Not to add insult to injury, but here's his orginal column from 2 weeks earlier...
Nat -------------------- National Post (f/k/a The Financial Post) June 7, 2002 Friday Ontario Edition SECTION: Special Report: Driver's Edge; Road Rant; Pg. DO2 LENGTH: 589 words HEADLINE: Let's measure our fuel in kilometres per litre SOURCE: National Post BYLINE: David Menzies BODY: Recently, I asked my neighbour Kornell what sort of mileage his Toyota Corolla was getting. Amazingly, his answer was, "About eight litres per 100 kilometres." By way of clarification, Kornell's response is amazing not because of the Toyota's consumption (8L per 100 km is reasonable for such a car). Rather, the amazing part is simply that Kornell is the first person I have come across who has stated his car's gas consumption using the L/100 km format, as opposed to the more familiar miles per gallon. Officially, Canada is a metric country. Yes, it has taken a couple of decades. And true, during the evil Trudeau regime, metric compliance was forced upon us under penalty of law. But for the most part, unlike our neighbours to the south, we have come to accept metrication. We now know that 32 degrees means sunburn, as opposed to frostbite weather. We also have little problem buying gas by the litre and noting distance and speed by the kilometre. But alas, the vast majority of us still do not accept the metric system when it comes to fuel consumption ratings. In the good old days (pre-1979), a car's fuel efficiency, or lack thereof, was measured in the time-honoured method of miles per gallon. But 23 years ago, the federal government began releasing fuel consumption statistics using the mind-numbing L/100 km yardstick. (Or should that be metrestick?) Thus, overnight, the easily understandable 28 mpg became the cryptic 8.4L/100 km. Transport Canada's 1979 Fuel Consumption Guide notes: "This unit [L/100 km] is used internationally, and makes consumption and cost calculations relatively simple." Excuse me? "Relatively simple?" The fact is, apart from my Hungarian engineer neighbour, Canadians have never embraced L/100 km -- and likely never will. My theory is that this particular measurement benchmark is just too radical. It is not so much that Canadians are uncomfortable with litres and kilometres replacing gallons and miles. It is just the L/100 km benchmark changes the very context of fuel measurement. It used to be the higher the number, the better. A car getting 9 mpg was a gas hog while 45 mpg meant it was a miser. But everything is topsy-turvy with L/100 km: Less is more, in that, the fewer litres needed to travel 100 km, the better the car's fuel consumption. Gasp. Instead of mpg, why can't we remain true to the metric system, by reporting fuel consumption as kpl (kilometres per litre)? I contacted Transport Canada for an answer and was told it would be wrong to blame Ottawa for the current fuel consumption guidelines. "This [L/100 km] formula was the one that was adopted in Europe," a Transport Canada spokesman noted. However, he -- and everyone else I contacted -- had no idea why L/100 km -- as opposed to kpl emerged as the metric standard in the first place. Not surprisingly, ever since the rollout of L/100 km, Transport Canada has received nothing but negative feedback from consumers -- a point reiterated in focus groups conducted by the department. Thus, back in 1987, the government decided to compromise, providing fuel consumption ratings in both L/100 km and mpg. Yet, why bother? Aside from the authors of the Fuel Consumption Guide (and my neighbour Kornell), does anyone out there actually refer to their car's gas consumption using the L/100 km benchmark? Indeed, let us lobby for the much more understandable (and logical) kpl consumption guideline. After all, isn't the metric system supposed to be a measurement method based on logic? GRAPHIC: Black & White Photo: While the Toyota Corolla is easy on gas, columnist David Menzies was surprised when his engineer neighbour reported its fuel efficiency in litres per 100 kilometres, rather than miles per gallon. LOAD-DATE: June 7, 2002 N Someone might find intersting... Nat National Post (f/k/a The Financial Post) June 21, 2002 Friday Ontario Edition SECTION: Special Report: Driver's Edge; Road Rant; Pg. DO2 LENGTH: 569 words HEADLINE: A measure only engineers could love SOURCE: National Post BYLINE: David Menzies BODY: In the three-year history of Road Rant, your humble ink-stained wretch has vented on subjects ranging from impaired drivers to left-lane bandits. But nothing has generated more reader response than my tirade two weeks ago regarding the way fuel consumption is measured. (To recap: I lamented the death of the old miles per gallon standard, which was long ago replaced by the ghastly L/100 km benchmark.) With the exception of my engineer neighbour Kornel Farkas, I have yet to come across someone who speaks of their vehicle's fuel consumption using the less-is-more measurement standard of L/100 km. Why not stay true to the metric system by measuring fuel consumption via kilometres per litre (kpl)? Without further ado, here is a sampling of the feedback: - "You wrote: 'Aside from the authors of the Fuel Consumption Guide, does anyone out there actually refer to their car's gas consumption using the L/100 km benchmark?' I'll answer: Posted on my fridge is my Golf TDI's mileage record. I wrote, 'Car mileage record: 1,105 km/49 litres = 4.43 litres/100 km.' We're talking about fuel consumption. If you burn less to go the same distance, then a smaller number makes perfect sense." Mike Seibert - "I agree with you that the logic behind the way fuel economy is presented in metric is difficult to accept ... Using the current metric logic, one could express the speed limit as 1.1 hours/100 km, which is 90 km an hour, or 0.9 hours/100 km, which is about 110 km. Would that make sense?" John D. Holmes - "Regarding the article on kpl versus L/100 km: Finally, a voice of reason! L/100 km is ridiculous. No one has a good feel for that number. Do you think the same idiots will decide to change the km/h to hours/100 km on our speedometers?" Robert MacKenzie - "Your pleas for yet another change in the vehicle fuel consumption values would only confuse consumers further. Wouldn't it be simpler to leave things as they are and do as I have been doing since 1962 -- convert using the simple formula: 282.5 divided by litres per 100 km = mpg. Or, 282.5/mpg = litres per 100 km." Allan Taylor - "When we consider fuel economy, the only time we consider a higher number to be better is when we are thinking in terms of the old miles per gallon standard. Otherwise, in our speech, greater numbers indicate worse fuel economy. A gas-guzzler is one that takes a lot of fuel; an efficient car takes less fuel. Logically, our measure should reflect the way we otherwise think, not the other way around." Jeremiah Shapiro - Finally, Mr. Farkas took issue with my desire for the "illogical" kpl benchmark. "Instead of saying, 'My diet is 800 calories a day,' David would say, 'I can maintain my metabolism for 108 seconds on one calorie of food energy.' Instead of saying, 'Subway fare is $2.25,' David would say, 'I can take 44% of my route on the subway for $1.' By the way, do you think the price of the 78-page Friday issue of the National Post was appropriately marked as 25 cents, or should the front page have stated: 'Every 3.12 pages you do not completely read is a wasted penny?' " Bottom line: All those in favour of L/100 km are apparently engineers (those fun-loving folk who look upon pocket protectors as fashion accessories). Everyone else loathes the L/100 km standard. Oh, well. At least we have a measurement system that is adored by 0.000000001% of the world's population. LOAD-DATE: June 21, 2002
