Noticed two articles that got it pretty wrong:
First, Reuters says the amount of a fuel spill is "unknown" but then quotes a
third-hand Coast Guard estimate, but how about those "super-liters." I doubt
NBC said anything about any liters. The good news is several commenters on the
article noticed.
http://news.yahoo.com/fuel-spills-waterway-between-jersey-staten-island-012913605--nba.html
"NBC, citing the U.S. Coast Guard, said 300,000 gallons (115,000 liters) of
diesel fuel had been released."
This article is attributed by copyright to Deutsche Presse-Agentur. In the
Kia/Hyundai fuel label scandal, it correctly reports the claim that the Kia
fleet average, corrected, falls from 27 to 26 mpg. It incorrectly converts to
liters per 100 kilometers, making a 3% change become a 10% change. (It also
appears to mean KIA failed to meet CAFE unless they have banked credits.)
http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2012/11/2/kia_hyundai_overstated_fuel_efficiency_will.htm
"On average, the EPA found that both companies had overstated their efficiency
by an average of 3 per cent. For the 2012 KIA fleet, this means a downgrade
from 27 miles per gallon (mpg) to 26 mpg. In metric system terms, it means the
fleet uses 9.6 litres per 100 kilometres instead of the claimed 8.7 liters."
(To save you math, the 9.6 claim should be 9.0 L/100 km, assuming the mpg
figures are correct.)
