• IDontHavePantsOn@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      You make dem der figures FPH n’ you got a deal. I don’t wanna be going no 600 yards a minute. I wanna be cruisin at 35000 yard and hour, ya hur?

      • MacN'Cheezus@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        A mile is about 15 football fields, so if we did switch to using that measurement, we could all be going 1,000 on the freeway.

        • IDontHavePantsOn@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ur gotdang right. My Mopar might be a four banger, but with cheezus behind the wheel we’re gon’ near 1700 n’ gettin 500 a gallon.

  • MasterNerd@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Dude it’s such an easy conversion between dongles and whatsits, you just don’t get how intuitive it is. There are 42.48 whatsits in a dongle, and 17.49 dongles in a shlorp. Europeans are overreacting so much

  • KrummsHairyBalls@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Reminds me of an app I downloaded the other day to help plan routes. They asked for my cars “KPL”.

    Like what? Who in the world says KPL? It’s l/100KM.

    While I’m aware that some places may use KPL, it just seems very American to go “hey, we use MPG, so they must use KPL”.

    • bstix@feddit.dk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I grew up with km/L.

      I don’t mind using whatever scale, but it’s somewhat better for comparing the numbers that cars actually use, because with l/100km every car is five something or six something.

      Also the higher numbers are better like everything else on the car comparison cards.

      • KrummsHairyBalls@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d love to know which cars you drive with 5-6 l/100km lol

        My best vehicle is 10. My worst is 28. Unless you’re a hybrid, I don’t know of a single vehicle doing 5-6l/100km

        • bstix@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’ve had Opel, Renault, Peugeot, VW, Skoda, Mazda, Suzuki.

          None of them were worse than 7 L/100km. Pretty much all modern cars go at 5 L/100km unless you get something with a larger engine.

          Never had a hybrid.

          • KrummsHairyBalls@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Pretty much none of those brands exist in Canada, or are extremely uncommon. Not to mention the cold weather makes our fuel economy even worse.

        • Knuschberkeks@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          what? Even my parents 6 Seater family car drank only 8l back in the day, I drive my Opel Astra with about 7 and my brothers little fiat drinks 4,5 if he drives efficiently. You gotts have either s pickup truck or something really old.

          • KrummsHairyBalls@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            What? A pickup uses 15-28 l/100km.

            A Silverado uses 15MPG, according to GM themselves. That’s like 16l/100km

            • BCsven@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah pickups amd SUVs are gas guzzlers. i get about 5.5L/100km eith my Honda Fit

              • KrummsHairyBalls@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Ya I don’t know why I’m being down voted for saying what my cars get. Never said anything better didn’t exist, just asked which other cars get less.

                I fucking hate Lemmy. I asked a question and I’m downvoted. Fuck this place. There’s no way to have a god damn discussion here.

                • BCsven@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  People probably misread the intended question as denial of lower consumptions cars existing. The interwebs are fickle

            • onion@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              A Polo 3-cylinder runs at around 5.5l/100km mixed city/interstate. 16l is atrocius

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah maybe it’s just being an American but mpg makes sense in an intuitive way, so kpl sounds like it would be rightish. I’d never guess that people would use l/100km, and I use metric somewhat regularly in my personal life

        • BCsven@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Fuel consumption makes more math sense, especially when doing mental math comoarisons. Litres per 100km or the newer Gallons per 100miles for USA makes it easier for linear fuel consumption calculations. This quote explains: "The advantage of measuring fuel consumption this way is that it makes comparisons easier as fuel efficiency improves for a specific vehicle. That’s because the differences are linear. With miles per gallon, efficiency is graded on a curve. For example, for a 15-mpg car, a 5-mpg improvement is a 33-percent gain. But that same 5-mpg upgrade for a 30-mpg car is only a 17.5-percent improvement to a vehicle that is already using half as much gas. " With litres per 100km a 5 litre increase is 5 litres regardless of starting fuel consumption.

          • emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not even American but this is way less intuitive for everyday use. I don’t need some abstract measure of how efficient my car is being. My fuel tank is measured in liters, when I fill up i pay by the liter, I want to know how far I can go on x liters. Not have to do a bunch of mental math to reverse the equation for my gas tank with 40 liters in it. I have 40l, I can go x*40 km. Mental multiplication is way easier than mental division.

        • Madlaine@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Guess the difference is what you grew up with and therefore intuitively prefer:

          • allegedly american thinking: This baby sucks X gallons. Let’s see how far I can get with it

          • allegedly non-american thanking: I need to drive roughly X 1/2 hundred kilometers, and that will burn that much fuel.