By on February 22, 2010

In a few years, by 2016 to be exact, P.J. O’Rourke’s “ass-engined Nazi slot car” may be history in the U.S.A. Gone. By that time, Porsche needs to have a Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) of 41.4 mpg – if President Obama gets his wish. Mission impossible, says Porsche. Jack Baruth, stock up. Porsches will be extinct.

On May 19, 2009 President Barack Obama proposed a new national fuel economy program. If signed into law in May this year, as currently planned, the law will throw a nasty punch, beginning in the model year 2012.

Porsche-Lobbyist Stefan Schläfli talked to the German Edition of the Financial Times, before taking off for Washington for a last ditch effort to save the endangered species. Says the FTD: “Hardest hit will be German producers of premium brands which sell big-engined large cars. Critics in the German camp don’t think this is a coincidence. The formulas used to calculate the maximum permissible values are tailor-made for U.S. manufacturers. Basis for the calculation will be wheel base and track width – highly unusual criteria.”

A short and compact Porsche is faced with much stricter limits than a Corvette. Not to mention a pick-up. Large manufacturers turn into a CAFE-society, and can offset their thirsty oinkers with smaller cars. Porsche doesn’t have that option. Neither does Aston Martin, Jaguar,  Land Rover and other eclectic brands.

Being part of Volkswagen won’t help Porsche. According to the proposed law, Porsche would have had to be under Volkswagen’s umbrella in the year 2009. They weren’t.  The FTD reckons that Volkswagen may have to contend with problems of its own anyway. Strong U.S. sales of the Touareg, the Audi A8 or Q7 may make for very bitter CAFE.

To avoid immediate execution in 2012, Porsche received a stay in form of a special dispensation. The pardon expires in the 2016 model year.

Porsche (and many other makers, such as Mercedes) already pay for the thirst of their cars. Currently, the fee is a few hundred dollars per car, says the FTD.  The new law sets $37,500 as a maximum penalty – per car.  “We can’t afford that,” says Porsche’s  Schläfli.

Catching up with the new rules by 2016 would mean that Porsche has to improve their current average fleet economy of 27 mpg by 14.4 miles. “Technically impossible,” says Schläfli.

Unless the new CAFE law will fail at the last minute, the vehicular landscape in the U.S. will become quite boring in a few years.

Have any German or British Foreign Ministers complained, like Hillary Clinton  over 4200 American cars to Japan? Have European politicians proposed WTO action like Betty Sutton? Any trade wars threatened for the removal of Europe’s finest cars from American roads? Boycotts of Burger King?  Not a word. What’s with those Euros anyway?  Whimps.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

59 Comments on “Obama Will Take Away Your Porsche...”


  • avatar
    1996MEdition

    How about if Germany “formally invites” Obama, LaHood and EPA admin Lisa Jackson over to explain themselves?

  • avatar

    Does VW really have to worry about strong sales for the Touareg, A8, or Q7?

    Anyone willing to bet me on whether Porsche is still selling cars in the U.S. in 2016? I’ll give good odds that they will be.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    Basis for the calculation will be wheel base and track width – highly unusual criteria.

    This is very true. If this was a truly environmental initiative, it would be below-shoulder passenger volume, a lower weight for cargo against mileage.

    Most environmentalists aren’t impressed with new CAFE, either. The term I’ve heard is “CAFE 2: Revenge of the Son of the Bride of the Light Truck Exemption”

  • avatar
    porschespeed

    My worry meter is still pegged at “0″.

    I find it beyond highly unlikely for a variety of reasons, the most overarching of which is simply the income level of the average Porsche buyer.

    If you are in the Porsche income bracket, you have friends. They aren’t going to deprive you of your new Porsche. We managed to get grey market cars in during the darkest days, we now have “show and display” for truly exotic stuff.

    But none of that will be necessary. There’s wayyyy too much political clout involved for Porsche to get thrown out. Taxed a bit more? Unlikely, but possible.

    This is America. No one is going to take away anyone’s ability to buy a Porsche, a Benz, or a BMW. The client base won’t stand for it, and they have the ability to get the rules changed.

    No worries. None whatsoever.

    • 0 avatar
      tced2

      Bill Gates (the richest guy in the world) had a Porsche 959. He spent years attempting to get it “federalized”. (Paul Allen – also a very rich guy – had one too). Eventually, the cars were allowed to be driven on the streets but there were very restrictive regulations on how much driving. “Show and display” vehicles can’t be driven everyday to work or to school or the grocery store or on your vacation.

  • avatar
    Stingray

    I ask… isn’t easier to tax fuel and *gasp* engine capacity/power as the Europeans do?

    If it costs more to drive, people will downsize by themselves while being able to still buy whatever they want.

    • 0 avatar

      Why not only tax fuel? Anything else is an unnecessary complication.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      The problem with a straight fuel tax is threefold:
      * It does harm business
      * It’s more painful in the short- and medium-term as guzzlers remain in operation
      * It is politically problematic.

      CAFE could work, but it needs to more closely mimic the result of a fuel tax. It could also force innovation in a way that fuel taxes might not.

      But you’re right: CAFE is to a fuel tax what the Obama’s health care plan is to a real, single-payer system: a compromise that attempts to be the least offensive to all parties and ends up being generally mediocre.

    • 0 avatar

      Actually, the Europeans are shifting towards CO2 taxation. The more crap comes out of your tailpipe, the more you pay.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      Isn’t the problem with CO2 taxation that, well, the emission figures supplied are divorced from reality.

      I can’t find the citation, but I recall that the reported figures were inflated (deflated) by quite a bit, and that the testing was performed by manufacturers.

    • 0 avatar
      Martin Schwoerer

      Indeed, the EU has a CAFE system now too, which explains to some extent why the focus is on electrics: an electric car with a theoretical fuel consumption of 100MPG will compensate for a gas guzzler. Taxes are good but not all that effective; in Europe fuel costs little more in real terms than they did in the 1970s.

    • 0 avatar

      It does cost more in the form of option cost, fuel cost, and insurance cost. I still love my Mustang GT and drive it every day. But I really like how you suggest taxing me more for the things I like just to help me be a better person!

    • 0 avatar
      chaparral66

      Taxing displacement or power is just idiotic, if your point is to push people to use more fuel efficient vehicles. Why not just tax the fuel economy? Isn’t that the whole point? If a 3.0l 300hp car gets 30mpg, and a 4.0l 350hp car gets 30 mpg, why should it be taxed more? Shouldn’t the point be to tax the 25 mpg car more than the 30 mpg car?

  • avatar
    BMWfan

    I’m getting really tired of “One Big Ass Mistake America” telling us what we can and can not do, while his fat cat buddies are living large on our nickel. I knew that this guy was a mistake from day one. It has nothing to do with race. Colin Powell would have made a great President. Obama is reactive instead of proactive, and just does not have the experience to be President. If I can afford the gas and taxes I should be able to drive what I want. Once again he has stuck his foot in his mouth, just like he did when he dissed Las Vegas. I really don’t know what the solution is to our automotive future, but this guy isn’t it. His ideas have no basis in reality. Show him your feelings by making him a one term President. Didn’t mean for this to be a political rant, but if I can’t have my cars what is left? Am I destined to be a sheep?

    • 0 avatar

      Hate to ruin a good tirade, but didn’t the proposed system originate under Bush? I thought it was stupid then, but not because of Bush. It’s just plain stupid. Much the same way CAFE has been stupid for over 30 years under both Republican and Democratic presidents. But even worse.

      A fuel tax remains the obvious solution if the goal is to get people to use less energy.

    • 0 avatar

      Mike. CAFE started in 1975 (remember the gas crisis back then?)

      But it is not a matter of who or when it started, but the alterations by Obama.. interesting is his focus time line of 2016, which if he won, would be the end of his 2nd term and no longer his issue. (good gosh I hope people wise up before the 2012 election and do not make the same mistake twice).

      I see alot of people saying no way this could happen. That is kind of naive. There has been a push to follow so many European concepts (ie limitations, taxes, etc).

      Currently BMW, Porche etc have been consistently sucking up excess fines for not meeting US standards.. just to offer their cars here. And yes those who can afford those vehicles, will pay whatever insane price those makes charge. But there is a limit to what those makes can afford.. when it is no longer worth the expense they will bail out. Remember not every car sold on earth is sold in America.. and there is a reason for that.. it is expensive to get them here, it is an expense to sell them here, it is an expense to maintain them.. and then to have additional fees due to government regulations… there has to be a line.

      There is alot of ulterior motives occuring, we need to read between those lines and realize what is really happening.

      I am not willing to just assume all is well, move along.. I prefer to look into it.. and I think this situation is worth looking into, even though I have no interest in purchasing a German car.. I am concerned this could affect other imports, even if they are not affected now, if they keep changing the rules, it could happen! Plus regardless of what car I may or may be interested in.. this is situation is wrong!

  • avatar
    Sam P

    This is alarmist at best. It would be political suicide to tell Americans who can afford Porsches, BMWs, Mercedes-Benzes, et al, that they can’t buy them because of a ridiculous CAFE mandate.

    $100 says we’ll be able to get new Porsches in 2016 in the USA.

  • avatar
    George B

    Will we be seeing a bunch of flex-fuel Porsches in a few years? I assume that being capable of running on politically well connected E-85 fuel results in significant fuel economy credits. Allows politicians to save face by keeping high CAFE numbers while providing a huge loophole. Would also allow Porsche to publish big horsepower numbers for when high-octane alcohol fuel is used.

  • avatar

    It is a joke and not a real threat. They will pull a Cygnet. Go to corporate cousin VW, rebadge a bunch of VW base engine Golfs or Polos if they come to he market and dump them on the market. If I was them, I’d not even rebadge the GTI but the most efficient one sold and rename it the Porsche CAFE Racer. Be up front that the only reason they are doing it is to meet CAFE so they can stick it to the government as well as fully admit these aren’t real Porsches. People will buy them for the stupid badge and bring their average CAFE way down.

    I think they should just add a gas tax. Let people pay for their mpg.

  • avatar
    M5Fan

    This is a total BS post and completely exaggerated.

    Let’s consider the following:

    1. Premium European brands are doing awfully well in Europe.

    2. Does not ALL of Europe have more restrictive fuel mileage requirements than the US?

    Porsche, BMW, Mercedes, VW, etc. ALL have vehicles that would exceed ANYTHING that may be proposed domestically designed and in production already.

    The only entities that could feel any pain remain our slow-acting domestic companies that banked on cheap oil and slow legislation for years now.

    If this was a “kiss your F-150 goodbye” post, maybe I can see it for something other than hyperbole, but you guys are doing the lazy, sensationalist thing by writing “Kiss your Porsche” goodbye.

    • 0 avatar

      As much as I hate to tell you, but the only thing you got right in your comment is that it is a BS post.

    • 0 avatar
      tauronmaikar

      This is exactly the point. Europe leads in fuel efficiency and a lot more technology will be coming in the next couple of years. If anybody stands to GAIN from tougher fuel standards it is Porsche, BMW, Benz, etc. Already we saw a BMW prototype with 3 electric engines, 1 diesel engine, 0-60 in less than 5 sec and > 60 mpg fuel economy.

  • avatar
    BMWfan

    @ Michael Karesh,

    I think you are right. A fuel tax is the only thing that will propel the automotive market in the right direction. Ethanol from corn is one of the most insane proposals to come along in a long time. We need a leader with vision to come along and develop a mass transit system that will allow this country to progress into the future, while still preserving private vehicle use for the road less traveled. Europe saw this many years ago. We are one of the greatest countries in the world, why did our leaders not see this coming, AND do something about it? It’s a shame that the bailout money wasted could have paid for it all AND put many Americans to work. I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but even I saw problems ahead when the first fuel shortages occured back in the 70′s.

    • 0 avatar
      tauronmaikar

      Because this country is ruled by Republicans.

    • 0 avatar
      Facebook User

      @tauronmaikar – I guess the Republicans are running things through the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, Senate and White House. And don’t forget the entrenched bureaucratic machinery that pretty much tends to the left. Nice try though, and thanks for playing.

    • 0 avatar
      MrGreenMan

      Or, we could say that the fuel tax, CAFE, and any other regulation based on the goal of achieving energy independence and or reduced energy consumption is as futile as the war on drugs or the war on poverty and just let the price of gasoline determine what people drive.

      Gas prices went down from the peak price, and so people are buying cars now based on what they want to drive and can afford and what it looks like gas will cost over the near term.

      When gas was at the peak price, people were buying cars then based on what they wanted to drive and could afford and what it looked like gas would cost over the near term.

      People bought a different mix of vehicles…

      If gas is scarce, prices will go up, and — far better than any other cash for clunker or gas tax or displacement tax will ever do — people will buy more fuel efficient cars. If the domestic makers won’t make them — who cares? Aren’t you a BMW fan? — someone will.

      America’s greatest days’ leadership never came from government; you really shouldn’t look for a political savior of any stripe to have the vision to solve your problems, because it won’t happen. Vote for Bush, vote for Gore, vote for Obama, vote for McCain — not one of those was going to save you.

  • avatar
    Bruce from DC

    Apropos the video, I don’t get the number of police officers who do stupid stuff like this. Yes, I know the driver isn’t supposed to do this sort of thing, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. What’s the point of having a police officer risk life and limb for a flippin’ traffic stop? Many years ago, when I was on the police beat for the Houston Chronicle newspaper, a cop did this and the perp rolled up the window, trapping the cop’s arm, and then hit the gas. Somehow the cop got one leg up on the fender, hooked around the radio antenna and avoided being dragged along on the ground. After getting up some speed, the perp then executed a maximum-G right turn and rolled down the window as he hit the apex, sending the cop flying (who, somewhat miraculously, escaped serious injury). The cops eventually caught up with the perp who learned, first-hand, the meaning of the saying “you may beat the rap, but you won’t beat the ride!”

    At least the officer in this scene was able to get his arm out of the car before it sped off. And, both this officer and anyone foolish enough to duplicate this driver’s stunt should also remember the boast of another of my Houston PD acquaintances: “your car may be faster than mine, but it’s not faster than my radio.”

  • avatar
    crash sled

    Catching up with the new rules by 2016 would mean that Porsche has to improve their current average fleet economy of 27 mpg by 14.4 miles. “Technically impossible,” says Schläfli.”

    .
    .

    Oh come on, Herr Schlafli. I’ve read dozens of methods to boost fuel economy by 50% virtually overnight. They’re all over the greenie websites. You want some links? ;-)

    Yeah, Porsche may be forced to go the route of subsidizing small vehicles somehow, to balance their total sales fleet’s CAFE numbers. That’s what the Detroit 3 seemingly did. Back in the 90′s, you could lease small pickups for as little as $80 per month. That’s less than my monthly cigar bill. Guys were picking those up just to haul mulch and beat around. And for that, the Detroit 3 got to sell some 4WD dually crew cab monsters… at $55k a pop.

    • 0 avatar
      Robert.Walter

      Back in the mid-90′s, the boys down in Ford Building 1 (Light Truck HQ) used to say “The Ranger ensures we can sell F-Series [with a tidy profit].”

      BTW, would you please share some of those 50% fuel-improvement long-hanging fruit infos? As a former engine-developer, I’d be interested to bone-up on the improvements in this area.

    • 0 avatar
      crash sled

      How ’bout I link you to this instead: http://dictionary.reference.com/define/satire

    • 0 avatar
      crash sled

      By the way, you might want to keep your status as a former Ford “engine-developer” on the down-low. The 3.0 sucks. The 4.0 sucks harder. The 5.4 gives testament to the follies of North American automotive product development. The 4.6 lags behind even these lofty standards. The 4R75 is a disgrace. The 4R100 was an abomination to all mankind. The 6R exists only because of German engineering bought from ZF.

      Ford powertrains are likely the largest fraction of their historical product development ineptitude, and that’s really saying something.

  • avatar
    bmoredlj

    Forgive me if I don’t sympathize with Porsche, those who can afford Porsches, those who lobby for Porsche, or P.J. O’Rourke. Now where are my flying cars…I was promised flying cars.

  • avatar
    Martin Schwoerer

    So, maybe the EU politicians are not “whimps” after all. Maybe they’re just not that beholden to whining CEOs of companies anymore.

    Bush’s CAFE regime is flawed, but Porsche will find a way to export to America, no doubt.

  • avatar
    Mr Carpenter

    I suppose Porsche & Co could dust off the old original 911 blueprints, take a look and connect the dots that a 2.0 litre pancake six in a light car don’t make for a slug.

    An (Audi-esque) aluminum body, a magnesium engine at the rear, DSG 8 speed gearbox, all wheel drive, radiator hidden in the front, fuel injection, and a compound supercharger-turbocharger combination would give sparkling performance at a lower price point than the current iteration.

    No hybrids necessary. OK maybe put engine-stop technology so the engine stops at red lights until needed….

    It’s not impossible. Just takes a little effort, that’s all.

    It’s going to happen eventually, anyway, with the CO2 requrirements in Europe…

    • 0 avatar
      chaparral66

      How would that ever have a lower price point? Sure the engine has less displacement, but the same amount and sort of parts, so not a huge cost savings. Then you add everything else, how would that be cheaper?

    • 0 avatar
      th009

      @Mr Carpenter: “An (Audi-esque) aluminum body, a magnesium engine at the rear, DSG 8 speed gearbox, all wheel drive, radiator hidden in the front, fuel injection, and a compound supercharger-turbocharger combination would give sparkling performance at a lower price point than the current iteration.”

      A rebadge of a VW Bluesport (with a 1.4 twincharger engine) would be rather close to that … and a Porsche version has been rumoured. Don’t know whether there is truth to those rumours, but they certainly would make sense in the CAFE context.

  • avatar

    Add me to the list of people who say tax fuel or tax carbon.

    Psarhjinian: >>>This is very true. If this was a truly environmental initiative, it would be below-shoulder passenger volume, a lower weight for cargo against mileage.

    >>>Most environmentalists aren’t impressed with new CAFE, either. The term I’ve heard is “CAFE 2: Revenge of the Son of the Bride of the Light Truck Exemption”

    +10

  • avatar
    Robert.Walter

    Perhaps the motivation behind the Aston-branded version of the Toyota IQ?

  • avatar
    Brian P

    To me, it sounds like they just need to rework the next-generation 911 to have a (much) longer wheelbase … and the same goes for the Cayenne, Touareg, etc.

    Dumb tax rules result in having to find dumb ways around them, just as dumb as Ford having to bring in Transit Connects with seats to avoid the “chicken tax” then taking them out and scrapping every one of them, with no person ever having sat in them!

    If you go back further, in europe, they had taxation based on engine bore size (but not stroke), the result was a few generations of extremely long-stroke engines.

    The one way to do this right, and absolutely equitably, is a fuel tax, or a CO2 tax, if you wish, since a fuel tax and a CO2 tax are essentially one and the same.

  • avatar
    chaparral66

    “A short and compact Porsche is faced with much stricter limits than a Corvette.”

    The Corvette and the 911 have almost identical lengths and widths. Maybe if Porsche put the engine in the correct place, they would not have to whine like a baby.

  • avatar
    Wheatridger

    My own idea of “a boring vehicular landscape” is what we’ve had for years, a world where all it takes to get on the cover of the car mags is a “new” Porsche with 15 more HP. I don’t have means or motivation or mission for such a car, but I do have a major hankering for a small, economical car with a sporty feel. If it had a rear engine, that’s all the better. That’s the sort of car Porsche began with, way back when. I wish they’d take the Miata as a model- the car looks o good and handles so well, the 0-60 times aren’t so all-important.

    Why can’t they diversify in that direction? Afraid of cheapening the brand, I suppose. And so some cheap brand like Kia will someday swoop in from left field and capture that niche, while Porsche fades back into the sunrise…

  • avatar
    Ion

    Can’t they just build a new 914? Are their EPA numbers that bad that they would need a Cygnet style car to balance their MPG range?

  • avatar
    Porsche986

    First, this seems awfully alarmist. But, there are some good ideas. Increasing fuel taxes will pass some of the pain to the consumers. But, let’s consider that at least Mercedes, BMW, Audi, and to a lesser extent Porsche (diesel Cayenne) could easily bring their MUCH more efficient diesels and smaller gasoline engined cars and bring their CAFE numbers up. It’s not THAT hard…

  • avatar
    werewolf34

    How about we don’t subsidize oil / gas and let the chips fall where they may?

    Still want a E55 or m5 when gas is 6-7 a gallon? Enjoy

  • avatar
    superbadd75

    The bottom line IMO is add gas guzzler taxes, tax fuel, whatever, but let the people decide what they want to buy. If a guy wants to buy a Porsche and can afford a huge tax and fuel for it, it’s his perogative. The government is getting to the point where they have way too damn much control over our choices, and it’s getting scary.

  • avatar

    The main point is: Do we need governments to regulate
    - what we drive
    - what we eat
    - what we drink
    - what we smoke
    to achieve arbitrary goals like, e.g., “saving the polar bear”? (BTW: The latter has a history of being robust, intelligent and flexible enough to survive, as compared to those who want to save this animal.)

    As Western societies have switched to “fully idiotic mode” over the years, the answer is “yes”.

    That’s why you can’t have the good things anymore.

    Let’s face it: Silly people will have silly mass media and silly politicians. Combined, this gives a self-reinforcing downward movement. Don’t expect we are at the bottom. Porsche will be just an early victim of this pious idiocy.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      That’s why you can’t have the good things anymore.

      No, the reason is that we spent the last hundred and fifty years ignoring or externalizing the costs of lifestyle and productivity. We can’t do that, not unless we’re willing to run social stability aground on the reef of resource contention.

      Had we kept sustainability in mind fifty years ago, we might have a better chance at nice things now. Instead, we spent too much time consuming too much while cheering on an employment race to the bottom. Well, we’re a few hours from morning and it looks like it will be a bad hangover. Do we let up now, or keep partying?

  • avatar
    porschespeed

    “Do we let up now, or keep partying?”

    Grab another bottle, and lay down a coupla rails, what are you, an Ameri-can’t!?!

    The Earth is fine, exporting jobs is good for the US economy, redistributing a majority of the income and assets to the top 1% is good for the average American, deficits don’t matter, you should waste lots of energy so we can export wealth to groups of people who are not too fond of us, get into very expensive non-productive conflicts but don’t tax anybody to pay for them…

  • avatar
    grifonik

    Yeah right… porsche and taxes will still be around for quite some time. One is quite literally the vehicle for the other!

  • avatar
    reclusive_in_nature

    Pretty pathetic that the great minds in this country can’t come up with a solution to our energy woes and the alleged AGW that doesn’t involve either taxation or forcing us into wussymobiles. Seriously, wouldn’t it be easier on everyone if current fuel taxation went to creating more petroleum (via algae, accessible drilling, etc), investing in energies that make petroleum obsolete (by obsolete I mean able to outperform, out price, and be more convenient than petroleum, not just win greenie/hippie approval), and for the Church of AGW (just like religion, if they spent a fraction of their time looking for solutions to their perceived problems as opposed to beating their chests and screaming how right they are they’d get more done) research into actually GETTING RID OF THE CARBON THAT’S ALREADY IN THE F*CKING AIR.

    But…..I guess dictating what people can or can’t have and heaping more taxes on everyone is just easier. It certainly requires less thought. Oddly from some posters it requires more jargon to defend it. (You know who you are.)

  • avatar
    Wheatridger

    I don’t come here to argue politics. I come here to argue, and even agree, about cars.

    Take the Porsche Speedster, or the 356, from the 1950s. James Dean’s Porsche would have gotten something like twice the MPG of its fastest full-sized competition of the time, If driven sedately (not by him). It was lean, mean and efficient, scoring with responsiveness rather than brute force. Now, they look to me like Corvettes with the engine in the rear.

    Imagine a small Porsche with a TDI parked sideways behind the seats. Give it 150 HP and twice the torque, with just one ton to push around. That could be a sweet way to score 40-50 MPG while enjoying a well-balanced, world-class chassis. Ferry P. would be proud…

    • 0 avatar
      reclusive_in_nature

      I don’t really like discussing politics at a car website either, but until politicians stop sticking their noses in our choices of vehicles and the cost of fueling said vehicles it’s going to be inevitable. Sad, but true.

  • avatar
    John Horner

    Sigh, another Drudge Report worthy headline. The new CAFE system, including the footprint based methodology, was signed into law by Bush. But go ahead, make this an Obama bashing session.

  • avatar
    Robstar

    Perhaps porsche should give away free a $5k value 100 mpg scooter with purchase? If their cars get 20mpg average, doesn’t this make the “purchase” 60mpg ?

    On a more serious note — I hope we don’t end up with import pollution taxes like import taxes are in Brazil. 165,000 local currency for a Tribeca, and about 140,000 local currenty for a WRX. I think the STi is 220,000 there…

    But hey, locally built 1.0L sub 100hp vehicles are normal price at least.

  • avatar
    Cyclone66

    To all of you who think the Government will not stick to these rules in 2016 for German brands like Porsche and BMW get a Clue!

    Sorry but these Cafe standards are coming and if the American companies have to meet them wile selling Pick Up trucks (the most popular segment of vehicles in the county) then the German companies will have to meet them as well. Besides the US government can just tell people to buy a Cadillac, Lincoln or Chrysler instead and do something the American economy for a change. Hell that’s a win win situation. You don’t have a repair nightmare on your hands, company meets the Cafe standards, you helped keep a fellow American employed and you finally get to sit down with you analyst and say “ I think I made a great stride in getting rid of the narrow minded selfish behavior in my life”.

  • 0 avatar
    MrGreenMan

    Not to go too far out on a limb, but, that big picture goal? The US federal government has no constitutional mandate to be in the business of reducing overall emissions. It can make the case of using the funds to build roads, since it is allowed to build postal roads. Shouldn’t the goal be to provide for just enough taxes to pay for the interstate highway system? If you believe it should be to reduce overall emissions, perhaps you should be calling for a constitutional amendment to permit it such power and persuade 3/4 of the states that this is a reasonable power to grant?


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • J & J Sutherland, Canada
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India