MPG or L/100km

Joined
Sep 17, 2012
Messages
4,188
Location
A Barrier Island
Two different metrics for calculating fuel efficiency. Many cars can measure each method. I sometimes flip my cars from mpg to L/100km just to get a sense of the differences. It seems that MPG gives a better measure of distance remaining from the fuel supply. L/km might be a better guage of consumption. Lots of people here use either.

Which do you use or both sometimes?

An explanation of the conversion factor,

 
One thing about mpg, if you have a certain number of miles you drive per year, going from 10 mpg to 15 saves you a lot more money than going from 40 mpg to 45. So L/100km makes understanding the cost more intuitive.

It's a lot more typical to be thinking, "how much will it cost me/save me to commute with this car?" than to say, "I can spend $5 a day to commute. How far away can I live if I drive this car?"
 
One thing about mpg, if you have a certain number of miles you drive per year, going from 10 mpg to 15 saves you a lot more money than going from 40 mpg to 45. So L/100km makes understanding the cost more intuitive.
No - same. You can multiply the distance by cost or the volume by cost. Both methods measure exactly the same thing, either fixing volume (gallons) or fixing distance (100km).
 
I think of the question as whether you want to think of distance per unit of fuel or fuel per unit of distance.

I think both measures are sort of lacking. Because what we *really* care about are different questions:
- Do I have enough fuel to get to my destination?
- When will I need to buy fuel?
- What is my fuel cost for this trip? For this week? This month?
- What is my instantaneous fuel burn rate as a means of feedback for my driving style?

If fuel was free, would we care about MPG? Almost surely not. That's why EV buyers focus on range and not equivalent MPG. Buying fuel is a cost that is inconvenient. So if the cost is minor (EV), then we move on to the next inconvenience of how often to fuel and what that fueling event will cost me in time and/or money.

Neither fuel per unit distance nor distance per unit fuel really answer any relevant question-- they always need more information, like cost per gallon, trip distance, total distance driven in a day, week, or month, etc.

What's frustrating to me is that this incompleteness is totally ignored. I've yet to see a car's trip computer that will let you enter fuel cost like a Fuelly app or such. Gas Station apps from Exxon, Shell, etc all suck because they have they only log transactions.

With modern data tools, there's simply no excuse for not having real-time feedback on cents per mile (of the current tank), dollars per week/month, etc. Yet the best you can do is use Fuelly and manually enter all your data even though that data already exists! My Exxon and Shell apps track all the info needed in terms of transactions. Why can't the apps on my car use that info?
 
MPG with city/combined/highway every time. Far more useful than what might get used in 100 miles or km as no one actually drives 100 exactly on a trip and the lack of proper info vs city and highway driving.
 
Far more useful than what might get used in 100 miles or km as no one actually drives 100 exactly on a trip and the lack of proper info vs city and highway driving.
That's one funky sentence.

I can flip between imperial and metric in both of my cars.
A Canadian gas jockey told me "The Imperial gallon is so gone...". They still use 'Miles per Imperial Gallon' in the UK.

Patman: I wonder if your car's switchable fuel mileage readout uses the US gallon because the car is also marketed in the US or if it uses the real Imperial gallon for die hard Canadian automotive romantics....or export to the UK.

The Imperial gallon is 1.20095 US gallons.

Also, every time I've seen l/100km used, it's always only to one decimal place. Ex: 6.7l/100km. It should be at least 3 decimal places.
 
Both measure the same thing effectively, just expressed in a different way. Fixed volume vs distance or fixed distance vs volume.

No they do not. L/100km measures fuel consumed per set distance, while MPG measures distance traveled on set amount of gas. Two different measurements. Europeans have an equivalent, although not very popular and it's KM/L.
 
That's one funky sentence.


A Canadian gas jockey told me "The Imperial gallon is so gone...". They still use 'Miles per Imperial Gallon' in the UK.

Patman: I wonder if your car's switchable fuel mileage readout uses the US gallon because the car is also marketed in the US or if it uses the real Imperial gallon for die hard Canadian automotive romantics....or export to the UK.

The Imperial gallon is 1.20095 US gallons.

Also, every time I've seen l/100km used, it's always only to one decimal place. Ex: 6.7l/100km. It should be at least 3 decimal places.
Both of them use the US gallon actually as I’ve double checked it.
 
No they do not. L/100km measures fuel consumed per set distance, while MPG measures distance traveled on set amount of gas. Two different measurements. Europeans have an equivalent, although not very popular and it's KM/L.
Thats exactly what I said. Fixed Distance or fixed volume - take your pick. There functionally measuring the same thing distance vs fuel consumed or fuel consumed vs distance. You have to fix one of the variables.

You could also do km/liter. Or miles/ liter. Or feet per quart. Or feet per liter, just to screw everyone up. :ROFLMAO:
 
Thats exactly what I said. Fixed Distance or fixed volume - take your pick. There functionally measuring the same thing distance vs fuel consumed or fuel consumed vs distance. You have to fix one of the variables.

You could also do km/liter. Or miles/ liter. Or feet per quart. Or feet per liter, just to screw everyone up. :ROFLMAO:
Imperial gills per furlong would confuse me.
 
Back
Top Bottom