On Sun, 17 Nov 2002 12:23:47 -0800, "Bill Potts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John David Galt wrote: >>If you want us to give up miles-per-gallon, give us km-per-litre, at least. >>The inverse measurement of fuel OVER distance makes no sense at all. > >We're not in a position to give you one or the other. We can only recommend. >The choice itself is a matter of national practice. Some countries use L/100 >km; others use km/L The former is a measure of consumption (per unit of >distance); the latter is a measure of range (per unit of fuel). l/100 km is the standard way of measuring consumption throughout Europe, and is used in the official figures even in the UK. As I mentioned here a while ago, I recently bought a Citroen Picasso, which has an all-digital display. This allows a choice of options (including language), one of which is metric/imperial. Naturally I have been using metric since Day 1. I must say that having l/100 km is a useful indicator to me, both for indicating how much I should expect to use to get to my destination, but also watching it increase when putting the pedal down makes me very aware of the increased consumption at high speeds. Chris -- UK Metric Association: http://www.metric.org.uk/
