Comments on: “Porsche is not like other automakers”

By: argentla

argentla — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 01:05:58 +0000

I would kind of like a Porsche that got 30 mpg, something on the scale of the 356B or the early 911. Not everything needs to have 300 horsepower. I’m not fond of the fact that the current 911 is approaching the bulk of the old 928.

By: starlightmica (Richard Chen)

starlightmica (Richard Chen) — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:55:59 +0000

jthorner: There's an exemption for Neighborhood Electric Vehicles which doesn't require crash testing as long as top speed is limited to 35mph. The Xebra likely falls under this guideline. Some other examples are the GEM and ZENN. SunnyvaleCA: Isn't that the truth - all passenger vehicles ought to be subject to the same standards. (Subaru Outback Wagon, classifed an SUV?) Now, all we have to do is to define what the heck a passenger vehicle is...

By: tankd0g

tankd0g — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:54:30 +0000

Protecting the last revenue stream of the 2.8 would be my guess. I would love to know what happens to that money paid in CAFE fines.

By: SunnyvaleCA

SunnyvaleCA — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:49:25 +0000

But if they jacked the Porsches up off the ground to get “light truck” status, then 20 MPG would be just fine? Why should light trucks get a gaping exemption while cars don’t? Why not just dump CAFE entirely and go with a fuel tax; let the consumers decide how and what to drive to achieve the goal of using less fuel.

By: Landcrusher

Landcrusher — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:49:11 +0000

There will ALWAYS be a loophole. We must have loopholes because most of the new rules overreach in order to ensure that the voters are “happy” and reelect the incumbents.

The problem with CAFE is that it’s an average to start with. Averages are usually the most idiotic way to measure or manage anything.

By: tankd0g

tankd0g — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 18:12:56 +0000

I haven’t a clue where you got the idea that I was sugesting China as a country would be behind this, Chery as a brand could do this all by itself. No doubt with under the table subsidies.

By: Von

Von — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:30:14 +0000

“What’s stopping the Chinese from flooding the market with 15 different manufacturers all selling under 30,000 units?”

Because China is not one big car company or brand.

US has 300M people and three major car companies (2.8, 2.5, whatever), and they do not have a unified direction or coordinate their efforts to gain market share in foreign countries.

China has quality, design, political, and all other sorts of problems, no doubt. I wouldn’t buy their cars until they’ve proven themselves. But to say that all Chinese people will work together with the singular aim to flood the US market is rather uninformed and unthinking

By: jthorner

jthorner — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:17:27 +0000

Hopefully the government will go the other way and get rid of this exemption all together.

While they are at it they should stop calling three wheel cars motorcycles. That is the loophole thorugh with Zap brings nasty little electric cars and trucks (Xebra) in from China. These things probably couldn’t pass a bumper-basher test lot alone any real safety testing:

http://www.zapworld.com/electric-vehicles/electric-cars

By: tankd0g

tankd0g — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:15:01 +0000

Exactly my point, if there’s a 30,000 unit loophole for CAFE, what other emmission standard loopsholes are there that can be circumvented by lmiting production? Chinese automakers can do whatever they want. They work within a system that has no respect for intelectual property, they could make a part for part copy of a Mercedes S-Class tommorow if they wanted to and sell it under 15 different names. The only reason I can see for their lack of effort on the world wide acceptance front is that their domestic market is so lucrative that there is no point. When they have good reason to, they will be coming, and loopholes like this will make it easier.

By: Johnson

Johnson — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 16:07:32 +0000

What’s stopping the Chinese from flooding the market with 15 different manufacturers all selling under 30,000 units?

Mediocrity? It’s up for debate as to whether Chinese automakers at this point can meet safety, emission, and other standards. In some European countries Chinese cars are banned at this point for not meeting standards.

By: tankd0g

tankd0g — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 15:53:17 +0000

What’s stopping the Chinese from flooding the market with 15 different manufacturers all selling under 30,000 units?

By: JJ

JJ — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:05:09 +0000

So, wait…the last sentence was probably not from Barbara Nocera right?

Anyway, even if Jaguar and Land Rover would get a boost by this the Chinese could in the long run definitely hurt Ford.

Their products right now are laughable copies of western products. Like BMW X5s with Toyota Landcruiser headlights. Not to mention they are safety hazards. But then again, the Japanese and South-Koreans were too at one point.

So Ford (and GM) in this condition should be very happy with any measures preventing the Chinese from getting a foothold in the market.

By: CSJohnston

CSJohnston — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:04:19 +0000

Why is there any threshold for CAFE exemption at all?

I would assume that most companies who sell less than 10,000 units in the US are high-end manufacturers who sell to the very wealthy, the tax should apply to them too.

Honestly, are we to believe that Porsche is somehow not baking in $4.6 million worth of price increases into their cars to cover this?