Thread: MPG vs L/100k
View Single Post
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 11th February 2007, 07:37 AM
JDNSW's Avatar
JDNSW JDNSW is offline
Swaggie
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Central West NSW
Posts: 12,004
Thanks: 675
Thanked 2,645 Times in 2,022 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by vnx205 View Post
So 670 km would need 67 litres. What could be easier?
Provided your claim that the former case is more common - but my belief is that it is equally common to put your example as "My tank holds 80l - will this take me more than 670km?" Using your figures the answer is it will take me 800km so I have a margin.

You can make the calculation either way - but your main concern is "Am I going to run out of fuel?", which you can answer by either calculating the fuel required for your trip and comparing it to how much you have, or calculate how far you can go on the fuel you have and compare this to the distance you have to go.

And for your figures, (670km, 10l/100km or 10km/l) the calculation is equally easy - in fact, by simply dropping the zero you have actually divided by ten (which is the calculation for 10km/l), where if you had actually used 10l/100km you should have divided 670 by 100 to get 6.7 and then multiplied it by ten to get 67, two steps rather than one. For a figure other than ten the calculation is a bit more complicated, but most people will have to use a calculator anyway if either the km/l or l/100km has anything after the decimal (as is usually the case)!

John
__________________
JDNSW
1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol
Reply With Quote