On Wed, 11 May 2005 11:45:11 -0700, "RG" wrote:


"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
I had a debate with a friend this morning concerning miles vs gallons
per hour.

These two items are different than the ones listed in the header. The text
above quotes MPH vs. GPH. The header quotes GPH vs. MPG. I'm sure you
realize the MPH and MPG are entirely different calculations, but perhaps
your end of the debate would be strengthened by consistency. Given the
discrepancy, I'm not sure if you are arguing GPH vs. MPH or GPH vs. MPG.
Either way, I'm not sure I understand the basis for the debate altogether,
as each tells a different thing, presumably to be used for different
purposes. GPH will tell you fuel consumption over a fixed period of time,
but as it has no accounting for speed, it has no direct accounting for
distance traveled in that period of time, so by itself is not reasonable
measurement of fuel consumption over distance traveled. MPH is simply a
measurement of speed, with no accounting for fuel consumption at all. MPG
is perhaps the more useful measurement of the three, because it calculates
fuel consumption for a given distance traveled, but may not be as relevant
as GPH for some.

So I take it you have never made a typo in your entire life?

Damn, it must hard to be so perfect. :)

I contend that gallons per hour is a more reliable method of
determining how far and fast a boat can/should go. Obviously, my
friend took the opposite viewpoint.

What is the collective wisdom concerning these measure of fuel
efficiency?

~~ mucho snippage ~~

So for me, GPH is pretty much irrelevant, while MPG is highly relevant. If
my MPG readings started to consistently show less than 1.2, I would start to
suspect something amiss with one of the engines. GPH readings would give me
no such clue. So I guess that puts me on the other guy's side of the
debate. But, as they say, your mileage may vary.

Thanks for your input.

Later,

Tom