What Kind of Gas Mileage do Exotics Really Get?
This is a great question, especially these days with fuel prices at record highs and the environmental green movement breathing down our collective-car-nut-necks. To some, this post will be as glorious as flying the middle finger high and proud. To others, this will be a tale of horrors and a polar bear's worst nightmare. From whichever angle you read it, it is reality.
When I bought my first Ferrari 308 GTSi in 2001, shortly after finishing grad school, one of the first things I noticed, aside from the constantly nagging repairs, was the amount of fuel it consumed. And this was back when gas was really cheap. My Ferrari was a 1982, built far before the days of on-board digital trip computers that could calculate things such as instantaneous mileage. So my trusty Casio calculator told me I was getting about 10 mpg. Hmm, that sucks, but fuel was inexpensive and Al Gore hadn't made a movie yet, so I didn't think anything of it.
Then, a year ago, I was driving Club Sportiva's yellow 2004 Lamborghini Gallardo coupe with e.gear and it had Audi's trusty on-board trip computer built in. I noticed that the trip computer's instantaneous gas mileage reading would never dip below 5.0 mpg. Is it possible the reading was accurate and that 5.0 mpg is truly the bottom end of the Gallardo's fuel efficiency? Sure it's possible, but it seemed to just stop at 5.0 mpg even as I continued to rev the engine further. Of course, 5.0 mpg is pretty appalling, but in a big 5.0 liter, 500 hp, AWD, V10 engine, what do you expect, right? Could they have intentionally limited the trip computer to shield people from seeing the inconvenient truth? I'm pretty sure Al Gore would drive one too if he hadn't made that big movie.
More recently (like last month), I was driving Club Sportiva's black 2005 Bentley Continental GT with a similar VW equipped on-board trip computer and toggled to instantaneous gas mileage to take a gander as what sort of mileage I might find. I was overwhelmed by the senseless burning of dinosaur remains that I achieved numerous times - 3.6 mpg! Amazing. That is an astoundingly low number and one I am sheepishly proud to say I achieved in a massive W12 engine hauling around an AWD tank-like Bentley with room for three more friends. It did, however, bottom out at 3.6 mpg and while I could achieve that number regularly pulling away from nearly every stop sign, it would never go lower than that. It leaves me to believe the mileage could be worse at times.
The thing about looking for appallingly low mpg figures is the shocking results I found every where I looked. In the Club's 2006 Aston Martin DB9 Volante, with a V12 brute up front, I regularly witnessed 3.4 - 4.4 mpg. But...at one point, I saw 2.5 mpg!! That number surprised me and I didn't get a photo, so that one got away with nothing more than a mention in a blog post. No V12 has ever been known for good mileage, but it is interesting to actually see the real numbers with today's trip computers. Most of the ultra low mileage was found around town in stop and go traffic, not always while cruising on the freeways.
Club Sportiva had a 2004 Lamborghini Murcielago, but it didn't give instantaneous readings, disappointingly, considering the thirsty 6.2 liter V12 nature of the heavy set-up. The Murcielago is actually a large sports car, long and wide. It is deceptive because it is so low, but the car is a beast - a very sexy beast, yes. I'm sure it could have recorded some nice low numbers for us as well. Even the Club's 2006 Porsche Cayman S gets into the action. At 9.0 mpg as the average, not instantaneous, it is clearly capable of racking up some low numbers too.So, now the quest is on. What car can record a lower fuel efficiency reading lower than 2.5 mpg? What is the car and at what gear and speed? Let's keep the conversation on the down low though, so Al Gore doesn't protest our little science project.
Labels: Al Gore, Aston Martin DB9, Bentley Continental GT, Club Sportiva, exotic car share club, fuel efficiency, gas mileage, Lamborghini Gallardo, Trip computer
posted by Torbin at
11:05 PM
11 Comments:
This was my favorite post on the blog yet. So refreshing to read something about doing those dead dinasaurs justice by burning them at the sacrificial pyre of a V12 on the hills of San Francisco. Especially now that even Ferrari is making a green car (FXX Millechili). Also, the Aston has devilishly sexy dashboard.
Arbitrageur, thanks for the positive feedback on the blog topic! While I fully endorse the green movement, the reality is that the big output engines that turn-on car enthusiasts are also petrol burners.
You'll never say about a Tesla, like you do a Ferrari, "I hear a Tesla driving somewhere in the neighborhood..." That resulting glorious shriek is a result of fuel consumption.
"So, now the quest is on. What car can record a lower fuel efficiency reading lower than 2.5 mpg? What is the car and at what gear and speed?" How about a different quest? Who out there has a lower IQ? You think it's sexy and glamorous to hype gas guzzling, ostentatious cars? I'm an avid enthusiast and while I appreciate the performance and design of these antiquated machines, to brag about the inefficiencies is just absurd. It's obvious that you know how wrong you are because you don't want Al Gore to find out about your little science experiment... well, it just goes to show that your enormously large ego is balanced with your incredibly small IQ. So go ahead, fly that middle finger to the world, flaunt your rolling collection of Napoleonic rides and show the world how big you are by how much fuel you consume. ridiculous.
Anderson. Thanks for getting fired up - that was the point of the post. If you re-read the article, I am actually poking a bit of fun at the absurdity of the whole issue. Did you know these cars got this kind of gas mileage? Nor did I, hence the post, sir.
BTW, antiquated machines? What are you driving these days? Hopefully you say a hydrogen Honda or a Tesla?
And IQ has nothing to do with it wise guy. It's called mixing dry humor with a controversial topic. The Blog is supposed to be interesting, not boring. Wait until you see some of the others posts coming. We'll talk again then. ;)
And Anderson, one more thing. Just so you know, exotic cars get low MPG simply driving around town (notice the Bentley and Aston are in second gear at about 4,000 rpms), whether you try or not. Also, all of the photos were taken right on Harrison Street in SF traffic.
So if it bothers you and you're a Club Member, I might suggest avoiding the V10s and V12s because there were no crazy driving antics performed to photograph these low MPG. If you're not a Member, you'll just have to wag your index finger at everyone you see driving a high output exotic.
So in my proposed "quest," I don't suspect anyone will have to intentionally burn extra fuel, these cars do it naturally. Just fire up your "antiquated machine," as you put it, and drive, my friend.
Torbin, I wanted to compliment you on a wonderfully tongue in cheek posting and I'll restrain my impulse to make light of Anderson's critcism and instead deal with it head on.
As a member I actually look at the exotic driving this way as a good way to appreciate and drive the cars without having the same carbon impact as owning them (to be fair, I also do not assume the maintenance costs either).
Quite frankly if you are concerned about gas consumption and the impact on the environment, there are larger fish to fry. I've had several friends and relatives (all SUV drivers) comment on my expressions of poor gas mileage for a club car that it's still better than their mileage for everyday driving.
And Torbin, when will be get to sample the silent acceleration of a Tesla in the club?
John, this is a polarizing issue, which makes it a great topic for the Blog. I was actually glad to see Anderson's zeal, even if I zinged his comments a little! The drop in SUV sales is certainly a result of America's realization that big, heavy vehicles get very poor mileage. Cost of fuel aside, they are inefficient and not particularly exciting to drive. At least 2.5 mpg in the Aston Martin is fun while tooling about town... ;)
Members have expressed interest in the Tesla and now that they are finally underway with production, it will be a Club addition before too long. If you joined the 45 Club Sportiva Members a year ago for a tour of the Tesla facilities in San Carlos, a number of us got test rides. It is a cool car with phenomenal technology advancements over today's "antiquated machines."
I will have a post on my opinions of the Tesla soon. Keep an eye out for that post, as my conclusion will be controversial. Thanks for the great post, John.
Of course you first have to believe in the Al Gore story and the enviromental game - unforturnately something most people do these days. The greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the public.
Now that you know I am one of the few remaining hated heritics left, could someone please tell me how they explain away that they can believe the Telsa is so enviromentally pious? It's fuled by a mostly coal burning electrical powerplant the coal which is mined and transported to it by oil consuming transport. The electrical power is then transmitted over copper wires to someone's home power outlet. The wires themselves being mined, smelted and erected using more oil with a tremendous transmission loss -what, maybe 70% burned up over the miles of wires humming and EMFing away? Then don't forget the power loss converting the 220AC volts to low voltage DC, the loss of energy in heat to force the batteries to hold the charge, the loss in letting the batteries sit as they slowly leak out the charge before being used to drive the car, and lastly the the ineffeicient conversion of battery electrical power into wheel turning kinetic energy. I won't get into the power consumed or the toxic waste produced in making and disposing of the batteries. All totaled, I'd bet the Telsa gets one tenth of the milage of a Mercielago floored going up hill on the steepest street in San Francisco in first gear at 7500 RPM.
Still, none of this measures up to the politcal factors which have produced the massive waste of energy the public worldwide in general now bears by not using their commonsense and developing and using products like the Telsa, one of many misguided attempts to redeem their self-induced enviromental guilt.
jfjfjf, that's a tough name to pronounce. For future posts, let's get on a first name basis. This site is friendly like that...
Your post is good. It raises some troubling issues. The end result of the Tesla's efficiency is good, but a lot of hidden or overlooked inputs go into it. All those manufacturing inputs you suggest are also used to build every car on the road (less the electrical issues) which makes us realize that fuel efficiency is only one of many detrimental impacts of driving 15,000 miles per year and getting a new car every 2.5 years.
As well, E85 and biodiesel require farmers to toil in the fields with tractors that get 5 mpg to seed and harvest the plants that next require transportation and processing to create a petroleum additive that only marginally impacts fuel efficiency.
Nonetheless, I think the way to categorize the Tesla's progress is a small step forward, not the final solution to environmental issues. The alarming thing, whether or not one believes in global warming, is the sheer complexity humans have developed in order to sustain our lifestyles. I am sure a Blog somewhere is better versed for this topic.
jfjfjf, thanks for your great comment!
That's a good point Torbin on the E85 and other 'good' options. I'll will, however, resist the urge to follow down that path and bring us back to the topic a little bit - Gas Mileage for the exotics.
The key challenge is getting power and the sensations of the car (power, control, sound, etc.) without the gas guzzling. Given the space and the design constraints of the cars, I only see two paths. The first, and most likely, is a continuation of the development of high gas usage, high horsepower cars - covered under tightening CAFE standards but the other cars in the parent companies' brands. The other option is a move to hybrid/electric which I see as being problematic on two fronts. The obvious one is packing an electric motor into the already tight design constraints of an exotic car. There is a reason that Porsche is looking at it for the Cayenne but not there cars. I cannot see with the current technologies putting the two into one car. The second challenge is retaining that full spectrum of sensations that make an exotic such a pleasure to drive.
The other option is driving down the range of the Tesla, which has a very sporty appearance. I know that I’ll miss the sound of driving the high powered car. I’ve not seen the Tesla first hand, but I’m also going to guess it lacks something in the interior refinements and comfort since it’s a first generation – I think they’ll need a few years to make the transition to an interior more like a Porsche, Aston Martin or other luxury car rather than something more akin to the Corvette which has an interior that is tolerated (I liked that post too by the way). I’ll add one more thing that’s been rattling around before I finish here, but until we have a fast charging option, electrics will never be a viable option to replace the gas burning cars.
To sum it up. Unless we have a significant change in technology, I suspect we’ll be stuck with the choice between decent gas mileage and the power that makes so many cars fun to drive. On the plus side Torbin, it might make a good eco-friendly message for your marketing. Members get the chance to drive the high horsepower cars, to get and enjoy that visceral pleasure without either driving regularly and killing their carbon footprint or paying high maintenance on a car that gets driven minimally.
John, your point about current packaging of a hybrid/electric system being challenging in today's exotics is accurate. I think result of your point as with jfjfjf's point is there has to be a starting point for the technology and in time, with evolution of engineering, more will be feasible.
For now, the hybrid units are large, expensive, not all that much more efficient and not too exciting. I suspect future iterations will improve on all fronts.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home