Those empty promises...

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

Current page

61

Current page

62

Current page

63

Current page

64

Current page

65

Current page

66

Current page

67

Current page

68

Current page

69

Current page

70

Current page

71

Current page

72

Current page

73

Current page

74

Current page

75

Current page

76

Current page

77

Current page

78

Current page

79

Current page

80

Current page

81

Current page

82

Current page

83

Current page

84

Current page

85

Current page

86

Current page

87

Current page

88

Current page

89

Current page

90

Current page

91

Current page

92

Current page

93

Current page

94

Current page

95

Current page

96

Current page

97

Current page

98

Current page

99

Current page

100

Current page

101

Current page

102

Current page

103

Current page

104

Current page

105

Current page

106

Current page

107

Current page

108

Current page

109

Current page

110

Current page

111

Current page

112

Current page

113

Current page

114

Current page

115

Current page

116

Current page

117

Current page

118

Current page

119

Current page

120

Current page

121

Current page

122

Current page

123

Current page

124

Current page

125

Current page

126

Current page

127

Current page

128

Current page

129

Current page

130

Current page

131

Current page

132

Current page

133

Current page

134

Current page

135

Current page

136

Current page

137

Current page

138

Current page

139

Current page

140

Current page

141

Current page

142

Current page

143

Current page

144

Current page

145

Current page

146

Current page

147

Current page

148

Current page

149

Current page

150

Current page

151

Current page

152

Current page

153

Current page

154

Current page

155

Current page

156

Current page

157

Current page

158

Current page

159

Current page

160

Current page

161

Current page

162

Current page

163

Current page

164

Current page

165

Current page

166

Current page

167

Current page

168

Current page

169

Current page

170

Current page

171

Current page

172

Current page

173

Current page

174

Current page

175

Current page

176

Current page

177

Current page

178

Current page

179

Current page

180

One of sadly many conundrums I have failed to unravel in all the years doing this job is the reluctance of those who make high-performance cars to fit said machines with fuel tanks commensurate to that performance. Fitting a 500bhp supercar with a 17-gallon tank is akin to training Usain Bolt to the peak of physical fitness and then making him run in wellingtons. Yet still they continue.

You can work out a car’s potential range by taking the size of its tank and multiplying that by its claimed fuel consumption figure. What you’ll discover is a figure that, if trusted, will leave you at the side of the road waiting to be patronised by one or other of the roadside recovery companies. If treated with the total contempt this figure deserves it is, of course, almost entirely useless.

Let us take as one of many obvious offenders the Aston Martin DB9. Its fuel tank will hold just 17.6 gallons which, given its official combined consumption of 17.2mpg, gives it a maximum potential range of 302 miles. Except you’ll never manage it, and for two reasons: first, no sane person is going to expect a fuel station to appear just as the tank runs dry. So let’s say you’ll typically fill up when the range meter says you have 50 miles left which at 17.2mpg is 2.8 gallons of tank capacity you’re never going to use. Except these figures bear no relation to reality. Hardly ever have I matched any manufacturer’s claimed fuel consumption figure over a tank of varied driving and, contrary to what you might expect, that’s not because I spend my life driving like my pants are on fire. In fact it’s the way these figures are calculated that leads to the misleading data. And don’t blame the manufacturers for this: they’re just doing what’s mandated by European legislation.

If when driving your DB9 you actually average around 16mpg, so then multiply that by the tank capacity less what is now 3.1 gallons to represent the reserve into which you’ll never intentionally dip, you’ll discover your practical actual range is around 230 miles.

So here we have a fabulous Grand Tourer in the finest traditions that will barely travel the length of the M6 without needing to stop. And the Aston is just one of many examples I could have chosen.

It’s the most regular complaint I hear from people who own such cars: they’re not bothered by fuel costs, but they hate knowing every journey will be interrupted at less than three-hourly intervals.

And who can blame them? Service stations are broadly hateful places and I’ve borrowed enough flash cars to know how they attract attention, often of the kind you’d happily live without.

But they also spoil good journeys. I love having a drive of some hundreds of miles ahead. I’ll make sure I have the provisions I need, then settle down to several hours on the road. You get into a rhythm, the time flies by, the distance remaining crumbling before you. Then you have to slow, stop, stand, queue and be subjected to some bovine shop psychology before you can head for the hills.

Point is, you don’t want a fuel stop breaking your stride in any car. And in a GT or supercar, you want it even less.

So why should a basic Ford Fiesta carry you so much further than a Ferrari 599GTB? Why should this basic design failure mean a gently driven diesel-powered Focus takes no more time to drive from Calais to Berlin than a Lamborghini Murcielago going as fast as the autobahn allows (I know, I’ve tried)? Manufacturers will say it’s down to packaging limitations, but GT cars must be the most space-inefficient on the road and I don’t believe space cannot be found amid their vast expanses for a few extra gallons of gas.

In short it’s a nonsense that must be costing sales. How many company execs who choose diesel cars do so because they’re worried about the marginal fuel/tax costs of the petrol alternative, and how many do so because they know diesel is not just cheaper but quicker point to point and spares them at least one in three fuel stops? Tempting though powerful petrol cars seem on paper, in reality their case is hobbled by one easily fixed oversight.

Related articles

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore

Related products

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore