_450.jpg)
Ferrari may only produce about 6,000 supercars per year, but the Italian automaker still wants to help control global warming by reducing its CO2 emissions by 40-percet. That's a substantial savings when one considers that Ferrari will need to reach their goal by sustaining and likely improving overall performance. General Manager Armedeo Felica told Reuters that Ferrari intends to reach this goal in 2012 by improving the efficiency of their engines and bringing down the weight of its already trim supercars. While the 40-percent reduction in fossil fuels won't come close to the proposed 120 grams/kilometer that the European Commission is looking to for 2012, it will at least put a dent in Ferrari's atrocious appetite for benzina.
While $3 per gallon gas likely doesn't have much of an impact on Ferrari owners, everybody needs to pitch in to clean up our act. It's nice to see that innovative and exciting companies like Ferrari are doing what it can to help, and a 24mpg F430 sounds good to us.
[Source: Reuters]
New KITT Attack Mode revealed at Comic Con
London 2008: Honda OSM concept roadster says, "Cheerio!"
London 2008: Lotus unveils the Evora
2010 Chevy Camaro - Official Details and Images
2010 Chevy Camaro - LIVE from the reveal
First Drive: Maserati Quattroporte S in Europe
First Drive: 2008 MINI Cooper S JCW
In the Autoblog Garage:2009 Nissan GT-R
North American Exclusive First Drive: Alfa MiTo
First Drive: 2009 Kia Borrego
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jeff Johnson @ Nov 20th 2007 10:14AM
Hmmm okay the thought is good, but if they only make 6000 cars a year, a VERY large proportion of which are *not* daily drivers. There is little point to all this.
I do love ferrari's (what 26 year old man doesn't) but if people were serious about the whole pollution and "green" game they would start their quest in a place that mattered and not this "oh look at me/feel good" stuff with Ferrari.
When you really think about it - if I was filthy rich and could afford a Ferrari or two, if it got 25-35MPGs, something would feel wrong. Deep down inside i expect a crazy expensive car to get crazy crappy gas milage, just beacuse its a supercar damit!
Torqued @ Nov 20th 2007 10:39AM
That's true, but if Ferrari can get 30MPG or whatever out of a 500HP supercar, that technology can trickle eventually down to everyday vehicles.
I'm all for putting the Ferrari engineering crew to work on technologies that I'll (eventually) use in my car.
kpluck @ Nov 20th 2007 3:18PM
Acutally they could make 10 million cars and there still would be little point to this. Man accounts for less than 4% of the CO2 emissions on the planet. The rest is produced in nature. Even if all of man kind cut its CO2 emissions by 50% the change would be insignificant.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Nov 20th 2007 8:02PM
kpluck:
"Cow farts" don't matter. The carbon released by "cow farts" and such is carbon that was taken out of the air in the spring when the plants grew that the cows then consumed. So, if you measure Jan 1 to Jan 1, cows don't add any carbon to the air. So they can't increase the CO2 level over time.
What does add carbon to the air is burning fossil fuels that were locked into the crust tens of thousands of years ago.
Please try to understand the issues at hand.
mk @ Nov 20th 2007 10:51AM
I would tend to agree.
At that level, true enthusiasts (not just fashionistas) who can afford ferraris and other brands, expect something for that money and prestige.
That expectation is to have the best possible. The best design, the best chassis and handling, the best materials and the best power-plants designed, or at the very least highly optimized, by those companies.
Who wants a ferrari engine that gets the best gas mileage as the goal. I would want a ferrari engine that gets every last ft-lb of torque out of however much gasoline it requires to run best.
Fuel efficiency to use less fuel, as a goal, seems like a compromise, which isn't what buying a ferrari is about.
Fuel efficiency to completely burn every ounce of the optimum amount of fuel and get as much energy out of it seems like a better goal for Ferrari.
Now, if direct injection, and things like that mean wasting less fuel, getting more power, and the side effect of using less fuel at a time, while still being optimized for output, then I have no problem. Great. Pass the technology down, by all means.
However, handicapping a Ferrari engine simply to use less fuel for political (yes, it is political issue) reasons seems like BS to me.
K. Ryan Hasse @ Nov 20th 2007 10:57AM
Please prove to me via an objective court of law that my neighbor driving a Ferrari infringes upon my inalienable rights to life or liberty or private property and I may consider asking him to buy a greener car (It is interesting to consider the notion that if CO2 is poison, that a Prius spewing less poison is somehow ok, or that the Tour de France isn't the topic of CO2 restriction). Governments, with a monopoly on the legal ability to initiate force, should seek to restrict inalienable human rights via regulation only when the actions of one citizen demonstrably (via a court of objective law) infringe upon the inalienable rights of another citizen. Anything, by any other standard, is tyranny. In this case, the EU (to be followed by CARB and other Nanny State advocates) is having a self righteous, anti-capitalist, socialist wealth distribution driven Gorgasm over what is at best controversial science.
Gorism, the new Environmentalist Religion, is like any other religion, full of stories, parables, and half-truths that any reasoned individual MUSt question. Doing so, though, is heretical to those committed to the dogma. And let us not forget that Al Gore went to divinity school.
While the "Environmentalists" march in the street amidst bad music and a Purple Haze (having used all of the technological fruits of freedom and capitalism to arrive to organize their events), "Blame the Rich" is the new "Blame the Jews" in Europe (which is why France is losing a millionaire a day).
Meanwhile, having paved the road to Hell with stones of (misguided) good intent, the Hollywierd Stars and Self-Anointed Kings and Queens that are now our leaders will jump into their limos and CO2 spewing private jets, toasting their "enlightenment" (precisely the opposite of Classical Enlightenment -read John Locke). I doubt Al Gore uses "One Square" to wipe his substantial backside.
I, for one, say "The Emperor Has No Clothes!" I say, before we restrict the minds of man (free will), we consider ALL of the empirical evidence, sans politics. I say, as a man of modest means, that it is no crime to be rich. I say that proof of damages are required as a standard, not "violation of dogma."
This being said, Ferrari is making a business decision to win over the hearts and (misguided) minds of European Gorists.
The history of the human civilization is wrought with one form of tyrannous government or another. The difference here is that the onset of tyranny is slow and steady (called Environmentalism), and not the result of a war (sometimes egregiously called Stalinization). Wake up oh freedom loving world! All tyranny needs to take hold is men and women of good conscience to remain silent...
why not the LS2LS7? @ Nov 20th 2007 11:34AM
Weird. The same guy posted the same screen on autoblog months ago, in response to a Ferrari emissions article.
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/07/12/greenies-war-on-fun-co2-limits-might-kill-ferrari-porsche
Who is this guy, does he only read Ferrari articles?
why not the LS2LS7? @ Nov 20th 2007 11:36AM
This sounds great to me. There is no advantage to burning fuel you don't need to. Bad fuel-air mixtures not only waste fuel, but produce extra emissions we don't need and they don't make more power.
I'm glad to hear Ferrari is going to increase their fuel efficiency, it's about time. Ferrari has been known more for their UAE (no emissions controls) ECUs in the past, now it's time for even them to realize that a more precisely controlled burn will bring them plenty of advantage, even for cars that only are measured on speed and handling.
500 @ Nov 20th 2007 12:09PM
Reducing fuel consumption by 40% will mean one of two things. Either Ferraris will have a lower level of performance than they otherwise would have, or they will cost a lot more $$$. Either way, it's not good for enthusiasts who aspire to own one. For a car that sells 6000 a year and is primarily a fair-weather, weekend driver, this will have ZERO impact on the environment.
FThorn @ Nov 20th 2007 12:11PM
"40-percet."
K. Ryan Hasse @ Nov 20th 2007 12:41PM
Mr. why not the LS2/LS7,
Thank you for noticing and reading my thoughts. I did write the article awhile back, but thought it applied here as well. I do read other Autoblog article topics in addition to the articles about Ferrari.
Happy Thanksgiving.
TuuSaR @ Nov 20th 2007 12:57PM
European countries are moving into tax mode that is co2(=fuel) based.
Ferrari has to start planning better fuel usage because of two reasons:
1. brand image
2. competition
Present situation that demand is greater than production is not everlasting in fast changing world and everybody knows it.
With co2 based taxation, Ferrari prices will jump sky high and beyond and after that only very very rich would buy them or very very stupid.
adrian @ Nov 20th 2007 4:58PM
It may not matter to people who can afford a Ferrari and their running costs, but at least there doing something.
JJ @ Nov 20th 2007 9:10PM
I think this attitude is much better than the "Well we only make 6,000 cars so why should we care" attitude. It's something that all car manufacturers should at least be conscientious about.
Any idea where to find a high-res version of the pic used for this article?
Bob @ Nov 21st 2007 12:48PM
I'm sure that Ferrari can come up with a setting for the steering wheel switch that will turn an F430 into a whimpy 24 mpg car ( and make it more manageble for the posers) . But for track day fun, just move the switch back to race and it will continue to get the same < 4MPG that my GT3 does while converting $ to tire dust and glorious noise.
Besides the whole CO2 argument is moot anyway since a rise in CO2 is not a predecessor of warming, it's a result of it. Care to explain why Mars is also seeing warming? Must be thoose Rovers we sent there ...right?
........or maybe it's just a natural cycle of the Sun