[GTO]

*Public Poll added*

Bah, I much prefer the kpl method. It's easier to understand and relate to, especially if you've grown up using kpl as a measure of FE. Some European cars I've driven display consumption in the L / 100 kms method by default on the MID. I promptly change it to kpl

And at the end of the day, both tell you the same thing. It's not like one makes the car more efficient.

Originally Posted by libranof1987

say full tank at odo 30000 and the next full tank at 30060

Sorry, but I can't think of any car that uses up a tank in 60 kms. Plus, most Indian cars do at least 400 kms on a full tank, and we anyways recommend the full-tank-to-full-tank method of calculating FE.

Thus, the range is even broader than the 100 kms you are suggesting.

[mobike008]

Easiest method is to use KPL.

Litres/100kms is like taking a bite with your hand circled around your head.

[volkman10]

It depends on the usage in a specific country and that method of measurement grows on you and the other types seem complicated.
For us kpl is the way to go.

Cheers!

[srishiva]

It depends on what you have grown up with. We always have been using kpl and its easy for us to compare.

[noopster]

Forgive me but this is silly. You DO realise that you're measuring exactly the same thing, right? Meaning if someone says 8 kmpl, doing the math to get 12.5 lit/100km or 1250 lit/10,000 km is just a quick step away. So what difference does it make?

It's all a question of conditioning and which metric system you are more familiar with: e.g. most of us in India talk about speed in km/hr but after watching enough Top Gear, am sure we know what the Brits/Americans mean when they say 0-60 in 8.5 seconds or Top Speed of 160! THe human brain is quite adaptable that way!

Having said ALL that, I prefer my MID to be calibrated in km/litre. Mostly because 100 km is not an identifiable distance for me: it's too much for a daily commute (in my case I mean) and too short for an intercity drive!

[libranof1987]

Originally Posted by GTO

Sorry, but I can't think of any car that uses up a tank in 60 kms. Plus, most Indian cars do at least 400 kms on a full tank, and we anyways recommend the full-tank-to-full-tank method of calculating FE.

Thus, the range is even broader than the 100 kms you are suggesting.

I mentioned the 30000 and 30060 example to illustrate that someone might not necessarily drive a full tank and then fill it up again; which I further used to illustrate that using the litres/100 kms would give the owner a broader perspective.

I've added that the FE cannot be different, regardless of method.

[Pri2]

Originally Posted by noopster

Forgive me but this is silly. You DO realise that you're measuring exactly the same thing, right? Meaning if someone says 8 kmpl, doing the math to get 12.5 lit/100km or 1250 lit/10,000 km is just a quick step away. So what difference does it make?

I am not saying that they are any different, they are exactly the same thing, but when it comes to understanding fuel economy, I feel liters /100 kms gives you the better picture.

As someone has already pointed out on this thread, here is an example:

Say you have an old Indica that gives you a FE of 15 and you decide to upgrade to a Indica Vista that gives you a FE of 20 KMPL. The FE gain here is more than upgrading from a Vista (20 KMPL) to the 25 KMPL Indica.
Though you can see that the FE increment is just 5 kmpl. For a person who calculates in KMPL the gain will seem to be same > 10kmpl - 15kmpl - 20 kmpl but for someone who calculates in liters / 100 kmpl the gain is : 3.33 liters - 1.67 liters - 1 liter.

I agree that we have grown up following KMPL hence it easier for us to understand it, but if you look logically, liters / 100 kms gives you a better picture on FE and that's my point.

[dhanushs]

Originally Posted by Pri2

Say you have an old Indica that gives you a FE of 15 and you decide to upgrade to a Indica Vista that gives you a FE of 20 KMPL. The FE gain here is more than upgrading from a Vista (20 KMPL) to the 25 KMPL Indica.
Though you can see that the FE increment is just 5 kmpl. For a person who calculates in KMPL the gain will seem to be same > 10kmpl - 15kmpl - 20 kmpl but for someone who calculates in liters / 100 kmpl the gain is : 3.33 liters - 1.67 liters - 1 liter.

Umm.. Pri2, isnt it obvious?. That 15-20 is not same as 20-25?. A simple % increase calculation will show. And that too while making a buying decision, one will definitely make it. The way I calculate cars efficiency is rs/km. . More confusion?

[subscrive]

I would prefer the best way of Rs/km. This is used for rickshaw and taxi fairs and also bus etc.
So its but natural to use this. It will really tell you what is the car costing you per month in terms of fuel cost.

[mmxylorider]

I believe when you are travelling ,say 500 kms, and want to budget for fuel, L/100km might be helpful rounding off liters to next higher numbers. Most people have a fair idea about quantity of fuel remaining in tank and this might help more easily in planning for refuel stops, in case car not equipped with MID.

[gadadhar]

I was confused with liters per 100 km concept when I first saw it in the Beemer. Even the instant mileage is represented as liters per 100 kms and I was doing the mental mathematics to calculate the FE. May be it is a matter of getting used to, but my preference is KMs/Liter

[DieselFan]

Lts/100 kms is suitable for all Cost and ROI calculations. Even if we have KMPL we finally convert it in terms of lts/xkms to arrive at the Costs/ROI calculations.

[kunalsb]

The basic aim of these methods is to know how much you spend on fuel. Hence I practice the following:-

1. I prefer to stick to kmpl. I follow the practice of calculating on a full tank method, so it gives a more accurate consumption value & also automatically takes into account the distance covered (be it City/Highways).
2. I set my trip to zero at the beginning of the month & at the end of the month I get the total distance traveled, so I can roughly arrive at the amount expended on fuel for a month.

You use any method, the money expended on fuel is going to be same

[condor]

Measuring fuel per 100 km is easier when you have the FE measurment rig hooked up in your car. For my regular checks, I prefer to measure distance for fuel filled. The preference for the second option is that I can fill fuel upto near the cap (in the fuel tank inlet), drive sufficient distance and then fill fuel again upto the same point. While this method is not 100% accurate, it is the best & easiest I can do in regular usage.

[dot]

As everyone here agrees, the end result is same, it is just a matter of convention. Like using metric system and fps system for the same thing.

Since we are accustomed to km/l, why not stick to it.