Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
What would be the range of a Ferrari when it does 130mph
continuously? At 130mph it will be in single figures, so not long at
all.
Another figure plucked from thin air. Since you're so good at quoting
other's figures please give a source for this one.


My jag did about 15mpg at 130mph, so about 280 miles range probably.

So not single figures from a heavy car with poor CD and a less than state
of the art engine?

Good CD and state of the art engine please.

Just an awful plot of stuff like aircon, supercharger, Getrag box and
torque converter, hanging off it.And tryes to absorb the 380- bhp.

The point was not that its vile on fuel consumption, but how MUCH that
consumption is a function of how its driven. My previous XK8, as opposed
to the XKR (only difference is the supercharger, and even fatter tyres)
would if drivcen never more than 70 and ceraflly, turn in as much as
27mpg. The XKR only ever managed 24..there is a LOT of rolling
resistance on tyres designed to corner a 2 ton car at 1g..

I used to be able to get better than 50mpg out of a 1970's spitfire
1300, driven carefully and below 60mph. Not that I ever did that more
than once, when 2" of snow on the ground necessitated it.

Todays fat soft tyres and larger than needed engines (makes for more
frictional losses at lower power) are very much against the economy.

Under about 55mph the CD makes very little odds.

Leccy cars will score because they can be optimised for whatever driving
speed you choose, efficiency wise. They use nothing apart from cooling
fans when stationary, and instantaneous fuel consumption is as simple to
display as a ammeter in the dashboard . Add in regenerative braking
and you claw back quite a bit more as well.