It appears that the Independent article quoted is your first instance of seeing this mistake.
It is not my first instance. Perhaps instead of 'common error' I should have said: 'I have seen the error before so my confidence with second hand quotes of 0 to 60 mph values is less than 100%'. It was my mistrust of the value that made me look it up at the manufacturer's site. >Of Stephen Humphreys >Nowhere have I seen the 0-62 figure being quoted as 0-60 "by mistake" as >there is a huge difference in most cases. > >the emmision figures (CO2/kg) are for tax reasons. > >Most people are more interested in the MPG figures as this is an accurate >running-cost figure. >It's a reason why I changed car recently too. > >Strangely, no-one has ever questioned why some organisations quote 0-62 and >I suspect hardly anyone realises that its for metric conversion roundness. > >This is how it is in the UK, regardless of websites. > >The most popular car valuation book (Parkers) quotes almost everything in >imperial (obviously not engine sizes!!) > >>From: "Terry Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]> >>Subject: [USMA:32542] RE: More Metric Muddle >>Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 19:36:05 -0000 >> >>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%20Vehic >le >>s%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 >>
