Echo vs Corolla Fuel Economy, the truth?

No worse than, say, "gallons per hundred miles".

That's right...what's yer point then?...

Even measurment.

Now you're sounding more amerikkkan than KKKanadian, Gourd.

You really are that dense, aren't you? 6.7 vs .67 doesn't make a little bell go off in your head, does it Gourd?

What's this downright silly idea that gasoline doesn't detonate?

It's completely arbitrary how you decide to measure it but metric is very consistent in measurement (base-10 system). I find it a lot more convenient to calc litres/100km then mpg. I set my odo, record how many k's i've driven when i fill with gas and then look at the pump to see how many litres i bought. Then do some simple math and voila! Doing MPG in Canada or anywhere that uses metric (i.e.: most other places) is annoying.

Poor lil guy..perhaps you'll grow up some day...

Why?...it's still a straight calculation...we used to say 20 miles per gallon, everyone understood, simple. why not say 10 kilometers per litre?...makes no sense to further complicate it with the 'per 100 km' (and before some dim bulb (like bursnore) argues that my figures are wrong I'll agree)

Poor little goard. You simply can't admit you're wrong. You lose yet again.

You failed math, didn't you Goard?

I stand corrected.

... make it 7.8l/100km for an automatic 2005 Corolla in the city from Industry Canada. That is a 8%-12% difference between real-life and Industry Canada numbers.

Appologies, Albin.

Whatever you say bursnore...

Whatever you say bursnore...

I say you're a fool, Goard. That's what I say.

That really is the best you can do, isn't it, Goard?

...ok... :)

If you insist bursnore... :)

LOL, excellent point....

But don't forget, they also replace all the batteries he will wear out in three years. Sounds like a deal to me ;-)

My 2004 Nissan Sentra is even better: PZEV (partially-zero emissions vehicle), with weights unloaded incl spare tire, rear seat, both sun visors, hood metal support rod, etc, etc. I can make 50+ mpg

I can see one way litres per 100 km is better. For litres/100 km a lower number indicates lower fuel usage, which seems more logical to me that miles per gallon, where a higher number indicates lower fuel usage. I guess the 100 km part seems weird, since you'd think the metric system would have a prefix for ten to the fifth powr, but they don't. After k (kilo-) the next approved prefix is M (Mega-) for 10 to the sixth power, which is too big for this application.

Ed

Yes, I suppose (lower¾tter) but it's been the other way for a helluva long time, so now, we not only need to 'get our mind around' the 'good number range' (from 'here' to 'here' is pretty good mileage), but we gotta remember 'how to do it'.

Before, we just had to remember how many 'miles we went for each gallon we used...simple. Seems to me it'd be easier to remember 'how many kilometers we went for each litre we used', then get used to 'the good range' using those parameters.

I don't see the sense in complicating it further by that additional twist of 'litres per hundred kilometers' where you need to reverse the 'components' ALSO.

Hell, everyone knew what MPG meant so now we need to get used to KPL.

I object to LPOHK or even LPHK!...it's senseless.