[USMA:32542] RE: More Metric Muddle

[Terry Simpson]

The article that you say may have been: http://motoring.independent.co.uk/road_tests/story.jsp?story=620087   The manufacturer specifications are at: http://www.proton.co.uk/gen2/specifications/technical.asp     You will see that the ‘0 to 60 mph’ value is actually a misquoted 0 to 100 km/h value. That error is common in the UK. They often put ‘0 to 62 mph’. Sometimes they quote both values but I see a trend away from quoting the 60 mph value.   The manufacturer quotes fuel consumption in UK non-metric and metric formats.   The metric CO2 figure is of interest to UK buyers because annual vehicle tax is now based on carbon production. The tax bands are quoted in g/km. See: http://www.dvla.gov.uk/vehicles/taxation.htm#Private/Light%20Goods%20Vehicles%20(Vehicles%20registered%20on%20or%201st%20March%202001)             From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ezra Steinberg Sent: 21 March 2005 01:17 To: U.S. Metric Association Subject: [USMA:32519] More Metric Muddle   Was perusing the UK Indpendent online today and saw this at the beginning of one of their car reviews:   Engine: 1.6-litre Performance: 0-60mph in 12.6 secs, 39.2mpg CO2: 169g/km All I can say is that I wish the UKMA and supporters all the best in finally getting road signs converted to metric. It's the continued use of Imperial on those signs (and matching Imperial speedometers) that I blame for the presence of Imperial to describe acceleration and fuel economy.   Ezra