Thread: LPG & K's Per 100

Originally Posted by vnx205

I realise that people are comfortable doing things the way they have always done them, but sometimes it is in everyone's best interests to convert to what is the correct standard.

I'm not sure I understand what you meant by the bit I have highlighted. If you are referring to the preference shown by people who contributed to this thread, I found about 13 posts referring to km/litre (often just expressed as something like 370km for 66 litres) and 11 references to litres/100km.
So it seems fairly evenly divided.

G`day Allan , i stopped at the first 9 on the first day of this because i didn`t need anymore than that to see a pattern ... manual , auto , capacity , non std engine , non std exh all thing make a difference .

The only thing nobody is looking at is ignition and i think there are gains to be made here but don`t know how much and by the limited figs i`ve come across don`t know that vapour inject is worth the money on most dissy cars .

I`ll find out one day what the ignition on p38 is capable of as far as self adjustment because if the nockers don`t adjust enough for gas the injection could improve also .

I don`t have time for posts such as your previous one but don`t deny your freedom to do so .

Cheers

PLR, I'm disappointed that you see a discussion about the merits of adopting an international standard as pointless. However you are entitled to see it that way if you wish.

My reading of Ron's initial contribution is that he was pointing out that there is an international standard and that it is easier if people adopt it.

While I realise that a mention of spelling and grammar will upset the few who might be still reading this post, I would suggest that there is a parallel here.
If spelling and grammar are bad enough, it gets to the stage where it is just too much like hard work to work out what the person means.
If someone posts fuel consumption figures like 372 km on 67 litres, of course we can all work that out using our own preferred measure, but wouldn't it be easier to understand and easier to make comparisons if we all used the same measure?
In that case, surely the obvious measure to use is the one that is the international standard.

In this thread, there are some who disagree with you and some who see things just as you do.
The same thing happened when this issue was aired in greater detail in February last year.
If you want to see what people thought about it last year, this is the link.

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-ch...vs-l-100k.html

If you want to ignore it that's fine.

I am interested in why people have different opinions from my own, but I understand that might not be your cup of tea.

Originally Posted by vnx205

PLR, I'm disappointed that you see a discussion about the merits of adopting an international standard as pointless. However you are entitled to see it that way if you wish.

My reading of Ron's initial contribution is that he was pointing out that there is an international standard and that it is easier if people adopt it.

While I realise that a mention of spelling and grammar will upset the few who might be still reading this post, I would suggest that there is a parallel here.
If spelling and grammar are bad enough, it gets to the stage where it is just too much like hard work to work out what the person means.
If someone posts fuel consumption figures like 372 km on 67 litres, of course we can all work that out using our own preferred measure, but wouldn't it be easier to understand and easier to make comparisons if we all used the same measure?
In that case, surely the obvious measure to use is the one that is the international standard.

In this thread, there are some who disagree with you and some who see things just as you do.
The same thing happened when this issue was aired in greater detail in February last year.
If you want to see what people thought about it last year, this is the link.

MPG vs L/100k

If you want to ignore it that's fine.

I am interested in why people have different opinions from my own, but I understand that might not be your cup of tea.

Allan , i don`t understand your reason for the quote but as i said before i don`t think it`s very important or worth all the fuss .

We all agree that any can be converted easily enough , so if we all do it the way that suits we`ll all be happy .

As i said i won`t use the figs i was again on here and i`ve already said i can see you side and why your preference .

I`m not asking you to change how you do anything and because i have to work at 4:30 i don`t have the pleasure of time to look at the link today but will tommorow .

Hopefully you won`t feel there`s any reason to go on with this as i don`t .

Cheers

Originally Posted by stirlsilver

I want to get my dizzy recurved, as I can only set the timing to be right for low revs or high revs (currently pinking at 4000rpm when you put the foot down). Does anyone know where in Melbourne I might be able to get this done? I'm sure there is an extra 0.2km/L to gain from that

I always thought my economy was abysmal, but when looking at what the other more modern rangies and discos get on LPG it makes me feel much better considering my car is 26 years old!

The pinging your hearing is due to 12:1 compression...

Theres some LPG suppliers in Vic selling pure propane..
For an experiment, fill up with that and see how you go...

I had a 12.5:1 308 on GRA and never pinged until they added butane to the mix.

Geez some people have a Princess complex on this board...

Anyone tried BBQ gas in their vehicle?

G`day Allan ,

i understand now that you have a passion for the subject after reading the link and why you responded the way you did .

The heading is MPG v L/100 and i don`t think LPG was thought of in the discussion .

It didn`t convince me one way or the other or that i should change how i work it out .

One thing that differs , i think with LPG is that you do need to have an idea of the distance you can cover because you need a pump to fill as in can`t do it on the side of the road etc with ease .


The way i read was that ltrs per 100 km is used here and maybe a couple of other places so is it actually an International Standard and if so what does this actually mean if only used by a limited number ?

Or maybe this has changed inthe last 12 mths ?

I know i said i`d had enough but if you could just clear this up for me , then i`ll be done .

Cheers , Peter .

Originally Posted by tombraider

Geez some people have a Princess complex on this board...

If you have something to say , say it .

Don`t hide in the middle of nowhere and make an obscure statement .