Page 4 of 4
Re: Fuel Economy?
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:07 pm
by marsgal42
The standard is litres/100 km - at least it is in France, Spain, Belgium, Germany, Australia and Costa Rica. Even England, nowadays. All countries where I have driven, or have seen car ads, or read car magazines.
I don't know how they came up with it, but it makes a certain amount of sense: if you want to drive 500 km, and your van does 10 litres/100 km, you will need 50 litres of fuel. Easy.
...laura
Re: Fuel Economy?
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:30 pm
by mararmeisto
Personally, I think the litres/100km is used because it's a trick to make the numbers look smaller. This is exactly what one wants in fact (less fuel for a set distance), but since in Canada we can't be told how many miles per gallon a vehicle will travel, and a litre is a small unit of measure compared to the gallon, flip the variables around, confuse the sh!t out of everyone and then tell them it's a 'good' number and how would they know? Same trick as telling someone the price is not 10$, it's only 9.99$.
But that's just me - Moon Machine is still averaging 8.5km/litre.
Re: Fuel Economy?
Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2008 9:35 pm
by Green1
Even England, nowadays
England is a mess, most people there talk miles per gallon, because distances on their roads are still measured in miles, however it gets complicated because fuel there is sold in litres... big mess really (and here I thought we were the only country that couldn't really decide between metric and imperial, apparently they're worse!)
As for why it's L/100km instead of km/L... probably because to people who were used to mpg, the km/L numbers sounded awful (especially back when we were first going metric and fuel economy was even worse than it is today) but when they did L/100km the numbers didn't sound so bad...
Re: Fuel Economy?
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 12:01 am
by FalcoColumbarius
Erebus wrote:Sorry, I read the kilometres per litre as litres per 100 km. Oops. Not sure why anyone ever puts out km/L since that isn't the way any organization ever reports fuel consumption. My bad.
Erebus (formerly known as Ruminante), don't sweat it, I am as confused as anyone. When I was growing up in the lower mainland one walked into a building on the ground floor and then up to the first floor. As I told Mararmeisto ~ the problem with metric is I just can't fathom it. 
I suspect that is the case in Britain, where measurement is so intertwined with the every day language. On building sites tradesmen still measure lengths by walking the distance toe to heel. Trudeau stated that it was difficult sleeping next to an elephant. I reckon this could be one of the reasons why Canada went metric... smiles... You know ~ kind of like saying "no". A friend of mine once told me "Falco, there comes a time when one must call a spade a ******* shovel".
Falco.
Re: Fuel Economy?
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 5:07 am
by Erebus
I could suggest that "fuel consumption" refers to "how much fuel will it take to go a specified distance", whereas "fuel economy" is more like "how far can I get on a specific amount of fuel".
Most other modes of transport like planes and boats tend to use consumption per hour, since with wind and current your speed over ground can be very different from velocity made good.
Just my nickel's worth (hoping there won't be a penny soon!)
Re: Fuel Economy?
Posted: Wed Apr 16, 2008 10:25 am
by FalcoColumbarius
Well,
This reminds me of those camp fire discussions, the kind where someone leans over and pours another cup of diesel on the fire, as we talk late into the night..... So velosity: Speed X direction, right? I think this has great relevence to our discussion, Erebus, am I glad you brought it up. I get 8.5 a litre, as mentioned earlier, but I live and do much of my driving on the North Shore of Vancouver Harbour. So when I plan my trips, however short ~ I tend not to take the "Cut" (a long steep hill on Hwy 1) when going uphill. I find the paths of least resistance. 39 Ronan, on the other hand tells me that he will get maybe ten kilometres to the litre ~ but he is mainly highway driving, so more momentum when hitting the hills.
Velosity X momentum + weight. I think weight can be very useful when working with momentum. Kind of like kung-fu ~ making the weight of your subject work for you, which depends on your own behavioral techniques, such as how you execute your right foot. If I can maintain 8.5 KPL in the city with steep hill starts, then I am doing well.
Now what about the fuel. Diesel #2, the fuel that goes into diesel vehicles like ours, has changed dramatically in the last twenty years. So much of the sulphur has been taken out, consequently removing much of the lubrisity in the fuel. The less lubrisity, the harder the engine works ~ the more fuel you pour into the fire, as it were. So adding lubes to the fuel? Next, how efficient is the fuel burning? "Diesel Max" in Canada is the equivalent of "regular" in Japan. Delicas are accustomed to the good stuff. So we can add additives; boost the cetane. Or we can do like some folk up north and mix Diesel #1 into the fuel. Diesel #1 is also known as "jet fuel" ~ but it is also known as "Ker-O-sene".
By the way... if I sound like a masterful scholar on this subject, it is not true ~ I am just a guy who reads from time to time.
Kerosene burns hot but has few lubricants in it. So although it would be good for cold starts it cannot be depended on for everyday use but could be useful in biofuel.... I have been checking out the R/V web sites, they have a real sense of motivation when it comes to fuel economy.
Falco.
Re: Fuel Economy?
Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 1:49 pm
by FalcoColumbarius
FalcoColumbarius wrote:JMK wrote:Falco,
Which additives do you recommend using/do you use?
I am using Howes, which is a cleaner and I am using PS, which is a cetane enhancer. I still have much to learn about this, JMK ~ but that is where I am at right now. Both of these improve my mileage. PS is the recent one, will let you know how that transpires.
Falco.
Okay, JMK....
I have done two runs with the "Power Service (PS) Cetane Booster". When I was just running the PS I got to 530 Kms before the Fuel light came on (Roughly 58 Litres on my machine), but I was doing a lot of highway driving at that time so I wasn't all that impressed. Then I got this wonderful idea of mixing the PS with the Howes and the fuel light came on after 418 Kms.... this is not acceptable. With the Howes I was getting to 530 Kms when the light came on and that was in the city.
Another observation I made was how the fuel gauge monitored the fuel consumption. When using the Howes (or with no enhancer) the needle stayed at the "F" mark for the first 100 Kms. The next 100 Kms landed me a little over half; next 100 to just under half; then it became a little more gradual after that. When using the PS I noted that the gauge was more constant in it's decline, and faster, too.
I think I will stop using the PS Cetane Booster and stick with the Howes, which has been my best experience, thus far....
Falco.