You may have been looking for a simpler answer than I gave. If you accept 119 MPGe, then it is 1.98 (or 2.0) L/100 km, gasoline equivalent.
Because they have a reciprocal relation, fuel economies in miles per gallon and liters per 100 km have the product 235.2 (for the US gallon. It is 282.5 for the Imperial gallon). Divide what you have into the "magic number" to get the other. The "magic number" is the centiliters per applicable gallon divided by the kilometers per mile. As those figures are exact by law, the conversion factor may be carried to arbitrary precision. However, above is "good enough." ________________________________ From: Ron Stone <[email protected]> To: [email protected]; U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, June 26, 2011 7:49:06 AM Subject: Re: [USMA:50747] Re: MPGe = miles per gallon equivalent? On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 4:48 AM, Ron Stone <[email protected]> wrote: many of us may still be wondering how might MPGe be represented in SI (metric) terms. > > > >On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 4:26 AM, John M. Steele <[email protected]> >wrote: > >I must call foul, but I am unclear whether I am calling foul on: >>*EPA's methodology >>*Tesla's honesty >>*Andrew's investigative reporting and numeracy >>Quoting from the article, >>## >>Now Tesla has raised the stakes again by introducing the Tesla Roadster 2.5 >>that >>boasts an MPGe rating of 112 MPGe on the highway and 124 MPGe in the city. >>This >>combined rating puts the overall MPGe for the Roadster 2.5 at 119 MPGe. >>When the new 2.5 Tesla Roadsters will become available is anyone's guess. >>However, with the original Roadster boasting an overall MPGe rating of 111 >>the >>improved 2.5 model is undoubtedly going to be a success. One interesting >>thing >>to point out is that other than the more efficient MPGe rating the rest of >>the >>Tesla Roadster 2.5 statistics remain unchanged from its predecessor; i.e. >>annual >>fuel costs, approximate range, and kW-hrs per 100 miles. >>## >> >>119 MPGe and 111 MPGe can not BOTH be represented by 30 kW·h/100 mi. Using a >>DoE data sheet (and some conversion) reformulated gasoline (would EPA use any >>other kind) is 119.87 MJ/gallon. Using this figure, I confirm that 111 MPGe >>is >>30 kW·h/100 mi, but 119 MPGe is 28 kW·h/100 mi. Obviously the useful, >>meaningful expression of fuel economy for an electric vehicle is just some >>decoration the EPA makes them throw on the label. >> >>It is not simple reporting error. The labels have been previously reported >>with >>graphics. Only fake gallons are real! >>http://green.autoblog.com/2011/05/26/epa-rates-tesla-roadster-at-111-mpge/ >>http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2011/05/extreme-epa-window-sticker-tesla-roadster-rated-111-mpge.html >> >> >>Pat and I challenge each other on conversion. I am going to offer a new >>defense >>of conversion: >>"He who can't convert in a 'dual' society gets hoodwinked." >>I agree with Pat that we need to get past conversion and truly metricate, but >>we >>have a Congress that currently guarentees that can't happen because they >>will pass (and demonstrably have passed) laws to prevent it. I blame >>Congress, >>not centimeters. >> ________________________________ From: Pat Naughtin <[email protected]> >>To: U.S. Metric Association <[email protected]> >>Sent: Sat, June 25, 2011 11:39:40 PM >>Subject: [USMA:50743] MPGe = miles per gallon equivalent? >> >> >>Dear All, >> >> >>You will be interested in this reference from Reuters: >>http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/24/idUS27637249720110624 where they >>write: >> >> >>So, the EPA had to come up with a new unit of measurement in order to help >>the >>public understand all those crazy and complicated numbers. Essentially, the >>EPA >>had to dumb stuff down so people could understand what they were talking >>about- >>if the EPA has to make up a new system of measurement to replace an existing >>system of measurement that is deemed to tricky by the masses,I guess this >>sort >>of puts the final nail in the coffin for the metric system ever being adopted >>in >>the U.S. >>I emphasised the last sentence of the quote. Better still, I will repeat it >>here: >> >> >>I guess this sort of puts the final nail in the coffin for the metric system >>ever being adopted in the U.S. >> >> >>Cheers, >> >> >>Pat Naughtin LCAMS >>Author of the ebook, Metrication Leaders Guide, see >>http://metricationmatters.com/MetricationLeadersGuideInfo.html >>Hear Pat speak at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lshRAPvPZY >>PO Box 305 Belmont 3216, >>Geelong, Australia >>Phone: 61 3 5241 2008 >> >> >>Metric system consultant, writer, and speaker, Pat Naughtin, has helped >>thousands of people and hundreds of companies upgrade to the modern metric >>system smoothly, quickly, and so economically that they now save thousands >>each >>year when buying, processing, or selling for their businesses. Pat provides >>services and resources for many different trades, crafts, and professions for >>commercial, industrial and government metrication leaders in Asia, Europe, >>and >>in the USA. Pat's clients include the Australian Government, Google, NASA, >>NIST, >>and the metric associations of Canada, the UK, and the USA. >>See http://www.metricationmatters.com/ to subscribe. >> > > > >-- > > >----------------- >Ron Stone >---------------------------- >on Twitter (at) photonron >--------------------------------------------------------- >disclaimers or other restrictions may apply to this message. >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -- ----------------- Ron Stone ---------------------------- on Twitter (at) photonron --------------------------------------------------------- disclaimers or other restrictions may apply to this message. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
