Delica Canada | Mitsubishi Van Club

My comment was pertaining to fexlboi's comment that Falco's deli had unbelievable economy, when in fact 8.5 km/L is the norm. For some stupid reason Canada has decided that we need to list fuel economy in the form of L/100km which I fully comprehend but believe to be unecessarily complicated since km/L is much more direct.

Mephisto wrote:My comment was pertaining to fexlboi's comment that Falco's deli had unbelievable economy, when in fact 8.5 km/L is the norm. For some stupid reason Canada has decided that we need to list fuel economy in the form of L/100km which I fully comprehend but believe to be unecessarily complicated since km/L is much more direct.

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm still confused. It's the first time I heard km/L.
Canada just followed most of the countries in Europe, where L/km is the common norm. No one calculates there their milages in km/L, even if it makes more sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_econo ... utomobiles

The two most common ways to measure automobile fuel usage are:

Fuel consumption - the amount of fuel used per unit distance; most commonly, litres per 100 kilometres (L/100 km). This measure is used in Europe, China, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Lower values mean better fuel consumption: you use less fuel to travel the same distance.

Fuel economy - the distance traveled per unit of fuel used; most commonly miles per gallon (mpg) or kilometres per litre (km/L). This measure is used in the UK and USA.

It is quite common for Canadians to use American or British conventions. Our official units are decided upon based on what is agreeable to Quebec, where metric is the only system allowed, and European conventions are preferred to American and especially English.

The best example is: the official measure of a person's height is metric in Canada (e.g. 1.5m) but "no one" uses that format outside of the primary school system. I have no idea what my height is in metric, because every English speaking person in North America goes by the feet-inches convention.

fexlboi wrote:

Mephisto wrote:No one calculates there their milages in km/L, even if it makes more sense.

I do, because it makes more frellin' sense than L/100km!

mararmeisto wrote:

fexlboi wrote:

Mephisto wrote:No one calculates there their milages in km/L, even if it makes more sense.

I do, because it makes more frellin' sense than L/100km!

I meant no one is using it in Europe or at least I haven't heard about it there at all.

fexlboi wrote:I meant no one is using it in Europe or at least I haven't heard about it there at all.

X2

While the argument/explanation for L/100km may be sound, I still find it difficult to appreciate when I fill the tank with litres. Knowing how far (in km) I can travel on a single litre is easier to calculate than reverse-calculating that xLitres will carry me 100km. "I filled my tank with 45 litres, and at 11.45L/100km I'll travel 100 divided by 11.45 times 45, or 393km."