Saskatoon that is selling a smart. They list the fuel numbers in MPG.

On a similar note, have you ever noticed ..... when people are asking about fuel consumption, they ask about the mileage, not the kilometerage.

Just my 2¢ worth. Actually, I guess I need to make that 5¢ since we don't have pennies anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will never get used to the L/100km thing.To me it makes NO sense whatsoever. Taking a SINGLE unit of volume (whether it is litres or gallons) and telling you how far that should take you makes way more sense to me than telling me that in order to go 100 kms, I should use xx.x units of fuel.

Ditto. km/L is also much more useful than L/100km when you operate a vehicle which has a simple main/reserve selection, or low fuel warning rather than a fuel gauge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will that be US or Imperial then?Just like pints, fathoms,, feet, hogsheads and the old British money system, these are silly measures for silly times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must admit I was born and educated with the metric and SI units, so I do have a bad time with Gallons, as I'm never sure if the guy I'm speaking to has US or Imperial Gallons in mind. Therefore, when someone asks about my mileage, I now tend to say "Well, I can drive around 500 km with 20 Liters of diesel", and let them do the maths... Or maybe let them confused, as I never mentionned "miles" or "Gallons"? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leadwing points out exactly why most Americans don't give a hoot about economy. Distance per volume doesn't readily compute into efficiency calculations; volume per distance certainly does. I grew up with Imperial and US measures, but I was still young enough that the change to Metric didn't faze me. I believe in logic, and SI is based in logic and simplicity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is not how many litres or gallons, but how much does it cost to run. The easiest thing to calculate is ¢/km, or US ¢/mile, or € cents/km, or UK pence/mile.For example, fuel for my smart cost 5¢/km, my Nissan X-Trail costs 12¢/km, and my Sprinter based motorhome costs 20¢/km.In Strawboss' original post, his smart is about 6¢/km and his Tacoma is about 20¢/km.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

L/100km is really quite a telling number, but if you like MPG, go with it...... whatever.km/L is not widely used at all, and just doesn't do it for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

    Chatbox
    You don't have permission to chat.
    Load More