According to LTSA's fuel saver website, both my cars listed above have 4 out of 6 stars for fuel economy. I really don't know why we didn't just go from 'miles per gallon' to 'kilometres per litre'. Surely that would make more sense!
smac,
Jul 26, 2:57am
Not where I'm looking.
tgray,
Jul 26, 3:03am
That's what it says on my listings. They come up automatically and sourced from the fuel saver website.
smac,
Jul 26, 3:06am
Got some links!
Edit: oh YOUR listings.
smac,
Jul 26, 3:16am
I wonder what info it's picked up for the Chev, 'cause as far as I can tell there is no listings for Camaro on fuelsaver.
Do you enter the details for fuel separately from the listing details! Or does it just use the main listing fields!
tgray,
Jul 26, 3:19am
I'm just going by the info that's appeared automatically on my listings. I think it must be a mistake, but just making the point that 'kilometres per litre' would be far more accurate than this system. The added info regarding average cost per year is also wildly inaccurate due to petrol price fluctuations.
smac,
Jul 26, 3:32am
Yeah I agree on giving a price - people's driving distances and habits vary so much it's usually going to be misleading. Also, the type of person who doesn't know how to work out their annual fuel bill is going to be the type of person even more likely to be mislead by a 'normal' use.
But for the l/100km, that makes far more sense to be than km's per litre ever did.
Most people seem to talk about how far they go on a tank (or how far per dollar). It's easier to convert that to l/100km than it is to km/litre. One involves dividing by 100, by involves dividing by a weird number.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.