Excellent, Carleton. My points exactly! :-) Marcus
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 19:23:21 CarletonM wrote: >In a message dated 2002-06-26 13:19:28 Eastern Daylight Time, >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >> 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 > > Is your boss reading your email? ....Probably Keep your messages private by using Lycos Mail. Sign up today at http://mail.lycos.com
