With fuel efficiency considered a national priority, media stories tend to naturally gravitate toward the cars with the best miles-per-gallon ratings. But low-mileage cars are still being built, and, in many cases, consumers are paying a premium for them.
Using data from the US Department of Transportation’s fuel economy website, we’ve compiled a list of some of the least fuel efficient cars for 2014. From Aston Martin and Bugatti to Chevy and Cadillac, we present some of the auto industry’s most prominent gas guzzlers.
Click on Bugatti’s Veyron, the hands-down winner (loser?) in this contest, to start the slideshow.
In the two-seater category, Bugatti’s Veyron wins hands down. Often referred to as the “fastest street-legal production car in the world,” the Veyron offers a top speed of 267 miles per hour. The turbocharged, 8.0-liter, 16-cylinder supercar cranks out an amazing 1,001 HP and earns a combined miles per gallon rating of 10 mpg. Its city rating is 8 mpg. On the highway, it gets 15 mpg, according to the US DOT. (Source: Wikipedia)
This slideshow is like a public service announcement, Chuck. I can't afford any of these cars anyway, but it's good to know which cars to steer away from when it comes to fuel inefficiency. I think it's a bit socially irresponsible for car makers to create these types of cars these days, luxury or not. Surely there is a way to make cars like this more fuel efficient and overall better for the consumer and the environment.
I think if there is going to be a list of top cars with the worst fuel economy they should be vehicles that are not meant to be performance cars. Most of the cars on this list are high performance vehicles, they were not created for fuel efficiency but power. I do not believe it is irresponsible for manufacturers to build cars that people can enjoy. Motorsports are very popular and they do contribute to engineering and development of new technologies that have alternate applications. Eco friendly vehicles are important, but I do not think that they should be the only option for auto makers to manufacture. In the end it comes down to the consumer and what they are looking for in an automobile, a weekend racer, a cruiser, or a fuel efficient commuter.
Of this list, the Camaro is the only one with any real volume. I understand your sentiment Elizabeth, but these cars are made in numbers that are relatively insignificant compared to the fleet sizes of other vehicles. How many Veryons do you think are made compared to a Chevy Silverado or Ford F150? By comparing overall fuel consumption and evironmental output, I am sure the mentioned trucks dwarf these cars.
Perspective, Elizabeth, perspective. I probably could not afford one of these cars, but if I could, I would not feel guilty driving it!
You missed a catagory: Midsized SUV. I say this because I'd like to nominate my 2011 Honda Pilot for worst fuel efficiency (16 city, 19 highway). I think it's because they put an underpowered engine in it (I suspect the Accord engine). As a result the transmission is always hunting. It will downshift on a hill greater than a 2% slope. This can't help the fuel economy. I truly believe that if thay used a slightly more powerful engine, it would work less hard and the transmission would stay in overdrive more. When I bought it, my choice was narrowed down to the Pilot or the GMC Acadia. I think I made the wrong decision.
GTOlover, that is the point I was going to make. The volumes these cars are built in constitute no "threat" to the environment. They are self limiting. Even the Chevy will be relatively low volume. Most of these brands are owned by much larger companies. Bently is owned by Volkswagen, Rolls-Royce is owned by BMW, Bugatti is also owned by Volkswagen. Thus, as far as the CAFE standards go, these can be spread over a large number of more fuel efficient cars.
I do agree with your statements NadineJ, to a degree. There certainly have been improvements, smaller turbo charged engines and updates in transmissions for example. If you look at the latest Corvette Stingray with its 7spd transmission, you are getting 17/29 mpg and 455hp. There are innovations in fuel management, cylinder deactivation, etc.
A lot depends on driving habits as well, obtaining better than estimated fuel economy is a common occurrance. However, most people who buy these cars don't drive them like a Prius so the economy isn't there. I myself drive a Chevrolet Cruze Eco and often get mileage in the 45-50mpg range. Acceleration is much slower in a turbo 4 though...
I remember the old days, rejetting the carbs and losing 10MPG, but oh, how well it ran. Fast forward to today and I just got back from a long road trip in my Focus. 70MPH with the air-conditioner on and averaging 43MPG.
@NadineJ: I agree. If you think about it from a "big picture" perspective, better fuel efficiency ought to equate to better performance, since it means you are turning more of the energy produced by the engine into useful work. (But here the metric is brake-specific fuel consumption, not necessarily miles per gallon).
If you’re developing an embedded monitoring and control application, then you’ll want to take note of the upcoming Design News Continuing Education Center class, “Embedded Development Using Microchip Microcontrollers and the CCS C Compiler."
At the recent Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, 3,600 exhibitors demoed new products, most of which used sensors. Accelerometers, magnetometers, gyroscopes, cameras, touch screens, infrared and radar sensors endowed products with the ability to see, hear, and feel.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.