EPA intent in killing Porsche
#16
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
They should count how many Porsche-miles are driven per year and then compare emissions to the major car mfgrs.
Would be an interestingly miniscule number. Probably gobbled up by less than one day of coal burning in China.
![Big Grin](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
#17
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: erin, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
as much as the purists complain about the introduction of the panamera, cayenne and VW merger it could prove that they will use all of these opportunities to shift their EPA requirements to the peripheral brands. The China market will far exceed North American sales, so hopefully they can use that overall growth as a way to offset the epa requirements here.....
#19
Rennlist Member
#20
Rennlist Member
#21
Race Director
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
![Wink](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
#22
Rennlist Member
#25
Poseur
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
That is a VERY good point. With Porsche sales growing rapidly in the former 'third world' nations there may come a time when Porsche makes a business decision to withdraw certain models or their entire line from the North American market.
#26
Drifting
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Yeah, the hipocracy of the US laws pertaining to vehicles and emissions.
If you put an old-fashioned frame in the contraption, or make it a big boxy behemoths, it can be as inefficient as it wants to.
Make it sleek, small and modern, then you must get 100mpg..
Stupid. Congress wants all cars to be blocky, ugly and either econo-boxes or high-center of gravity off-road but hardly gets dirty frame-based truck platforms.
Congress is in the vehicle design business.. where it has no business.
Reminiscent of them defining an 'assault rifle' based on their own ignorant thinking of what cosmetic and accessory features make something 'dangerous'.
If you put an old-fashioned frame in the contraption, or make it a big boxy behemoths, it can be as inefficient as it wants to.
Make it sleek, small and modern, then you must get 100mpg..
Stupid. Congress wants all cars to be blocky, ugly and either econo-boxes or high-center of gravity off-road but hardly gets dirty frame-based truck platforms.
Congress is in the vehicle design business.. where it has no business.
Reminiscent of them defining an 'assault rifle' based on their own ignorant thinking of what cosmetic and accessory features make something 'dangerous'.
#27
Rennlist Member
#28
Drifting
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
The problem is that 95% of trucks and SUVs are used as 'cars' (only people & grocery carriers) but allowed to be less safe and consume more fuel per mile driven.
#29
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
While I agree the law is scary, I hold out hope that it will be modified. That said, it may not be too different than those in europe that taxed a car based on displacement. Its not a real suprise that the euro cars all have similar sized engines.. ie, for a long time, 2.0l cars were taxed less in italy (and elsewhere) and guess what, Ferrari sold a "208" verson of the US 308, to accomodate it.. Porsche sold the 2.0l 924.. There was another barier at 2.8l. as well iiirc.
So, in this case, the limit isn't directly on displacement, but on MPG. Euro cars currently contend with CO2 related emmission taxes.
I think the big issues are
1) there is no gradual, sliding scale to meet these efficiency goals
2) no one wants to pay an extra $40K for their 911
3) no one wants a 911 with a vw sourced 1.4l 200hp turbo![Wink](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Just think, the future resale value of 911s could be assured since they can't make em like the old ones soon.
So, in this case, the limit isn't directly on displacement, but on MPG. Euro cars currently contend with CO2 related emmission taxes.
I think the big issues are
1) there is no gradual, sliding scale to meet these efficiency goals
2) no one wants to pay an extra $40K for their 911
3) no one wants a 911 with a vw sourced 1.4l 200hp turbo
![Wink](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Just think, the future resale value of 911s could be assured since they can't make em like the old ones soon.
#30
Drifting
![Default](https://rennlist.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
There is no way Porsche makes 35.5 with only their own fleet, by 2016. No way, I don't care what their claims are. Even if the Boxster drops to a 4 cylinder turbo, no one will buy it, so its average as part of their fleet won't matter. As it is, I doubt few american buyers will purchase the base 3.4L 911, everybody will buy the S for the 2012 model year. And few will buy a hybrid Panamera either, Mercedes can't sell the S400 hybrid.
This administration will use Porsche to make an example of how they are "sticking it to the rich" for the sake of the environment.
This administration will use Porsche to make an example of how they are "sticking it to the rich" for the sake of the environment.