UDel

I was a little surprised to see the LFA listed on this article. I was expecting mainly SUV's and big sedans but they also listed some high end sports cars. For the LFA even to be singled out was surprising, I thought it was supposed to get better mileage then 11mpg city 16highway though unless they made a mistake but then again I don't think I really looked to what its fuel economy was. Don't know why if they are going to list a Veyron and LFA they did not also list Ferrari's and Lambos as gas guzzlers too.

http://autos.yahoo.com/news/greediest-guzzlers.html

Gojirra99

Who really cares ?

jadu

iTrader: (42)

lol if you have $375,000 car, you gotta have at least 500k for gas, and 3 other cars to be daily drivers. not unless you're living in your car lol

gengar

It's rated 11/16 on the sticker.

The LFA got named in a past article bemoaning "gas guzzlers" as well, along with some other high-end exotics. Of course, the inherent idiocy in those articles is that cars like the LFA and Veyron contribute very little to actual gas consumption because they aren't driven nearly as much as other vehicles and because the production runs are so limited. For example, since I got the LFA, I've used more gas in the IS F... by a factor of about 20.

Any criticism for "gas guzzling" should be aimed almost exclusively at SUVs. Many SUVs are pretty much as bad mpg-wise as many exotics, and they get driven far more. To add insult to injury, SUVs continue to be exempt from gas guzzler tax. Don't get me wrong; I'd rather there be no gas guzzler tax whatsoever for any vehicle, but to exempt SUVs is just ridiculous. It's another great example of government subsidizing American car companies.

Logic and fact often get thrown out the window by these writers (I won't even give nominal credit they don't deserve by deriding them as "so-called journalists") because they want easy targets to pick on - or because they actually don't care about the environment at all and are just trying to push an anti-consumption or class warfare agenda.

TF109B

Mass media sucks, period. They just spew what they're told and deliver drivel. Yahoo! autos? Who listens to them about cars anyway?

UDel

I could not agree more. Sports cars, especially expensive exotics don't make a blip on what really pollutes the most, consumes the most, and is the most damaging to the environment but they are almost always singled out by the media and even some car makers themselves as the most irresponsible and wasteful types of vehicles to make. This goes completely against the fact that SUV type vehicles are the most popular on the road and do the most damage to the environment. On my drives I pretty much never see even 1 exotic on the road, a small handful of mid to low priced sports cars, far more 4 door sedans and a sea of never ending big gas guzzling pickup trucks and SUV type vehicles. SUV type vehicles are the ones that do the most damage and are the most irresponsible yet they don't normally get as much bad press as sports cars.

In articles like I posted they should at least point out that while expensive exotics may get poor fuel economy in most cases they are sold in such small numbers and driven so little that they do hardly any damage compared to anything else on the road, a common Honda or Toyota model will be bought in larger numbers and driven more and do more damage then a Ferrari model. SUV type vehicles should not even be in the same category as rare exotic sports cars or regular sports cars when talking about gas guzzlers/environmentally damaging vehicles.

Blackraven

Agreed, let's just move on