Why MPG and not MPL
- Thread starter The Running Man
- Start date
Without using a calculator or writing anything down, what's 4.546 x 1.219?
It's not 'complex' in mathematical terms but you need to bear in mind that Joe Public just wants to make quick and easy comparisons without having to think about it. MPG is sort of like an inverse cost curve which for people who don't stop and think could deliver this 'illusion' around the benefits of very high MPG. If you asked the average guy on the street if they would save us much going from 50mpg to 60mpg as they do from going from 40mpg to 50mpg, without giving it any thought, a fair few would probably say "yes because it's improved by 10mpg in both cases" or similar.
Litres per mile or litres per 100 miles is what I would go with. Get rid of gallons.
I actually don't like that it seems as clunky in my head as stuff like 11/16ths, etc. that are used for some Imperial measurements.
It's very rare in motoring terms that I see any fractional measures of miles used other than halves or quarters though. Sat Navs / google maps typically use decimals, road signs generally use whole miles except for backwater lanes maybe go down to say 3/4 mile or whatever. OK so you get signs on the approach to junctions maybe indicating hundreds of yards but I don't think that has any bearing in how we look at fuel consumption, it's more to alert the driver how far to the junction.
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Ditto - most fuel computers let you select between imperial and metric.
(100/1.60934)/(5.8/4.54609) = 48.7 mpg.
You're welcome.
It isn't that it it is complex.
It is completely unintuitive.
The example they gave would have taken me a minute to work out, even though they picked a nice round example.
Whilst with l/100km (or gallons per mile) it would take me 3 seconds.
If I took 3 seconds to guess the MPG example, I would probably get it wrong.