Maybe not exactly the correct place for this, but what the heck - we're talking about fuel economy . . .
Whoever came up with this goofy L/100km way to rate fuel economy? Doesn't km/L make more sense, for a number of reasons?
1) It's easier to calculate: number of km's driven divided by number of litres of fuel used. I drove 497 km's and put in 55 litres of gas. 497 / 55 = 9 km/L. Simple, no?
2) It's easier to visualize: let's see, what's about 9 km's away . . . Oh, I know, the mall ! Okay, we all know what a litre of liquid looks like (think litre of oil), so if I put that much fuel in, I can go as far as the mall. Now try that with current method. 9 km/L = 11.1 L/100km. So let's see, how far is 100 km? Toronto to Barrie? Okay, so with my 11 oil bottles worth of fuel, I'm all set !
3) It's a
LINEAR system: a difference of 1 number is 1 km. The difference between 4 and 5 km/L is 1 km/L. The difference between 15 and 16 km/L is 1 km/L. With the current system, the difference between 4 and 5 L/100 km is 5 km/L. The difference between 15 and 16 L/100km is 0.4 km/L !!! For us old guys who still think in miles/gallon, the differences are even more pronounced; a difference of 1 km/L is
always 2.82 mpg, so whether we're talking the difference between 4 and 5 km/L or 15 and 16 km/L, the difference is always 2.82 mpg. With the current system, the difference between 4 and 5 L/100km is 14 mpg (70.5 vs. 56.4), while the difference between 15 and 16 is just over 1 mpg (18.8 vs. 17.6) !!!
Okay, down off my soapbox now
![Smiley :)](https://www.autos.ca/forum/Smileys/CarTalk/smiley.gif)