Convert litres to Kms

Hi so on that bases if we are doing a trip of 20.000km how many litres would we use approx as Iam trying to get an overall fuel budget

3200l as already posted twice above

Why is it so weird? I think its just dead simple. No of litres used dived by the number of hundred km driven.

For example, our Pajero typically uses around 70 - 75 litres to drive the 600km from Perth. 70/6=11.67 and 75/6=12.5 l/100km. Far simpler than either mpg or l/km.

I,m with you Bazooka. I still use klms per litre. The ltres per 100k just doesn't seem right to me. Our way is simpler and as you say most countries still use the klm/litre method.

L/100km is pretty logical. A small number means a small fuel consumption, and a large number means a large fuel consumtion

Most countries do not use km/litre - the world wide standard for metric fuel consumption is l/100km and I find it easiest to use and it should be used on forums like this to as it is also the Australian standard.

For those resistant to change, take the time to learn how to use it as you are out of step with the rest of the country.

garrycol if I am happy to use kil per litre then I will use it. I may be out of whack with the rest of the world. Then again I always use capital letters for names.

cheers

From WIKIPEDIA..
Fuel economy can be expressed in two ways:

1. Units of fuel per fixed distanceGenerally expressed as liters per 100 kilometers (L/100 km), used in most European countries, China, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. British and Canadian law allow for the use of either liters per 100 kilometers or miles per imperial gallon.[2][3][4] Recently, the window sticker on new US cars has started displaying the vehicle's fuel consumption in US gallons per 100 miles.[5]

2..Units of distance per fixed fuel unitMiles per gallon (mpg) is commonly used in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada (alongside L/100 km). Kilometres per litre (km/L) is more commonly used elsewhere in the Americas, Europe (Northern countries and Italy),[citation needed] Asia, parts of Africa and Oceania. When the mpg unit is used, it is necessary to identify the type of gallon used, as the imperial gallon is 4.5 liters and the US gallon is 3.785 liters.


Either way is correct so I cant see any issue.

"Either way is correct so I cant see any issue."

Not in Australia.

Just a random thought, some truckies having a yarn:

"I get 3 Kilometres per litre"

"I get 2"

"I get 750 metres per litre with that load on"

Hey, Bazooka,
Why not go the whole distance and refer to the number of leagues you get per bale of hay?

Since the rest of the country uses Km/100L to express fuel usage, it makes some sort of sense to use the same. Of course, if you are determined to live in the 1800s, you could always go buy a donkey!

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. There is nothing wrong with expressing it either way. Whatever you feel comfortable using and if the person to whom your relating the figures to cant understand then he has a problem.
As regards living in the past plenty of members on here refuse to buy modern cars because they don't like the electronics, so they retain a car that is well over 10 years old. That's their choice and they are happy with it.

I also didn't realise that litres per kilometres was used by motorists in the 1800,s...lol

Yes Bigfish, a couple of the responses are quite hilarious. The arithmetic is simple either way, but far simpler for some in km/l.

The logic of using "per 100km" however is completely non-existent. The 100 qualifier actually says 'we know people get scared when they see decimal points so we won't use the more logical (and consistent - check other metric standards!) litres/km' (let alone the even more logical km/l).

Here's a simple test you can try with your own families and friends. Pose these two questions and record and/or time their responses.

(1) Your car uses 18l/100km. Your tank holds 80l, how many km will you get out of a tank?
(2) Your car gets 6km/litre. Your tank holds 80l how many kms will you get out of a tank?

Here's my guess at the result of the anecdotal survey. 50% of those asked Q1 will give up or not even bother, 10% will get the answer wrong and the other 40% will take 5 times as long to arrive at the answer as those using the "non-standard".

In essence for travelling I want to know how far my tank (or part thereof) will get me and the simplest way to arrive at that is to know how many litres (imperial of course) my tank has and how many 'kill-o-metres' my vehicle gets for every litre used.

All moot points in the more modern vehicles of course which record fuel consumption and compute the approx distance you can travel on the fuel available at any time.

Just on standards, a note to lighten the very heavy load some are obviously feeling about my heresy. Re-reading Bryson's 'A Short History of Nearly Everything', the inventor of the Celsius temperature scale originally had it inverted ie water boiled at 0 and froze at 100! Go figure.

Seriously! It took you two days to come up with that nonsense, Bazooka. For what it's worth, to work out how far you'd get on at 80 ltr tank at 18 l/100km, would you not simply divide 80 by 18? Or if that's too hard, just divide it by 20, which is giving you a bit of slack so the answer is 4, multiplied by the 100 km to give you 400 at 20 l/100km or if you want to be precise, 444.4 km at 18 l/100km. It's not exactly quantum physics.

Its not quantam physics...so why turn it into something earth shattering..Whatever way suits you is the best.

Can someone show my the mandate adopted by Oz stating we must use litres per 100klms?

I am joking..

Crikey…

I can’t wait till there are two flies crawling up a wall and the ensuing debate on which one is doing it better, perhaps that will come on another “slow news day”.

On fuel, whatever works best for you is just that – best for you.

I find knowing how many kilometres I get per litre is far more practical for me. I won’t get to hung up on either way though, let’s face it, a tank of fuel is a tank of fuel, it won’t matter which way you look at consumption, it won’t change the actual consumption, but I did “play up” in maths – so maybe I missed something.

I record all fuel purchases and summarise it the following way, it gives me everything at a glance and no mental gymnastics involved – Excel spreadsheets, a bit like the humble dishwasher these days, what did we ever do without them?

Just my take on a debate that I’m sure has given many a great chuckle…

Cheers, Baz – The Landy

I don't pretend to understand Quantum Mechanics Paul, but come to think of it I'd be surprised if it wasn't involved somewhere as it's fundamental to everything apparently. I'm usually a stickler for standards so I understand where you're coming from - there are so many advantages to their use. I'll just have to wear the heretic tag in this case.

It changed to gallons per 100 miles a while back. :-)

You could try gallons per 100km to really confuse the issue :)

What about in the UK? They still use miles for distances and use miles per gallon for fuel economy, but sell the fuel by the litre same as us.

It was a joke Michael, lol

Alan

Jokes are only allowed on Fridays - final warning :)

Cheers
Greg

Allan, you can't be serious about joking about something as important as miles and gallons or converting litres to kilometres? The battle lines were drawn a few posts back... there was even a bazooka! :-0

All this about km and miles and units of fuel economy reminds me of an aviation accident that highlights the ridiculousness of it all.

It involved the refuelling of a Boeing 767 (B767) which subsequently became known as the Gimli Glider.

You can read about it here.

Interestingly, and as with most accidents, there was more than one contributing factor - in this case many. It is an interesting read.

Cheers

..
Lol, indeed first world problem hey ?

And here's the formula using the km/lt method in fairness :)

D: the distance you're travelling (known)
C: your vehicle consumption (known)
U: the number of litres you will use (unknown)

U = D*C

In your case (using 16 lt/100km as a base)
U = 20,000*0.16 lt/km = 3200 litres

Funny, same last number :D
Seriously, both methods mostly need a calculator, although if you are doing for example a neat 500km, you only need to multiple 16 x 5, which isn't too difficult in your head.
For part 100km, it's so easy, say 780km = 7.8 x 16, etc.

BUT, your usage can change, it will never be stable at 0.16lt/100km !!

I feel THIS is why the lt/100km method is used, to allow you to check consumption by a set std under different circumstances.

The lt/100km method is the one I use, and when you are asked about consumption in Aust, it is usually expected you will reply lt/100km.