That new fangled litres per 100km measurement

[zakelwe]

Ok, I'm getting on a bit, I used to look like Brad Pitt, now look like Worzel Gummidge crossed with Sir Less Patterson, I drive a Kia Commode 1.4 with the optional bifocal windscreen, however it can't be just my old age and rose tinted glasses that makes me think the litres per 100km measurement of fuel consumption is just a bit dickless, can it?

Ever since we stopped paying for the great British imperial gallon and instead went for litres it has been on the cards that eventually we would end up doing kilometres per litre rather than miles per gallon. Ok, we'd have to first go through miles per litre probably as our distances as still imperial and our purchases are litres before swapping to km per litre, but litres per 100km is a really large step.

Not only is it a large step it is a reverse of the norm which is distance per unit, rather than units per standard distance. It also leads to a non linear graph

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chart_MPG_to_L-1...

it's pretty flat around the region most cars do, so you could end up with the following conversation at the local golf club

Jeremy :- "I've got the new Audi A9"
Roger :-" Really, I have the old one, likes to guzzle the old juice doesn't it?"
Jeremy :- " Not really, it has the new Duracell hybrid technology, fuel consumption has gone up from 5.6 to 5.4!
Roger :- "Bloody Nora, that's amazing."
Jeremy :- "Certainly is. Anyhow, lets get back out there and I will give you a couple of strokes".

It's even so bad that when fuel ecconomy goes up, the numbers go down.

I do agree with metric, but this seems to have been thought up by a tosspot.


Andy (age 106)

Edited by zakelwe on Wednesday 12th January 15:40

[obob]

zakelwe said:

Jeremy :- " Not really, it has the new Duracell hybrid technology, fuel consumption has gone up from 5.6 to 5.4!

Edited by zakelwe on Wednesday 12th January 15:40

No, fuel coonsumption has gone down as it uses less fuel now. Therefore it makes perfect sense.

[V88Dicky]

WTF is this kilometre you talk about?

[isee]

It should be L per 100miles then or we should start measuring distance in KM

other than that i have no problems with l/100km measurement.

I tend to measure my driving in how far the destination is not how many gallons away it is.
So if a destination is 160km away I can very quickly estimate how many litres I am likely to expend getting there and by extension I can very quickly work out how much the trip is likely to cost me.

working out how much 9MPG is going to cost me to cover 160km is a LOT harder for me, personally.

[V88Dicky]

I'm sure the only reason they switched the pump readouts to litres in the first place, was so that fuel didn't look so expensive!

123.9ppL = £5.63 gallon

[m4rk]

I think its standard in Europe to measure fuel economy in L per 100km. My Audi displays it this way.

Not sure what the advantage is other than its a change of emphasis from how far you can go to how much fuel is being used.

It should make it easier to work out the cost of a journey in pounds per 100km since fuel is already paid by the litre

Edited by m4rk on Wednesday 12th January 16:07

[Matt UK]

Oh yes, the MPG to litres/100km equation - a toughie.

Many atime whilst in Oz, the missus has turned to me at traffic lights and said "why are you frowning? Are you doing that bloody petrol maths again?"

[sawman]

Ive gotten used to it now, my last 2 jeeps have shown the consumption in this way (it can do MPG but it's poxy american gallons) and my old eunos had an odometer in KM.

[s2ooz]

isee said:

It should be L per 100miles then or we should start measuring distance in KM

other than that i have no problems with l/100km measurement.

I tend to measure my driving in how far the destination is not how many gallons away it is.
So if a destination is 160km away I can very quickly estimate how many litres I am likely to expend getting there and by extension I can very quickly work out how much the trip is likely to cost me.

working out how much 9MPG is going to cost me to cover 160km is a LOT harder for me, personally.

You have just changed my perspective. Thanks ! I think its down to tradition. I have grown up knowing mpg so everything else seems alien. Sure switching to l/100km isn't any good as we don't measure distances in km, but that can easily be changed on road signs, or do a dual sign with miles and km's, and some digital milos can be changed by a software update, add in a new clock face with a govt discount to pay for it and we could switch in a matter of years...

anyway, back to the point - I like the idea of knowing france is 600 miles away, and I need 40 litres to get there (this isnt accurate )

[DavidHM]

1l/100km = 282.12 mpg
10l/100km = 28.21 mpg

Basically just take 282.12 and divide it by the figure in l/100 km and you get it right. So roughly speaking, 40mpg is 7l/100 km and so on.

[busta]

Matt UK said:

Oh yes, the MPG to litres/100km equation - a toughie.

Many atime whilst in Oz, the missus has turned to me at traffic lights and said "why are you frowning? Are you doing that bloody petrol maths again?"

Yes, soon met with the shocking realisation that you hav just averaged less than 25mpg over 10 hours of steady cruising at 68mph, then shortly after with the relief that you only paid 60p/litre for the fuel. Been there, done that.


It's a shocking way of measuring things. I don't understand how 100 miles at 25mpg is harder to work out than 100 miles at 10litres/100km though?

[Whitean3]

I've had to get used to l/100 km since moving to Swizerland. There are various conversion calculators on the internet;I just try to remember some basic numbers (IIRC, 10.0 l/100 km equates to about 27 mpg), and if I average anything around 10 or less in the Pork, I'm pretty happy. Also means you don't take such an avid interest in the frugality of your car

[CraigyMc]

s2ooz said:

Sure switching to l/100km isn't any good as we don't measure distances in km, but that can easily be changed on road signs, or do a dual sign with miles and km's, and some digital milos can be changed by a software update, add in a new clock face with a govt discount to pay for it and we could switch in a matter of years..

We do actually. Have you ever seen a sign like this beside a motorway?


Here's an eplanation of what it means:


Loads of people are oblivious to the meaning of these, since they were introduced in 2003, donkeys years after loads of us did any driving tuition.

C

[clabcon]

isee said:

It should be L per 100miles then or we should start measuring distance in KM

other than that i have no problems with l/100km measurement.

I tend to measure my driving in how far the destination is not how many gallons away it is.
So if a destination is 160km away I can very quickly estimate how many litres I am likely to expend getting there and by extension I can very quickly work out how much the trip is likely to cost me.

working out how much 9MPG is going to cost me to cover 160km is a LOT harder for me, personally.

So what your effectively saying a division followed by a multiplication is difficult?

Say your doing 50 miles:

Imperial: 25 MPG car, need 50/25 = 2 gallons = £11 or whatever in fuel

Metric: 22 litre/100mile car, need 11 litres = £11 or whatever in fuel

[markCSC]

This helps lots

http://www.torquecars.com/tools/uk-mpg-calculator....

I'm doing 11.5 lt per 100km

[isee]

clabcon said:

isee said:

It should be L per 100miles then or we should start measuring distance in KM

other than that i have no problems with l/100km measurement.

I tend to measure my driving in how far the destination is not how many gallons away it is.
So if a destination is 160km away I can very quickly estimate how many litres I am likely to expend getting there and by extension I can very quickly work out how much the trip is likely to cost me.

working out how much 9MPG is going to cost me to cover 160km is a LOT harder for me, personally.

So what your effectively saying a division followed by a multiplication is difficult?

Say your doing 50 miles:

Imperial: 25 MPG car, need 50/25 = 2 gallons = £11 or whatever in fuel

Metric: 22 litre/100mile car, need 11 litres = £11 or whatever in fuel

you missed out the part where i need to remember how many litres goes into a gallon multiplied by price. And I keep forgetting this part. I never claimed one was wrong or right. just saying l/km I PERSONALLY find easier due to a combination of factors that I have outlined earlier

[busta]

CraigyMc said:

We do actually. Have you ever seen a sign like this beside a motorway?


Here's an eplanation of what it means:


Loads of people are oblivious to the meaning of these, since they were introduced in 2003, donkeys years after loads of us did any driving tuition.

C

They still don't teach anything about them now TBH. Afterall, it could be classed as 'useful information' which, when it comes to learning to drive, is totally banned.

[Hugo a Gogo]

surely it's very easy to remember to multiply the forecourt price per litre by 4.546?

[The Wookie]

isee said:

It should be L per 100miles then or we should start measuring distance in KM

other than that i have no problems with l/100km measurement.

I tend to measure my driving in how far the destination is not how many gallons away it is.
So if a destination is 160km away I can very quickly estimate how many litres I am likely to expend getting there and by extension I can very quickly work out how much the trip is likely to cost me.

working out how much 9MPG is going to cost me to cover 160km is a LOT harder for me, personally.

Spot on.

Personally, I'm a fan of mph (the round numbers feel like they're in the right places ), but imperial units seem increasingly archaic and unintuitive to me.

It's not difficult to remember how many metres there are in a kilometer, i've got no fecking clue how many yards there are in a mile.

[Hugo a Gogo]

I live my life a quarter mile at a time, and I know that a quarter mile is 440yds