Car ad confusion?
- Thread starter IAmATeaf
- Start date
No your right, 57.6 and 58.9 are different numbers, however as it doesn't show dangerous driving like the GT86 advert its unlikely the ASA will care 
*EDIT*
Working the numbers out I reckon its down to the margin of error for converting between miles/gallon and litres/100km, they have done it twice and got two diff figures due to all the decimals/rounding etc that can take place during the calc.
Of course why they didn't just C&P the first figure they got...
*EDIT*
Working the numbers out I reckon its down to the margin of error for converting between miles/gallon and litres/100km, they have done it twice and got two diff figures due to all the decimals/rounding etc that can take place during the calc.
Of course why they didn't just C&P the first figure they got...
Last edited:
The CO2 is also out, 125g/km in the main and the lowest is 128g/km in the official figures.
EDIT: Just been looking on their website and it looks like the CO2 figures may be auto/manual gearbox related, can't see why the MPG are different though.
EDIT: Just been looking on their website and it looks like the CO2 figures may be auto/manual gearbox related, can't see why the MPG are different though.
Last edited:
Just used an online calc:
I think that's dropping/rounding decimals too though, its quite funny what different results you can get from the same equation just by doing it slightly differently, but I think this is why their figures don't match.
According to Google itself 4.9 L/100KM = 57.6492 MPG (imperial) which ties in with the footnote.
I think that's dropping/rounding decimals too though, its quite funny what different results you can get from the same equation just by doing it slightly differently, but I think this is why their figures don't match.
According to Google itself 4.9 L/100KM = 57.6492 MPG (imperial) which ties in with the footnote.