659
I prefer speeds per Swedes
(slrpnk.net)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2023
659 points (94.2% liked)
Memes
45902 readers
1354 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Reminds me of an app I downloaded the other day to help plan routes. They asked for my cars "KPL".
Like what? Who in the world says KPL? It's l/100KM.
While I'm aware that some places may use KPL, it just seems very American to go "hey, we use MPG, so they must use KPL".
I grew up with km/L.
I don't mind using whatever scale, but it's somewhat better for comparing the numbers that cars actually use, because with l/100km every car is five something or six something.
Also the higher numbers are better like everything else on the car comparison cards.
Yeah maybe it’s just being an American but mpg makes sense in an intuitive way, so kpl sounds like it would be rightish. I’d never guess that people would use l/100km, and I use metric somewhat regularly in my personal life
Guess the difference is what you grew up with and therefore intuitively prefer:
allegedly american thinking: This baby sucks X gallons. Let's see how far I can get with it
allegedly non-american thanking: I need to drive roughly X 1/2 hundred kilometers, and that will burn that much fuel.
I’d change the American thinking from that to bigger number goes further for same fuel/how many miles til I refuel.
And the non american to bigger number=bigger fuel consumption
That’s fair, though there was a non American agreeing that every other number is bigger is better so it’s nice when all numbers are that way.
That said all this is soon to be irrelevant. We’ll all be using wh/m soon enough
Why not mpwh?
Because I’m a bad engineer who forgot that watts are power and not energy
whoops per minute?
Fuel consumption makes more math sense, especially when doing mental math comoarisons. Litres per 100km or the newer Gallons per 100miles for USA makes it easier for linear fuel consumption calculations. This quote explains: "The advantage of measuring fuel consumption this way is that it makes comparisons easier as fuel efficiency improves for a specific vehicle. That’s because the differences are linear. With miles per gallon, efficiency is graded on a curve. For example, for a 15-mpg car, a 5-mpg improvement is a 33-percent gain. But that same 5-mpg upgrade for a 30-mpg car is only a 17.5-percent improvement to a vehicle that is already using half as much gas. " With litres per 100km a 5 litre increase is 5 litres regardless of starting fuel consumption.
I'm not even American but this is way less intuitive for everyday use. I don't need some abstract measure of how efficient my car is being. My fuel tank is measured in liters, when I fill up i pay by the liter, I want to know how far I can go on x liters. Not have to do a bunch of mental math to reverse the equation for my gas tank with 40 liters in it. I have 40l, I can go x*40 km. Mental multiplication is way easier than mental division.
Well the car does the math for you, but it is meant for comparison when purchasing because range relies on fuel tank capacities. where as L per 100 k is a fuel efficiency rating regardless of tank size. But it it makes more sense when you have a fleet of vehicles and are doing logistics and need improvements. if you have X dollars to spend on economy it is a linear equation compared to convoluted deminishing returns on low mpg vehicle. Like the quote mentioned 5mpg improvement on one vehicle is not the same efficiency as mpg on another vehicle.
Right so in that scenario that measurment makes sense but for the average person in their day to day life it's much less useful. And my car doesn't have a fancy computer that tells me the efficiency. Or measure in accurate increments how much fuel is in the tank. So if I wanted to know how efficient my engine is, the best way to do it would be start on empty, add a liter of fuel, and see how far I could drive it, which is probably why and how that measurement became commonplace. Because cars have been around alot longer than computers.
Yeah, not diagreeing just explaining
I'd love to know which cars you drive with 5-6 l/100km lol
My best vehicle is 10. My worst is 28. Unless you're a hybrid, I don't know of a single vehicle doing 5-6l/100km
I've had Opel, Renault, Peugeot, VW, Skoda, Mazda, Suzuki.
None of them were worse than 7 L/100km. Pretty much all modern cars go at 5 L/100km unless you get something with a larger engine.
Never had a hybrid.
Pretty much none of those brands exist in Canada, or are extremely uncommon. Not to mention the cold weather makes our fuel economy even worse.
All these brands exist in northern Europe, they work fine here. My 2007 VW Golf does about 6-7l per 100km. They aren't unusual numbers really
what? Even my parents 6 Seater family car drank only 8l back in the day, I drive my Opel Astra with about 7 and my brothers little fiat drinks 4,5 if he drives efficiently. You gotts have either s pickup truck or something really old.
What? A pickup uses 15-28 l/100km.
A Silverado uses 15MPG, according to GM themselves. That's like 16l/100km
Yeah pickups and SUVs are gas guzzlers. i get about 5.5L/100km with my Honda Fit
Ya I don't know why I'm being down voted for saying what my cars get. Never said anything better didn't exist, just asked which other cars get less.
I fucking hate Lemmy. I asked a question and I'm downvoted. Fuck this place. There's no way to have a god damn discussion here.
People probably misread the intended question as denial of lower consumptions cars existing. The interwebs are fickle
Could be an inquiry, could be a statement of disbelief. Up to interpretation.
The "lol" at the end makes it read like your accusing the other commenter of lying and that you think this is an impossible to reach fuel consumption.
Additionally, many people don't like huge pickup trucks and worshippers thereof. You might have slipped into that category in their understanding.
A Polo 3-cylinder runs at around 5.5l/100km mixed city/interstate. 16l is atrocius
I've never seen a 3 cylinder vehicle in my life lol.
You propably did but never noticed.
It's a 1l 75hp engine, topping out at 175km/h or 108mph. Perfect for a commuter car
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight-three_engine
Remember The Ford Fiesta, or was it the Firefly?? Iforget the name but that was a 3 cylinder.
Still is. Focus, C-Max, B-Max, Fiesta, EcoSport, Mondeo, Transit and Puma are the models listed on Wikipedia available with a three cylinder
Our Honda Fit does about 5.5L/100km if I drive and about 7.5L/100km if my wife drives. I have had it as low as 3.9 But that was purposely watching acceleration and avoiding hills
Lookie here: https://www.spritmonitor.de/en/evaluation/economic_models.html
PDF >
We live in a society. You can't just come into a conversation and start using PDF.
They use KPL in Japan at least, but I doubt the app was Japanese lol
I'd imagine they were giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming everybody uses a metric that allows for 1 conversion to tell how far a tank of fuel will take you.