At 18:44 06/03/98 -0600, Alan Lott wrote:
>
>Well Linda, I'll give you a "C-" in math cause I'm a nice guy ;)
You're right, Alan. And thank you for being so kind! The original message
clearly stated the distance in km, but my mind refuses to recognize
kilometres. After ?? years of metric up here in the Great White North I'm
still seeing "30mph" on signs that boldly say "50kph". (My offspring
inform me that I'm 'WAY past OFism and well into the antique section. Or
maybe it was "senile"?) At any rate, I wouldn't want to explain it in
traffic court!
But I'm thoroughly confused. km vs miles is bad enough, but now I'm trying
to deal with three measurements of volume: metric, US gal., and Imp. gal.
How's this: I drove 300 miles, it cost $20, at .51/litre = 39.2 l., or 9.3
Imp. gal., which is 32.2 mpg. (or 39 l. = 10.3 US gal = 29 mpg.) Highway
miles, of course. I used a calculator for this, ordinarily I'd round it
off...40 l. = 10 gal = 30mpg...good enough. I'm happy with that. It's not
as good as a F**t 128 I once owned. It truly loved the highway and
consistently did 50 mpg, (when it agreed to run at all) but spent most of
its brief time in my life at Tony's, being fixed and eating money.
>I do, however, wish your calculations were correct. I'd love to get 32 mpg
>in my 71 B :)
>
I had a 72B that did about the same. Why would your car be getting less?
And how much less?
Thanks for taking the time to point out my mistake, and if I'm wrong in the
math above, please let me know?
Linda
'75B
|