Now, IMHO the real question to ask here is more a one of *application* or usefulness. I.e. what is important for ordinary drivers to know when it comes to fuel consumption issues? If one wants to estimate how much fuel one would need when doing trips (as companies operating fleets of vehicles would), fine, I guess it's fair to say that l/Mm could be more convenient for that. But if all one is engaged in (like the overwhelming majority of us) is finding out how our car is doing when we "fill up" our tanks, certainly the km/l figure would definitely come much more handy, no?
>now you maybe see the convenience of 100 km
>
So, "convenience" here is somewhat subjective and dependent on the *application* one is envisaging. Therefore, that's why after much careful thought and consideration I've decided to become a strong proponent of publishing *both* of these figures, km/l AND l/Mm! There certainly would be usage for both of these numbers and by doing so *every spectrum of usage* would be nicely covered!
Comments?...
Marcus
I fill up my car. It holds 64 liters. I get around 9 km/L (mostly in town driving).
km/L tells me how far I can go before the next fillup. 64 x 9 = 576 km. Very useful on long trips.
L/100 km tells me how much fuel I need to go a certain distance.
So it's really a matter of which of the two questions you are asking. How far can I go, or how much fuel do I need?
If you fill up every time, like I do, I submit the first question is more relevant.
So my personal preference is for km/L.
Either is, of course, preferable to miles per gallon!
Carleton
