Prius Exceeds 2015 JDM Fuel Economy Standards

[zenMachine]

Japan is shaking up its fuel economy standards and Toyota has announced that the Prius, surprise, surprise, has already met these new, tougher 2015 fuel efficiency procedures.

Under Japan’s long-established 10.15 mode fuel cycle system, the Prius manages a class leading 35.5 km/l, (equal to 83.5 mpg US). Many in Japan have wondered for some time about that rating, which is pretty unrepresentative of what the Prius typically achieves, day-in, day-out, in real world duty.

Winding Road

BTW, I've often wondered why km/l has not been adopted as an international standard for fuel economy. It would make comparisons so much easier across different national systems.

[SureValla]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(zenMachine @ Aug 14 2007, 04:58 PM) [snapback]495594[/snapback]</div>

BTW, I've often wondered why km/l has not been adopted as an international standard for fuel economy. It would make comparisons so much easier across different national systems.
[/b]

I agree im all for the metric system but this liters/100km is a very strange unit. the whole point of the metric system is that units are really easy to understand and convert.

[skruse]

SI, the modern "metric" system is the legal US system of measurement. SI was established by the Acts of 1866, 1975 (Ford), 1988 (Bush Sr) and subsequent Acts.

We are used to distance per volume (miles per gallon). It seems logical to move to kilometers per Liter. The reverse, Liters per 100 kilometers seems backwards. In effect, "I used this much fuel to drive 100 kilometers." Logically, "I drove this many kilometers on a Liter of fuel," appears to make more sense because we don't always drive 100 km.

[EricGo]

skruse, volume of fuel per distance has the attraction of accurately showing low -> zero consumption with a 3 digit display.

[MikeSF]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Aug 15 2007, 06:59 AM) [snapback]496069[/snapback]</div>

skruse, volume of fuel per distance has the attraction of accurately showing low -> zero consumption with a 3 digit display.
[/b]

And conversely it has the accuracy of showing two really close numbers that are close "numerically speaking" yet really far apart for what they mean.

i.e. 4.2 liters / 100 km, vs 3.2 liters per 100km = huge difference in fuel efficiency.. and a quick glance you of John Q. Average-American, will say the 4.2 one is "better"

[patsparks]

The metric system has nothing to do with easy conversion it has to do with the number 10.
10 is the base of the metric system which is what makes it a better IMHO system than the imperial or american system. Can anyone tell me the base number of the imperial or american system? USA and UK can't even agree on the size of a pint or a gallon.

We changed to metric here when I was at senior primary school. I didn't know how many feet were in a mile but I had no trouble remembering there were 1000 metres in a kilometre or 1000 litres in a cubic metre or water freezes at 0 degrees and boils at 100 degrees or 1000 milimetres in a metre ...

Kilometres per litre don't tell me about fuel consumption but about distance from a litre, I'd rather know how much fuel I need for a given distance.

[MikeSF]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(patsparks @ Aug 16 2007, 04:03 AM) [snapback]496775[/snapback]</div>

We changed to metric here when I was at senior primary school. I didn't know how many feet were in a mile but I had no trouble remembering there were 1000 metres in a kilometre or 1000 litres in a cubic metre or water freezes at 0 degrees and boils at 100 degrees or 1000 milimetres in a metre ...

Kilometres per litre don't tell me about fuel consumption but about distance from a litre, I'd rather know how much fuel I need for a given distance.
[/b]

And here I though it was people in the US that had issues with math & science

Being a teacher in physics & astronomy however I will agree with you the metric system is certainly nice, really useless for astronomy mind you, but great for physics.

I'm unsure why you'd worry about how much fuel you'd need for a given distance, or why knowing how much distance you can get from a certain volume doesn't tell a story. Maybe this is where the US system works wonders, the Prius has approximately a 10 gallon tank, so when you look at your display and it says you've gone XXX miles and your MPG is YY.Z mpg simply move the decimal place over on the MPG to put an upper limit on how far you can drive.

Both IMO tell of fuel consumption, 4 liters per 100 km says it takes 4 liters of fuel to go 100 km, 60 Miles per Gallon says it takes 1 gallon of fuel to go 60 miles, or 2 gallons of fuel to go 120 miles, or 1/2 a gallon to go 30 miles. If people really are that inept at math then they should just look at their gas gauge and refuel as needed.