Cost of driving in SA

I just got back from a 10K trip.

All of the gas bills that I could account for totaled R3,000.

?Can that be correct in a Renault clio with manual?

Payment in CASH was a headache.

Doug Clark

Was that 10,000 miles or 10,000km?

At R3000 for fuel, that would be around 500 litres. Even at 10,000km
that sounds like extraordinarily good consumption.

On 14 Mar 2007 15:58:02 -0700, "
wrote:

I just got back from a 10K trip.

All of the gas bills that I could account for totaled R3,000.

?Can that be correct in a Renault clio with manual?

Payment in CASH was a headache.

Doug Clark

On Mar 15, 8:51 am, Marc Lurie
wrote:
Was that 10,000 miles or 10,000km?

At R3000 for fuel, that would be around 500 litres. Even at 10,000km
that sounds like extraordinarily good consumption.

On 14 Mar 2007 15:58:02 -0700, "



wrote:
I just got back from a 10K trip.

All of the gas bills that I could account for totaled R3,000.

?Can that be correct in a Renault clio with manual?

Payment in CASH was a headache.

Doug Clark- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It was 10,000 km

(I have found 5 travel days with no gas purchase)

If I missed 5 fill ups at R200, then the total is R4,000.

This would put the MPG at between 35 and 40.

?Is this a reasonable MPG for the Renault in SA at the speed limit
with mainly highway travel?

schreef:
It was 10,000 km
(I have found 5 travel days with no gas purchase)
If I missed 5 fill ups at R200, then the total is R4,000.
This would put the MPG at between 35 and 40.
?Is this a reasonable MPG for the Renault in SA at the speed limit
with mainly highway travel?

Why do you care? You have travelled there and hopefully enjoyed it. I
suppose you have only filled the car up when it was (nearly) empty. You
can't put fuel into the tanks if there is no room. So, you must have
used the amount you have bought.

Fuel is very inexpensive in South Africa as it is in the US. So who
cares? South African may have a different opinion, but they don't have
to pay the R13.5 per liter we pay here in Europe. :-)

Regards,
Hans

P.s. Besides Americans, nobody in the world counts in Miles per Gallon.
We only know kilomters and liters. :-)))

It was 10,000 km

(I have found 5 travel days with no gas purchase)

If I missed 5 fill ups at R200, then the total is R4,000.

This would put the MPG at between 35 and 40.

?Is this a reasonable MPG for the Renault in SA at the speed limit
with mainly highway travel?

Ah, there's the difference... :-) 1 mile = 1.6 kilometres

At R4000 that's about 666 litres. For 10,000km that equates to 15km
per litre which is consistent with a small engined car driven
carefully at speed limits.

You must be a safe, and considerate driver :-)

Regards,
Marc

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:21:06 +0100, Wildpicture
wrote:


P.s. Besides Americans, nobody in the world counts in Miles per Gallon.
We only know kilomters and liters. :-)))

Not so Hans. The British still talk in MPG as well. :-o

Marc

In message
Marc Lurie wrote:

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 21:21:06 +0100, Wildpicture
wrote:


P.s. Besides Americans, nobody in the world counts in Miles per Gallon.
We only know kilomters and liters. :-)))

Not so Hans. The British still talk in MPG as well. :-o

That's very true, and mph as well, but we have to buy the stuff in
litres. Don't get me started!

Slainte

Liz

--
http://www.v-liz.com - Kenya; Tanzania; Namibia; India; Galapagos
Photo Gallery:
http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/g...emberID=165111

Liz Leyden schreef:
P.s. Besides Americans, nobody in the world counts in Miles per Gallon.
We only know kilomters and liters. :-)))
Not so Hans. The British still talk in MPG as well. :-o
That's very true, and mph as well, but we have to buy the stuff in
litres. Don't get me started!

Yes, officially the Brits are metric as well. But hey, half of them
doesn't know that yet and the other half doesn't want to know. :-)))

I guess the Brits will start using metrics as normal once they have
gotten used to the Euro instead of the Pound. :-)))

Officially it is only the US, Liberia and Myanmar that still use the old
non-metric system. And of course it is still used in aviation an marine
matters. Although on sea we have different miles. Just as US and
Imperial gallons are different. Must be really hard to be a kid in
school trying to learn all these different measures. Things even get
"better" when you start calculating areas, let alone adding another
dimension for contents. :-)

BTW even in our metric system over here we still use inches as a measure
for the size of a computer screen.

Regards,
Hans

On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 09:45:47 +0100, Wildpicture
wrote:

I guess the Brits will start using metrics as normal once they have
gotten used to the Euro instead of the Pound. :-)))
SNIP
BTW even in our metric system over here we still use inches as a measure
for the size of a computer screen.

Regards,
Hans

Well, the Pound is divided decimally into 100p, so they already are
using money that is fully metricated, and have been since the 60's I
guess. Even the Americans use metric-based money.

The main reason why marine and aviation still sticks with nautical
miles is that it would take an enormous effort to change ALL the maps
and charts worldwide.

Feet is still used for aviation for the same reason, and because of
the fact that flight levels are easily calculated using convenient
"1000 feet" gaps as opposed to "305 metres". Can you imagine ATC
saying to a pilot "Descend to flight level 1066.8" instead of "Descend
to flight level 3500" :-)

BTW, the same reasoning explains why all aircraft still use 80-year
old AM radio technology. It's simply impractical to switch every
aircraft, airport and every airchart to other technologies.

The ONLY reason we continue to use inches in reference to computer
monitors as because of the sheer buying strength of the American
market forcing it to remain that way.

Marc

Marc Lurie schreef:
The main reason why marine and aviation still sticks with nautical
miles is that it would take an enormous effort to change ALL the maps
and charts worldwide.

And it would mean an enourmous effort to get all people involved used to
metrcis. With a BIG chance of accidents. In 1983 a canandian airliner
nearly crashed because of Canada changing to metrics, whihc lead to a
calculation error in the amount of fuel aboard the plane.
http://www.jimloy.com/math/metric.htm

Feet is still used for aviation for the same reason, and because of
the fact that flight levels are easily calculated using convenient
"1000 feet" gaps as opposed to "305 metres". Can you imagine ATC
saying to a pilot "Descend to flight level 1066.8" instead of "Descend
to flight level 3500" :-)

Would indeed be funny. But not really. Way to dangerous to change.

BTW, in Russian military aircraft meters were used for altitude instead
of feet. And when I learned to fly gliders all instruments were in
meters (altitude) and kilometers/hour (speed).

Regards,
Hans