Australian Land Rover Owners

Freight Calc Gallery Games Arcade Markets Shop Chat Subscribe! Donate Files Links
Go Back   Australian Land Rover Owners > AULRO General Forums > General Chat

General Chat Almost anything goes, have a look and drop in a few lines. Think of it as a campfire chat with the kids around.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 12th February 2007, 02:44 PM
vnx205's Avatar
ChatterBox
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Tuross Head, South Coast, NSW
Posts: 2,585
Thanks: 208
Thanked 867 Times in 524 Posts
Of course if you wanted to be pedantic, you could argue that since we are talking about fuel consumption we should state it as how much fuel is consumed. So litres goes on the top of the fraction and the distance goes on the bottom. Putting the distance on the top of the fraction whether it is miles or kilometre surely means that whatever the figure describes it is not actually fuel consumption.
The 100 is not an issue. It is only there the give a reasonable degree of accuracy without too many decimal places. I know it involves the same number of significant figures, but 10.5Litres/100km looks neater than .105Litres/km. Anyway working with 10s or 100s is not a big deal. You don't really have to do any maths. Just move the decimal point up or down one or two places.
__________________

1973 Series III LWB 1983 - 2006
1998 300 Tdi Defender Trayback 2006 -
- often fitted with a Trayon slide-on camper.

Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 21st January 2008, 10:13 PM
p38arover's Avatar
Super Roving English Ninja
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Western Sydney
Posts: 18,929
Thanks: 1,308
Thanked 2,429 Times in 1,742 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW View Post
The only logical advantage to mpg over litres/100km is that it is in the form unit/unit rather than unit/100units. As far as I know Australia is the only place this particular unit is used, elsewhere it is km/litre (
Not true. Canada and Europe use it. See also Keys Corner » Blog Archive » Where do people use “km/liter” for fuel consumption?

and from an EEC Directive:

Quote:
Commission Directive 93/116/EC of 17 December 1993 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 80/1268/EEC relating to the fuel consumption of motor vehicles

<snip>

7. CALCULATION OF FUEL CONSUMPTIONS
7.1. The fuel consumptions are calculated from the emissions of hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide calculated in accordance with paragraph 6.
7.2. The fuel consumptions expressed in litres per 100 km are calculated using the following formulae:
(a) for petrol-engined vehicles:
(b) for diesel-engined vehicles:
where:
FC = fuel consumption in litres per 100 km;
Note the Directive is dated 1993.
__________________
Ron B.

1995 P38A Range Rover HSE 4.6 V8 Auto; 1968 LR Series IIA trayback (Holden 202); Yamaha XJR1300, Suzuki DL650 V-Strom



RIP Bucko - Riding on Forever

Last edited by p38arover; 21st January 2008 at 10:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 21st January 2008, 10:39 PM
Bisho's Avatar
Master
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Hunters Hill, Sydney
Posts: 108
Thanks: 1
Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDNSW View Post

Just to confuse matters my 2a has the dipstick in the right tank in gallons and the dipstick in the left tank in litres!

John

john! whats are these fuel tank dipsticks you have? enlighten me, i could do with 1!
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 22nd January 2008, 05:49 AM
JDNSW's Avatar
Swaggie
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Central West NSW
Posts: 11,939
Thanks: 673
Thanked 2,608 Times in 1,995 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bisho View Post
john! whats are these fuel tank dipsticks you have? enlighten me, i could do with 1!
All Australian military Series 2a (and probably Series 3) Landrovers are fitted with a calibrated brass dipstick in each tank. These have a screwdown fitting soldered to the top of the tank, and a hole in the panel above them to access the dipstick and to allow the entry of dust.

For anyone with a lathe, copying these would be quite easy, but it would be best to find an ex-army Series to have a look at what is involved.

John
__________________
JDNSW
1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 22nd January 2008, 06:11 AM
JDNSW's Avatar
Swaggie
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Central West NSW
Posts: 11,939
Thanks: 673
Thanked 2,608 Times in 1,995 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by p38arover View Post
Not true. Canada and Europe use it.
I suspect that, as in Australia, while officially it is l/100km, many if not most people use km/l, the same as many here use mpg, but with even more tendency to continue the old way because no change of units is involved.

Interestingly, I am currently reading a book ("Measure of all things", Ken Alder) on the establishment of the metre by measurement of an arc of the meridian in 1789-96. It gives details of the adoption of the metric system. In France, it was introduced in 1795 (with a provisional metre), abolished in 1806 in favour of traditional Paris measures (as part of Napoleon's rapprochement with the Catholic Church prior to his Russian adventure), and reintroduced after the 1830 revolution. But according to the author, it did not replace the traditional measures in everyday practice until after the Great War (1914-18), when the metric system, used by the military, was indoctrinated into everyone who either served in the army or dealt with it - which meant just about everyone in France! It had been adopted earlier (1820s onward) as part of the unification efforts in the Netherlands and later in Germany and Italy for the same reason (And spread to their colonies).

John
__________________
JDNSW
1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 22nd January 2008, 07:39 AM
Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ireland
Posts: 173
Thanks: 0
Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts
a couple of points
firstly what was the specific gravity of the fuel in the vehicle, the fuel poured in to the tank ,get the average , average temp multiply the refuel quantity by average specific gravity to give you the correct vol in lts or gals then start your calcus
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 22nd January 2008, 09:05 AM
Pedro_The_Swift's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: next to didebub and just above Guiness
Posts: 17,811
Thanks: 3,443
Thanked 1,516 Times in 1,112 Posts
forget that,, I want to know what kind of calculator Ladas has that goes to 31 places
__________________
"How long since you've visited The Good Oil?"

'93 V8
'97 to '07

'01 V8 D2 Auto ACE SLS
'06 to 10

'03 V8 HSE D2.
'10 to ?
Its a gas gas gas!

Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 23rd January 2008, 10:02 AM
ladas's Avatar
ChatterBox
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Kyabram, VIC 3620
Posts: 2,618
Thanks: 18
Thanked 132 Times in 108 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro_The_Swift View Post
forget that,, I want to know what kind of calculator Ladas has that goes to 31 places
Most computer converters/calculators will go to the enth degree and not revert to E or r

I have three little progs/facilities that I use

Conversions in Hand - used for a PDA, but sits nicely on the PC - but doesnt work with Vista

World Time - from the famous watchmaker website (bloody handy tool) Brietling - not only does it offer world time in real time, but there is currency and engineering conversions

Then I also use Currency Converter RX which gives me up to the min exchange rates on certain currencies (well most of them) its online so very accurate

All of these go in excess of 31 places

Christ I really need a life don't I
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 23rd January 2008, 11:08 AM
Bushie's Avatar
YarnMaster
Subscriber
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Heathcote (in "The Shire")
Posts: 3,905
Thanks: 129
Thanked 1,221 Times in 573 Posts
The real problem lies with the 'imperial' system.

Mile - Nautical or Statute
Furlong/Chain/Yard/Foot

But then of course there was the imperial 'metric' measurements in land surveying where a chain was 100 links.

Not to mention acres, rods, roods and perches never did get the hang of them.

I grew up with imperial then changed to metric at the end of my schooling, what never ceases to amaze me is young guys (around 30) that would have been metric all their life yet, ask how tall they are and you get 5' 10", recently moved onto the 'land' measures rainfall in points and lives on acres - how does that happen ??

/rant

Martyn
__________________

2008 Madigan Line
2010 Cape York
1998 Defender

VKS - Mobile 7669

Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 23rd January 2008, 11:17 AM
BigJon's Avatar
ForumSage
Subscriber
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Adelaide - Torrens Park
Posts: 5,793
Thanks: 1,314
Thanked 782 Times in 573 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushie View Post


young guys (around 30) that would have been metric all their life yet, ask how tall they are and you get 5' 10",
Martyn

Perhaps that stems from two things,

1: Growing up they would have had their height measured by their parents, possibly using the imperial system.

2: Having to explain to old people who only 'understood' imperial measurements what their height in cm actually meant.
Incidentally, my Dad (an engineer of some repute) always used to drill mm into me, saying cm are for dress making .
__________________
(88 Hiline - Now with Limited Slip rear diff)
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +10. The time now is 11:49 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Australian Land Rover Owners
Copyright ©2001 - 2012, Dave Blears and aulro.com