Echo vs Corolla Fuel Economy, the truth?

Well, I can't help with your question but I have one of my own here...can anyone give me a good reason to use this "litres per

100 kilometer" thing?...we've for years and years used "miles per gallon" and everyone had a good handle on it, then we changed to metric so we now measure our fuel in litres and our distance in kilometers so wouldn't it make more sense to measure our fuel economy in 'kilometers per litre'?...

What's this downright silly phrase of 'litres per 100 kilometers'? it's ridiculous...

Reply to
Gord Beaman
Loading thread data ...

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

Reply to
Joseph Oberlander

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

Reply to
Gord Beaman

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?

Reply to
Gary L. Burnore

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.

Reply to
griffin

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

Reply to
Gord Beaman

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)

Reply to
Gord Beaman

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

Reply to
Gary L. Burnore

You failed math, didn't you Goard?

Reply to
Gary L. Burnore

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.

Reply to
Albin Dzurnak

Whatever you say bursnore...

Reply to
Gord Beaman

Whatever you say bursnore...

Reply to
Gord Beaman

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

Reply to
Gary L. Burnore

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

Reply to
Gary L. Burnore

...ok... :)

Reply to
Gord Beaman

If you insist bursnore... :)

Reply to
Gord Beaman

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 ;-)

Reply to
Mark

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

Reply to
Mark Levitski

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

Reply to
C. E. White

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.