Fuel economy

[bemax]

At that speed, I would expect pretty good fuel economy

Stupid me

 

[G-Man]

If you change the units I think it may work; as l/100km goes up, mpg go down.

I can never fathom why our Metric Cousins don't use kilometres per litre (to follow the same convention as miles per gallon) rather than the slightly baffling l/100km.

Is it me or does 9.5km/litre make much more sense than 10.5l/100km?

Welcome to OCD Tuesday everybody!

 

[chriscroft]

I guess we are base programmed through our tradition in distance per quantity (mpg); and not quantity per distance. But it does feel counter-intuitive to me also.

 

[emax]

@chriscroft is right imo.

In Europe we don't have the problem of long distances without a petrol station. So the distance we can drive is not an issue: We refuel when it's empty. But we want to know how much fuel we have to pay for to drive from e.g. Berlin to Cologne. So our the question is "costs per distance" not "distance per tank".

We rarely fill up completely and drive a leg as long as the fuel lasts. From my home to Italy I'll probably pass a few hundred petrol stations and still have a lot of fuel in my tank. And this was, as @chriscroft pointed out, traditionally different in the States and in Australia and still is different in large areas of the US and Oz.

Interestingly, in Germany, EVs are still calculated in an MPG way: kilometers per charge. Same cause as with fuel in the US: there are (still) not many charging stations on long trips, so you have to know how far you can get.

So you guys have what we call "Reichweitenangst".

 

[ECrider]

We're still a mixture in the uK of imperial and metric,

stones and lbs for a persons weight more often than not,
mpg
feet and inches for height
etc

food weight has drifted into g&kg
oven temp and the weather normally celsius

beer still pints - thank goodness

a real hodgepodge

just comes down to what you are used to.

 

[G-Man]

@chriscroft is right imo.

In Europe we don't have the problem of long distances without a petrol station. So the distance we can drive is not an issue: We refuel when it's empty. But we want to know how much fuel we have to pay for to drive from e.g. Berlin to Cologne. So our the question is "costs per distance" not "distance per tank".

We rarely fill up completely and drive a leg as long as the fuel lasts. From my home to Italy I'll probably pass a few hundred petrol stations and still have a lot of fuel in my tank. And this was, as @chriscroft pointed out, traditionally different in the States and in Australia and still is different in large areas of the US and Oz.

Interestingly, in Germany, EVs are still calculated in an MPG way: kilometers per charge. Same cause as with fuel in the US: there are (still) not many charging stations on long trips, so you have to know how far you can get.

So you guys have what we call "Reichweitenangst".

Still not convinced

If you've just put 50l in your tank and your average consumption is 9.5km/l then your available range is 50 x 9.5 = 475km.

Or Berlin to Cologne = 575km/9.5 = 60.5 litres of fuel. Easy

If you're working with 10.5l/100km then your range is (50/10.5) x 100 = 476km

I guess Europeans are just better at maths

 

[bemax]

Still not convinced

If you've just put 50l in your tank and your average consumption is 9.5km/l then your available range is 50 x 9.5 = 475km. Easy

If you're working with 10.5l/km then your range is (50/10.5) x 100 = 476km

I guess Europeans are just better at maths

And if you divide the 100 km by 9,5 you get 10,52631578947368 liters/100 km
If you divide 50 by 0.1052631578947368 you get 475

 

[ECrider]

And if you divide the 100 km by 9,5 you get 10,52631578947368 liters/100 km
If you divide 50 by 0.1052631578947368 you get 475

approximately according to DaveB

 

[bemax]

approximately according to DaveB

Exactly! I thought so to as I wrote it

 

[emax]

If you've just put 50l in your tank and your average consumption is 9.5km/l then your available range is 50 x 9.5 = 475km.

This is wrong in every respect:

50x9.5 is 4750 not 475.
And range is 50l / (9.5l / 100 Km) = 5,26 * 100 Km = 526 Km.
Or simpler: 50L/9.5L * 100 Km = 526 Km.
Easier for me.

For the fuel: 5.26 * 9.5L =50L (rounded)
For 475 Km: 4.75*9.5L = 45,13L (rounded)

 

[joejet]

This is wrong in every respect:

50x9.5 is 4750 not 475.
And range is 50l / (9.5l / 100 Km) = 5,26 * 100 Km = 526 Km.
Or simpler: 50L/9.5L * 100 Km = 526 Km.
Easier for me.

For the fuel: 5.26 * 9.5L =50L (rounded)
For 475 Km: 4.75*9.5L = 45,13L (rounded)

So how many bananas per eggcup of fuel? I just fill up and see how far I get!.

 

[Hannes01]

This is wrong in every respect:

50x9.5 is 4750 not 475.
And range is 50l / (9.5l / 100 Km) = 5,26 * 100 Km = 526 Km.
Or simpler: 50L/9.5L * 100 Km = 526 Km.
Easier for me.

For the fuel: 5.26 * 9.5L =50L (rounded)
For 475 Km: 4.75*9.5L = 45,13L (rounded)

I probably forgot something over the year’s, but according to 1x1, for me 50 x 9.5 ≠ 475

 

[DaveB]

So how many bananas per eggcup of fuel? I just fill up and see how far I get!.

I have a company supplied and paid Fleetcard for my fuel so the efficiency doesn't bother me.
The range does but 850kms will do for 95% f the time
This looks like a pretty good solution for water and fuel when needed.
Just don't get them mixed up

 

[frankkk]

I have a company supplied and paid Fleetcard for my fuel so the efficiency doesn't bother me.
The range does but 850kms will do for 95% f the time
This looks like a pretty good solution for water and fuel when needed.
Just don't get them mixed up
View attachment 7802648

Was just thinking the same..welcome back, Sir..

 

[stickshifter]

Are we doing Orwellian math?

What was the line from Orwell's 1984... 2 + 2 = 5 (if I remember correctly).

50 x 9.5 = 475 (maybe I'm missing a joke??)

 

[Steveo]

I can never fathom why our Metric Cousins don't use kilometres per litre (to follow the same convention as miles per gallon) rather than the slightly baffling l/100km.

Is it me or does 9.5km/litre make much more sense than 10.5l/100km?

Welcome to OCD Tuesday everybody!

For the big trips we do in Oz it’s useful to think about how much fuel is needed based on the distance. “I’ve got to cover 900km how much fuel is that? 9x100x10.5 litres “ An easy calc.

 

[emax]

I probably forgot something over the year’s, but according to 1x1, for me 50 x 9.5 ≠ 475

You caught me. My calculator ignores decimal points as my PC's locale want's a comma.

Calulator fault.

 

[globalgregors]

I have a company supplied and paid Fleetcard for my fuel so the efficiency doesn't bother me.
The range does but 850kms will do for 95% f the time
This looks like a pretty good solution for water and fuel when needed.
Just don't get them mixed up
View attachment 7802648

All this attention to grammar and you fail to cite your sources. C'mon @DaveB

 

[trobex]

At $2.05/L here is SEQLD, I will probably be a little more 'throttle' conscious around town but when going away fuel consumption won't matter... so long as we don't tip hard past the 16L/100 mark!!!

 

[DaveB]

At $2.05/L here is SEQLD, I will probably be a little more 'throttle' conscious around town but when going away fuel consumption won't matter... so long as we don't tip hard past the 16L/100 mark!!!

I just paid for my own fuel for the first time in 20 years.
I didn't actually look at the price
Below is the fuel consumption for the first half of the trip
I won't be getting these results in the Grenadier I bet
This was pushing hard and mostly on the motorway at 110-145kmh but the inevitable road works slowed me down to 80kmh a lot