To me, l/100km makes sense as I can tell how much fuel I burn in an hour.
Some countries use other units like km/l.

David Marshall

Fast Forward Automotive Inc.
4356 Quesnel-Hixon Road
Quesnel BC Canada  V2J 6Z3

http://www.fastforward.ca    mailto:sales@fastforward.ca
Phone: (250) 992 7775        FAX: (250) 992 1160

- Vanagon Accessories and Engine Conversions
- Vanagon, Transporter and Iltis Sales and Importation
- European Lighting for most Volkswagen models

Due to the large volume of email  we  receive,  PLEASE  include  previous
emails when responding.  This will allow us to read the complete dialogue
in one message and will result in quicker and more  accurate  responses.

-----Original Message-----
From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com]On Behalf
Of Andrew Grebneff
Sent: July 27, 2004 3:04 AM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Re: 3.3 verses 4.3 verses 1.9???

>This is why Canada switched to the metric system in 1976 along with the
rest
>of the world.  9.4L per 100km

km/l makes a lot more sense, in that it's intuitive. Making l/100km
the SI unit is insane. Which is why, though I don't use nonmetric
units and haven't since ~1974, I still use mpg.

>makes a lot more since than 25MPG(US) or
>30MPG(IMP).  A kilometer is a kilometer - doesn't matter if you are on
>water, air or land.  Liters are always liters, doesn't matter if it is the
>original imperial gallon or the skimpy US gallon.  It's too bad that your
>civilian population won't follow the lead that your military has taken for
>*years* and switch to the SI system... the USA is the only country in the
>world that hasn't officially adopted the SI system.

Er... England...

Miles, furlongs, chains... yuck!