The Wikipedia article I reference says the US system was based on the English systems of the 18th century. You guys defined the Imperial system in 1824. Apparently, the US was following the standard and then the UK changed. That would make the US system more standard than the Imperial system, wouldn't it?
Sorry, I can only be held responsible for changes since mid 20th century. The early 19th century was down to somebody else. Oh, for the record I was not apportioning blame toward any particular side of the Atlantic ocean. Just over-reacting to the juxtaposition of different standards under one name. Anyway, my hat has been devoured now, so I'll close with hearty burp!
No need to devour your hat. I am sure part of the purpose of this site is education & sharing. That is what we do here.
It generally has. The public is mostly in tuned with L/100km and most, if not all, editorials and test drive articles list fuel economy in L/100km. Brochures will still list both L/100km and Imperial mpg. Once in a while, advertisement will use imp mpg. It'll catch the unsuspecting buyer, especially those that don't realise that Canada uses imperial mpg/gallons and will think that a 40mpg car gets 50mpg "like a Prius" (50mpg Imp. is ~ 42 US mpg). Fuel tank size is also listed in litres and imperial gallons (45 litres = 9.9 Imp. gal = 11.9 US gal)
Isn't that backwards? The Imperial gallon is larger so Imperial MPG should be higher than US MPG. The mile measurement is the same.
Imp. MPG is higher. Yes. I meant a 40 US mpg car is listed as 50 mpg (imp.) in Canada and someone who isn't familiar will think that car gets 50 mpg (US) which is the same as the (3rd gen) Prius.