And does anyone know anything about DIN standard 70030? I know is a fuel consumption calculation method...any more details?

heh 16.4 with 1.6 counted as reserve, if my memory serves me..

Germans are hisorically bad with math...

What do you get if you cross an Elephant and a Banana?

ELEPHANT BANANA COS (THETA)


M

About $40 worth of regular

DIN= dumb international number

snotfunny

Jump back, Miles is awake and sober

Don't know about DIN, buuuuut, a few months ago I installed a tank from a 73 to a 75. I started with an empty tank. Poured in exactly one gallon of gas. Drove one block to gas station. Red light went off when I pumped 1.3 gals. That = 2.3 in reserve. Full to the top took 15.4 gals. That = 16.4 gals total. Of course I assume not all lights come on at the same level, but the tank size has got to be the same, right?

You might notice that there is a difference in Yankee and Imperial Gallons: 128 oz vs 160 oz, in otherwords you Yanks are shorted one-fifth.

I dunno, but I went for 2 years on one tank of gas, heh.

So whats up with the ads say 26, then 29 for a 2.0?

QUOTE (davep @ Feb 24 2005, 05:15 PM)

You might notice that there is a difference in Yankee and Imperial Gallons: 128 oz vs 160 oz,  in otherwords you Yanks are shorted one-fifth.

That's the difference. 16.4 US gallons=13.66 Imp. gallons. But the MPG difference seems backwards: since a US gallon is smaller, you would get a higher MPG on an imperial gallon. Do they use nautical miles in Canada for that calculation?

Well, we don't use furlongs per fortnight.

It is interesting the variations in the various ads. That means I have to search out a whole bunch more. There are some very specific national references. And they had to spell Mosport incorrectly (MOtorSPORT Park). There sure isn't much moss growing when the Porsches are on track.

Are not Canadian roads in kilometers not miles? Or is a US mile not= to a Canadian mile?

Tis now, twasn't then.
I do know there are differences in the owners guides as well. It cost me a point or more in the tech quiz at Parade. They covered their ass well by quoting the specific editions of the manuals as the official references.

So if:

16.4 US gal x 29 mpg = 475.6 US miles on a tank

and

13.6 Imp gal x 26 mpg = 353.6 Imperial miles on a tank

Then 475.6 US miles / 13.6 Imp gal = 34.97 'US miles' per Imp gallon...

"Thats not right"...Johnny Depp

I am confused....

at least some GT's had 100-liter tanks...

QUOTE (bowlsby @ Feb 24 2005, 05:58 PM)

So if: 16.4 US gal x 29 mpg = 475.6 US miles on a tank and 13.6 Imp gal x 26 mpg = 353.6 Imperial miles on a tank Then 475.6 US miles / 13.6 Imp gal = 34.97 'US miles' per Imp gallon... "Thats not right"...Johnny Depp I am confused....

Why don't you try 26 mpg x 16.4 gal=426.4
and 29mpg x 13.6=394.4

BTW, I sometimes got up to 500 miles on a tank with my 73 1.7

Anyway, the 26/29 does not compute well. 26/29=.9 whereas 128/160=.8
Do you think someone goofed on the conversion? I get 32.5mpg. Maybe they wanted to stay in the 20's and 29 was as high as they could go.
I distinctly remember getting 45 mpg with the 1.7 on a very regular basis. On one tank I ran 250 miles at 45 mpg and 250 more miles at whatever and got an average over 50 mpg. At the time I calculated the whatever to be about 70 mpg. This was over 25 years ago now.

well if i fill up before i go to Louisville from western, thats like 100 miles plus around 35 miles....so 135 miles on half of a tank...doubled would be 270...plus reserve of course!

All I know is I usually got to pee before I need gasoline. My bladder barely matches half a tank with the 1.7L just a little more than that with 2.0L and 44 IDF's

Yesterday I stopped for gas about 100 miles out of town...but my biggest priority was to pee on that stop. My car took 8 gallons though...I decided to go below 85 mph after that with my screaming gas guzzling small block! The gauge read 1/2 tank. This morning I had 1/8 tank and could get the light to come on with a relatively hard right turn.

I doubt that there's a calculation error - in my opinion there's just an other way of measurement
as Jeff mentioned, the "key" should be the difference in definition of US norm and DIN

nowdays the DIN lays down the exactly way the car has to go for the measurement (x% city, y% standard road, z% autobahn)
in the 70s and 80s I remember that all german car magazines showed different consumption numbers:
x liter/100 km at 50 km/h
y liter/100 km at 90 km/h
z liter/100 km at 130 km/h
and the so called DIN consumption was a calculated mix-up of all 3 of them

so, if american standards were different, it's logical that they show a different mpg rate

btw - with the metric system our cars have a 60 liter gas tank

Is there a point to this?

Does it matter? I always considered my tank to be about 16 gal. so if you say it is 16.4, then so be it. The MOST gas I could ever fit in mine is 16 gal. (and that is after pushing down on the driver side fender to "burp" the air out of the tank)

The best milage that I ever got was with my silver street car back when it was a 1.8. I could go 475 miles before I got scared and would fill it back up. (the light was on) That would back up the claim of 29 mpg (U.S. measurement) also assuming that the odometer was correct.

When I put my stock 2.0 with fuel injection in my car, it seems that I can only get about 400 miles to the same tank full of gas or approximately 25 mpg.

What kind of fuel economy SHOULD I expect with a stock 2.0 (Euro P/C)?

"about this big" the one armed fisherman said...

I think the tank is supposed to be 62 liters, reserve included. Sixty is a nice round number as Gustl says.

Going over the various ads, the mgp figures vary from 23 to 26 and 29 with most of them refering to the 2.0 motor. This may reflect different model years, but I am not sure if there are enough differences in the car and engine to account for the numbers. We are not talking of 1975 and up models in these ads either. Canada should be getting bigger mpg numbers due to the larger gallon. I am not sure of the origin of the difference in the gallon measure, but I'd guess it was from the 1700's and may have had to do with taxes on alcoholic beverages. I also recall something about spirits being measured in fifth's, and it is a fifth that the American gallon is short.

The point of the whole discussion is the figures used in the ads. 29mpg in the US and 26 in Canada would be incorrect. A proper conversion wound be 29 to 36 mpg. That is far more reasonable.

The Haynes manual indicates 13.65 Imperial gallons, 16.4 US gallons, and 62 liters.