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.