I know most people may mistake this question to be misinterpreted, however, you must not reside in the States.. as we do not advertise by "liter to mile," rather, we use "miles per gallon." Or maybe, it's for school? Actually, they use km.. so, to the mile would be difficult unless you're trying to invest in a vehicle, or checking out a vehicle from a country other than the U.S.....
Hypothetically speaking-- doing away with finances, miles-per-gallon math is quirky, and has all sorts of unexpected and counterintuitive consequences.
Among them: a seemingly huge upgrade in fuel economy (say, trading a Camry for a Prius, which doubles your fuel efficiency from 30 mpg to 60 mpg) can have the same fuel-saving consequences as seemingly smaller improvements among larger vehicles (say, trading a 15-mpg SUV for one that gets 20 mpg).
Using miles per gallon, that fact just seems strange -- how can the huge jump from 30 mpg to 60 possibly have the same effect as the much smaller shift from 15 mpg to 20?
But if you use the Canadian method, there's nothing counterintuitive or confusing. Shifting from a car that burns 4 gallons every 60 miles (i.e., 15mpg) to one that burns 3 gallons over the same distance (20 mpg) saves 1 gallon of gas every 60 miles: 4-3=1. Likewise, shifting from a car that burns 2 gallons per 60 miles (i.e., 30 mpg) to one that burns 1 gallon (60 mpg) saves 1 gallon over the same distance: 2-1=1. The math is much clearer, and any apparent "paradox" disappears.
Canadian fuel efficiency figures also makes it easier to tally the cost of fuel. With gas at $1 per liter, say, an 8 liter/100km vehicle costs $2 extra bucks every 100 km driven, vs. a vehicle that gets 6 liter/100km. So if you're buying two cars, you may not even need to pull out a calculator to figure out how much the more efficient car will save you each year.
So I wonder how many Americans chose big, inefficient SUVs thinking (incorrectly) that there wasn't such a big difference between 15 mpg and 20 mpg. I don't know if using Canadian fuel economy math would have made their choices any different. But at a minimum, the cost consequences of their choice would have been a little clearer.
But, to get technical, it all depends.
That is, it'd depend on the type of engine, and numerous amount of other parts, such as fuel lines, gas tank, emissions coupler, and number of pistons, etc... most of all, it has to do with the type(s) with relations of the fuel pump and engine... and the user (pressing the accelerator). So, velocity has a lot to do with it, along with plus / or minus weight and/ or the vehicles mass^2 (squared), and the functions of the cg (center of gravity) and the cp (center of pressure) with respects to friction (by tires). Other natural causes such as weather, road conditions, traffic, etc... also apply for your best estimated quote.
But, your answer, on "average" is as follows:
In-use fuel economy of 21.5 mpg (miles per gallon) for passenger cars, and 17.2 mpg for light trucks.
1 gallon = 3.785412 liters. (g) or (lt.) <--- abbreviation
21.5 mpg = 81.38635799999998 lt.
-----
Now, 1 mile equals what? 5,280 ft. (technically) civilian is (5,556 ft.)
1 mile also equals 1,760 yards.
This times 21.5 = 113,520 ft.
--or--.............. = 119,454 ft. (civilian)
--or--.............. = 37,840 yds.
Divide the liters into miles
& then
Divide that by above, and you'll receive your answer...
Which equals....uhh = .1519998765199 Liters...
Sorry, I cut it short my dogs are about to sh!t in the house...
--Rob
2006-08-27 08:16:05
·
answer #2
·
answered by stealth_n700ms 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
depends on the make and model, how well the car is maintained, and where/how fast you are driving.
Generally, highway is better mileage than in-town.
2006-08-27 06:02:12
·
answer #3
·
answered by alannabear34 2
·
0⤊
0⤋