I've always thought of the Liters per 100 km as a scam. We were used to thinking of higher mpg numbers as being better. The car companies assumed the public would assume a higher L/100 km would also be better, when just the opposite is true.
Lots of companies were scamming during the Metric conversion chaos..prices went up because of labelling changes. Ounces became Grams but the bottles stayed the same size and the cost rose.
Gasoline became Litres and they charged twenty percent more per Gallon equivalent. Same gas, more money. Every one of these thieves blamed metric for the increases.
I still feel any consumption number equations should have a ONE on one side of the ratio....that's why I have the Mitsubishi set to display km/one L. It makes sense.
Nobody anywhere has EVER used Gallons per hundred miles
View my fuel log 2017 Mirage ESpecially frugal hatch 1.2 manual: 49.3 mpg (US) ... 20.9 km/L ... 4.8 L/100 km ... 59.1 mpg (Imp)
View my fuel log 2015 Mirage ES Plus 1.2 automatic: 37.9 mpg (US) ... 16.1 km/L ... 6.2 L/100 km ... 45.5 mpg (Imp)
View my fuel log 2015 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 49.9 mpg (US) ... 21.2 km/L ... 4.7 L/100 km ... 59.9 mpg (Imp)
Interesting gadget, will have to look into it even if I don't win. Wonder if I can add a outside temperature meter too...
Fuel Log: Good enough
Neat Gadget, I have a Android Head unit with torque app and a bluetooth obd2 reader that gives the similar info. It would be interesting to compare them.
Which is a strange unit. It should be km/L or L/km. Where does the '100' come from? And why is it pushed? Who benefits?
View my fuel log 2013 Space Star Cleartec Intense 1.0 manual: 54.5 mpg (US) ... 23.2 km/L ... 4.3 L/100 km ... 65.5 mpg (Imp)
Awesome! hey, I have one entry already!
View my fuel log 2014 Mirage ES 1.2 automatic: 43.1 mpg (US) ... 18.3 km/L ... 5.5 L/100 km ... 51.8 mpg (Imp)